Yeah, but it’s not just the medical system, DR is all around struggling to keep up with modern day standards. I hope that these talks result in some positive change. My mom prefers to go down there for serious medical care compared to here in the US so yeah, the sooner the better I guess.
Not likely. Most Americans have been so brainwashed against unions that they’ll oppose them even as they slowly starve because their full time job doesn’t pay enough to cover rent and groceries.
Not likely. There is no effective organizational institution for doctors in the US. The AMA is not a great forum for physician organization and it’s done a pretty poor job so far at advocating for any real change in our health systems. There are other, smaller organizations that have some traction but not enough to make any large, lastinhg impacts at this time.
I don’t know much about the Dominican health system but I’d wager it’s quite different than the US. Which physicians would go on strike here? The surgical specialists making $400-800k a year? Not likely. The primary care doctors who would be painted as villains that abandoned their patients by striking (not to mention they still make decent money)?
Physicians in the US certainly advocate for system reform, but meaningful change is not going to come from drastic, large organizational moves such as a doctor’s strike anytime soon.
The insurance companies are the employer and the doctors are the employees. They are the ONLY ones who COULD make significant demands to change our healthcare system. But like you said, they are too incentivized not to make waves.
So then what can we do? A national protest against health insurance? Good luck convincing people to drop their health insurance plans.
We should probably try to enforce some quality control for the sources posted here. Why would anyone trust a Russian source for statistics detailing the Ukrainian side of the conflict?
I feel like the headline is super misleading: On Friday, the IAEA chief said that experts confirmed “the mines first observed on July 23 were still in place” during an inspection on Aug. 1, but “no new mines or explosives were observed during any walkdowns over the past week.”
The theory I heard was to make the impression of artillery strikes, so that Russia could claim that Ukraine is doing military strikes on the power plant
I think even the most ignorant Russian Commander got the memo that regardless who shells the fucking nuclear power plant, it will lead to a nato intervention to prevent Chernobyl 2
Also they could just artillery the thing themselves…
It’s difficult to build lasting peace when the aggressor does not want it. Sure the Russians are open to peace in their terms, but imo that is just escalate things again in few years to come.
Don’t get me wrong, EU is in big part a peace project. That however shouldn’t happen at just any cost. Free, independent and territorially whole Ukraine is important for the future peace, Ukraine, Europe and even good for Russia.
NATO is a defensive alliance and Russia not repositioning troops to defend against new NATO member Finland tells you all you need to know about how threatened Russia really feels about NATO.
Russia is absolutely threatened by NATO because NATO was created to be a transnational military force directed explicitly at Russia. After the Third Reich failed to defeat the USSR, it’s stated goal, the West betrayed their Soviet ally, created NATO and then staffed it with Nazi officers.
Iraq was invaded by 3 of the at the time 20 or so member states of NATO. Still was an illegal invasion in my opinion but it wasn’t NATO.
Afghanistan
If you harbor terrorists that attack the most powerful nation in the world I don’t know what to tell you. But I’m sure the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was totally cool, right?
Yugoslavia
This is the part where you deny a genocide happened, right?
the West betrayed their Soviet ally
Was that before or after the Soviets teamed up with the Nazis to invade Poland? I can share the photos of them shaking hands if you’d like. But again, I’m sure Stalin’s reasons were GREAT!
I would also add that Stalin’s blockade of West Berlin preceded the formation of NATO. Not exactly the behavior of a trustworthy ally.
Last 20 years russia invaded Georgia and twice Ukraine. Any attempt to find peaceful resolution post 2014 invasion was made impossible by russia. They were amassing troops around Ukraine since early 2019 and likely prepared for this since Minsk II was signed in 2015. That agreement eventually ended up with russia deciding that Minsk II no longer existed in 2022 and invading 2 days later based on made up excuses. These are the “security guarantees” they have been asking for. They never had any intention stopping their invasion, they just needed pause to prepare for another offensive. And they are doing exactly the same now.
So what you’re saying is that NATO had decided that Russia’s request to negotiate for decades was not going to go anywhere and everything Russia did poves it but everything NATO did has no bearing on the topic?
Russia is an imperialistic state that thinks it should have influence on the politics of its neighbors. But this is wrong. Every country belongs to itself and is allowed to make its own decisions. What do you think gives Russia the right to negotiate about the fate of other countries that are not Russia?
There was nothing to negotiate with Russia. Russia is not part of the decision making process of other sovereign countries. Especially not those that seek for protection from Russia.
Russia’s “requests to negotiate” were also sprinkled with three hostile invasions of its neighbors. It’s asinine to pretend like the will for peaceful negotiation was sincere. When it all started they still tried to pretend like it wasn’t them (no relation to Wagner, little green men, and so on). Nowadays Russia doesn’t even pretend to be anything but a warmonger.
Every country has influence on the politics of every other state. You are projecting your own Euro-centric atrocities onto Russia. Which countries have violently destroyed the most national movements for independence? Which countries have violently dominated and imposed occupation on the most people in the world? Hint: it’s not Russia. It’s the member states of NATO. Spain, France, England, The Netherlands, Portugal, and their bastard child the USA. If you want to ensure nations can operate independently you should not be supporting the US as it continues it’s decades long hot, cold, and proxy war against Russia.
The idea that you think Russia has no stake in what other countries do means you think about national security like a feudal lord. All we need is a big castle and keep to ourselves, right? Unfortunately, that isolationist fantasy does match reality, nor does it matter the understanding of politics and national defense that has guided world politics for over a century. All security is mutual. Everyone in the security world knows this. Russia’s demands for national security, like ALL demands for national security, requires mutualism in the security structure. And since the dismantling of the USSR, that mutualism has been missing. The imperialist genocidal US along with the imperialist and genocidal European powers made it very clear for decades that Russia’s security doesn’t matter, only their security does. This is quite literally the exact same structure as a hot war and invasion of Russia, just earlier in the sequence.
Russia’s attempts to negotiate for peace since it’s emergence from the USSR have been spurned. At some point, the West must see consequences, they must see that Russia will not appease them. There must be something to negotiate with. You seem to understand this for Ukraine, demanding that Ukraine be sent all the weapons and soldiers needed to completely destroy the Russian military before you think it’s legitimate to negotiate, but you think Russia should just do nothing while the genocidal imperialists continue their 600-year project of total global domination up to and including nuking civilians and undermining MAD so that they can do it again?
Face it. You’re a hypocrite. You’re projecting your white imperialism onto other nations to deflect from the actual threat in the world being your home community. And you are applying both arguments from ignorance and double standards to maintain your dissonance and rationalize your Russophobia and support for the most violent regime the world has ever suffered under.
No, what I’m saying is that russia never negotiated in good will. Whatever cooperation there is, russia will always spoil it.
Interpol is good example, russia abuses that system so much, about 38% of the warrants in the system come from them. Per capita that’s about 2000% more compared to other countries. There’s 194 countries in Interpol to put things into perspective, including China. They use the system to harass opposition abroad to the point that Interpol had to implement special rules for russia and actually review the warrants.
Russia will never stick to any agreement unless they are forced to. Had NATO understood that in 2014, we might have avoided the second invasion completely. The best we can do is to make sure there’s not going to be 3rd invasion after russia breaks Minsk III.
Russia never negotiated in good faith? Really? You think this is aclaim you can reasonably make while the US and Europe behave the way they do? Like, where does this claim even come from except Western moralizing and Russophobia?
LOL, interpol is your example? The US has threatened to militarily invade The Hague if any US person is ever brought to trail at the International Criminal Court, but they constantly invole the court and call for the arrest of world leaders. And you think Russia is the one harassing opposition aboard? You are grasping at straws to rationalize your irrational and hypocritical position.
NATO is the problem here. The Third Reich was founded on the strategic objective to destroy the USSR and dominate Russia and the Slavs the way US dominates the indigenous nations on the land it stole from them. When the USSR destroyed 80% of the Third Reich, the most advanced military ever deployed at that point, and marched through all of the territory they had taken, liberated that territory, and then took Berlin, the allies of the USSR who were focused entirely on maintaining capitalist Imperialism and the violent dominance of 80% of the world, the capitalist built a new nuclear transmilitary force explicitly to contain and ultimately destroy the workers’ state.
And since the Nazis spent all their time fighting and losing to Russia, the US decided to staff NATO with Nazi officers, because destroying socialism was the most important thing. The Third Reich’s industrial genocide was merely an extension of the US’s eugenics programs which continued to sterilize undesirable people through the 1970s (eg, a full third of Puerto Rico was sterilized).
When the USSR was ultimately dissolved by capitalists looking to join the Euro-centric capitalist world order, the US brought Milton Friedman economists to the region and designed and implemented economic shock therapy to bring capitalism to the region. Doing so killed 10 million people.
So now we have millions dead because of the West, and the threat NATO was built and staffed with Nazis to defeat is gone, but what happens? NATO stays, changes it’s mission to countering Russia, and the cold war continues while the US on one side is saying they welcome Russia back to capitalist world and on the other side maintain Russiophobix propaganda, are working to undermine MAD, and killing millions of people in the former republics through economic devastation.
And then the US votes every single time at the UN against condemning Nazis. They say Ukraine is never going to be in NATO and then make plans to get Ukraine back in the early 90s, negotiating in bad faith, literally lying in negotiations. And then they take this defensive alliance and use it to bomb Yugoslavia with depleted uranium bombs under the lie of humanitarian intervention.
My vatnik-o meter is maxing out. Whataboutism, pointing at nazis (ignoring the obvious one with Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), outright lies, victim complex, copypasta of bullshit, rewriting history. Your comment has it all.
It was entertaining, but I have no interest talking to russian drone.
Carving up Ukraine’s territorial integrity is breeding grounds for further border conflicts. Do you think Ukrainians are going to simply sit and quietly forget about it if Russia steals their territory, or will it remain an open wound that provokes them to retaliate in any way they can for decades to come?
Well I think that ship has largely sailed, unfortunately. At this point I would think Russia is incentivized to hold as much territory as they can. I don’t see it being returned really changing the relationship or border situation too substantially.
You don’t think relations between Russia and Ukraine will not mend sooner, in historical terms, if this war ends in a white peace, rather than with Russia keeping Ukrainian territories? Being invaded will remain a traumatic memory for most Ukrainians for the rest of their lives, but forever losing a chunk of their country will contribute to keeping that wound open and will favor nationalist, anti-Russian rhetoric in their politics, which will absolutely remove the possibility of ever initiating a new chapter in their relationship with Russia.
Well, this is one possible outcome, although not necessary. For example Finland was able to patch it’s relations with Russia after 2 brutal wars with tens of thousands of casualties and a huge chunk of lost land. Of course the friendly relations were somewhat forced and a survival mechanism for a small country in Cold War era (Russia had a hold on Finland while Finland navigated in it’s position to gain as much political freedoms it could) but it genuinely got rid of open hostilities between the countries.
Even after the cold war ended and up to today, majority of the population in Finland has not had a revanchist opinion towards Russians, albeit they were not fully trusted either. Finns learned to live as neighbors and in peace while preparing just in case.
So while it is probably likely that loosing land would cause a negative nationalistic turn in Ukraine and grievances towards Russia, it’s not set in stone. Actually I am way more concerned that if Russia can claim a victory, they expand their delirious imperial/quasifascist project and escalate the conflict with the west further.
You may be right, it’s hard to say. But even then, the benefits of stolen land are substantial and indefinite. I think it’s a hard sell to say that Russia benefits from a total defeat here.
If beaten in Ukraine, there is a chance that the trajectory of the Russian Federation changes. Currently they are trying to fulfill a senseless imperial project which is doomed to eventually fail.
With defeat in Ukraine, there’s a chance that the growing destabilization within Russia leads to abandonment of the imperial dream. It might also force a change in the leadership albeit not necessarily for the better. What it would do however, is to show that the Putinist system is not the only option and that the actions it has taken, are in fact harmful for Russia and Russians. In a way, it opens up a way to politicize the apolitical Russian public.
In the semi long/long term this would benefit the population as it would not only challenge the idea of Russia as an Empire, but also allow for a less authoritarian model of governance.
I think it’s a little too hard to predict what will end up better for the Russian people. As you say, there’s no guarantee that a post-Putin Russia is necessarily a better one. But there are many paths that lead to a more democratic and free Russia, and many that may emerge from any outcome of the war.
The invasion has been such a catastrophic failure that I don't see how "escalate things again in a few years to come" is even remotely plausible, even if they do get some concession at this point.
I think you seriously underestimate Russia. They have a helluva lot of manpower, natural resources and money. They are also able to import western sanctioned materials via China and Central Asian countries.
Russian society is being organized to resemble a war economy. There are new laws that make drafting more difficult to avoid and with more severe punishments. Also they have just raised the age for conscription. They are playing the long game and preparing for future eg. mobilizing the whole society under one delirious cause. Late 20s, early 30s it is totally possible that Russia has a better military capacity than it currently has. Sure, the life of average Russian will suck way more than it does now, but there’s not really an option if you want to keep your job in a tank factory and avoid going to prison. You have no choice but to participate.
Putin has made his mind and the struggle in Ukraine only makes him more determined that He is fighting an existential battle with the west, especially since he believes that democracies and western liberal lifestyle are on a path of inevitable decline.
Sure, if he is stupid enough He might start a conflict with NATO, believing that the alliance will break when under pressure. He might think that He is prepared and the west is weak. And while there’s 95% change that he is mistaken, it doesn’t matter if he himself believes the crap the yesmen around him and He himself are feeding him. That’s the real risk and to me, a defeat in Ukraine makes this scenario less likely to happen.
telesurenglish.net
Active