@Eliza Thomason
Of course it is. That's what we've been trying to get through to you. You were projecting there because you're realizing what you thought was 'God' was just fake. The douchey victim blaming you and Sol are doing is very real- and the situation is very real and serious, but nothing is that truly serious to the real God and Satan.
That occurrence more or less defines the end of empires. When Rome was sacked for the X'th time the Praetorian Guard could, at that moment, not be bothered to give a fuck. When the "fragging" of commanders becomes not just commonplace but a celebrated act among the infantry you've well and thoroughly lost.Originally Posted by Baqer
This is the big problem I foresee the Chinese will face upon attempting to annex Taiwan within the next few weeks. Tofu-Dreg military hardware will meet with soldiers and officers more interested in self-preservation and personal advancement over more primal things like defending one's homeland from the despoiling and genocidal hands of communists.
I could be wrong but let's just say that if Taiwan is ready, willing, and able to fight back against an invader as hard as Ukraine is well... Xi should have picked a much softer punching bag if ya catch my drift.
China is way more on the sauce than Russia is. I doubt they'll have mutinies.
Ok, now I'm preparing the pyre. For a witch. I doubt you'd pass that test as, like I've pointed out many times before, you can't even utter the words in obvious jest and bad faith and I'd still take that as passing.
Yes, God does (in a very real sense) love Satan even as he (Satan) hates him. No, Satan does not actually love God even with that caveat attached. If he did he never would have rebelled in the first place.
I am, sadly, no Priest or Theologian and thus am fully unqualified to speak about how and why this question and the doctrine of the church makes complete sense to any rational being.
I can tell you that it does, and that you ought look into it.
I can and will tell you that God does not and will not forget any of our sins. Yet he loves us so much that he forgives them so utterly and completely that the phrase "God forgets your sins" is not true. He does not. Indeed, at the end of time even the sins of the saints will be enunciated to all who ever existed. Though at that time we'll all have the gift of hindsight. Indeed, this is a time of great tribulation for the faithful. To "merely" have become that degenerate may well become a badge of honor.
Most saints we can think of grew up and lived in a world where the faith was unquestioned and universal and their lives reflected that. Imagin what could have happened to an ancient and venerable saint if ya handed them a smartphone. Perhaps they would have fallen...
https://www.economist.com/europe/202...also-temporary
* The Russians seem to have been unprepared for the stiffness and determination (and sheer bravery, quite frankly) of Ukrainian resistance.
* They are having logistical problems, hence the slow speed of the advance (e.g. it's hard for them to rebuild bridges that the Ukrainians have dynamited, their supply lines are overstretched whereas the Ukrainians' aren't).
* The Ukrainians aren't short on weapons.
* The Russians haven't deployed all of their air power and don't yet have air supremacy; they haven't deployed all of their ground forces.
* The Russian deployment may actually be too big, and a lot of necessary equipment may be spread too thinly. Some Russian units aren't able to detect Bayraktar TB2 drones, which have proven to be incredibly effective.
But it's still day 5-6 of the war, and it's too soon to make predictions about how this war will end (literally anything can happen at this point, including a negotiated settlement). The Russians will likely learn from their mistakes, take their weaknesses into account, and adjust their tactics accordingly.
No, but that's hardly the biggest problem you'll be facing if your tanks aren't exactly made of High-Carbon Steel if ya catch my meaning. Cheapest and best steel in world granted to you for half price!
Again, if anyone here is unfamiliar with the term "Tofu-Dreg" get familiar with that. Taiwan thinks it can win for good reason. Say what you will about "Western" militaries, they are at least (if only just) fit for purpose. Pretty much everyone else? Not so friggin' much.
Losing this war could be the best thing to happen to modern Russia.
Losing the Crimean war (1853-56) against the Ottomans, France and the UK, forced the Russian leadership to accept the need for modernization. The loss triggered a massive drive of industrialization, infrastructure building, and social reform (like the ending of serfdom). A renewed zeal for reform (especially WRT. limiting the powers of the executive), while Ukraine joins both NATO and the EU (irreversible demands at this point), would be a good outcome for the current crisis.
But what is losing? If they're aiming to keep Eastern Ukraine and trying to force Western Ukraine's hand through invasion and then a deal, that's not losing. We don't know where we stand, sadly.
-----------------
This is interesting. From April 2021. Russian analysts on TV.
“We will be forced to step onto the battlefield in a fight for which they think we’re not ready,” he added. The host asked: “A fight against whom?” and Sidorov clarified: “Against the collective West.”
“You can’t turn a wolf into a vegetarian.” The host further claimed that Russia “will be destroyed very quickly” if it “loses Donbas”—a Ukrainian territory that is not Russia’s to lose or to keep—because “Putin’s electorate won’t stand for it.”
Rather than to risk Putin’s eternal presidency, Soloviev suggested that the fight over Ukraine’s Donbas will end in a “nuclear conflict” between Russia and NATO. Senior military analyst Mikhail Khodaryonok, a former colonel from the Soviet air defense force, opined “I think that any conflict could be stopped by the threat of at least a tactical nuclear strike from our side. The main question is how convincing our message will be.”
“The same state of war that we have right now would have started within the first 6 months of the Clinton presidency,” asserted Dmitry Kulikov—member of the Zinoviev Club, instituted by the Kremlin-controlled media giant Russia Today—said on Soloviev’s show. He added: “America was much stronger then.” The host, Vladimir Soloviev, pointed out: “And Russia wouldn’t have had four years.” Kulikov emphatically agreed: “That’s why they [Americans] are furious with Trump. He stole those four years from them and gave them to Russia and China.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia...ainst-the-west
Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.
I suppose that an obvious loss would require Russia to surrender all Ukrainian territory (including the Donbass region and Crimea) to the current Ukrainian government, permanently drop all claims on Ukrainian territory, permanently drop support for the independence of the Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, pay massive reparations and financial compensation to Ukraine, fully recognize the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government, and unconditionally accept Ukraine's admission into NATO.
But you're correct in indicating that the result may turn out to be ambiguous (especially if they get to keep pockets of Ukrainian territory).
I doubt that we have the military strength to demand anything stronger (certainly not the type of Carthaginian peace that was imposed on the German Empire).
Supposedly the FSB has a large sway over Russian politics, so a new dictator could come from there who no more represents the Russia people than Putin does.
True. Typically the ones that go on to be producers, writers and directors.
ἀταραξία
USA-hithlerist occupants use civilians as hostages, what is terrorism and war crime. They place military machines near buildings with living civil people to reduce or void return fire. USA, which controls army of Russian borderland/okraina does not care about lifes of people living there.
In some places USA-hithlerists directly forbid to leave towns and hold people by force, for the mentioned usage as shield/hostages. I've mentioned before about Mariupol.
The same happens in town Volnovakha. Recent day a group of civilians tried to go away from blocked city. They were attacked by direct fire from USA-hithlerists side, some should be killed.
In other towns to which RF army have come USA-hithlerist occupants use the similar terrotistic approach - they do not allow civil people to go away from those towns. RF has asked to stop military actions near towns on some time to make civilians passing safer and then to allow civilians to leave towns. USA-hithlerists has rejected this offer and hold civilians inside of towns, while food becomes a problem in some places. Examples of rejected offer are: Kiev, Harkov, Sumi. For Mariupol USA-hithlerists has agreed to do this, but when assinged time came they did not allow people to go away.
Another "nice" thing what USA likes to do in military conflicts and also overturns. Besides using civil objects and people as hostages by hiding behind them, it may do an attack by themselves and then accuse other side. This is made to justify own aggression, for propaganda against opponents, to initiate conflicts etc. Examples of this were Mariupol 2015, Donetsk region airplane 2014, Syria Ghouta 2013.
USA establishes censorship in medias. Blocks RF medias to hide truth about what happens. Many falsifications and lie are spreaded by USA side, what is common for it.
USA removes people of own nation from Belorussia and seems RF. The similar do other NATO states as Germany. I suspect USA begins diversion-terroristic war on territory of RF. Terroristc part is attacks against civilians and civil objects. Small bands as were in Syria should pass the border, some of them should be here already. Besides from okraina territory they may come from Afganistan (through Asian USSR republics) where USA gave recently many weapon to islamists and created large trained army of them. USA controlled syrians and representeters of Europe states took part in civil war on okraina since 2014. Now their quantity and number of available weapons, military machines arises.
The war of USA (with its satelites) against RF which happens now, would happened later with more intensivity. In essence sense, the war of USA against Russians started in 2014; besides other wars organised by USA where Russians needed to took part. USA illegally placed by military overturn own people to power on Russian okraina territory, provoked civil war to inspire hate to people of RF there. Before 2014 USA also developed anti-Russian propaganda on okraina.
When was said USA's intention to give nuclear weapon to their forces on okraina, RF has started miliatry operation to remove illegal regime fo USA-hithlerists there. This should be done in 2014 and could be easier, but RF wanted to keep peace. USA rejected peace. USA want desctructions anywhere in the world to stay as most developed territory by this way, to easier compete with others. USA is world cancer.
USA is a simplification in the process. It's controlled by "elites", not only by national ones - by related to world. These elites follow antihumahistic hithleristic-alike ideology of artistocratism/socialeugenics to rationalize their interest to power and doing harm to people, in much they are egocentric psychopaths by ideology and have higher such personality trait as inborn. They are satanists from christianity view, which keep the power by lie and terror/violence. USA is used as a tool to get and have power over the world, mainly military and propaganda tool.
Last edited by Sol; 03-05-2022 at 03:24 PM.
Disheartening pictures and news coming from Ukraine. 70 soldiers were killed at the same time. Some suggest dormitories must've been hit for such a great quantity of people to be killed at the same time. Is that even allowed?
Europe (and America to some extent) need to be more creative with oligarchs. Not just freeze their assets but warn selected transnational money and capital holders abroad to pull out beforehand if they fear reprisal and then seize money and property from oligarchs and auction them to aspiring local bourgeoisie that will jump at the opportunity. Use the money to rebuild Ukr. Sanction new emergency laws, use anti monopoly and anti price speculation legislation as justification. A struggling Polish family's right to basic heating in Winter is a human right, businessmen's ability to move their fortune around the world after Europe helped them amass it is not. Go Piketty.
The sanctions on Russia. I'm from a Latin American country. First-worlders might see currency depreciation as such a game-changer. But it's not and experience has made governments resilient and people expert navigators. If Putin planned this final move for at least a year, then a contingency plan has been sleeping in a drawer in Moscow all along. Europe might want to tread those waters.
Declare streamlining of gas to key cold areas from already established pipelines a basic right. I can think of at least 4 countries in South America that have been trying to reach some kind of food autarky. Europe should set foot more firmly in LA and selected African countries and help them with modified seeds, machines and grants. Open Erasmus scholarships to students from those areas and establish ties. Use all that to generate votes at the UN to make Russia ‘share’ the wealth of an expanding empire. America shouldn't fear this as much as Mexico lives below them. Or promote people like Greta Thunberg more aggressively to push for bigger funds to transition to greener energies with the bigger contribution coming from the countries with the highest royalties from traditional energies and natural reserves. If Russia gets a larger chunk of natural resources in the Black Sea that belong to Ukraine through occupation then Europe should latch onto it like lice through the UN. Get your arse moving, Europe.
Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.
>Putin has written and talked of restoring the Russian empire for many years. It's his life ambition. Conquering Kazakhstan etc. has nothing to do with the policies of the EU or NATO.
Never found anything significant about that, other than the claim that Ukraine and Belarus were soviet inventions (which is partially true to a certain extent although it ignores lots of nuances, and strikes as a self justification).
>He sees the West as corrupted by homosexuals and Jews and sees Russia as the last bastion of Christianity.
This is directly bs on Qanon levels, but if it serves the propaganda effort...
Homosexuals are not protected by law in Russia, and sometimes the legal system, the media, the "superstructure" in marxist terms discriminates them. That doesn't mean Putin is any sort of "traditionalist" or "neoreactionary". Putin hates jews so much that his daughter was married to one, and Russia partakes in financial transactions with the rest of the world. He's so antisemitic that he does not persecute jewish oligarchs but in fact even favors them sometimes.
>The countries that join NATO begged to, and of their own choice, because they felt threatened by Russia. And they were quite correct. Russia invading its neighbours is not respecting the sovereignty or security of anybody.
To this day, Russia has intervened in Ukraine (against a nuclear obliteration threat) and agains't Georgia in favor of breakaway republics. That is two wars, and the west has been untouched even though close neighbors like the baltic states were joining NATO, so the agressive tendency towards the west is false.
You could actually make a case for the similarities between this conflict and the russo-georgian war, but it still doesn't justify the idea of Russia being an expansionist monster, rather Russia acts as a geopolitical realist most of the times, and due to the trade relationships it has with the EU their tendency towards the west has been quite peaceful until this point.
>Russia invading its neighbours is not respecting the sovereignty or security of anybody.
My freedom stops where your freedom begins. Severe violations of a neighbors security concerns are a just reason for military intervention.
We are coming from the place of using international law for our own benefit, discarding or not applying it to ourselves on the sly, financing terrorist organizations and starting civil wars anywere in the world, not even because of wanting to control our neighbors but because of wanting to stir a country's direction regarding oil reserve currency, we are the least indicated to accuse anyone in meddling in their neighbor's sovereignty when we don't respect the sovereignty of most of the civilized world and we have repeatedly demonstrated it with states far away from our own territory
And this war, again, has been bred for securing Petrodollar's subsistence in a world were rare earth or microchips are becoming almost as essential as oil for a modern economy to function. Sadly, Putin might realize this, and push the red button obliterating the west, in fact he has every incentive to do so.
Last edited by RBRS; 03-01-2022 at 10:38 AM.
If Russia lost this time, Russia might no longer exist in the world. The west is trying to eliminate Russia from the world. So now the situation is very hard for Putin and his colleagues.
Russia controls the situation a few days ago but now the west is gaining control. This is due to the fact that Russia fails to respond to the SWIFT threaten effectively. What Putin should do is to start joining China's CIPS immediately because this means that the dying of USD and EUR will speed up. However, Russia fails to do this so the west get the information that Russia is still dreaming at the union of Russia and EU, the west is now sure that Russia still doesn't want to fully switch to China. So they are now much bolder and they are gaining control again.
Now Russia still have some time to adjust. However, the real problem is that as far as I observe, too many Russians believe in the west instead of the east. Also, many Russian businessman has financial connections with.the EU instead of China. This makes Russia finds it very hard to switch to China in this situation.
I seriously doubt that anyone wants Russia to not exist.
What most people want is a neighbor who doesn't invade them or shell their cities and send squads of soldiers to their country to assassinate their elected officials.
That would be nice, right?
Russia and the Russian people are fine. Putin is not fine.
Really, the whole reason the US took over the world economy was because it didn't try to turn other countries into colonies, like Spain, Portugal, Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Japan, and other countries did. When people saw that the US didn't want to run their country but just wanted to trade with them on fair terms, they gave their loyalties to the US over the colonialists.
It is not efficient to try to run a country that doesn't want to be run by foreigners. It's far better to let them run their own business and to simply buy stuff from them. The US won because it reduced the costs of trade and left people alone. It's just that simple.
(It left people alone with their own governments, usually, but that's still better than what the Belgian Congo had.)
So why would anyone want to run Russia, when the Russians themselves are willing to live there and run the place? Personally, I'd rather just buy stuff from them.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 03-01-2022 at 04:04 PM.
I was just describing the optimistic scenario. I'm aware of the alternative, very real, possibility that a weakened Russia could fracture. And that the loss of its outlying territories is a potential geopolitical nightmare; a scenario that could easily include, among other things, the capture of unsupervised nuclear weapons by Islamist groups.
That's what terrified me about NATO expansion, even if we grant that Russia is acting irrationally paranoid in its opposition to Western encroachment, even if we accept that Ukraine has every sovereign right to select its alliances, even if we believe (as many liberals do) that Russia is a quasi-fascist dictatorship. That's all academic, though, since Ukraine's westward shift is now more-or-less politically irreversible.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ukraine-moscowIt’s long been known that Putin hankers for a lost age of Russian dominance over its neighbours. Calling the collapse of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century” is one of his most-quoted (and most misunderstood) historical judgments.
In his speech, Putin reached back far further than the cold war to find his grievances. He stated clearly that the processes that led to Russia losing territory a century ago must be reversed. He pointed out what he said were catastrophic mistakes by the Bolsheviks in recognising Ukraine as a republic, and ceding land to end the war with Germany in 1918. He lamented the loss not of the Soviet Union, but of the “territory of the former Russian empire”.
NATO and Putin's Russia are two nuclear powers in opposition to each other, but it's only Russia invading countries up NATO's border rather than the reverse.
None of Putin's wars are justified in international law.
The guy who has assassinated his own people is now using illegal weapons on Ukranian civilians who have been deliberately targeted.
God Te treaties seem so stupid to me when a narc douchebag will easily violate them anyway. Any consequences they endure for doing so - well to them, those consequences can be manipulated regardless or they don't give a shit if it means becoming An Idea Of Theirself. Plenty of people are so sadistic they don't care if they get blown up as long as they get to blow up some cute little fags.
((this is just polr- I'm sure Te documents are still good and all Idk, but we just live in a world where it's so much paper work and enough ppl don't see the essence of anything anymore.))
I'd gladly die in a war to destroy china. Not because I think they're a huge human rights violator (I actually don't) but because they're our blood enemy and our biggest threat.
Last edited by Grendel; 03-01-2022 at 06:39 PM.
What do you mean by blood enemy?
Bound upon me, rush upon me, I will overcome you by enduring your onset: whatever strikes against that which is firm and unconquerable merely injures itself by its own violence. Wherefore, seek some soft and yielding object to pierce with your darts.
-Seneca
Think they're better than everyone else, always have, since dynastic age.
Source: I'm right you're wrong cope cringe seethe dilate mald etc
Notably Natalie Portman
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
narli is a shrink too apparently
So that I don't seem like that crazy homeless person shouting at people passing by, here are the opinions of two influential American strategists, both of whom argued for a policy of compromise with Russia.
George Kennan's plea to not expand NATO (this is from 1998, well before the current crisis):
Here is Henry Kissinger's plea to keep Ukraine neutral, just as Finland was throughout the Cold War (or Austria, which he doesn't mention), and to respect some of Russia's defense imperatives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0b9_story.html
The last paragraph I quoted will rub liberals the wrong way. Why should anyone, let alone foreigners to Russia, care about Russian national pride or the glorification of Russian history, notions that must seem deeply reactionary? The reason is that many "antiquated" beliefs tend to be very persistent, especially when they inspire feelings of reverence, and cannot realistically be bulldozed through. It would take massive social change in a liberal direction (something that only the Russians themselves can do) for beliefs like these to wane in importance and adherence.A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction. Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
......
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.
George Kennan was the man who inspired the 'Truman Doctrine' of containment against the Soviet Union. He wasn't some bleeding heart hippie and neither is Kissinger.
Last edited by xerx; 03-01-2022 at 10:22 PM.
I largely agree with you in regards to the how and why the U.S. became what amounts to an economic hyperpower. It followed, at least up until recently, flawless logic. It sacrificed control for efficiency and achievement of purpose. I've said this to others but I'll restate a primary reason why I oppose the current PTB and how I simply cannot stand it/them!
They want total control, full-spectrum dominance in every sphere that matters, and they don't care how much that costs on all fronts. I can only attribute such thinking to demonic forces in the end given how much better things work out if you're willing to surrender that control aspect.
Say you got a problem. You may not know how to best solve the problem but you have an idea as to how. Say it's a huge problem in your mind as well. This shit needs be dealt with. Now consider someone you've never met, a low-level employee for instance, hears about it and gives you a solution somehow. It would require that you essentially relinquish direct operational control over others and let each "sector" come up with a solution that works for them. Bonus points: it likely does not align with your general idea as to how to solve it.
Do you relinquish control and let people/your subordinates solve problems as they will or insist on them all following your plan above all other considerations? With the obvious/given threat that if by giving them this authority you trust they won't do anything morally objectionable and if they, say, murder civilians in cold blood or allow their troops to rape and pillage you're going to publicly execute their asses most slowly and painfully?
Before you make an obvious counter I'll answer as I did my own mum. No, they didn't intentionally bomb a hospital. Propaganda is what it is and it mostly depends on an ignorant populace to work as well it does. People tend to not know how military command actually works but, in the instance of the United States, you must be a "Major" or higher officer to order a "Danger Close" bombardment in the example I used to shut her down.
What's that mean? Well, artillery isn't exactly an exact science. Once you accurately solve all the equations you get a "general area" shall we say. "Danger Close" means the position of your own troops is within that general area. It could land on top of the heads of your enemies and solve the problem. Hell, it's a 60-40 at the absolute worst. That 40 or less percent includes the possibility of it landing right on top of your own people!
Meaning the margins are so close there's a significant chance of you inadvertently helping out the enemy by blowing your own dudes up for them(or in this case, handing your enemy an easy propaganda win by blowing up a hospital). After all, when it comes to propaganda there are two things you are aiming to create. Mass and Unjustified Murders by the Enemy and Heroes. Both serve the same purpose. Blowing up hospitals fits the former archetype. The "Ghost of Kiev" is the latter. As most modern Jets and missiles have cameras on them, well, I'm still waiting on that footage before I issue my final opinion on that matter.
So yeah, gotta make sure someone with a bit of experience is deciding to roll such a serious set of dice no matter how "minor" the chance is of it coming up snake eyes is. I do not hold that unfortunate Ruskie all that responsible in this instance. 5% chance of it landing on the hospital? That's good odds eh? Let's roll those dice! (Hospital eats the bombs) FUCK!
Last edited by End; 03-02-2022 at 03:38 AM.
Russia will be able to occupy the Ukraine through pure brutality. Westerners didn't have that option in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ἀταραξία
Liked this post cuz you both bolded and underlined the word 'efficient' like a true LIE. You could have put it in all caps as well with a couple exclamation points and trademark symbol after it but that would just be campy. And 3D or 4D Fe instead of 2D.
Here I'll do it for everybody:
" We have to be more EFFICIENT!!™ "
I feel like they are both brewing a war. NATO and Russia. I don’t think the US is entirely innocent and the main stream media is almost as brain washing as what they simultaneously accuse the Russians they are doing, while I’m watching tv and feeling brainwashed by mainstream media. Putin- bad man. Bad man Putin. That about sums it up. I seriously think they want this war, and they are backing Russian in a corner after invading Ukraine to say, look, they made us do it. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my honest feelings on the matter.
So if someone can make me understand here… Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but Russia didn’t want them to. This seems understandable to me, and I can see why this would be crossing a red line. Ukraine is right there, and the more forces join with NATO, the more threat there is to Russia. So it seems like a big loss if they did join nato, and their only choice would be, at that point, to take back Ukraine before they join, and then absolutely have to deal with NATO since Ukraine would then be a part of that….and mainstream news is all like (scream) this makes no sense, Putin is mad man. Bad man. But that does make sense to me, why they would want Ukraine. It seems world war 3 is inevitable, since Putin doesn’t seem to me to be the type to back down. And considering where we are at in America right now, socially, economically…it doesn’t seem like a bad time to try to start something.
so someone who knows about this, explain to me where I’m wrong. Maybe I’m confused about what the hell is going on. And I’m not being shitty. I’m generally curious. I also didn’t read the previous comments because there is a lot.
As for casualties, maybe a bit insensitive, but this is a part of war, and they are show casing it on tv to garner major sympathy. God only knows what our own American troops do. Or our politicians ok. Total hypocrites, the lot of them, it seems to me.
idek what to think. I’m just preparing for a war. Maybe plant a garden. I’m prob going to get nuked.
Last edited by Aster; 03-02-2022 at 03:05 PM.
Well Putin really *is* that bad of a person. It might be campy and annoying but it's true- pls don't do the stereotypical IEI str8 female thing and defend the fucked up bad boy too much and say like 'well both sides are equally bad' because they're not.
Ukraine is really too naive and overly trusting though to think evil d-bag narcs will just let you be your own person. In 1994 I think so many people were dumb and agreed to things they shouldn't. Too much idealism and not being aware enough of how people can betray you. There's nothing wrong with them wanting power, every country needs to have power or it will obviously be fucked over by those that do... they basically traded in their real power for a naive ideal stupidly.
Well yeah, ppl who are fucked up get tortured/killed cuz they are fucked up - kinda the way the world works. We can't shine a beam of pure love at Putin with a sappy poem like that one actress. God I know I was too much of an asshole to women in 2015 and I'm sorry but come on. Putin isn't allowing himself to be saved by str8 female compassion and forgiveness. He's just super gay - for himself.
My personal view is that Putin asking NATO countries to promise that the Ukraine never join NATO is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. And if you listen to Putin's recent speeches it is pretty clear he considers Ukraine to be a part of Russia (not a sovereign state). Putin's whole attitude towards Ukraine is problematic, IMO. That said, I do understand why Putin is upset about the Ukraine joining NATO - for him, it's a threat.
I don't disagree with the other points you make, I pretty much agree mainstream media in the west has an "us vs them" narrative on this issue here, with really simplistic rhetoric from politicians like Biden (but this is how Biden always talks). That said, I don't think the brainwashing is nearly as effective, because while certain things may be omitted and downplayed, lying by commission is much more scarce in Western msm than in Russian controlled media outlets (though some of those are rebelling against the Kremlin in part too right now).
I don't know if the US wants a war with Russia. I think @RBRS summed it up pretty well earleir: this is simply a question of the US trying to sever ties between Russian and EU energy markets, in the hopes of the EU becoming dependant on OPEC oil as opposed to the Russian energy market. This is how US foreign policy has been working for decades. That said, I don't know if they wanted a war since it is a huge risk if Putin sets off the atomic bomb. Putin has enough nukes to blow up the planet and then some, so a war might not be in America's interests either, because if we're all dead, who is the US gonna sell to? I think the US probably just hoped to get Russia out of EU markets by imposing sanctions, and then Putin decided it was a good time to strike the Ukraine, maybe because he's losing his marbles a bit.
That said, let's not pretend Putin is innocent here (and I am not saying that is what you said). What he has done now is basically worthy of a war criminal. Like I said I do think he's losing his marbles, perhaps not completely but enough to do things he wouldn't normally do and unwittingly turn everyone against him.
If someone comes with weapons, invades your house and threatens to nuke you, your family and your neighbourhood (or actually the whole world), it would be considered illegal as well.
That's true.
I think Aster is asking some valid questions, but we have to be careful not to unwittingly fall into whataboutism. This is something the Kremlin benefits from worldwide, especially over the internet - people saying "well, perhaps Putin did X or Y, but what about such and such's [insert western politcian here] doing this and that" (and equating whoever with Putin).
So while I think we need to stay lucid and not kid ourselves into thinking Biden, US foreign policy, or Western media are perfect, we have to keep in mind Putin is an enemy from a geo-political standpoint for most of us on here (most people on here are citizens of NATO countries and are therefore Putin's targets for manipulation, disinformation, and possibly military force if it ever came to that- not that I wish it would). Putin is the same way to his own people, when they oppose him. So I agree, lets not kid ourselves into thinking he is somehow the victim because that is just bs.
ok, thank you. I didn’t know about that m. That does explain some things.
yeah, I don’t think he is innocent. Def not. I read an article saying they think he has some terminal illness (idk if that true, but it’s an interesting theory). But I don’t think America is innocent either and it’s super annoying watching them act like it.That said, let's not pretend Putin is innocent here (and I am not saying that is what you said). What he has done now is basically worthy of a war criminal. Like I said I do think he's losing his marbles, perhaps not completely but enough to do things he wouldn't normally do and unwittingly turn everyone against him.
Tbh, I’m a bit confused by your statement here, but it does allow me to bring up another question I had about all of this.
if someone nuked me during a war, I wouldn’t exactly consider it illegal. Maybe illegal under the terms of the current government I am living under. I mean, what are these international laws of war?? War crimes?? War criminal. It seems like anything would go in a war. Dirty tactics. What’s stopping them from doing that and who made this stuff up. Idk. I need to google it.
you might all consider me awful, but I’m generally curious about this. Is there laws in war? I’ve never given much thought to it. Who makes the rules, who enforcers them? Is that just NATO, and is that such a good idea?
LMAO
when and if I can’t get coffee anymore, and it’s Putin’s fault, he is in some deep shit.
Yes, there's international law for war and Putin already breached a few of these laws by invading Ukraine in the first place and by targeting civilians.
https://ecfr.eu/article/internationa...on-of-ukraine/
ok, that’s what I thought, if I’ve got it right. Those are rules the UN made. So Russia commited a crime under the UN while being a part of it. It seems to me they should have separated or left first before doing these things. So NATO essentially is like the world police, and they just made a move against them. I don’t know how I feel about that. But it seems inevitable a nation would do something like that-scary now it’s one as big and hot headed as Russia. This could cause a mess.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
