13 ms·

> Devils advocate: if the majority of business software is sold from the US and the US is refusing to sell software to Russia, what choice is there? "Leave Ukr

> Devils advocate: if the majority of business software is sold from the US and the US is refusing to sell software to Russia, what choice is there? "Leave Ukraine and pay for the war crimes committed there" is an obvious choice that comes to my mind.

neverminder 5y ago
> Leave Ukraine and pay for the war crimes committed there This is what eventually will happen, but over Putin's dead body most likely. "Live by the sword, die by the sword", that kinda thing, etc. Everybody agrees that by starting this pointless war Putin has painted himself into a corner.
- w_t_payne 5y ago
  And a cornered rat may bite.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    A cornered rat is still just a rat.
    - ttybird2 5y ago
      I would be quite scared if I saw a rat holding thousands of nuclear warheads.
      - jamincan 5y ago
        If he has thousands of nuclear warheads, he's not just a rat and he's not cornered. ie. there are still diplomatic ways out of this open to Putin. If he is not open to considering them and feels cornered, it is his own shortsightedness and failing.
      - glogla 5y ago
        Who knows if they work. Russians aren't even able to maintain army supply trucks properly.
        criddell 5y ago
        95% of them could be broken and it's still a scary thought.
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        I wonder that too. It has been said that you should never draw your pistol unless you are going to shoot. I don't know if that's true; but I do think it's unwise to threaten violence unless you are quite sure you are prepared to carry through. I think Putin is prepared to carry through (he's made the threat more than once). Russia seems to be losing in Ukraine; but they can't be seen to be slinking away with their tail between their legs. So I think there's a good chance Russia will pop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. I haven't any idea how NATO might select their target, though; striking a city would be gross over-reaction, and striking Russians in Ukraine would be rather counterproductive.
        sterlind 5y ago
        > For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Ukraine is not in NATO. That makes it a first strike, not a retaliatory strike. Putin's propaganda has been that NATO is an aggressor threatening Russia. If NATO strikes Russia in retaliation for a strike on a non-member country that only vindicates him, and you know, leads directly to WWIII
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Hey, I didn't mean to sound like a cheerleader for global thermonuclear war! I'm just observing that the logic of nuclear deterrence calls for a response whoever Russia attacks. If it becomes clear that Russia can nuke anyone it likes as long as they're not in NATO, then it can march into e.g. Georgia or Armenia with a company of conscripts, and take over, declaring that any resistance will be met with nukes. Suppose Russia pops a small nuke in Ukraine? Really, that's not going to achieve any major military victory. They'd need a few to end the war in Russia's favour. That would result in clouds of fallout afflicting NATO countries. At some point you'd have to say "that's enough". But at what point? After two? A dozen? Only after the first megaton city-flattener? I was a member of CND for a year, back in the 80's. I still favour unilateral disarmament. I quit not because I didn't support the goals, but because I was shocked at the political infighting I observed at the Annual General Meeting.
- hericium 5y ago
  > Everybody agrees that by starting this pointless war Putin has painted himself into a corner. Not everybody. The "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" theorem is still alive. In any way, cornered Putin is angry Putin and angry Putin is dangerous and may be unpredictable.
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    I've heard that claim as well, but I don't know enough to judge it. Do you of a good source that covers the topic?
    - gbuk2013 5y ago
      First 25 mins of https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE is a good start
    - NonEUCitizen 5y ago
      A 2015 talk by John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago discusses the "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" angle. Mearsheimer calls himself a "realist." https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
      - glogla 5y ago
      - _djo_ 5y ago
        Mearsheimer completely ignores the agency of small European countries and makes the classic IR mistake of assuming that what might be 'rational' behaviour for a state in a Realist sense is also correct behaviour. You can use Realism to predict that Russia would eventually try to regain the power it lost over Eastern Europe and the Baltics with the dissolution of the USSR. In fact that very understanding and fear is precisely why countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics pushed so hard to join NATO and the EU, because they predicted that would happen. But that doesn't make Russia's actions the right move, either legally or morally. They have agency too and could always have made the choice to not to try to act like an empire with violent hegemony over their neighbours.
- notpachet 5y ago
  Hopefully it ends up being more akin to "live by the sword, die by the word".
  - neverminder 5y ago
    The West already tried to talk Putin to death. That didn't seem to work.
dijit 5y ago
Well. Which one of these options is least bad then? I don’t think the US would leave Iraq because they couldn’t buy IP licensing. They’d probably say that the IP licensing is invalid and do it anyway. Anyway. Obviously I want this invasion to end, but obviously they don’t. So, this move makes sense given that context.
- salzig 5y ago
  Sadly true. IMHO to only thing left, is removing russian translation from every downloadable software. Side effect, maybe more russian speaking/reading people learn english or another language (at least reading).
  - bigfudge 5y ago
    This seems like an excellent idea. How easy would it be for, e.g. MS to implement. Are there any potential downsides?
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Not gonna help, they'll go back to using unofficial translations. There were a lot of those back in the 90s when Western software companies ignored ex-Soviet markets because there wasn't any money to be made there. I've used a lot of them personally, especially games. Some of those translations were pretty good, and some were so bad they were actually hilarious, and have become a meme (like "wasted → потрачено" in GTA San Andreas)
    - satellite2 5y ago
      The goal of sanctions is generally not to make anything impossible, just to make it painful and/or expensive.
    - baud147258 5y ago
      > using unofficial translations I know one indie game whose Russian localization was done and distributed with the pirated version first, before being adopted by the dev and added to the official distribution. (of course since the guy is only doing gamedev as a hobby, his stance regarding piracy of his own games is quite relaxed)
jansen555 5y ago
Doesn't work this way. Might is right. You are talking emotionally. Ukraine is fighting this alone with not much military assistance. Why on earth Russia leaves and pay? Who is the law enforcer and judicial system ensuring that happen? Oh yeah whoever has the biggest gun AND willing to use it. Hey, that happens to be Russia too.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines. You can't do that here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: this is what I mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30553214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30553214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30455525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30455525 It's pretty shocking to see an account posting that abusively on a regular basis. Seriously not cool, and we'd already asked you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29213678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29213678 (Nov 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26905306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26905306 (April 2021)
- krisoft 5y ago
  That is a nice reasoning and you are right: Russia is able to commit atrocities. Where you go wrong is that the comment you were replying to was not talking about their ability but their options. The grand parent comment said: (paraphrasing) “Hey, what can Russia do, if no one licences them software?” To which the comment you responded said (again paraphrasing) “They have the option to stop the war”. You are not disputing that Russia has the option to retreat, you are just talking about how they are strong and nobody can force them. Which might be true, might be false but certainly is a complete non sequitur in the context of this conversation.
8358373583 5y ago
That's only a choice for Putin and his inner circle. The wast majority of Russian people have nothing to do with what the state is doing.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Any state ultimately derives its power from the people. There are countless examples of this, from peaceful protests to civil disobedience, violent revolutions and military coups. Or from a different perspective: if the opinion of the citizens doesn't matter, then why is Putin shutting down independent journalism and turning up the propaganda in his own country? That only makes sense if he cares what the public thinks.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The very fact that opposing media is being shut down, matters. Shutting down the media limits the average person’s reason to know there is even a thing to protest against. It’s not absolute power over the people, but it does diminish the power of the people.
    - SyzygistSix 5y ago
      It's also an obvious sign to anyone with half a brain that the remaining state run media is full of lies.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Harder to spot if you don’t have an outside view. From inside, all you hear and see is that the media which was shut down were “evil propagandist” aligned with $ENEMY who wanted to harm $NATION by spreading lies about $POLITICAL_BUZZWORD.
  - 8358373583 5y ago
    No a state derives its power from capacity for and willingness to use violence. The state is whatever group has the most of that in a given area. The population can obviously be a threat to a state, but it's ridiculous to expect people to risk their life to stop a state just because they happened to be born in its territory.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
list countries that have paid for war crimes when not forced to do so. an unrealistic choice is not a choice.
Dah00n 5y ago
So Russia should follow US IP law but pay for warcrimes unlike the US? Why is it only when it is good for the west that other countries should follow the same rules?
goldfeld 5y ago
It's easy to ride a high horse and advise states (which have always been vicious, in old or modern history) to do the right thing, period. Who has done more war crimes and inhumane acts in recent years, and in recent decades, around the world, Russia or the U.S.? Which is to say, the U.S. cannot go around lecturing anyone about morality or worse. Have people forgotten the nuclear bombing of huge Japanese cities? It's beyond atrocious.
- Fauntleroy 5y ago
  Following this logic, no one should ever feel guilty or be compelled to stop doing something morally wrong, because someone else probably did worse in recent memory. Someone else's bad behavior does not manifest _permission_ for you to do the same.
- dzader 5y ago
  Simple, Russia has.
- AvesMerit 5y ago
  Look, undeniably, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a bad thing. It's not constructive to dredge up unrelated bad actions from other actors
charles_f 5y ago
Although death by a thousand cuts is something, I doubt they would retire from Ukraine because Word now says "please activate". The cost of just pirating it is much lower than that of stopping the war
leshenka 5y ago
I’ve never been to ukraine, I didn’t commit any war crimes there, honestly!
ironcurtain 5y ago
Where were you for the last 8 years when the war crimes were committed in the East of Ukraine? West didn’t talk about it, CNN wasn’t putting up banner “We are Donbass” but bombing and shelling of the cities was happening nonetheless. Get of your high horse, it doesn’t have legs to stand on.
- jotm 5y ago
  Watched too much Russian news? I have no idea what was going on in DNR/LNR. The western stance was that Ukraine was combating separatists aided by the Russian government. The Russian narrative of "we're helping the newly recognized DNR/LNR" doesn't make much sense - why are they invading all of Ukraine to make those two regions safe? This is sort of like if the US "helped" Taiwan by taking Beijing. Or South Korea by capturing Pyongyang. Also, the Russian news keep saying "DNR/LNR forces aided by Russian forces". When it's clear it's just the Russian military.
- AvesMerit 5y ago
  Why does it matter where this person was 8 years ago? Undeniably, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a bad thing. Please be mindful to leave constructive comments that add to the conversation
  - maydup-nem 5y ago
    > Why does it matter where this person was 8 years ago? Not 8 years ago, but for the last 8 years. You know, being unaware of some pretty basic circumstances around an issue and then claiming undeniability is pretty rich of you. > constructive comments that add to the conversation How did your comment add to the conversation? You just repeated a common black/white sentiment and showed that you weren't fully informed about the topic. Please, be mindful next time.
- riku_iki 5y ago
  I think cities from both sides of border were shelled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Mariupol_rocket_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Mariupol_rocket_a...

neverminder 5y ago

> Leave Ukraine and pay for the war crimes committed there This is what eventually will happen, but over Putin's dead body most likely. "Live by the sword, die by the sword", that kinda thing, etc. Everybody agrees that by starting this pointless war Putin has painted himself into a corner.

w_t_payne 5y ago
And a cornered rat may bite.
- gambiting 5y ago
  A cornered rat is still just a rat.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    I would be quite scared if I saw a rat holding thousands of nuclear warheads.
    - jamincan 5y ago
      If he has thousands of nuclear warheads, he's not just a rat and he's not cornered. ie. there are still diplomatic ways out of this open to Putin. If he is not open to considering them and feels cornered, it is his own shortsightedness and failing.
    - glogla 5y ago
      Who knows if they work. Russians aren't even able to maintain army supply trucks properly.
      - criddell 5y ago
        95% of them could be broken and it's still a scary thought.
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        I wonder that too. It has been said that you should never draw your pistol unless you are going to shoot. I don't know if that's true; but I do think it's unwise to threaten violence unless you are quite sure you are prepared to carry through. I think Putin is prepared to carry through (he's made the threat more than once). Russia seems to be losing in Ukraine; but they can't be seen to be slinking away with their tail between their legs. So I think there's a good chance Russia will pop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. I haven't any idea how NATO might select their target, though; striking a city would be gross over-reaction, and striking Russians in Ukraine would be rather counterproductive.
        sterlind 5y ago
        > For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Ukraine is not in NATO. That makes it a first strike, not a retaliatory strike. Putin's propaganda has been that NATO is an aggressor threatening Russia. If NATO strikes Russia in retaliation for a strike on a non-member country that only vindicates him, and you know, leads directly to WWIII
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Hey, I didn't mean to sound like a cheerleader for global thermonuclear war! I'm just observing that the logic of nuclear deterrence calls for a response whoever Russia attacks. If it becomes clear that Russia can nuke anyone it likes as long as they're not in NATO, then it can march into e.g. Georgia or Armenia with a company of conscripts, and take over, declaring that any resistance will be met with nukes. Suppose Russia pops a small nuke in Ukraine? Really, that's not going to achieve any major military victory. They'd need a few to end the war in Russia's favour. That would result in clouds of fallout afflicting NATO countries. At some point you'd have to say "that's enough". But at what point? After two? A dozen? Only after the first megaton city-flattener? I was a member of CND for a year, back in the 80's. I still favour unilateral disarmament. I quit not because I didn't support the goals, but because I was shocked at the political infighting I observed at the Annual General Meeting.
hericium 5y ago
> Everybody agrees that by starting this pointless war Putin has painted himself into a corner. Not everybody. The "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" theorem is still alive. In any way, cornered Putin is angry Putin and angry Putin is dangerous and may be unpredictable.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  I've heard that claim as well, but I don't know enough to judge it. Do you of a good source that covers the topic?
  - gbuk2013 5y ago
    First 25 mins of https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE is a good start
  - NonEUCitizen 5y ago
    A 2015 talk by John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago discusses the "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" angle. Mearsheimer calls himself a "realist." https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
    - glogla 5y ago
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      Mearsheimer completely ignores the agency of small European countries and makes the classic IR mistake of assuming that what might be 'rational' behaviour for a state in a Realist sense is also correct behaviour. You can use Realism to predict that Russia would eventually try to regain the power it lost over Eastern Europe and the Baltics with the dissolution of the USSR. In fact that very understanding and fear is precisely why countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics pushed so hard to join NATO and the EU, because they predicted that would happen. But that doesn't make Russia's actions the right move, either legally or morally. They have agency too and could always have made the choice to not to try to act like an empire with violent hegemony over their neighbours.
notpachet 5y ago
Hopefully it ends up being more akin to "live by the sword, die by the word".
- neverminder 5y ago
  The West already tried to talk Putin to death. That didn't seem to work.

dijit 5y ago

Well. Which one of these options is least bad then? I don’t think the US would leave Iraq because they couldn’t buy IP licensing. They’d probably say that the IP licensing is invalid and do it anyway. Anyway. Obviously I want this invasion to end, but obviously they don’t. So, this move makes sense given that context.

salzig 5y ago
Sadly true. IMHO to only thing left, is removing russian translation from every downloadable software. Side effect, maybe more russian speaking/reading people learn english or another language (at least reading).
- bigfudge 5y ago
  This seems like an excellent idea. How easy would it be for, e.g. MS to implement. Are there any potential downsides?
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
  Not gonna help, they'll go back to using unofficial translations. There were a lot of those back in the 90s when Western software companies ignored ex-Soviet markets because there wasn't any money to be made there. I've used a lot of them personally, especially games. Some of those translations were pretty good, and some were so bad they were actually hilarious, and have become a meme (like "wasted → потрачено" in GTA San Andreas)
  - satellite2 5y ago
    The goal of sanctions is generally not to make anything impossible, just to make it painful and/or expensive.
  - baud147258 5y ago
    > using unofficial translations I know one indie game whose Russian localization was done and distributed with the pirated version first, before being adopted by the dev and added to the official distribution. (of course since the guy is only doing gamedev as a hobby, his stance regarding piracy of his own games is quite relaxed)

jansen555 5y ago

Doesn't work this way. Might is right. You are talking emotionally. Ukraine is fighting this alone with not much military assistance. Why on earth Russia leaves and pay? Who is the law enforcer and judicial system ensuring that happen? Oh yeah whoever has the biggest gun AND willing to use it. Hey, that happens to be Russia too.

amcoastal 5y ago
- dang 5y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines. You can't do that here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: this is what I mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30586240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30553214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30553214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30455525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30455525 It's pretty shocking to see an account posting that abusively on a regular basis. Seriously not cool, and we'd already asked you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29213678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29213678 (Nov 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26905306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26905306 (April 2021)
krisoft 5y ago
That is a nice reasoning and you are right: Russia is able to commit atrocities. Where you go wrong is that the comment you were replying to was not talking about their ability but their options. The grand parent comment said: (paraphrasing) “Hey, what can Russia do, if no one licences them software?” To which the comment you responded said (again paraphrasing) “They have the option to stop the war”. You are not disputing that Russia has the option to retreat, you are just talking about how they are strong and nobody can force them. Which might be true, might be false but certainly is a complete non sequitur in the context of this conversation.

8358373583 5y ago

That's only a choice for Putin and his inner circle. The wast majority of Russian people have nothing to do with what the state is doing.

wongarsu 5y ago
Any state ultimately derives its power from the people. There are countless examples of this, from peaceful protests to civil disobedience, violent revolutions and military coups. Or from a different perspective: if the opinion of the citizens doesn't matter, then why is Putin shutting down independent journalism and turning up the propaganda in his own country? That only makes sense if he cares what the public thinks.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 5y ago
  The very fact that opposing media is being shut down, matters. Shutting down the media limits the average person’s reason to know there is even a thing to protest against. It’s not absolute power over the people, but it does diminish the power of the people.
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    It's also an obvious sign to anyone with half a brain that the remaining state run media is full of lies.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Harder to spot if you don’t have an outside view. From inside, all you hear and see is that the media which was shut down were “evil propagandist” aligned with $ENEMY who wanted to harm $NATION by spreading lies about $POLITICAL_BUZZWORD.
- 8358373583 5y ago
  No a state derives its power from capacity for and willingness to use violence. The state is whatever group has the most of that in a given area. The population can obviously be a threat to a state, but it's ridiculous to expect people to risk their life to stop a state just because they happened to be born in its territory.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

list countries that have paid for war crimes when not forced to do so. an unrealistic choice is not a choice.

Dah00n 5y ago

So Russia should follow US IP law but pay for warcrimes unlike the US? Why is it only when it is good for the west that other countries should follow the same rules?

goldfeld 5y ago

It's easy to ride a high horse and advise states (which have always been vicious, in old or modern history) to do the right thing, period. Who has done more war crimes and inhumane acts in recent years, and in recent decades, around the world, Russia or the U.S.? Which is to say, the U.S. cannot go around lecturing anyone about morality or worse. Have people forgotten the nuclear bombing of huge Japanese cities? It's beyond atrocious.

Fauntleroy 5y ago
Following this logic, no one should ever feel guilty or be compelled to stop doing something morally wrong, because someone else probably did worse in recent memory. Someone else's bad behavior does not manifest _permission_ for you to do the same.
dzader 5y ago
Simple, Russia has.
AvesMerit 5y ago
Look, undeniably, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a bad thing. It's not constructive to dredge up unrelated bad actions from other actors

charles_f 5y ago

Although death by a thousand cuts is something, I doubt they would retire from Ukraine because Word now says "please activate". The cost of just pirating it is much lower than that of stopping the war

leshenka 5y ago

I’ve never been to ukraine, I didn’t commit any war crimes there, honestly!

ironcurtain 5y ago

Where were you for the last 8 years when the war crimes were committed in the East of Ukraine? West didn’t talk about it, CNN wasn’t putting up banner “We are Donbass” but bombing and shelling of the cities was happening nonetheless. Get of your high horse, it doesn’t have legs to stand on.

jotm 5y ago
Watched too much Russian news? I have no idea what was going on in DNR/LNR. The western stance was that Ukraine was combating separatists aided by the Russian government. The Russian narrative of "we're helping the newly recognized DNR/LNR" doesn't make much sense - why are they invading all of Ukraine to make those two regions safe? This is sort of like if the US "helped" Taiwan by taking Beijing. Or South Korea by capturing Pyongyang. Also, the Russian news keep saying "DNR/LNR forces aided by Russian forces". When it's clear it's just the Russian military.
AvesMerit 5y ago
Why does it matter where this person was 8 years ago? Undeniably, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a bad thing. Please be mindful to leave constructive comments that add to the conversation
- maydup-nem 5y ago
  > Why does it matter where this person was 8 years ago? Not 8 years ago, but for the last 8 years. You know, being unaware of some pretty basic circumstances around an issue and then claiming undeniability is pretty rich of you. > constructive comments that add to the conversation How did your comment add to the conversation? You just repeated a common black/white sentiment and showed that you weren't fully informed about the topic. Please, be mindful next time.
riku_iki 5y ago
I think cities from both sides of border were shelled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Mariupol_rocket_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Mariupol_rocket_a...