4 ms·

Why are you sure it is a nation. NATO is by no means an uncontroversial entity. Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. A

Why are you sure it is a nation. NATO is by no means an uncontroversial entity. Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. Although I do admit, the content of the fake news articles seem a little crude to be coming from peace activists. Personally I would post simple truthful anti-NATO, anti-military, and anti-nuclear weapons propaganda if I had the will to break into news web sites CMS. EDIT: People are rallying against my anti-militarism. I don’t think there is a point arguing that, and such an argument is blatantly out of topic. Here we are discussing that I have a reason to doubt that a nation state is behind these attacks.

rudolph9 6y ago
Maybe it’s not a nation but at the very least it’s a nation is likely turning a blind eye to those who are doing it as it aligns with their interests.
jeswin 6y ago
> Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. I wonder how Europe will respond when the next Crimea happens? Or if Taiwan gets attacked. It's a real question, and I'd love to hear from a peace-activist. I'd bet Europe will do nothing. Merkel wouldn't even openly criticize China for stripping away democracy from Hong Kong. European models work well in a world without dictatorships. But as long as we have dictatorships, rigid pacifism is just throwing militarily weaker democracies under the bus. Irrespective of what one thinks about Trump, the US military a dependable ally for (many) democracies. And perhaps the only one with the willingness to act. (Not an American.)
- runarberg 6y ago
  We are speaking very much out of topic. The fact that I’m personally against NATO adds nothing in the debate on whether a nation state was behind these attacks. But lets entertain this anyway[1]. Crimea was annexed by a militaristic nation from a smaller less—but still quite—militaristic nation. Ukraine is neighbored to the west with supporting European nation—some with a really big military, and even nuclear weapons. None of those were able—or even willing—to stop the annexation. In this instance these armies were useless. China annexed Tibet in the 50s and it wasn’t stopped. What makes you think Taiwan would be any different? China is a dictatorial power that is committing a genocide against a religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It is not stopped. What makes you think Hong Kong would be any different? Please note that invasions, and wars are not the only ways to act against human rights violations. There is also sanctions and boycotts. This was particularly effective to stop the South African apartheid. But alas, the current world powers are unwilling to apply even that to try to stop China from their human rights violations. --- 1. Even though I’ve had this conversation dozens of times, and the idea of military is so engraved into people that the idea that we don’t need it—or worse is harmful—is too alien for people to even contemplate.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > We are speaking very much out of topic. You do understand we're talking about NATO and Russia, right? I mean, there is no clearer example of why NATO was created and exists up to this day that Russia's attack and invasion of Ukraine. The reason why Russia dedicates itself to weaken NATO is precisely that as well. You cannot talk about NATO without discussing Russia's historical aggression and expansionist agenda towards all its neighbouring states. Knowing that, and as you are a self described peace activists with an axe to grind against NATO, why do you intentionally turn a blind eye to the very core of the problem?
ardy42 6y ago
> Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. Why? I would think anyone who truly wanted peace would welcome treaties meant to deter war [1], and would want to expand them globally rather than abolish them. Small wars are still wars, and there's one going on right now one country away from NATO. https://www.quora.com/What-do-NATO-rules-say-when-one-member-attacks-another https://www.quora.com/What-do-NATO-rules-say-when-one-member... [1] assuming war is never justified, even to prevent things like genocide.
barrkel 6y ago
The only two routes to peace are hegemony and balance of power. There are no other mechanisms that stop ambitious, ruthless people using force of arms to achieve their aims. Getting rid of nuclear arms means surrendering to those who don't.
Darmody 6y ago
Millions of peace activists, including yourself, have no idea about the danger that would put some eastern European countries. World peace is not maintained by hugs and kisses. Big sticks keeps peace.
- runarberg 6y ago
  So even if we peace activists are wrong in our ideology, we are still capable of braking into news site’s CMS to inject fake news to further our (in your opinion) wrong agenda.
  - Darmody 6y ago
    How does that change anything? ISIS had hackers, that doesn't make them good or anything. I don't want to compare you with ISIS, I'm just trying to make a point.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      You keep missing my point. It doesn’t matter if they are good or noble or anything (also ISIS is not a civilian group). It matters that there exist civilian groups that are a) capable, b) willing, and c) have reasons to do something like this. Civilian anti-military activists are such a group, regardless of how correct, or noble the cause is. Just to prevent misunderstanding: I am not accusing peace activists of these attacks. I’m just saying that non-state actors have ample reasons and self justifications for pulling this off. And for that matter juvenile teenagers that just so happen to hate NATO for whatever reason might just as well have done this.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        We can either spend all week coming up with fake suspects, or we could call a spade a spade based on all the piling evidence. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/04/26/russian-intelligence-operations-shifting-tactics-not-goals/index.html https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/04/26/russian...
rumanator 6y ago
> Why are you sure it is a nation. NATO is by no means an uncontroversial entity. Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. I wonder how so-called "peace activists" look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and still don't quite grasp the importance of NATO.
- runarberg 6y ago
  This is answered below. In short: NATO did not stop the annexation of Crimea.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    What? Are you serious? Do you also believe everyone should just disband their local police force because a neighbouring town experienced a crime? I would understand using Ukraine's example to argue the exact opposite, but for some reason you believe that a first sign of aggression justifies dismantling all defenses.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Yes I am... What is the point of having a military alliance to protect against foreign invasions if that military alliance won’t protect you from invasion?
      - vbsd 6y ago
        This line of thinking would be very relevant if Ukraine was a member of NATO. But since it’s not, could you elaborate? Which alliance do you mean?
        runarberg 6y ago
        You are moving the goal post a little bit. Ukraine is bordered to the west with all NATO members. They have been aspiring NATO members since the end of the cold war, currently hold the status of “intensified dialogue”. European nations have expressed interests in protecting the Ukrainian borders. It was in the direct interest of NATO to uphold that, and Ukraine is willing to receive that help. There is precedent of NATO interfering in armed conflicts outside of the borders of their member states. They did so in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars. They also did so in Afghanistan and Libya (come to think of it; NATO has demonstrated it self to be more like an invasion pact then a defensive one). Why didn’t they act in Ukraine? You tell me. Now again, there are non-intervention ways of punishing Russia for this blatant violation of international treaties, such as boycotts or sanctions. However all of the 10 NATO members that qualified opted to participate in the 2018 FIFA world cup hosted by hostile Russia. How is that for solidarity?

rudolph9 6y ago

Maybe it’s not a nation but at the very least it’s a nation is likely turning a blind eye to those who are doing it as it aligns with their interests.

jeswin 6y ago

> Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. I wonder how Europe will respond when the next Crimea happens? Or if Taiwan gets attacked. It's a real question, and I'd love to hear from a peace-activist. I'd bet Europe will do nothing. Merkel wouldn't even openly criticize China for stripping away democracy from Hong Kong. European models work well in a world without dictatorships. But as long as we have dictatorships, rigid pacifism is just throwing militarily weaker democracies under the bus. Irrespective of what one thinks about Trump, the US military a dependable ally for (many) democracies. And perhaps the only one with the willingness to act. (Not an American.)

runarberg 6y ago
We are speaking very much out of topic. The fact that I’m personally against NATO adds nothing in the debate on whether a nation state was behind these attacks. But lets entertain this anyway[1]. Crimea was annexed by a militaristic nation from a smaller less—but still quite—militaristic nation. Ukraine is neighbored to the west with supporting European nation—some with a really big military, and even nuclear weapons. None of those were able—or even willing—to stop the annexation. In this instance these armies were useless. China annexed Tibet in the 50s and it wasn’t stopped. What makes you think Taiwan would be any different? China is a dictatorial power that is committing a genocide against a religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It is not stopped. What makes you think Hong Kong would be any different? Please note that invasions, and wars are not the only ways to act against human rights violations. There is also sanctions and boycotts. This was particularly effective to stop the South African apartheid. But alas, the current world powers are unwilling to apply even that to try to stop China from their human rights violations. --- 1. Even though I’ve had this conversation dozens of times, and the idea of military is so engraved into people that the idea that we don’t need it—or worse is harmful—is too alien for people to even contemplate.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > We are speaking very much out of topic. You do understand we're talking about NATO and Russia, right? I mean, there is no clearer example of why NATO was created and exists up to this day that Russia's attack and invasion of Ukraine. The reason why Russia dedicates itself to weaken NATO is precisely that as well. You cannot talk about NATO without discussing Russia's historical aggression and expansionist agenda towards all its neighbouring states. Knowing that, and as you are a self described peace activists with an axe to grind against NATO, why do you intentionally turn a blind eye to the very core of the problem?

ardy42 6y ago

> Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. Why? I would think anyone who truly wanted peace would welcome treaties meant to deter war [1], and would want to expand them globally rather than abolish them. Small wars are still wars, and there's one going on right now one country away from NATO. https://www.quora.com/What-do-NATO-rules-say-when-one-member-attacks-another https://www.quora.com/What-do-NATO-rules-say-when-one-member... [1] assuming war is never justified, even to prevent things like genocide.

barrkel 6y ago

The only two routes to peace are hegemony and balance of power. There are no other mechanisms that stop ambitious, ruthless people using force of arms to achieve their aims. Getting rid of nuclear arms means surrendering to those who don't.

Darmody 6y ago

Millions of peace activists, including yourself, have no idea about the danger that would put some eastern European countries. World peace is not maintained by hugs and kisses. Big sticks keeps peace.

runarberg 6y ago
So even if we peace activists are wrong in our ideology, we are still capable of braking into news site’s CMS to inject fake news to further our (in your opinion) wrong agenda.
- Darmody 6y ago
  How does that change anything? ISIS had hackers, that doesn't make them good or anything. I don't want to compare you with ISIS, I'm just trying to make a point.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    You keep missing my point. It doesn’t matter if they are good or noble or anything (also ISIS is not a civilian group). It matters that there exist civilian groups that are a) capable, b) willing, and c) have reasons to do something like this. Civilian anti-military activists are such a group, regardless of how correct, or noble the cause is. Just to prevent misunderstanding: I am not accusing peace activists of these attacks. I’m just saying that non-state actors have ample reasons and self justifications for pulling this off. And for that matter juvenile teenagers that just so happen to hate NATO for whatever reason might just as well have done this.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      We can either spend all week coming up with fake suspects, or we could call a spade a spade based on all the piling evidence. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/04/26/russian-intelligence-operations-shifting-tactics-not-goals/index.html https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/04/26/russian...

rumanator 6y ago

> Why are you sure it is a nation. NATO is by no means an uncontroversial entity. Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. I wonder how so-called "peace activists" look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and still don't quite grasp the importance of NATO.

runarberg 6y ago
This is answered below. In short: NATO did not stop the annexation of Crimea.
- rumanator 6y ago
  What? Are you serious? Do you also believe everyone should just disband their local police force because a neighbouring town experienced a crime? I would understand using Ukraine's example to argue the exact opposite, but for some reason you believe that a first sign of aggression justifies dismantling all defenses.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Yes I am... What is the point of having a military alliance to protect against foreign invasions if that military alliance won’t protect you from invasion?
    - vbsd 6y ago
      This line of thinking would be very relevant if Ukraine was a member of NATO. But since it’s not, could you elaborate? Which alliance do you mean?
      - runarberg 6y ago
        You are moving the goal post a little bit. Ukraine is bordered to the west with all NATO members. They have been aspiring NATO members since the end of the cold war, currently hold the status of “intensified dialogue”. European nations have expressed interests in protecting the Ukrainian borders. It was in the direct interest of NATO to uphold that, and Ukraine is willing to receive that help. There is precedent of NATO interfering in armed conflicts outside of the borders of their member states. They did so in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars. They also did so in Afghanistan and Libya (come to think of it; NATO has demonstrated it self to be more like an invasion pact then a defensive one). Why didn’t they act in Ukraine? You tell me. Now again, there are non-intervention ways of punishing Russia for this blatant violation of international treaties, such as boycotts or sanctions. However all of the 10 NATO members that qualified opted to participate in the 2018 FIFA world cup hosted by hostile Russia. How is that for solidarity?