30 ms·
There have been multiple active wars in like 1/4 of the world the whole time since ww2 and all the time before that. The only thing different is that Ukraine is
by kungito 5y ago
There have been multiple active wars in like 1/4 of the world the whole time since ww2 and all the time before that. The only thing different is that Ukraine is closer to EU than the rest of the countries.
- tinus_hn 5y agoIn my opinion it’s just a matter of timing and sentiment; when Putin annexed Crimea nobody did anything.
- teekert 5y agoYes I realize it is perhaps hypocritical, but somehow I thought we had figured it out. I mean we (EU and US) also could have done more talking less warmongering. I’m also disappointed with our leaders.
- ogogmad 5y agoYou think that talking to Hitler is going to stop a war?
- pydry 5y agoSaying "Ukraine will remain neutral and will not join NATO" would have stopped this war. It's an unpopular fact but it's still true.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- KptMarchewa 5y agoYou must be insane to believe that. Would saying Gdańsk will be neutral and Germany can transport troops between East Prussia and rest of country stop Hitler? No, those are just pretexts. He'd just go further and further and attack while you'd be way way worse position.
- pydry 5y agoHitler didnt sit publicly on a border with troops threatening to invade for 3 months with one single demand. Putin isnt Hitler. He's a monster hes just not that specific monster.
- KptMarchewa 5y agoOh, but he did. And when he got it, then he moved to other country with other demand. Do you really believe this would end at Ukraine?
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago> Putin isnt Hitler. I agree. He wants to be like Stalin. He wants to be greater than Stalin.
- bzcat 5y agothat choice between giving in to "small" russian demands vs. fighting has played of in history multiple times and even specifically with Russia. For example after signing MRP with Germany to divide up europe between them, Russia amassed huge army on the borders of baltic states and Finland and demanded allowing Russian military bases in these countries and establishment of russian friendly governments. Finland went to war over it, took huge losses but managed to fight back well enough to stay independent even though some territory was lost. Countries that gave in to these demands without much resistance to avoid huge bloodshed were occupied shortly and lost their independence for 50 years. Multiple rounds of deportation to siberia and executions of anyone who had military, police or government background were done over the next years so in the end it's not clear if the loss of life was any smaller for these countries if it would have been if they fought back. So in hindsight it seems better choice was to fight back and have a chance of freedom. PS. it's not single demand at all, you should read more of Putins speeches and writings, especially those meant for Russian audiences. For example the one televised on 21.02.2022 where he goes on and on about some mystical "west" that has tried to destroy the russian for over a century and how ukraine has no right to exist anyway etc. That NATO talk is mostly for western audiences, internally the message seems to be more about re-establishing the russian empire (which he seems to think is god given right) and talk about superiority of the russian civilization (ruskiy mir). So everything indeed sounds eerily similar to sittuation and delusions that led to WW2.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoAnd then what? Everybody would be happy ever after? No, Russia wants a pro-Russia government in Ukraine, and they didn't like that Ukraine instead moved away from Russia and Russian influence via things like promoting the Ukranian language instead of Russian. It's a bullying tactic and infringes on a country's sovereignty.
- pydry 5y agoIs peace not the highest priority? I dont want Ukraine to be pro Russian but I dont want Kyiv to be shelled more. I dont want a nuclear war more. It absolutely is a bullying tactic, but it's also the desperate act of a country that is trying to protect the integrity of its most exposed border from an explicitly hostile power (NATO).
- danachow 5y ago> Is peace not the highest priority? No it’s not. Not if being at peace means being subjugated by a despot. You’re a fool.
- pydry 5y agoNeutrality doesnt mean subjugation. I have friends and family who are suffering because of this. I dont use my words lightly. Hearing westerners cheerlead for this war is painful, most especially when it could have been prevented just by saying NATO ends at the western Ukrainian border.
- kikimora 5y agoPardon my French but this is bullshit. Putin’s perverted logic goes like this - Ukrainian joins NATO, it establish missiles, Moscow in danger. The problem is Ukraine does not have to join NATO to have US missiles on its territory. Basic military agreement would allow that. Such an agreement technically was possible as early as 1992. The fact of life - there is no such agreement, hence whole idea of NATO or US threat to Russia is a propaganda construct. PS: I’m Russian and I want this war to stop immediately.
- thinkindie 5y agoalso - in 2022 you don't really need to have basis with nuclear missiles at the doorstep to be a threat (so much that Putin also escalated on this topic too). You have submarines that can launch an attack with nuclear missiles, you have intercontinental vectors to deliver nukes. Putin is just trying to restore the idea of Russian Empire and/or Soviet Union. Same as Hitler trying to restore the German Empire.
- roca 5y agoAlso, Russia already has NATO states on its borders, and there aren't nukes stationed there.
- jacquesm 5y agoTiny point of order: you don't actually know that.
- roca 5y agoMaybe only America truly knows, but CND (via Wikipedia) agrees with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://cnduk.org/resources/united-states-nuclear-weapons-europe/ https://cnduk.org/resources/united-states-nuclear-weapons-eu...
- jacquesm 5y ago
- simonh 5y agoEither you believe in democracy, or you do not. If the Ukrainian people want to join the EU or NATO, and our people want them to join us as well, they have the right to make that choice as free sovereign people, and we should back them up. Any other response is itself subjugation, and capitulation to terror.
- pydry 5y agoI do believe in democracy. It doesnt change anything about what I just said.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- simonh 5y agoRolling over and giving in to threats sometimes means those threats aren't carried out. Sometimes. Other times it simply emboldens and encourages the ones making the threats to threaten even more. The fact that Putin is using Ukraine's possibly joining NATO as an excuse to invade does not mean he would not have invaded anyway. It's entirely likely he would have seen that as a further sign of weakness and simply found another excuse. So no, I don't agree that what you said is true and I don't understand how you can be so sure of it.
- pydry 5y agoIt's possible but I dont think it's at all likely given the immense cost of invasion and the sheer impossibility of occupying. Putin is not unaware that Russia will come out of this bloody and bruised and nearly broken (potentially completely) and he's not irrational either.
- simonh 5y agoHe may be aware of that now, but I don't think he was at all aware of it a week ago. I think he was expecting an easy takeover just like Crimea.
- nl 5y agoUkraine hadn't even applied to join NATO. There's a big difference between Ukraine saying it won't join (that's up to them) and NATO acknowledging Russia "sphere of influence" arguments by preventivly saying they won't be allowed to.
- rosndo 5y agoLaughable to think that NATO expansion alone would’ve been sufficient for the cost-benefit calculation here. Putin wants his name in history books.
- dash2 5y agoIt is not true. There was zero chance that Ukraine was going to join NATO. It wasn’t on the table. Putin has explicitly told us why he went to war, and it is to do with reversing Russia’s territorial losses since 1991 or even 1917.
- gtf21 5y agoNo-one seriously believed Ukraine was going to join NATO, it wasn't even on the cards. This is just a false excuse trumped up by Putin's apologists. Listen to what he says: he claims Ukraine is a fake state and that it is really part of Russia. In 2005 he claimed that the collapse of the USSR was a geopolitical tragedy and a further tragedy because it meant that many "fellow citizens" were now outside of Russia's borders. I.e. Putin wants to re-establish Muscovite control over vast swathes of territory he believes are Russia's right to control.
- throwaway2037 5y agoIt pains me to admit that I agree with you. This is naturally "realpolitik", but makes many people uncomfortable.
- watwut 5y agoTo large extend, because this is international forum. While some Americans don't mind to sacrifice others, other nato members in fact mind being sacrificed. For them "realpolitik" is not "sacrifice me", no matter how much it makes you uncomfortable.
- systemBuilder 5y agoIf you think that promises never to join NATO would satisfy Putin, then you are brainwashed by Putin! Ukraine has already offered that peace offering of NATO neutrality. Putin has as also demanded that all Soviet / Warsaw pact countries become undefended so they will be naked tó Russian aggression! Putin wants to expand his dominance in northern Asia. 140m citizens is not enough; he wants to add 45m Ukrainians to have 185m! He is a colonial dictator in his homeland and does as he pleases!
- ogogmad 5y agoUkraine was not going to join NATO, given that it's having an ongoing territorial dispute with Russia. But also, Russia's belief that it's entitled to decide for another sovereign country which clubs it can and cannot join reveals what Russia's actual intentions were. [EDIT: The relevant club for Ukraine is actually the European Union.] The so-called "anti-Imperialists" on the far left like George Galloway who have always seen NATO as the enemy, and have always supported anti-NATO countries like Russia, Iran, Venezuela and China with 95% of their throats, have a really odd understanding of what imperialism is. Is this war the most blatant, non-galaxy-brained instance of "imperialism" that we've seen in many of our lifetimes?
- ssijak 5y agoAre you naive enough in the thinking that US is not doing the same or even worse than Russia (because US reach is much bigger)? Influencing, blackmailing and toppling governments they deem not cooperative enough.
- me_me_me 5y agoWho the fuck cares what US did/does, its completely separate matter. Just because US is warmongering doesn't mean russia can too.
- ssijak 5y ago"Who the fuck cares what US did/does" that is the exact mentality that get us in this kind of situations. I did not say Russia can, nobody should be able to do that. I'm just saying that the next time US warmongers and plans to destroy another country, that we in the "west" should sound the same outcry we are doing now.
- me_me_me 5y agoThe next time around people like you will be complaining about 'how come russia invaded ukraine and it was ok' so how come conflict x is suddenly not ok. This kind of argument only derails conversations and doesn't achieve anything.
- JGM_io 5y agoAlso nato not expanding towards russian borders even after promising it wouldn't by james baker, 1990[1] [1] https://ibb.co/xgqRWG3 https://ibb.co/xgqRWG3
- HstryrsrBttn 5y ago
- dncornholio 5y ago32 years ago some guy thought he could make this decision for half of Europe. I'm so shocked! NATO seems a real threat! Look at how the NATO oppresses their people, bring no economic growth and just made the countries so much worse to live in!
- trhway 5y ago>Saying "Ukraine will remain neutral and will not join NATO" would have stopped this war. >It's an unpopular fact but it's still true. absolutely not. The events of the last few days show exactly why Ukraine was right to want to join NATO. Ukraine knows Russia probably better than anybody else in the world. If anything Ukraine's refusal to promise neutrality is just a convenient - in Russian view - excuse for the invasion. Blaming Ukraine like you do is just a victim blaming.
- anonAndOn 5y agoIf your partner wants to break up with you and date other people because you're an ass and offer nothing they want, who are you to stop them? If Ukraine wants to break up with Russia and join other alliances because it's an ass and offers nothing Ukraine wants, who is Russia to stop it?
- dncornholio 5y agoThat's basically the same as saying if Puting wasn't president, the war wouldn't happened. True but meaningless. A country should decide what it does and should not rely on another country's approval.
- mvc 5y agoMaybe, maybe not, but who do you think has the right or power to declare that Ukraine will remain neutral?
- jacquesm 5y agoIt's impopular because it isn't true. And yet you keep repeating it in thread after thread.
- indymike 5y ago> It's an unpopular fact but it's still true. This is not a fact. It is at best an educated and optimistic opinion.
- CRConrad 5y ago> It is at best an educated and optimistic opinion. Not even that. It is at best an uneducated and wildly optimistic opinion.
- me_me_me 5y agoUnpopular opinion. Russia agreed to respect Ukrainian territory if they give up their nuclear arsenal. Maybe before russia starts demanding something they should first keep their promises first
- OJFord 5y agoThey did, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
- MauranKilom 5y ago> An agreement was quickly reached on Hitler's terms > Shortly afterwards, Hitler reneged on his solemn promises to respect the integrity of Czechoslovakia > Today, the Munich Agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement, and the term has become "a byword for the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states". Giving in to the demands of the aggressor may "stop" the war for the time being, yes. It doesn't actually solve the problem.
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoFor 11 months. Wow.
- OJFord 5y agoMy point is (surely obviously? I do know the war happened!) not that it worked out greatly, just that yes, they did think they might talk Hitler down. If you really get into it, there's an argument that it bought valuable time; that maybe it was only ever supposed to be a delay, but I think that might be giving too much credit - a positive sure, just perhaps not the intention: Chamberlain returned to London declaring 'peace for our time'.
- teekert 5y agoAgain I feel like anything I say is just some dude talking from a safe place far from the front lines. But I think the west could have acknowledged the fear of the NATO, the EU could have told Biden that we prefer a good relation with Russia and that if we think our culture is in fact more free, it will leak into Russia via the internet. This discussion can and will take very long. I just wanted to say I’m disappointed in almost all aspects of the situation and humanity is suffering and it hurts. Us against them is not constructive. Much hate will be created and we know what hate leads to from yet another popular franchise. It takes a long time to extinguish.
- simonh 5y agoThat's exactly the strategy we've been trying with both Russia and China for several decades now - playing soft and hoping they mellow with time. Obama tried a 'reset' of relations with Russia to improve relations in 2009, the result was the invasion of Crimea. Democratisation through osmosis has utterly failed. The result has been the subjugation of Hong Kong, genocide in Xinjiang and the invasion of Ukraine. Taiwan is next unless we wake up and make it perfectly clear to these people we absolutely will meet force with force and that we have plenty of hard power to use alongside our soft power. It may be too late for Ukraine, we failed them miserably by playing nice too long, but it's not too late for Taiwan.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y agoUkraine is both bad and good lesson for Chinese: bad, because nobody intervenes with an army. Good, because it shows what the consequences for the economy of the invader are. And the West should buckle up and prepare for retaliation - this is especially important in essential areas such as drug production. If China attacks Taiwan, it will set the clock back two decades or more, for everybody.
- throwawayffffas 5y agoTaiwan is not Ukraine. Biden has clearly stated that the US will go to war to defend Taiwan, while he had made it entirely clear that he will not go to war over Ukraine. The fact that Taiwan has been a us ally for decades and the US has strongly implied in the past and now clearly stated that they will defend them matters. The US had never even implied they would defend Ukraine and had no treaty obligation to do so. Also China is not Russia, while it's building a formidable navy, air-force and ground force and may be more capable than their Russian conventional counterparts, their nuclear deterrent may not be enough to deter an American intervention in Taiwan. Their nuclear force is small, and though rapidly growing, currently not enough to reliably threaten the US, the destruction is not so mutually assured in the China US equation.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y agoIn this particular case talking to Putin makes no sense, he only understands force. Talking makes sense much earlier but even then actions are more important. Take for example the Middle East: there is no way you could solve the problem by talking, especially now. Palestinians believe this is their soil, the Israeli think otherwise, the former send rockets, the latter shoot these rockets and send their pilots, the pilots see the attackers tied to children on the roofs... This has gone too far over the years.
- 878654Tom 5y agoYou missed the whole period of months of diplomatic communications between EU, China, US, Ukraine and Russia before Russian started the attack. In all those months it seems that only China and the Winter Olympics really did delay the attack.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoI heard Russia violated a treaty that prohibited any acts of war for a month or so after the end of the special olympics with this. I don't know the consequences to that, but it's probably trivial compared to international sanctions.
- thinkindie 5y agoRussia is targeting cities and civil targets, employing bombs that have been banned (cluster bombs), and committing war crimes, I don't think they currently give a damn about the Olympic Truce.
- throw_a_grenade 5y agoJust to correct a minor mistake: cluster bombs are not "banned", there's a treaty signed by some countries which prohibits them, but many countries are not part of that treaty, incl. Russia, Ukraine, Poland and USA for that matter. But you're right that their use against cities full of civilians is wrong, very likely a war crime.
- ravel-bar-foo 5y agoWhile Russia is committing war crimes, they have not used cluster bombs. AFAIK this claim is based on a report that they were deploying cluster bombs against a civilian mall in Kharkiv. The video shows rapid explosions falling on the mall, but not as rapidly as one would expect to see if cluster bombs were used. Most likely it was Grad (MRLS) missiles. Still likely to be a war crime, but not cluster bombs.
- jacquesm 5y ago
- chitowneats 5y agoWhat exactly did we have figured out? Perhaps I see things differently as someone in my mid-30's but we've been at war almost my entire life. Iraq and Syria were obliterated. Afghanistan didn't fare much better and was the longest war in U.S history. Russia has been killing people in its so-called "sphere of influence" my entire life as well. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine. Parts of Africa, such as the Congo and Somalia, have been de-facto war zones for decades. I don't mean to sound harsh but your comment about humanity, or even certain cross-sections of it, having somehow transcended war, strikes me as naive and in denial of what the "post war" (as in post-WWII) era has actually been like.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago"We" tried talking, "we" didn't do the warmongering, where is that coming from? Granted, the US did a lot of warmongering in the middle east; I get that they wanted to retaliate after 9/11, but instead of rooting out the ones responsible directly they made up a motive (WOMD in Iraq) and did a full scale invasion there; I'm not saying Iraq was a pleasant, peaceful country or that Hussein was a nice guy, but the US invaded it under false pretenses and dragged other countries into it, eventually leading to the rise of IS and a lot of other things that I only have a superficial knowledge of. But Europe hasn't done any of that, as far as I'm aware they've held a "live and let live" line since the fall of the USSR.
- necovek 5y agoEuropean countries were pretty heavily involved in the NATO bombing of Serbia. You can debate the justification, but it's certainly not "live and let live".
- ihateolives 5y agoYou do realize that only thing EU and US have done about Russia escalating situations all over the place (Crimea, North Caucasus, Georgia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, Dagestan etc) is talk, talk, talk. Has it helped? Nope. Russia seems to be immune to talking.
- teekert 5y agoWe talked, but what concessions did we make?
- ysamjo 5y agoFrom the list of Putin's demands, what should the West has conceded on??
- necovek 5y agoNot necessarily Putin's demands, but there's talk of Russia asking to join NATO way-back-when: not sure if those are trustworthy, but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off, and was instead part of it. Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y agoYeah. I've seen a decent article recently (it's in Russian though) about Russia/NATO talks in the 90s. The felling from 'our' side seems to go like this: we tried to get into NATO or at least prevent them from moving close to our borders, but the NATO paper pushers were afraid of losing their jobs and knocked up a threat when there were none. https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo Edit: actually, I think the google translate version is plenty readable. https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/02/02/n... This is of the main guys who did the talking in the 90s, so you might want to have a gander at it.
- nosianu 5y agoI don't know. I think you may not have seen much yet. Depending on what happens under climate change, there may be some pretty big and unsolvable conflicts ahead when entire regions are affected. Overall, assuming the universe has some arrow towards something we arbitrarily defined as "progress" has no rational scientific basis, AFAIK? "Adaptation" we have proven, but that has nothing to do with what we see as progress. Adaptation may very well be less brain, less culture, less humans. I think if you want to have only certain types of developments and behavior you need to continuously and forever fight against the randomness of the universe, whose forces, have no purpose or direction. War and aggression never was off the table - it became more organized and carried out by large-group actors. Individual violence is down, it cannot compete with organized humans. Then the nuclear deterrent may have prevented a few invasions. The post WWII peace period in the countries most here (including myself) care about was not that long, and we still had wars even so (Yugoslavia, and at the edges of "Europe" in former Soviet areas).
- throw_a_grenade 5y agoNo. The leaders should have done less talking and more warmongering. This is something that the West consistently fails to get, but it's very simple: the only thing that counts is what's done, and not what's been told. Talk is cheap. You don't need to fire a single shot, you only need to move the units closer to the border, so aggresor needs to keep some of his units on his own territory "just in case". Yeah, it would be nice if we lived in a world, where we can solve problems without involving the army at all, but it's not here yet.
- nudpiedo 5y agoI don't think OP is just a subjective and has short vision on the world geopolitics. Perhaps OP's feeling is that the large blocks had some sort of non aggresion deal, and step by step the rest of the world is going to be part of such non aggression terms as soon as they join other alliances or make their own economic dependencies. That was the hope for many.
- squarefoot 5y agoChechnya war also was very close and nobody cared since they were mostly Islamic, and the war in the former Yugoslavia happened just in the middle of Europe, but apparently many have already lost memory of it despite the atrocities committed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
- wnkrshm 5y agoI've been reading up on the history of the Bosnian genocide, I should probably also read up on Czechnya. I really hope that Ukraine won't go down like Czechnya but I fear in the end, Putin only knows one trick.
- belorn 5y agoMedia and news looked a bit difference in 1992, and it was mostly seen as an civil war of the former Yugoslavia rather than an invasion force of one country entering an other country in order to capture land. It seemed to have more similarities with the situation in Northern Ireland than with Lebensraum. Lebensraum really scares people. Religious conflict are concerning, but the French wasn't directly worried that the UK might go after them next once the Northern Ireland situation got settled.
- buran77 5y agoIt's not just the media reporting in itself as much as how concerned people are about the suffering that happens during that war. Sure people watched Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on TV but most of the Western world was free to watch it with detachment and just a tiniest bit of worry. There has been constant fighting in the Middle East for decades but it's just too far away for people in the West to process that concern, or to blame the countries committing those atrocities (whether Russia or the US). It's "countries far away we don't like anyway", "people who aren't like us anyway". Now it's close to home, happening to people like us. Now it's a genuine concern and those who are close enough in Europe are forced to process those worries, go through them, make scenarios, visualize the loss because it may be their loss soon. When Russia was bombing the hell out of Syria very few people felt the visceral hate or fear they feel now. And I bet far fewer people remember that this is even more recent than the Crimean invasion and that they've kept bombing Syria well into 2021. When Russia was invading Georgia we just watched the news and shook our heads. Same when Russia and Turkey were fighting their proxy wars in the Caucasus, Western and Central Asia. All too far from us to care. It was all about thoughts and prayers until the bombs hit close to home.
- ywain 5y ago> The only thing different is that Ukraine is closer to EU than the rest of the countries. That's one (big) factor, but Putin's casual mention that nuclear weapons were on the table if anyone got in his way was also a good way to get everyone's attention.
- usrusr 5y agoHow many of those were active landgrabs though? Wars for redrawing borders have really become exceptionally rare. Particularly if you exclude those staged by Putin on some weak pretense (Putin, or whether his real name is. After the last weeks I don't believe a single word he says)
- helge9210 5y ago> Wars for redrawing borders have really become exceptionally rare Since Yalta-Potsdam conferences world doesn't recognize the right of conquest. Since Peace of Westphalia historical grounds for aggression were not valid. In his speech Putin dived directly to Rus, denying centuries of political development. That is the main reason Russia is dangerous to everyone: not because of an attack on Ukraine, but because of dismantling the current world order. WW3 is not "Russia against the world". WW3 is every country seeing the possibility of quietly entering the fry and getting out in a better position.
- CRConrad 5y ago> (Putin, or whether his real name is. After the last weeks I don't believe a single word he says) Putlin. Or Putler.
- watwut 5y agoThe other different thing is that Russia is now perceived as potential threat to NATO members. As in, people wonder about where Russian aggression will continue after.
- CRConrad 5y agoSweden and Finland have dithered for decades, not applied for NATO membership because "it might provoke Russia". Maybe now they'll finally learn that the biggest danger with a NATO membership is not having it: So far, AFAIK, exactly none of the countries attacked and invaded by Russia have been NATO members.
- _zpij 5y agoIt seems that some people are less worthy of others. (Mostly) ignoring decades and decades of constant war, and hundreds of thousands of deaths, just because of - what? The "other side" is the enemy? The "other side" lives far? The "other side" is of a different religion? The "other side" has a different skin colour? I also find it kind of hypocritical (but isn't that to be expected in war politics) of the European NATO members that they were completely fine with breaking up Yugoslavia, arming separatist movements, taking sides in a civil war and bombarding a sovereign country, and then ending it up with another war and a three month (THREE MONTHS) constant bombing of a sovereign country with the use of weapons with depleted uranium. This led to some Italian army members receiving hefty compensations from Italy after they were diagnosed with cancer. I talked with some of them, this is actually how I found out about the subject. In the end that money is worthless when you know that you have cancer. And what I am most appalled by is the fact that my generation knows nothing about this, and that the people that suffered the bombs cannot do anything about it. They live with the traumas from the bombardment and with the fear that them or their children will one day get cancer.
- CRConrad 5y ago> constant bombing of a sovereign country with the use of weapons with depleted uranium. You don't "bomb a country" with depleted uranium. That's used for its high density, which gives a lot of kinetic energy to conventional ammunition made out of it: Armour-penetrating shots. Anti-tank ammo, not bombs.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoI'm never sure how to take these comments. Are you saying Ukraine is no big deal and anyone complaining about it should shut up, or are you saying it's a shame that people didn't take the other wars more seriously? Either way, you should be more specific in your complaint so people can disagree or not, without having to guess what you mean and inadvertantly assume you're pro-invasion and trying to undermine the global response to it.