Randahl FinkThis is huge! For the first time in over two years, Ukraine has begun taking back their land, resulting in a net territorial gain in February, according to Finnish OSI group Blackbird.
Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦
Davide Alimonti@randahl This is not coming for free though as expenditures of Europe+US surpass €300 bn and death toll is in the several hundreds of thousands.
This is not a football match
This is not a football match
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIEStell the kremlin that, not us
putin and the kremlin have shown time and time and time again that dialog does not work. they are dishonorable. they keep no agreements. they have no intention of meeting peace. for them, dialog is just a tactic to twist to their advantage, and any "peace "is temporary in order for them to rearm, and then attack again on a stupid lie
you are very naive, or straight up lying, about what putin and the kremlin are and what they represent
@benroyce @randahl Yours is a very simplistic view of the events unfolding. It's in your rights to take the parts of Ukraine, however it is undeniable that this war is also a consequence of exploiting the change of leadership in Ukraine to turn it into a US-NATO outpost . Russia escalated the war, but this was not the only cause. EU is intentionally stalling the negotiations by proposing unfeisable terms such as european army presence in Ukraine
😂 😂 😂
vatniks are so fucking easy to sniff out
NATO did not expand east, geopolitics professor
eastern europe ran screaming and pounding on the door to be let in
if you figure out why, what worried them, you might begin to catch a glimmer of honesty apart from your "blame the victim" stupid easy bullshit you push here
bullshit that you fell for as a pathetic moron lapping up hilarious kremlin lies
or that you are pushing here as the putin boot licking loser you are
@benroyce @randahl Wow! Labeling thoughts different than yours as foreign propaganda is not unprecedented.
I'm sorry that you are getting angry - but this will not change the real world. I invite you and who is reading to read more about the history of Eastern Europe from qualified sources and most importantly start reflecting a bit on the mechanisms that cause wars
I'm sorry that you are getting angry - but this will not change the real world. I invite you and who is reading to read more about the history of Eastern Europe from qualified sources and most importantly start reflecting a bit on the mechanisms that cause wars
ah yes
the "noble differences of opinion" defense from the lying sleazebag vatnik
*anyone* who buys this "russia had reasons because NATO expansion" is a complete and utter moron, or a complete and utter liar
that's all you are and all you represent with your putin bootlicking bullshit
that is the source of your "honest point of view"
you are nothing more than a pathetic moron or a liar
100%
your weak stupid lies are for mocking, nothing more
you're a joke
Alexandre Olivasurely you're not implying that the West's motives to provoke and remain in this conflict are pure
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
the west sucks
but anyone equivocating on that in defense of outright kremlin mass murdering ethnofascist imperialism is a fucking moron or liar
it's possible to dislike both the west and russia. in fact, that's the moral position
but it's not possible to respect this DARVO "reverse victim and offender" bullshit from tankies and vatniks. it's gaslighting
nothing pure or noble about it
it's lies to support imperialism
just because it isn't western imperialism? LOL!
and fuck off with this "remain in this conflict" lie
*ukraine* is in the conflict because if they stop they are going to be genocided
to posit them as some puppet of the west, and that because the west might benefit in some way one must oppose ukraine's desire to keep fighting for their literal fucking lives is so viciously entitled it's hard for me to do anything but stick a middle finger up at this vile manipulation of what is actually going on here
so, what are Europe's pure motives to keep the conflict underway? surely it's not because they care so much more about Ukrainians than about Gazans, Venezuelans, Cubans, or Iranians, is it?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
😂 😂 😂
why would europe be more worried about an ethnofascist imperialist army marching towards them more than any other conflict in the world?
holy shit
why are people so entitled and clueless, and think when they speak on a topic avoiding the most obvious fucking things about it, they do anything other than embarrass themselves?
alexandre: do you understand the difference between literal life and death, and a purity morality play going on in your head?
dunno about you, but if a larger empire were bombing and genociding plenty of peoples around my continent, I'd be more worried about it than about helping it disturb and weaken its also-imperialistic opponents.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
Should a Pole be more invested in a fight against Russia? Or a fight against Israel or USA?
Nevermind it's not a contest. We're allowed to be more invested in one fight or another, without it meaning we don't care about another fight. That's a lying manipulative way of approaching the topic
If I feed the homeless as my primary effort and someone goes "so that means you don't care about imperialism?" this just means I'm dealing with a pathetic smearmongering edgelord
being both Latin-American and an Earthling, I'd have to say they should be far more worried about the USA than about any other imperial power
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
you asked about "should." I get it that Poles have had a lot more negative experience with Russia than with the US, and that presumably twists their perceptions as to the riskier threats. I also get that I've had a lot more negative experiences with the US than with Russia in my lifetime, which twists mine the other way.
but objectively, Russia seems to have a hard time keeping up with a single war against a neighbor country, while the US initiates and maintains multiple wars at once all over the world, besides meddling with multiple other countries. even if Russia mainland is much closer to Poland, US military bases are even closer.
if I were European, I wouldn't be spending resources and weakening myself by supporting a fight against Russia, because I might need them to fend off the US. Ukrainians would be left to their own bad luck, and that would hurt because I'm 50% Ukrainian blood, but we're speaking of strategies and countries' interests here. I'd probably be allying with Russia and China and Brazil and India to try to mount a credible balance against the dangerously decadent but still by far strongest empire. those may not be the greatest and most trustworthy partners, but then, the US aren't either.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
but objectively, Russia seems to have a hard time keeping up with a single war against a neighbor country, while the US initiates and maintains multiple wars at once all over the world, besides meddling with multiple other countries. even if Russia mainland is much closer to Poland, US military bases are even closer.
if I were European, I wouldn't be spending resources and weakening myself by supporting a fight against Russia, because I might need them to fend off the US. Ukrainians would be left to their own bad luck, and that would hurt because I'm 50% Ukrainian blood, but we're speaking of strategies and countries' interests here. I'd probably be allying with Russia and China and Brazil and India to try to mount a credible balance against the dangerously decadent but still by far strongest empire. those may not be the greatest and most trustworthy partners, but then, the US aren't either.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
Martijn Vos@lxo @randahl @genziana @benroyce
That doesn't change the fact that Russia is a direct threat, is constantly talking about war with Europe, is currently invading a neighbour, and has a long and ugly history of invading and oppressing European countries. For all the shit the US has pulled, at least they've never invaded an ally like Russia has.
Although Trump got close. His threats to invade Greenland and Canada were taken incredibly seriously, and several European countries immediately sent troops to Greenland to make clear we do intend to defend it. Immense diplomatic effort has gone into dissuading Trump and keeping the US from siding with Russia. This is not something Europeans take lightly, although this betrayal did take us by surprise.
But none of that is an excuse to stop supporting Ukraine. A Europe with an independent Ukraine is significantly stronger than one without. Europe should do more to help Ukraine, exactly to ward off more aggressors. Putin and Trump only believe in force, so Europe should show strength, and liberating Ukraine would be the best way to do that.
And in case you hadn't noticed, Europe has massively ramped up its military investments, and in European, not American weapon systems, exactly to become less dependent on and more independent from the US.
I would love to ally with India and Brazil, but there's no chance in hell that Europe would ally with Putin. The fact that you even dare to suggest that, shows you have no clue about what's going on.
both Russia an US are actual threats to the EU, though I'm not so sure how much of the former is a product of propaganda from the latter
gotta keep in mind that Trump's US has no allies
when you find two opposing bullies, one of the silliest things one can do is to engage one of them at the stronger one's request, get yourself tired, and then, whether you defeat the first one, you'll be defeated by the other, even if the other pretended to be friends with you. they're only interested in friendship in as much as you serve them.
the smarter way to defeat both bullies is to maneuver so that they fight each other. meanwhile, ally with the other victims. even other weaker bullies. even if they bullied you before. after you deal with the stronger bully, you turn to the weaker ones.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
gotta keep in mind that Trump's US has no allies
when you find two opposing bullies, one of the silliest things one can do is to engage one of them at the stronger one's request, get yourself tired, and then, whether you defeat the first one, you'll be defeated by the other, even if the other pretended to be friends with you. they're only interested in friendship in as much as you serve them.
the smarter way to defeat both bullies is to maneuver so that they fight each other. meanwhile, ally with the other victims. even other weaker bullies. even if they bullied you before. after you deal with the stronger bully, you turn to the weaker ones.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@lxo @randahl @benroyce @genziana
I'm totally aware that the US is also a threat. Nobody here is denying that. Trump has shown several times that he's eager to side with Russia against Europe. He's tried several times to pressure Ukraine into surrender.
The US is not asking us to fight for Ukraine, Ukraine is. And the people of Europe are. Do you know how many Ukrainian flags are flying in windows and balconies in western Europe? The European people are far more pro-Ukraine than their governments.
The simple fact is that a Europe that liberates Ukraine will be far stronger than a Europe that sits idly by the sidelines while Russia gobbles up one neighbour after another. It's obvious to anyone that the best place to stop Russian aggression is in Ukraine.
(I'm really curious what the next spin from your propaganda playbook will be.)
Russian's response to the threat of installing NATO bases in Ukraine wasn't hard to predict; you just have to look at how the US reacted to the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba.
European's response to the invasion wasn't hard to predict either, given the long history of Russophobia, nevermind NATO's strong deterrence effect against Russian imperialism, but also against direct acts of resistance.
anyhow, given these predictably irresistible responses, the ones who made the moves who set this all in motion can be presumed to have predicted and expected them and the ensuing proxy war that would cost plenty of Ukrainian blood, and then the important question is why. why did they want two of the largest other powers in the world engaging in a long fight against each other?
surely it wasn't just to weaken Russian support in Venezuela so as to promote regime change there and guarantee the oil supply while going for a regime change in Iran. perhaps the threat to take over Ukraine was to then trade it for Venezuela and Cuba? I don't know. but what's clear to me is that a weaker, spent, subservient Europe united against Russia rather than against the US is clearly in US interest, and a weaker, spent Russia is a bonus.
if Europe had intervened decisively, maybe it could have cut the war short. its predictably hesitant and limited support ensures the war runs longer, as neither side manages to prevail, while negotiations get sabotaged to ensure the armed conflict continues. whoever plotted this doesn't assign much value to Ukrainian and Russian lives, and doesn't worry about Europe's spending on armament and money.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
European's response to the invasion wasn't hard to predict either, given the long history of Russophobia, nevermind NATO's strong deterrence effect against Russian imperialism, but also against direct acts of resistance.
anyhow, given these predictably irresistible responses, the ones who made the moves who set this all in motion can be presumed to have predicted and expected them and the ensuing proxy war that would cost plenty of Ukrainian blood, and then the important question is why. why did they want two of the largest other powers in the world engaging in a long fight against each other?
surely it wasn't just to weaken Russian support in Venezuela so as to promote regime change there and guarantee the oil supply while going for a regime change in Iran. perhaps the threat to take over Ukraine was to then trade it for Venezuela and Cuba? I don't know. but what's clear to me is that a weaker, spent, subservient Europe united against Russia rather than against the US is clearly in US interest, and a weaker, spent Russia is a bonus.
if Europe had intervened decisively, maybe it could have cut the war short. its predictably hesitant and limited support ensures the war runs longer, as neither side manages to prevail, while negotiations get sabotaged to ensure the armed conflict continues. whoever plotted this doesn't assign much value to Ukrainian and Russian lives, and doesn't worry about Europe's spending on armament and money.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@lxo @randahl @benroyce @genziana
There was never any threat of installing NATO bases in Ukraine before Russia invaded. The only reason Russia's neighbours are so eager to join NATO, is because of the threat Russia poses to them. Russia could have made NATO irrelevant by not threatening its neighbours, but instead it strengthened NATO and sent more neighbours to join NATO because of its war on Ukraine. NATO exists because of Russian aggression. That's the only reason.
You call it Russophobia, but wouldn't you be afraid of a neighbour that wants to dominate or conquer you? One that has a history of attacking and conquering its neighbours?
What Putin expected was to take Kyiv in three days. He failed. He underestimated Ukraine, and overestimated his own army. The Russian military has proven to be a paper tiger. Yet still he continues to fight.
Yes, Russia is weaker now than ever before, but that has entirely been Putin's choice. He's sacrificing the Russian economy, Russian lives, a Russian generation, for his foolish dreams of conquest. Everybody warned against it, but he did it anyway.
I don't know what's in US interest at this point. Their biggest problems have always been at home. Now more than ever.
Finally we agree. Yes, Europe should have given a lot more support to Ukraine at a much earlier stage. Europe has been too hesitant, waited too much for the US to take the lead, but the US doesn't have much to gain or lose here; Europe does. We should have done more, but we can still do more.
Also something we agree on. Putin is notoriously callous about Russian and Ukrainian lives.
wouldn't you be afraid of a neighbour that wants to dominate or conquer you? One that has a history of attacking and conquering its neighbours?
that's exactly what I'm talking about: that we need more USphobia to stop acting like colonies and vassals!
Russia could have made NATO irrelevant by not threatening its neighbours, but instead it strengthened NATO and sent more neighbours to join NATO because of its war on Ukraine
here we agree as well. it was a brilliant move to strengthen NATO, if that's what that who set this in motion meant to do.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
that's exactly what I'm talking about: that we need more USphobia to stop acting like colonies and vassals!
Russia could have made NATO irrelevant by not threatening its neighbours, but instead it strengthened NATO and sent more neighbours to join NATO because of its war on Ukraine
here we agree as well. it was a brilliant move to strengthen NATO, if that's what that who set this in motion meant to do.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@lxo @randahl @benroyce @genziana
Are you suggesting Putin wanted to strengthen NATO? The guy who constantly claims to be at war with NATO? No, Putin completely misjudged the situation. That's a thing dictators and narcissists tend to do.
that's exactly what I'm talking about: that we need more USphobia to stop acting like colonies and vassals!
And you already got what you wanted. Europe is arming itself, sent troops to Greenland, and is investing in its own defense industry instead of the US.
I don't think we will agree as to who set it all in motion, even if we agree on a number of other things.
Europe's rising was not predictable, at least not to me.
It seemed quite comfortable in vassalage until Trump2 shook it awake.
I take it that you wouldn't agree that Trump provoked this welcome move?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Europe's rising was not predictable, at least not to me.
It seemed quite comfortable in vassalage until Trump2 shook it awake.
I take it that you wouldn't agree that Trump provoked this welcome move?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@lxo @randahl @benroyce @genziana
Trump provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine? No, obviously not. The invasion of Crimea and Donbas happened before his first term, and the full invasion during Biden's term. Biden could have prevented it by giving clear guarantees to defend Ukraine, but I think he was as surprised by what happened as anyone outside of eastern Europe.
Look. Putin did it. He has full agency over his own actions and has no need for anyone else's manipulations to do something like this. To the contrary: he sees himself as the master manipulator, and his presidency has been full of manipulations of other countries and attempts to undermine them. Also by pushing for Trump's election. I have no doubt he has some leverage over Trump.
Putin is clearly the instigator here. I don't understand why you keep looking for anyone else who might be responsible for Putin's actions.
I'm not relieving Putin from responsibility over his actions.
that seems to be a common misunderstanding to my qualifying Putin's response as provoked.
but it was such a dumb move that it seems unlikely to have been entirely voluntary, and others who seem to have benefited from it also seem to have favored and pushed for those outcomes.
surely not Trump. as you point out, he wasn't there, and Europe didn't quite react to Russia's moves at that time.
but it did react to Trump's repositioning. that was far more recent, and that was what I was asking about.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
that seems to be a common misunderstanding to my qualifying Putin's response as provoked.
but it was such a dumb move that it seems unlikely to have been entirely voluntary, and others who seem to have benefited from it also seem to have favored and pushed for those outcomes.
surely not Trump. as you point out, he wasn't there, and Europe didn't quite react to Russia's moves at that time.
but it did react to Trump's repositioning. that was far more recent, and that was what I was asking about.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
do you understand what responsibility is Alexandre?
if i punch you in the face, i am responsible for punching you in the face
if i say "Alexandre hurt my feelings" does that in any way relieve me of my responsibility for punching you in the face?
were there other actions i could have taken?
Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine. full stop
if you do not understand that you lack morality and you are a stupid person
so many edgelord morons in this world
say you hire a killer to assassinate putin
the killer is caught, whether before of after carrying out the assigned task
investigators found out you'd hired the killer
the killer is charged, tried and sentenced for murder or attempted murder
you, for some reason, are also charged, and tried
you (under this hypothetical) allege that you're not responsible at all, you merely put the killer in a position of having to choose between taking a risk and getting a lot of cash, or not getting involved. it was the killer's choice and decision.
do you think your defense would fly?
why would they even charge you, if under your theory you clearly don't have any responsibility, it falls entirely on the person who could have chosen not to do it?
do you realize that the existence of one responsible party doesn't exonerate the other? both have responsibility.
sure, this argument I make is about a legal system, not morality, but IMHO in this case the legal system does model morality reasonably well
why does it feel as if your insistence on denying the provocation were an attempt to exonerate someone else?
or maybe you're just reacting this way because you mistake the supposed existence of a provocateur as an exoneration of the direct agent?
yes, Putin is responsible. but that doesn't mean that only Putin is responsible. do you understand?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
the killer is caught, whether before of after carrying out the assigned task
investigators found out you'd hired the killer
the killer is charged, tried and sentenced for murder or attempted murder
you, for some reason, are also charged, and tried
you (under this hypothetical) allege that you're not responsible at all, you merely put the killer in a position of having to choose between taking a risk and getting a lot of cash, or not getting involved. it was the killer's choice and decision.
do you think your defense would fly?
why would they even charge you, if under your theory you clearly don't have any responsibility, it falls entirely on the person who could have chosen not to do it?
do you realize that the existence of one responsible party doesn't exonerate the other? both have responsibility.
sure, this argument I make is about a legal system, not morality, but IMHO in this case the legal system does model morality reasonably well
why does it feel as if your insistence on denying the provocation were an attempt to exonerate someone else?
or maybe you're just reacting this way because you mistake the supposed existence of a provocateur as an exoneration of the direct agent?
yes, Putin is responsible. but that doesn't mean that only Putin is responsible. do you understand?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@lxo @mcv @randahl @genziana yes i understand. I understand that you're an immoral moron. The idea anyone else except putin is to blame for russia invading ukraine is a fucking joke and you're a pathetic clown
i seriously wonder how you navigate moral issues in your life and worry for people who get involved with you
are you saying the court of law should fall for your defense?
or are you just denying the existence of a provocateur?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
or are you just denying the existence of a provocateur?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
I see, I suppose you may have realized I'd cornered you (unless you have a defect in your logical reasoning abilities), and started deflecting the questions. fine. I don't care. my moral reasoning defect seems to be in line with most legal systems around the world, but presumably you know better from your vantage point. if only you'd share your moral wisdom! instead, you stoop down to slandering. maybe you're slandering my moral reasoning abilities just because you have no argument left, showing where the more defect really is. or maybe you're just trolling again. that doesn't make for very interesting conversations. without the fun of actual argumentation, name calling by itself gets boring really fast, so I'm inclined to disengage. I expected you could do better.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@lxo @randahl @genziana @benroyce
So you're arguing that someone hired Putin to invade Ukraine!? Who? And why? This is a serious accusation to throw around. If this is what your entire argument hinges on, then surely you must have evidence for this claim.
So who hired Putin? Who told Putin to invade? And why?
Nobody, that's who. Literally nobody in the world wanted this stupid war, except Putin's dreams of empire, his dreams of being a conqueror like Peter the Great, of controlling a massive empire like Stalin. Only Putin and his sycophants have ever argued for this. Nobody else told him to do it. Nobody else would benefit from this.
If you have evidence to the contrary, share it. But if you did, you'd have led with that. All you have is vague insinuations.
no, there's no hiring involved in the real case. the hiring offer in the analogy is paralleled by creating a configuration in which, among two choices, one is to be perceived as far less unfavorable than the other.
to Putin specifically, I guess attempting to annex Ukraine felt a lot less unfavorable than watching NATO grow into Ukraine. that makes sense to me, watching how world leaders have reacted to others' expansionist moves throughout history. it's morally repugnant to me, but it's predictable and understandable, thus usable by other powers to their own advantage if they can put it in motion.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
to Putin specifically, I guess attempting to annex Ukraine felt a lot less unfavorable than watching NATO grow into Ukraine. that makes sense to me, watching how world leaders have reacted to others' expansionist moves throughout history. it's morally repugnant to me, but it's predictable and understandable, thus usable by other powers to their own advantage if they can put it in motion.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
That makes it a really poor analogy. Nobody hired, asked or pressured Putin to invade Ukraine. The only pressure he had was his own desire to control Ukraine and his perception that the opportunity to control Ukraine was still open but closing fast.
Obviously the West should have made sure, and made clear, that that opportunity was already closed, but the only evil here is Putin's desire to control other countries. Without that, there wouldn't have been any problems.
I realize you wish to blame Putin and Putin alone. but it's really naïve to not consider how Russia would feel threatened. it's no different from how the US felt threatened when USSR installed missiles in Cuba, and the US also reacted with an invasion. it's not right, but it's predictable and understandable. heck, it doesn't take more than rumors of weapons of mass destruction, or even of the imminent development thereof, for the US to feel entitled to invade or bomb other countries.
it's not like this kind of pressure removes all other possibilities, but the political power penalty for not reacting is so high that it's a near certainty, and it's almost unreasonable to expect this sort of response won't come once it is triggered.
of course it would be best if the international community made it so that the penalties for crossing such lines made it prohibitive in practice. but so far we see some powers getting pretty much a free pass, while others get demonized, depending on alignments and influences. that doesn't make for good law. unless it's a deterrent for everyone, it becomes no more than another tool for empires to use against the weaker nations.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
it's not like this kind of pressure removes all other possibilities, but the political power penalty for not reacting is so high that it's a near certainty, and it's almost unreasonable to expect this sort of response won't come once it is triggered.
of course it would be best if the international community made it so that the penalties for crossing such lines made it prohibitive in practice. but so far we see some powers getting pretty much a free pass, while others get demonized, depending on alignments and influences. that doesn't make for good law. unless it's a deterrent for everyone, it becomes no more than another tool for empires to use against the weaker nations.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
Who else is to blame? Sure, others could have done more to stop Putin, but the aggression comes entirely from Putin.
It's far more naive to not consider how Ukraine is threatened. There is no way in which Ukraine ever posed any kind of threat to Russia. The only issue is that a successful Ukraine independently from Russia would expose Putin's failure to his own people. That was the only "threat", but that wasn't Ukraine's doing, that failure is Putin's. And he's trying to shoot, not even the messenger, but the evidence.
It is completely different. Nobody was putting nukes in Ukraine. The US did not genocide Cuba. Cuba was not a democracy. The situations have almost nothing in common other than Russia's involvement.
Rumours that the US created! Just like Russia created the rumours of weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine! That's not a justification, that's a flimsy cover for naked aggression.
Please don't defend such blatant lies.
No. Expecting peace and reason is never unreasonable. Stop trying to normalise aggression and imperialism.
They're demonising themselves by acting like demons. Stop trying to paint aggressors as victims.
Please don't defend such blatant lies.
please don't accuse me of doing something I'm not doing.
if you for any moment get the idea that I'm defending it, stop, take a deep breath, backtrack and reread until you get the correct interpretation, or ask questions.
it's not pleasant to try to exchange ideas in a civilized way while someone pulls insulting accusations out of one's hat.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
please don't accuse me of doing something I'm not doing.
if you for any moment get the idea that I'm defending it, stop, take a deep breath, backtrack and reread until you get the correct interpretation, or ask questions.
it's not pleasant to try to exchange ideas in a civilized way while someone pulls insulting accusations out of one's hat.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
Rumours that the US created! Just like Russia created the rumours of weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine! That's not a justification, that's a flimsy cover for naked aggression.
exactly. so why is the international reaction so different?
it's great that Europe stands against the attacks against Ukraine.
but AFAICT Europe is now flocking to join the attacks on Iran.
see the problem?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
exactly. so why is the international reaction so different?
it's great that Europe stands against the attacks against Ukraine.
but AFAICT Europe is now flocking to join the attacks on Iran.
see the problem?
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
Europe is desperately trying to keep Trump on board with NATO, which leads to some disgusting displays of sycophancy. See Spain for a different sound.
Of course Trump's attack on Iran is wrong, just like his support for Putin is wrong. Trump, Putin, Khamenei and Netanyahu are all murderers. Europe is finding itself in the awkward position of being allied to two of them and not wanting to have to fight all of them.
That still doesn't justify Putin's aggression, though. One atrocity does not justify another.