- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
- 0 users online
- 5 users / day
- 8 users / week
- 34 users / month
- 212 users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 857 Posts
- 2.5K Comments
I would love to live in Russia.
What is stopping you?
Where in Russia would you want to live? Apparently Moscow is very rich.
Ive never been there so no idea what its like. But personally I prefer smaller cities, where you can live closer to nature.
Apparently Moscow is very rich.There are some very rich people in Moscow.
This meme is pretty inaccurate IMO.
First I think most Russians who are speaking like this would like to (and probably are) stay(ing) in Russia.
Second the EU is blocking most russians to enter it. Which is bad, as those who flee Russia mostly are not in favor of the Russian government. And I worry that closing the borders for Russians just strengthens the anti-russian sentiment in EU countries, while Russians (the people, not the government) are not fault of the current situation.
Definitely not biased or anything. Definitely. There is no copium here.
This could be more fitting for !email@example.com or !firstname.lastname@example.org.
Does this even qualify as humor though?
Idk i feel like there is some commentary needed about how many people from Ukraine and Baltics worked in Russia. Or how imperialist countries fuck up countries they are imperializing so of course people would follow their stolen wealth. Or how Russia development regressed at least 30 years and had losses comparable to WW2 in time of peace when it was imperialized by the west after unlawful destruction of USSR.
So if that’s a humour, it’s a pretty ghastly one. Something like the thief, murderer, slaver and rapist (let’s not forget human trafficking happening in Europe after 1991) laughing at its victim.
Don’t worry, EU leaders were incredibly hurt by this and are doing everything to make life in EU worse. Double digit inflation, quadrupling energy bills are mere first steps.
Oh did the EU leaders raise the gas price?
EU leaders started the economic war that resulted in gas prices going up.
Factually yes. Russia stopped selling energy to EU in response to the economic war EU started.
Ok there baby Goebbels.
Somebody needs to learn what the word factually means.
Are you speaking of yourself?
Nah, I understand how cause and effect work.
Okay. Let’s test that. Who started the war?
Russia started a war in Ukraine. The west started the economic war with Russia in response to that. Then Russia retaliated against the west. Russia was perfectly fine trading with the west while fighting a war in Ukraine. What part of this are you struggling with specifically?
Great. Finally a sane, almost friendly answer of yours. Very rare occasion.
Yes of course, why wouldn’t Russia be fine? But you also have to acknowledge that Russia prepared for that economic war well before the current conflict. And even though EU might have started the economic war, Russia started the decrease of delivery of gas to pressure the EU.
But of course it is mostly the EUs fault to so heavily rely on Russia gas in the first place. In hindsight the signals of the geopolitical shift Russia took where clear even before 2014 but the EU ignored them.
The original point was that EU started the economic war which is now destroying EU. This was not the fault of Russia. Glad you’ve finally managed to acknowledge that.
But this is where we disagree. The EU sanctioned Russia which did exclude things like gas.
It is very much Russias fault that those prices are going up now as it stopped the delivery of gas.
But that is not to say that the EU could’ve known better.
It doesn’t matter what EU chose to sanction. EU started an economic war with Russia, and Russia responded. If you punch me in the face and I proceed to kick you in the balls, that’s not me starting the fight.
Oh it does. And also it does matter because Russia started the war. The sanctions where the response.
So Russia was the face puncher while Europe the ball kicker to stay in your analogy.
Sanctions were a poorly thought out response. Russia started a conflict in Ukraine, and Europe chose to participate in that conflict by sanctioning Russia. Once Europe became a party to the conflict, Europe can no longer complain that Russia is retaliating against Europe economically. This is a fight Europe chose and these are the consequences.
But it can, the same as Russia can complain that NATO members are supporting Ukraine.
True. But this fight was chosen in response to Russias agression. Diplomatic solutions before the war failed because of Russias maximalist claims.
It can complain all it likes, but the fact is that Europe chose to start an economic war with Russia and it is losing this war. Meanwhile, Russia is systematically destroying the Ukrainian army and NATO weaponry in Ukraine instead of complaining.
If I punch your friend in the face and you choose to stab yourself in the gut that’s a response. It’s just not a smart response. Meanwhile, Russia asked for very reasonable things such as Ukraine being neutral and implementing Minsk agreements which both Ukraine and NATO agreed to. If you think that’s Russia being maximalist then you have no clue.
Europe responded with sanctions because of Russias war. Economic wise both sides are losing. The intertwined economy between Russia and the EU is breaking up hard.
The EU did not stab itself. You fail to see that the current economic difficulties in the EU do come from the fact that they try to be dependent of Russia energy deliveries (besides the fact that the delivery stopped mostly). Geopolitically if the EU is smart in future investments it will be more resilient and self-sufficient regarding energy resources. But this is not solved by buying gas from the US and Saudi Arabia.
The reason the economy is suffering so hard is the pace of the break-up. Generally the direction of being less reliant on gas is a good decision.
We all know why Europe responded. This isn’t what we’re debating. My original points were that Europe made a choice to respond, and that this choice was poorly thought out.
Russia has been building up its domestic economy since 2014, and made sure it wasn’t reliant on the west for anything essential. The narrative that both sides are losing is false. Russian economy has largely stabalized at this point with inflation being down in the past couple of months and prices on essentials being stable:
Meanwhile, inflation in Europe continues to spiral out of control with essentials like food and energy becoming scarce and it’s not even winter yet. The difference is that Europe was reliant on Russia for bare essentials such as fertilizer and fuel. Europe is not able to replace these things after six months of trying.
On the other hand, Russia was getting nice to have things from the west that people can live without. It’s also worth noting that western companies losing business in Russia are symmetrically hurt by the loss of business while they create niches for domestic companies to fill stimulating Russian economy.
What’s actually happening to EU is that it’s headed for an economic collapse because it’s not able to replace around 60% of the energy it was getting from Russia. This is causing European industry to shut down and input costs for everything to surge. I highly recommend watching this interview with Garland Nixon to see where things are headed this spring.
Sure, this is my whole point. Europe made a stupid decision that’s destroying European economy. A smart thing to do would’ve been to start building out alternative infrastructure using the energy Europe was getting from Russia and then decouple in a planned way. Incidentally, this is precisely what Russia did. They continued selling gas to Europe while they established new deals with other countries like China and India, then started slowly cutting gas off ensuring that their economy wasn’t negatively impacted. That’s how you do a trade war in a way that benefits you.
Wouldn’t that be rather continuation of the war in Donbass? Russia did invaded Ukraine and joined it, but the war was already ongoing for 8 years.
I’ve kind of given up on having any sort of nuance here. Most people in the west think that Russia just randomly invaded Ukraine because they’re evil orcs and there’s nothing you can say to change that. It’s easier to point out that their strategy is ultimately self destructive and hurts them more than it does Russia.
Maybe. It’s not even an nuance at this point. I just get downvoted for stating the dryest, most easily checkable fact, while in the other threads we see things like complete reality denial get pushed.
I do think that it’s pretty important fact though. That the war was started by the maidan coup regime murdering people in Donbas who didn’t even wanted to join Russia or be independent at first, they just wanted to not be shock therapied, treated as the second class citizens or murdered like the people in Odessa.
Oh yeah I completely agree, I made a lengthy post that provides some context a little while back. I’m just kind of tired of having to repeat that over and over when people clearly have no interest to engage with reality.
But what should this context tell us? At the very least this is in no way any justification for russia starting a war against the whole Ukraine.
At the very least it’s clear that there were plenty of off ramps that could have avoided the war. Russia tried to find diplomatic solutions for eight years while both the west and their puppet regime in Ukraine refused.
Furthermore, the war is directly modelled on what NATO did in Yugoslavia where NATO recognized the independence of breakaway regions, then had them invite NATO for support on the pretext of genocide, and ran referendums for the regions to separate. Russia is just following the precedent established by the west here.
Not only Russia tried that. The USA, France Germany and most importantly Ukraine tried it as well. No one wanted that war to start (well Russia apparently eventually chose to do so anyway)
"directly? I’m pretty sure that this is not true even though those things do look familiar on the surface. This is definitely an argument Russia is using why they started the war. But one wrong doing of NATO does not in any way justify a wrongdoing of Russia.
That is a lie. The west actively encouraged Ukraine to be belligerent. Ukraine failed to implement Minsk protocols for 8 years.
Yes, directly. I’m going to guess that you have no clue regarding how NATO invaded Yugoslavia if you think these things are only similar on the surface. And this isn’t just one wrong. It’s been the continued policy of NATO to invade countries and encircle Russia. That’s the threat that Russia responded to. NATO expansion was the root cause of this war.
Remember, Big Lie. They use a handful of tactics.
What lie are you talking about?
Their actions did. Supply and demand and what happen if you suddenly refuse to buy from your major supplier without alternative ready to fill the difference? That’s pretty obvious to anyone so if they did it, that’s their responsibility.
Europe did not refuse to buy gas from Russia. Russia just stopped selling gas to Europe.
They did for months. Russia was blocked from the SWIFT system which was used for the international transactions, mostly in euro and dollars. So Russia could literally not sell anything because it would not get paid. So they wanted to get paid in rubles and even set up exchange accounts in Russia in order to do so. Several EU countries did it, like Hungary, Bulgaria and Italy. Only after months of naked hostility and economic warfare Russia refused to trade, small wonder considering EU is openly declaring itself enemy to Russia.
The SWIFT ban was specifically designed to not block any gas, oil or coal related trades between Russia and Europe, so that these can continue as the EU was very much aware that this kind of sanctions results into no benefit for them.
At the same time western banks frozen all russian assets. That’s declaration of the total economic warfare, so those clauses were not serious. Not to mention so many different sanctions to confuse even hardened clerk from Brussels.
Well, that’s what you get if you de facto invade a country that’s friends with major parts of the EU. Kreml should be glad that it’s only soft power being used against Russia as of today.
Completely ignoring NATO encroachment and coup attempts at it’s allies. You imperialists shills scream about “national intertests” and “enemy at the gates” but never allow any other countries to act on theirs.
Nice warmongering, you’re itching at the very prospect of nuclear war.
You mean “puppet”. Unless you’re at this level of hawking where you cannon foddering your friends.
You mistake what I say as endorsement where it is largely just a description.
In my book, war should be the very, very last resort. You may call me an imperialistic war mongering shill all that you want, but just know that I was already out on the streets back in 2003, protesting, when the US was about to invade Iraq. Major countries of the EU openly opposed that war, btw., enraging the US so much that the “freedom fries” issue came to place - remember?
Today, I very much support Ukraine’s right to self-defence, and I also believe it was right to throw down Nazi Germany in the 20th century (without implying that Putin and Hitler are alike). And it wasn’t Ukraine who fired the first shots, too.
Be my guest to speak your mind, yet I fail to see how you come to say this.
You can’t justify wrongdoings of A with wrongdoings of B.
Countries are not people, and the EU and Ukraine are very different in regards to their power. That’s just as close as you can come to friendship on that level.
You seem concerned about a global escalation of the war. What do you think would happen if NATO & EU led their own citizens to the battlefield? Then Russia would be at war with said institutions. What is it that you want now?
All in all, “economic warfare” looks like the most appropriate way of action for supporters of Ukraine, while I can understand that they wish for more.
If we’re to blink every time people mention their nuclear arsenal, countries with such weapons could do whatever they want. Ymmv, but that’s not a world I want to live in.
Also, I wouldn’t call myself an experienced poker player, but even I have learned that when someone has to say that something is not a bluff, it most certainly is.
Yet today you are supporting neonazi puppet of USA being used to attack the opposition to the US hegemony.
I support the people of Donbas right to selfdefence and selfdetermination.
Oh yes the time when entire EU banded together to impose every imaginable sanction on the invader, and NATO organized all kind of pressure against it. Wait, that did not happened at all. Nor any other time of the 200+ armed conflict US had their fingers since 1945.
I also rember when Victoria Nuland organized coup in Ukraine (how was it “fuck EU”, right?), when Ukraine shat on the effort of Germany and France to mediate the Minsk agreement and when Boris Johnson torpedoed peace attempts few months ago. And EU also did not sanctioned anyone then. It would indeed turn out that Ukraine is not EU puppet, it’s more like all three entities of UK, EU and UA are just puppets of the greater world hegemony.
Stop projecting, it’s you who is making remarks about Russia should be glad EU is not at open war at them. I would be more glad if they stopped supporting neonazi regime of UA and take a step back to REALLY mediate the peace. Unfortunately the Minsk agreement is not feasible now after the referendums, but UA had 8 years to stop killing people in Donbas and failed. Maidan clique is the core problem in this entire issue.
It’s because not eveyone is craving for war like american reddit warhawks. Seems like hopefully not even Pentagon actually want this. Point is, the situation is not exactly going in their favour now and those fuckers might really get to the point of “apres mois, le deluge” at some point (not talking about Ukraine in particular but general situation). Agree with you that EU clearly do not want open war with Russia, but then again few months ago i also did not thought they will jump headfirst into such economy crisis of their own manufacturing.
Agree, but it’s also majorly USA fault, from the very first bombs aggressively used to assert their expansion, through cold war arms race, raegan era unwillingness to disarm, to the recent case of DPRK where the constant USA hawking and incidents only receded after it got the means to actually threat USA. It even forced USA to actually sit and talk with them instead of spouting contant stream of threats. Not to mention Iran which resigned from its nuclear program only to get to the brink of being attacked by the ver same administration which talked to DPRK (and again EU mediating things was completely ignored the moment it stopped being useful to US).
I would ignore Putin’s speeches as of now, they seems to be addressed internally rather than externally, which would not be surprising from their forms and that it is what he did even before. To get the actual stance of Russia i would rather watch the moves of their foreign ministry and ambassadors.
Man, honestly? I don’t even know where to start here. Let’s just say so much: At least Ukrainian neonazis are not elected in their parliament, opposed to those in France, Germany, Italy, you name it. If Ukraine is a neonazi US puppet state, who isn’t? And if that’s what you’re saying, you may be deeper into conspiracy thinking than you know (something even more apparent in “Ukraine is not EU puppet, it’s more like all three entities of UK, EU and UA are just puppets of the greater world hegemony.”).
Listen to yourself for once.
That is probably the broadest definition of self defence in a long time. “Your honour, it all started when the other one punched back.”
I didn’t say those situations were 100% alike. My point was that there may be more to the EU’s position than being imperialistic war mongering shills.
Your posts on the topic are easy to find here, and display that you refrain from doing even the least amount of research that could shake your frail world view. Believe what you want, that’s none of my business, but you’re convincing no one.
If you’re referring to the accusations of genocide by Ukraine, there never was never any proof of the whole thing. On the other hand, OSINT repeatedly showed fresh mass graves Russian occupiers had dug out before leaving, with very diverse bodies in those graves. You have to be knee-deep in propaganda to ignore these cases.
I may be misinformed here, but to my latest knowledge Russia is not precisely advancing on all fronts, to put it mildly.
It may be difficult acknowledging that there is not just one malevolent force behind all evil in the world (I was there too as a teenager and in my early twenties), but it pays off to widen your view.
I know that there are countries going after nuclear weapons as a matter of protection from invasion by the US, and I can see their point from their perspective. But still, that’s nothing I’d want to be implemented on a global scale.
He is probably many things, but not stupid. He has to know how those speeches are perceived in the west. Even if they were for his in-group, the question remains why he has to dedicatedly say that he is not bluffing if he really isn’t.
Oh and on the topic of self determination of the people of Donbas - look at this:
translated with Google lens:
The Oblast of Zaporizhzhia has roughly 1.6 million inhabitants. Now how come that there are less than 40k votes here? How is that possible if allegations are untrue that Russia, how shall I phrase it, “shaped” the participation to the referendum?
And why would you need to do that if you had a safe majority supporting your cause?
This comment left me baffled, are you think all this official bandera worship is not done by their parliament and government or you do correctly not recognize the coup clique as democratic? Friendly reminder that they banned all political parties that even could not support them.
Also EU having neonazi problem to the point they enter their parliaments is reinforcing rather my arguments than yours, since we look at massive fascist resurgence across entire continent and what we see now is precisely consequence of this.
Nice try but no. Ukraine is neonazi as evidenced by their fascist politics and literal fucking nazi banderist worship happening there on all levels of government. I won’t even mention large amounts of nazi iconography presented by their military.
Who isn’t? For starters every country targeted by USA by definition is not their puppet. Also large numbers of countries not aligning their politics with USA. Who isn’t neonazi? For example USA. It’s fascist, but not neonazi. EU also isn’t neonazi (yet). There’s currently only one neonazi country, that is Ukraine. Latvia and Estonia are also close, but those lacks the fascist politics, even though they have neonazi worship problem on official levels. India also have fascist government but hindutva is their local brand so it’s not neonazism (it also is not US puppet).
And here you are very hurt when i say you are shilling for UA. Considering you have been also accusing me for “conspiracy theories” it’s clear at this point you aren’t taking in any good faith.
You are throwing tinfoil hat slang at me. Who is the “coup clique” in your world? Or wait, I’d rather not know, I’ve got better things to do with my time.
That is not what I said. We’ve seen an uprise over some years, but in Germany for instance, the right wing’s growth has stopped since a few years. Also, the more say the right wingers have, the more friendly they act towards Russia.
Ukraine’s president is Jewish and their Nazis are not elected to their parliament. That’s my point: You say that EU is not neonazi, but Ukraine is. And shall we have a look hat Nazi iconography display among Russia’s military? Your stuff just doesn’t fit. Unless you’ve been overtaken by the Russian standpoint that everybody is a Nazi who doesn’t agree with “Mother Russia”, even declared antifascists and anti-nazists.
Other than that, you’re drawing arbitrary lines and buzzing up thin air.
I know a pattern when I see one. Attributing all evil in the world to the US is one of them.
Thank you. It’s frightening how many propaganda led conspiracy theories are thrown around here without for once taking other perspectives into consideration.
EU started an economic war with Russia and then was surprised when Russia retaliated. Why would Russia sell energy to EU when EU is openly hostile to Russia?
Russia started the war on Ukraine and was surprised that Ukraine (and it’s allies) retaliated. Why would the Ukraine stop fighting Russia if Russia is obviously invading the Ukraine?
I’m not sure where you got this notion that Russia was surprised by anything here. If anything, it’s pretty clear that Russia was well prepared for the war unlike the west. Ukraine should stop fighting because the longer the war goes on the more of their country becomes destroyed, and eventually there may not be an Ukraine left. Ukraine cannot win this war.
In fact, Ukraine was going to negotiate peace with Russia back in April at which point it would’ve kept all of its territory. That’s when Bojo intervened to convince Ukraine to walk away from the deal. Now, Ukraine has lost four regions, and will keep losing territory.
Stop fighting will definitely result into no Ukraine being left. I don’t think this is a viable alternative.
Well the future is not looking bright for Ukraine but I’ll hope there will be peace sooner than later. It’ll probably end up in a frozen war. But you can not expect the Ukraine to not defend it’s county just because the chance are higher that it looses. Still no justification of the Russian aggression.
Let’s see. Current events suggests otherwise. But no one knows for sure.
If Ukraine agreed to remain neutral and respect Minsk protocol then it would have lost no territory.
If Ukraine negotiated peace in April then it would have lost less territory than Russia annex this week.
The longer this war goes on the more territory Ukraine will lose, and the worse position it will be in both militarily and economically. These are the basic facts of the situation.
Russia is methodically grinding down Ukrainian military and eventually it will break. At that point Russia will install a friendly government there. That is the most likely outcome of this situation.
The only thing the regime in Ukraine is defending is American interest in weakening Russia and Europe.
The fact that Ukraine fought a civil war for eight years against the Russian speaking population in the east instead of implementing Minsk agreements is the justification for Russia intervening.
Current events do not suggest otherwise. Russia chose to cede some territory by pulling troops back while they build up their 300k reserves. Ukraine did not defeat Russian army or the LPR and DPR militias in combat to gain the territory they captured. The balance of power has not changed. This is a war of attrition where Ukrainian army is being ground down.
This is wishful thinking. This war will grind to a halt some time in the future, like so many other wars do as well. There is no clear “winner”
What about all the lives of the Ukrainian civilization? What about the right to be a sovereign state. Do you really think Ukraine is just fighting because the US said so? How stupid.
The framing … it sounds like Ukraine was starting the fight. AFAIK it was the rebel groups in the east who started the civil war. At the very least both were fighting and both sides were violating the Minsk agreements / the ceasefire.
You keep repeating and cherry picking details supporting the Russian narrative. Please for once take other perspectives into consideration. Your current comments just sound like well educated and good formulated propaganda.
It’s not, it’s the reality of the situation and if you learn to parse western media and Pentagon briefings then you’ll see that even they are reporting this. There absolutely is a clear winner here. Ukraine started in the best position possible to stop Russia. They since lost most of their machinery and much of the troops they had. The west is not able to resupply them at the rate they are losing what they have.
This channel does a very good job breaking these things down using western sources https://www.youtube.com/c/TheNewAtlas/videos
Perhaps Ukraine should’ve thought of that when they refused to respect Minsk protocols, refused to stay neutral, and continued to try to get into NATO. The reality is that there is no scenario where Russia will tolerate nukes on their doorstep.
Ukrainian right wing regime absolutely started the fight. The rebel groups in the east started fighting back against ethnic cleansing by the regime the west installed via a coup in 2014.
No, both sides were not violating Minsk agreements. Ukrainian government was doing that with the backing from the west.
This isn’t Russian narrative. This is what plenty of western experts have been saying for decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Propaganda is ignoring decades of history and pretending that Russia just decided to attack Ukraine out of the blue because they’re evil orcs who can’t be reasoned with.
But still you are cherry picking western resources. Even the new Atlas is arguing very one sided.
Never ever have I pretended that. There are favorable geopolitical and historical reasons for Russia to start the war against the Ukraine, no doubt. But morally speaking there is still no justification of the war.
Alright now we are in conspiracy theory territory. Let’s stop here. You are not making it better for yourself proving your image wrong of arguing one sided in perfect alignment with the Russian narrative.
What specifically are you contesting there?
Morally speaking it’s no different than what the west has been doing. This is the world we live in, only way to avoid such conflicts is to respect boundaries. Russia has reasonable demands that their security concerns are respected. They were perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own things until the coup there. If NATO did not continue to expand and encircle Russia since the 90s then there would’ve been no war.
This is not a conspiracy theory it’s a documented fact. You continue to show disturbing amount of ignorance regarding the topic you’re attempting to debate. Here’s a research paper you should read to educate yourself https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299383810_The_Separatist_War_in_Donbas_A_Violent_Break-up_of_Ukraine
Which Russia did , obviously. And still wrongdoings of the west still do not justify anything of this.
That is way to simplistic. Russia is of course fine when a Russian friendly government is in power in the ukraine and is not fine, when an Europe friendly government is in power. That is pretty obvious from the last 30 years. Russia was not able to just let the Ukraine do it’s thing.
Once upon a time there even was the possibility of Russia joining NATO, if we take Putin’s words from 20 years ago seriously. And all of the Eastern Europe countries wanted desperately into the NATO because if pervious experience with Russia / the Soviet union, despite skepticism of the USA. History is a little more nuanced than “the west / NATOs big goal is simply to encircle and destroy Russia”
Oh you showed me that resource already. I don’t find the word “coup” in there. Could you please cite the part where you believe that this proves your theory.
And just because this is a scientific paper doesn’t make it a definite fact. It’s history after all, not rocket science. Keep a little skepticism.
Wrong doings of the west are direct cause for Russia starting the war. You’re still struggling with the concept of cause and effect here I see.
The government was friendly with both Europe and Russia and participated with each economic bloc. Your whole narrative is false.
Once upon a time the west had a chance to integrate Russia, instead the west chose to make Russia into an enemy and now you get to reap what you sowed.
If you actually read that and don’t think that’s a coup then what else is there to say.
Maybe follow your own advice. All you’ve done in this thread was regurgitate propaganda.
deleted by creator
Everything you wrote applies to the west in equal parts. The choice isn’t between Ukraine being neutral or being under Russian influence. It’s whether Ukraine is in western or Russian sphere of influence. The west has meddled in Ukrainian politics far more aggressively than Russia ever had. Nuland is literally on record picking the government after 2014 coup.
You actively support NATO which is a genocidal alliance responsible for deaths of millions of people. You have no moral high ground here.
deleted by creator
Unlike you, I never claimed any high ground here. I just want to live in a world that’s not being driven towards a nuclear holocaust by ideologues such as yourself.
deleted by creator
And more bleating about justifications and morals since that’s all you know. I frankly don’t give a shit about any of that. There are practical concrete steps that can be taken to avoid a nuclear holocaust, and these steps are at odds with your ideological position.
The whole idea that the westerners are driving the world towards nuclear holocaust is a basic fact of reality. NATO expansion east is the root cause of the conflict in Ukraine. NATO support for Ukraine is the root cause of the war continuing. Western imbeciles who continue to deny these basic facts are directly responsible for driving us towards the brink. You are personally responsible for this.
deleted by creator
That’s just more bloviating. The way to ensure nobody launches nuclear weapons is to avoid creating tensions that can lead to launch of nuclear weapons. Whom idiots are going to blame once the weapons are launched and we’re all dying is irrelevant.
deleted by creator
More moralizing. It absolutely does not matter who launches the nukes first, everybody is going to die exactly the same way including imbeciles who will feel morally superior dying.
It is the duty of all countries to avoid situations that can lead to use of nuclear weapons by any country. Everyone participating in escalations of tensions is equally responsible for the result.
Russia is indeed not threatening to use nuclear weapons, but it’s also clear that escalating tensions could lead to use of nuclear weapons. This isn’t some paradox. There were plenty of situations during the cold war when a nuclear disaster nearly happened by accident. I guess an utter ignoramus would not be aware of that.
deleted by creator
This isn’t fear mongering. Even Biden himself recently said that we’re closet to a nuclear holocaust since the Cuban missile crisis. Only an absolute idiot would continue to insist that the danger is imagined.
Again, what you consider acceptable plays no role in Russia or US deciding whether they will use nuclear weapons or not. Creating a situation where such weapons could be used must be avoided at all costs. The fact that someone cannot comprehend this illustrates phenomenal levels of idiocy.
The tension we are talking about here is increased escalation of hostilities between the west and Russia. While your myopic view only sees Russia using nuclear weapons, it’s entirely possible that the west will as well in their desperation. US used nuclear weapons in Japan, and considered using tactical nukes both in Korea and Vietnam. This is well documented. Should NATO choose to become directly engaged then this becomes a possibility.
deleted by creator
I’m stating a plain fact here. If you admit being in that group of people that’s you admitting to idiocy as opposed to me calling you one. Since you’re reporting that’s an admission of the fact.
You have absolutely no idea what is or isn’t probable. Everything you believe is based on the propaganda you guzzle. Everything that’s been happening with the war on the ground and the economic war has been at odds with what you thought would happen, yet here you are confidently convinced nuclear war won’t happen because you don’t think it’s reasonable.
deleted by creator
Stating that advocating for tensions that will lead to a nuclear holocaust is idiocy can’t be done enough.
I stated that people who fall into a particular category are idiots. You then proceeded to say you fall into that category. Not sure how I’m insulting you there. Seems like it’s you insulting yourself.
End of human civilization is not something to be gambled with. The fact that you’re willing to take a chance on billions of people dying for your ideology says everything I need to know about you. Western experts all agree that the chance of a nuclear exchange is increasing every day.
deleted by creator
The fact that you’d use ad hominem incorrectly is definitely par for the course.
Who lives in Canada of all places; replace the eu flag with the canadian one and you got a perfect fit…
You left the society you could improve and seek to destroy the one you’re currently in. There’s no “improvement” on your part
My parents left Russia when I was a child, I had no agency in that. Meanwhile, criticizing the society one lives in is precisely the right thing to do. That’s how progress happens. No improvement comes from people cheering on atrocities of the regimes they live under.