NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On February 17 2024 20:10 Dav1oN wrote: "The most" is still not enough to impact somehow significantly (unless the goal is a stalemate which is hard to believe in) it is almost a third year of the war and seeing all those political crap in the US just does not help to feel optimism. Don't think it needs any explanations
Giving away nukes in 1994 for a virtual guarantees was a mistake, now it is very obvious
Well, maybe call your countrymen back in Ukraine. I hear Ukrainians everyday here, young and healthy Ukrainians who decided not to fight. Instead, you point fingers at those who help you.
Easy to say when you are not in their shoes.If I was I wouldn't be prepared to die in a pointless war personally.Sending money to the most corrupt country in Europe is also not a great idea, It's been a total waste.
There are still pockets of soldiers inside the town that were abandoned but yeah, seems like they fled from the coke plant yesterday too. The entire town is now back under the control of the people of the Donbass and whats more important artillery is now further away from the civilian population in Donetsk. This will not completely stop the shelling of civilians, the Kiev government still has a lot of weapons that can reach them so the work is far from finished.
With a day or two passing since the events we are now getting a lot of photo and video from inside Avdeevka and we can get a clearer picture of the disaster that unfolded. Dead AFU and POWs all over the town which I'm obviously not going to post here and endless drone footage of groups of 5-6 AFU getting drone bombed throughout the day and night. Can't really lay the blame on Syrsky but you can't help but wonder if he deliberately sent in Azov to get obliterated inside Avdeevka trying to counterattack, politically they are a big problem for Zelensky. Zaluzhny bailed right before this but most of the critical mistakes made were under his watch
Somehow Azov is still a political problem for Zelensky(after massive restructuring), but Wagner never was for Putin; even when they marched into Moscow. Interesting. Can you expound? Also, might be worth answering that question that you ignored in relation to Navalny, might dispel the notion that you seem to just be concern trolling here.
Well. You are wrong. Geopolitical realities rarely are in accord with official narratives. So while I am not explaining my stance on the RusvsUkr Conflict here in a more general sense I think your response shows you dont really know what you are talking about.
Let's keep this civil so I will offer you right away that we can indeed agree to disagree.
(Before you attempt to put words into my mouth: I am not pro Rus or a pro Putin. Not one bit actually)
On February 19 2024 00:28 FriedrichNietzsche wrote: Well. You are wrong. Geopolitical realities rarely are in accord with official narratives. So while I am not explaining my stance on the RusvsUkr Conflict here in a more general sense I think your response shows you dont really know what you are talking about.
Let's keep this civil so I will offer you right away that we can indeed agree to disagree.
(Before you attempt to put words into my mouth: I am not pro Rus or a pro Putin. Not one bit actually)
It's actually Mearsheimer who doesn't know what he's talking about. Either that, or he's being a Kremlin useful idiot on purpose.
And, of course, you're not pro-Russian. You're just casually pushing Russian propaganda. As if we're not all aware of Mearsheimer's nonsense.
One nation invaded another with the express intent of wiping out their cultural identity. Your going to have to explain to me how that isn't black and white.
ps. "But Ukraine isn't perfect" is not a counter argument to one nation invaded another with the express intent of wiping out their cultural identity.
Still amazes me that some people still try to somehow push "invasion of a free and democratic country that posed no threat to your own" as somehow not black and white. Putin wanted a land grab, it's as easy as that, and he's willing to murder half a million people for it. Half a million, so far
My neighbour isn't perfect, but if I went over and killed him for it, no cop would listen to any of my "Yeah but he started his lawn mover at 8am! It's actually not black and white!" nonsense
Oh, and it's not a war of conquest. Russia just accidentally annexed several regions of Ukraine and enshrined that in their constitution. They're so silly that they annexed territories they don't even control!
Huh? In no way am I condoning what Russia is doing. As I would not for any aggressive country/entity in the entire history of humanity.
So what? Geopolitics isn't about ethics. I am not talking about morality or ethics when I am talking about "Not black & white". It is about power, influence & war for different purposes & goals.
Russia/Putin does not like the development of the sphere of influence of Rus shrinking decade after decade.. and whilst there is a huge difference ethically/morally of expanding your sphere of influence "peacefully" via capitalism, strategic choices, money, installing stuff.. (ect..) vs simply "war" .. the geopolitical outcome can be similiar.
On February 19 2024 01:36 FriedrichNietzsche wrote: Russia/Putin does not like the development of the sphere of influence of Rus shrinking decade after decade.. and whilst there is a huge difference ethically/morally of expanding your sphere of influence peacefully via capitalism, strategic choices, money, installing stuf.. (ect..) vs simply "war" .. the geopolitical outcome can be similiar.
The problem is Russia has nothing to offer in terms of ideology, capitalism or whatever. Have you ever wondered why Eastern Europe doesn't want Russia? It's because it's Russia's commands or else you get stamped out (e.g. Prague Spring). So it's entirely natural that they lose their sphere of influence as long as countries can get away from Russia safely.
On February 19 2024 00:40 KwarK wrote: Genocide is actually very complicated, ethically speaking. It’s not black and white. I am very smart.
I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but you actually believe this. US funding for Ukraine is tied to supporting what Democrats identify as genocide.
On February 19 2024 00:40 KwarK wrote: Genocide is actually very complicated, ethically speaking. It’s not black and white. I am very smart.
I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but you actually believe this. US funding for Ukraine is tied to supporting what Democrats identify as genocide.
Democrats don't want to approve Israel aid without Ukraine aid because Republicans want to help Israel, but not Ukraine and if they give the former on its own the latter never makes it to the floor.(because they are in Russia's pocket).
Has there been any indication that Democrats wouldn't accept it if Republicans proposed Ukraine aid without Israel aid attached? (not saying that the Dems don't support Israel)
On February 19 2024 00:40 KwarK wrote: Genocide is actually very complicated, ethically speaking. It’s not black and white. I am very smart.
I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but you actually believe this. US funding for Ukraine is tied to supporting what Democrats identify as genocide.
Democrats don't want to approve Israel aid without Ukraine aid because Republicans want to help Israel, but not Ukraine and if they give the former on its own the latter never makes it to the floor.(because they are in Russia's pocket).
Has there been any indication that Democrats wouldn't accept it if Republicans proposed Ukraine aid without Israel aid attached? (not saying that the Dems don't support Israel)
That's an argument in favor of the ethics of supporting genocide being complicated "it's okay to support genocide if...", rather than the "black and white" version of "supporting genocide is unacceptable". While Kwark isn't alone in this contradiction, I don't think that was your intention?
On February 19 2024 00:40 KwarK wrote: Genocide is actually very complicated, ethically speaking. It’s not black and white. I am very smart.
I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but you actually believe this. US funding for Ukraine is tied to supporting what Democrats identify as genocide.
Democrats don't want to approve Israel aid without Ukraine aid because Republicans want to help Israel, but not Ukraine and if they give the former on its own the latter never makes it to the floor.(because they are in Russia's pocket).
Has there been any indication that Democrats wouldn't accept it if Republicans proposed Ukraine aid without Israel aid attached? (not saying that the Dems don't support Israel)
That's an argument in favor of the ethics of supporting genocide being complicated "it's okay to support genocide if...", rather than the "black and white" version of "supporting genocide is unacceptable". While Kwark isn't alone in this contradiction, I don't think that was your intention?
Are the Democrats calling what Israel is doing "genocide" voting for the bill or are they among the Democrats who have voted against the bill because of Israel aid being included?
I think we need to leave other conflict out of this thread, I know it is relevant for the discussion, but we are doing some sort of godwinism by comparing this conflict to other conflict.
Currently, there is a situation where Russia is basically saying, no matter what it will cost us, we will keep the conflict going. No sane country wants to join in, we know how great world wars are.
Russia is happy with this "see, you are not the boss of me" situation. Since this fits well into what India, China...
Interesting paradox, western country can't bomb peace (and they've had to try to understand this).
On February 19 2024 00:40 KwarK wrote: Genocide is actually very complicated, ethically speaking. It’s not black and white. I am very smart.
I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but you actually believe this. US funding for Ukraine is tied to supporting what Democrats identify as genocide.
Democrats don't want to approve Israel aid without Ukraine aid because Republicans want to help Israel, but not Ukraine and if they give the former on its own the latter never makes it to the floor.(because they are in Russia's pocket).
Has there been any indication that Democrats wouldn't accept it if Republicans proposed Ukraine aid without Israel aid attached? (not saying that the Dems don't support Israel)
That's an argument in favor of the ethics of supporting genocide being complicated "it's okay to support genocide if...", rather than the "black and white" version of "supporting genocide is unacceptable". While Kwark isn't alone in this contradiction, I don't think that was your intention?
It wasn't my intention but your right, its clear in the context of American geopolitical relations that, according to America, support of genocide is not unacceptable. (and just to be clear, I oppose Israel's actions and have called them ethic cleansings)
But to tie this back to the thread topic, the long conflict between Israel and Palestine and the violence back and forth at least gives that conflict a bit more of a grey area then the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
On February 19 2024 00:40 KwarK wrote: Genocide is actually very complicated, ethically speaking. It’s not black and white. I am very smart.
I know this is supposed to be sarcastic, but you actually believe this. US funding for Ukraine is tied to supporting what Democrats identify as genocide.
Democrats don't want to approve Israel aid without Ukraine aid because Republicans want to help Israel, but not Ukraine and if they give the former on its own the latter never makes it to the floor.(because they are in Russia's pocket).
Has there been any indication that Democrats wouldn't accept it if Republicans proposed Ukraine aid without Israel aid attached? (not saying that the Dems don't support Israel)
That's an argument in favor of the ethics of supporting genocide being complicated "it's okay to support genocide if...", rather than the "black and white" version of "supporting genocide is unacceptable". While Kwark isn't alone in this contradiction, I don't think that was your intention?
It wasn't my intention but your right, its clear in the context of American geopolitical relations that, according to America, support of genocide is not unacceptable. (and just to be clear, I oppose Israel's actions and have called them ethic cleansings)
But to tie this back to the thread topic, the long conflict between Israel and Palestine and the violence back and forth at least gives that conflict a bit more of a grey area then the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It actually introduces heaps of grey area to the Russia-Ukraine conflict since it's the notion of an "international rules-based order" that underpins US support of Ukraine/opposition to Russia and is in irreconcilable contradiction with the US's support of genocide. It means the US supporting genocide is inextricable from the US supporting Ukraine.
I'd argue that rationalizing that the only way to oppose genocide is to support genocide is "complicated" even if such mental gymnastics are second nature for some.
I accept your assertion that supporting genocide isn't actually a "black and white" issue for what it is though.
EPT
