this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
692 points (97.7% liked)

World News

39182 readers
1573 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Volodymyr Zelenskiy declared his personal income for the first time since the outbreak of war with Russia, as part of his effort to increase transparency in his government.

In 2021, the year before Russia invaded Ukraine, Zelenskiy and his family reported income of 10.8 million hryvnia ($285,000), down 12 million hryvnia from the previous year, even as his income was boosted by the sale of $142,000 of government bonds, according to a statement on his website.

In 2022, the first year of the Russian invasion, the Zelenskiy family’s income fell further to 3.7 million hryvnia as he earned less income from renting real estate he owned because of the hostilities.

Even as the war allowed Ukrainian officials to withhold revealing sensitive personal information, Zelenskiy pushed to make them publicly declare assets. Increasing transparency and tackling graft are necessary for his country to ensure continued financial aid from its western allies, even as more than $100 billion of funds are held up due to political maneuvering inside US and EU.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 142 points 10 months ago (5 children)

This is what still blows me away.

A fucking actor is doing a better job running a country specifically during wartime than a typical politician.

It's fuckin embarrassing to every single person on this planet who's dealing with stupid/corrupt/inept politicians who would sell their constituents for fuckin toilet paper.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Calling him just an actor is sort of unfair to him though. He was basically Ukraine's Jon Stewart. He does a great job as a politician because he spent years satirizing them, so he knows how the sausage is made and he knows how they totally fuck up and how to avoid it. That's why he's so successful at his job.

And, I imagine, if Jon Stewart ever ran for office, he would do similarly well.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

imagine, if Jon Stewart ever ran for office

Please, I can only get so erect. I'd tune in 24/7. With popcorn.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Stewart/Colbert would be the ticket to the greatest America.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Tbf, the US tried the actor president twice, and they turned out to be the two worst presidents in modern US history, so it might not always be the best idea to elect the "outsider".

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Reagan and Trump. The former was a b-list actor before becoming governor and then president and the latter played a successful businessman in the fictional series "The Apprentice".

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's so ironic that California and New York, two beacons of progressivism have us those two turds.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Liberalism, not progressivism. There are big and important differences.

You're right about the rest though, of course.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's both, can't have progress without liberty

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Modern liberalism aka neoliberalism isn't really that much about progress, though. It's more about preserving the status quo and maybe a little Incrementalism if the owner donors allow it.

The liberties that liberals originally fought for hundreds of years ago are the floor of expected liberty now and neoliberalism is a center-right to right wing ideology.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Liberalism is a precursor to progressivism though. You can't make progress without it. You can't expect to be taken seriously this way.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Liberalism is a precursor to progressivism though

In the same way as coal is a precursor to diamonds, sure. Doesn't mean that coal is useful for making jewelry today.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Like I said, you can't expect to be taken seriously this way. Deny it if you must,

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Does that line ever convince anyone that you know the first thing about anything?

Because it sure isn't doing anything except making you look both ignorant and arrogant in this case 🤷

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If I ever have to repeat it maybe I'll let you know. The point of it is not to convince anyone about me

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nope, just that they're not to be taken seriously if they disagree with your outdated notions of how politics work 🙄

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't really care about your judgment at this point

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Likewise, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome poster boy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Then why the fuck are you still talking to me?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

Combination of boredom and poor impulse control 🤷

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

According to one study of 148 scholarly articles, neoliberalism is almost never defined but used in several senses to describe ideology, economic theory, development theory, or economic reform policy. It has become used largely as a term of abuse and/or to imply a laissez-faire market fundamentalism virtually identical to that of classical liberalism – rather than the ideas of those who attended the 1938 colloquium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism = liberalism I don't like

[–] Croquette 3 points 10 months ago

Neoliberalism is still center-right. The political spectrum in the US is so skewed to the right that center-right feels like a progressive position.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

according to one study

🙄

Neoliberalism is the ideology of Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, both Clintons, and Biden, to name a few obvious examples.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

According to one study 🙄

A study that samples 148 different articles, I'm sure you reviewed a good selection of them before you came to a different conclusion than the study did, right?

It's not like you just named 6 very different politicians and claimed they're all the same because "neoliberal", that would be exactly my point.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A study that samples 148 different articles

Out of probably thousands if not tens of thousands available. Who did the study anyway? CAP?

I'm sure you reviewed a good selection of them before you came to a different conclusion than the study did, right?

No, I didn't waste my time studying a study that says neoliberalism is never described. Partially because I myself DID provide a nom-exhaustive but definitely not non-existent description of it earlier in this very thread.

It's not like you just named 6 very different politicians

Bernie, The Squad and Katie Porter are also very different. Still all adherents to progressivism

claimed they're all the same

Nope. That's not what mentioning examples of different adherents of the same overall ideology is.

that would be exactly my point.

That I'm claiming that all neoliberals are identical? Congratulations on being even more wrong than your original false assumptions 🤦

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Who did the study anyway? CAP?


Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID) is an interdisciplinary journal that addresses issues concerning political, social, economic, and environmental change in local, national, and international contexts.

The journal has a tradition of presenting critical and innovative analytical perspectives that challenge prevailing orthodoxies. It publishes original research articles on all world regions and is open to all theoretical and methodical approaches.

https://www.scipublications.org/report/impact-factor-of-Studies-in-Comparative-International-Development.html


I didn't waste my time studying a study

If checking before you spout something incorrect is "wasting your time", then why should anyone take what you say seriously?

It took me way less long to check than it did to write this comment, who's wasting time here?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

There are terrible people everywhere. California and New York have 10s of millions of residents - there are bound to be some that are shitstains. The problem is that money = power and when it's possible for one individual to have too much money, it inevitably means that terrible people will be able to amass this kind of power.

This is why wealth (in)equality is important - it's what determines how much powerful individuals are able to become. If it's too easy for a single person to amass too much power, inevitably, the wrong person will be able to gain it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Ah ok, I suspected Trump would be one of them but TIL about Reagan.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Trump and Reagan

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think the Ukrainian public decided to throw a curveball that Putin and the KGB could never predict - electing an absolute outsider who the KGB didn’t have time to corrupt

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Zelensky's campaign was supported by a Ukrainian oligarch. Not exactly an "absolute outsider". In fact, during the campaign the supporters of Poroshenko (who tend to be more nationalists) used this as ground to accuse him of being associated with Russia (among other things).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What people need to understand about the Ukrainian oligarchs are that they're actually oligarchs. It's not US-style "we should get around to regulating campaign financing some time so that Google doesn't run candidates", it's not Russia-style "Actually you're a minor noble there to exploit your dedicated region for the Tsar, by appointment of the Tsar":

In Ukraine it's "businesspeople with not completely clean records running for office because that's a neat way to get legal immunity and corruption opportunities", aka actual oligarchy, with the fat cats themselves in office. They're absolutely not a unified front, often hate each other's guts both in a business and political sense, and while (at least for the longest time) the Ukrainian people had practically no say in who would run, they could choose which Oligarch they liked best, putting their thumb on the scales.

So why did Kolomoyskyi support Zelensky? There's a very simple explanation: Zelensky ran against Poroshenko, who Kolomoyskyi had quite a fallout over stuff much more important than politics, that being funnelling oil into to Kolomoyskyi's refineries:

On 25 March 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a decree dismissing Kolomoyskyi from the post of Dnipropetrovsk RSA Head, saying "Dnipropetrovsk region must remain a bastion of Ukraine in the East and protect peace". Kolomoyskyi was replaced by Valentyn Reznichenko.[31][120][121] This followed a struggle with Poroshenko for control of the state-owned oil pipeline operator.[122] After Poroshenko's dismissal of Oleksandr Lazorko, who was a protégé of Kolomoyskyi, as a chief executive of UkrTransNafta, Kolomoyskyi dispatched his private security guards to seize control of the company's headquarters and expel the new government-appointed management. While Lazorko was in charge the state-owned pipelines had been delivering oil to a Kolomoyskyi-owned refinery in preference to competitors.[31][123]

In a further move against Kolomoyskyi, Poroshenko replaced Kolomoisky's long-time business partner Ihor Palytsa as governor of neighboring Odesa Oblast with the former Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. That appointment triggered a dramatic and public war of words between Kolomoyskyi and Saakashvili. Saakashvili told journalists Kolomoyskyi was a “gangster” and “smuggler.” Kolomoyskyi told them Saakashvili was “a dog without a muzzle” and “a snotty-nosed addict.”[124]

Kolomoyskyi responded that the only difference between Poroshenko and Yanukovych is “a good education, good English and lack of a criminal record.” Everything else is the same: “It’s the same blood, the same flesh reincarnated. If Yanukovych was a lumpen dictator, Poroshenko is the educated usurper, slave to his absolute power, craven to absolute power.”[125]

Enemy of my enemy and all that.

I can't really tell just how important access to Kolomoyskyi's TV channel was for Zelensky's campaign, the man was a folk hero way before meaning that vanishing on TV might've just boosted his youtube channel in equal amount.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

I mean, don't you member doctor house? An actor could earn more than a doctor by pretending to be a doctor. Why can't an actor lead a country better than a politician?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Politicians are actors of politics in a way. Reagan is the oft-cited example of a total himbo politician who acted a cultural identity people associated with.