5 ms·

Not endorsing any side of the conflict, but just the fact that humanity is able to make missiles that fly at 1.7 km/s is mind boggling to me. Imagine watching t

by k_sze 5y ago

Not endorsing any side of the conflict, but just the fact that humanity is able to make missiles that fly at 1.7 km/s is mind boggling to me. Imagine watching that fly overhead on a clear day. Actually I suspect one might totally miss the sight even if they were told “It’s coming. Watch for it.”

Maursault 5y ago
> Not endorsing any side of the conflict Well, when you put it that way, elevating the aggressors to an equivalent sympathetic status as the clear and undeniable victims, I am certain you've just inadvertently endorsed Putin. Congratulations.
darig 5y ago
gruturo 5y ago
> Not endorsing any side of the conflict Please do endorse Ukraine's side of the conflict. They are being invaded and murdered in their homeland. They did not start this. They did not threaten anybody. It's not OK to see what's happening and remain neutral.
- nix23 5y ago
  - warlog 5y ago
    Agreed. MSM is preaching an agenda that is willfully blind to history. Ukraine is tragic, but don't for a second subscribe to the "unprovoked" narrative.
    - mountainriver 5y ago
      I’m sorry how was it provoked? By Ukraine wanting to join nato? They should be allowed to align with whomever they want
  - QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
    As Russia fucks more and more of its neighbors, the remainder increasingly scramble to join the "fuck you right back" alliance. This isn't complicated.
    - nix23 5y ago
      > "fuck you right back" alliance Ah yes the wonderful US peace strategy...let us go back to a Cold War, and before that, a friendly remainder to buy some raytheon, lockheed and boing stocks.
      - djohnston 5y ago
        You seem to think the US forced Russia to invade a sovereign neighbor. That didn't happen.
        nix23 5y ago
        Stop with your wannabe attempt to put words in my mouth i never said.
      - tiahura 5y ago
        It is a wonderful strategy. Without firing a shot, Russia will collapse. It won’t take years for the lack of supplies and parts from all those German manufacturers like Siemens, and the dozens of others that the whole world depends on. It won’t take long for them to become N Mongolia.
        nix23 5y ago
        China is a neighbor of Russia. One has oil and gas the other not so...but a massive economy. Do you really want to them to join forces because there is no other way?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nsv 5y ago
    If many countries near Russia prefer to align themselves with NATO and the west, how will violent behavior from Russia improve the situation? It seems like it will do the opposite.
    - nix23 5y ago
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > because everyone told Russia that the NATO expansion is not going East No, “everyone” didn't. In fact, no one told Russia anything, the same way the Soviet Union didn't tell California anything. The most anyone has even alleged is that executive branch officials of a particular administration around 1989 made private assurances not incorporated into any kind of international agreement that there were no plans for further NATO eastward expansion beyond united Germany, which was considered by the USSR an expansion from pre-unification West Germany. (At least one of the bases frequently cited for this actually refers not NATO having no plans to deploy forces in the former East Germany after unification, not eastward NATO expansion at all and another was actually a communication of possible agenda items that could be open for negotiation if the USSR came to the table on German unification, not even a promise of current intent, but we’re not talking about the basis of the allegation but the allegation itself.) Now, the USSR was a big grown up country then and knew quite well the difference between private assurances and binding commitments incorporated intoninternational agreements like treaties, and was quite aware that even if it has the former, it never had the latter. Had that been an international agreement, we could discuss whether Russia alone was a successor to it and, if so, if they were the sole successor to it or, otherwise, what the effect of disunity among the former Soviet Republics as to intent to continue it and other questions that would determine whether it was still an operative, binding agreement, but it was never an a binding agreement in the first place, so there's was nothing for post-Soviet successor states to inherit. Not that even if a treaty did exist, it's violation by admitting willing members to a defensive alliance would justify an invasion of Ukraine. This is seriously like murdering a neighbor who is discussing selling land to someone because you thinks the prospective buyer isn't behaving in line with a casual statement never incorporated into a contract or other binding commitment that they made to your dad about not wanting to buy land near his a couple years before he died 30 years ago, when several neighbors, and your siblings who have inherited part of your dad's land, have voluntarily sold him land starting about a decade after that conversation. It's insane.
- tony124 5y ago
  I find this article (in german) very insightful; it has helped me to better understand why this war happened: https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-4-vom-15-maerz-2022.html https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-4-...
  - nix23 5y ago
    Excellent book with the same narrative (in german): https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1053133782 https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A105313...
- gruturo 5y ago
  To nix23's answer, which is now dead and can't be further replied to: Funny, that link you posted was already grey on my browser, and yet I rest my case: NATO didn't invade any country and forced it to join. The fact that most eastern European countries lined up to join the very first moment they could, is because they knew fully well what monster lied to the east, and experienced its brutality within living memory. Most importantly, they lined up to join because they are free to choose, and so they did. Attacking countries because they don't like you and join your opponent is a laughably thin bullshit pretext. Russia already bordered 6 NATO countries, annexing Ukraine would actually push that number UP. Is that going to be justification for further aggression? You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny, therefore they are free to join NATO, the EU, my book club and whatever else they choose, or you don't, in which case I'd like to understand why, in your opinion, they are not free, and, apparently, why it's ok in your opinion to murder and invade them if they try. I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization, despite being convinced of that, because that's not the point here: even if they weren't, it's still NOT OKAY to attack countries who wish to stop being threatened by you, and seek its protection.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >NATO didn't invade any country Oh really that's new for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations >You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis). >I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization Funny that you say that, because they think they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO >>NATO constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party
    - signatoremo 5y ago
      > Oh really that's new for me: Which countries NATO invaded again? > So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis) Cuba is still in charge of their destiny. They are still hostile to the US 60 years on. Cuba crisis was settled by the Soviet withdrawing their nuclear weapon, not by a US invasion. Apparently the Soviets cared more about having a stable relationship with the US than popping up Cuba.
- Rury 5y ago
  >They did not threaten anybody Try viewing things from another perspective for a moment. If there was an unfriendly alliance to the United States, and Mexico declared they wanted to join this alliance, and were being supplied military weapons and training by this alliance over the past few years... wouldn't you think the US would be somewhat alarmed or threatened? (Cuba missile crisis hello?) Furthermore, in such a situation, how likely would the US warn Mexico to not join this alliance, and/or threaten to invade if they didn't demiliterize? How likely would we invade if they refused? We did invade Iraq after all, over supposedly weapons of mass destruction - why not an unfriendly nation on our border that has been militarizing the past few years? Now replace Ukraine with Mexico, and Russia with US, and that's basically the situation.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    This happened in the run-up to World War I, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram Mexico then made it clear that they would not be joining an anti-U.S. alliance in the near term, and relations were kept quite cordial throughout. Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to.
    - k_sze 5y ago
      Huh? How does that prove the exact opposite? Mexico said they won’t join anti-US alliance. Ukraine still wanted to join NATO right before the invasion.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        There are many, many reasons why Ukraine would not have been able to join NATO in the foreseeable future, and this was very clear to all parties. Ironically, the Crimean situation is one which Russia has direct influence on. Ukraine's retaliatory moves on the status of the Russian language likely would've been naturally on the table in the context of joining either NATO or EU.
    - Rury 5y ago
323 5y ago
Russian cruise missile flying (slowly) over Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PORUIzOcVYE https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PORUIzOcVYE

by k_sze 5y ago

Maursault 5y ago

> Not endorsing any side of the conflict Well, when you put it that way, elevating the aggressors to an equivalent sympathetic status as the clear and undeniable victims, I am certain you've just inadvertently endorsed Putin. Congratulations.

darig 5y ago

gruturo 5y ago

> Not endorsing any side of the conflict Please do endorse Ukraine's side of the conflict. They are being invaded and murdered in their homeland. They did not start this. They did not threaten anybody. It's not OK to see what's happening and remain neutral.

nix23 5y ago
- warlog 5y ago
  Agreed. MSM is preaching an agenda that is willfully blind to history. Ukraine is tragic, but don't for a second subscribe to the "unprovoked" narrative.
  - mountainriver 5y ago
    I’m sorry how was it provoked? By Ukraine wanting to join nato? They should be allowed to align with whomever they want
- QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
  As Russia fucks more and more of its neighbors, the remainder increasingly scramble to join the "fuck you right back" alliance. This isn't complicated.
  - nix23 5y ago
    > "fuck you right back" alliance Ah yes the wonderful US peace strategy...let us go back to a Cold War, and before that, a friendly remainder to buy some raytheon, lockheed and boing stocks.
    - djohnston 5y ago
      You seem to think the US forced Russia to invade a sovereign neighbor. That didn't happen.
      - nix23 5y ago
        Stop with your wannabe attempt to put words in my mouth i never said.
    - tiahura 5y ago
      It is a wonderful strategy. Without firing a shot, Russia will collapse. It won’t take years for the lack of supplies and parts from all those German manufacturers like Siemens, and the dozens of others that the whole world depends on. It won’t take long for them to become N Mongolia.
      - nix23 5y ago
        China is a neighbor of Russia. One has oil and gas the other not so...but a massive economy. Do you really want to them to join forces because there is no other way?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nsv 5y ago
  If many countries near Russia prefer to align themselves with NATO and the west, how will violent behavior from Russia improve the situation? It seems like it will do the opposite.
  - nix23 5y ago
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > because everyone told Russia that the NATO expansion is not going East No, “everyone” didn't. In fact, no one told Russia anything, the same way the Soviet Union didn't tell California anything. The most anyone has even alleged is that executive branch officials of a particular administration around 1989 made private assurances not incorporated into any kind of international agreement that there were no plans for further NATO eastward expansion beyond united Germany, which was considered by the USSR an expansion from pre-unification West Germany. (At least one of the bases frequently cited for this actually refers not NATO having no plans to deploy forces in the former East Germany after unification, not eastward NATO expansion at all and another was actually a communication of possible agenda items that could be open for negotiation if the USSR came to the table on German unification, not even a promise of current intent, but we’re not talking about the basis of the allegation but the allegation itself.) Now, the USSR was a big grown up country then and knew quite well the difference between private assurances and binding commitments incorporated intoninternational agreements like treaties, and was quite aware that even if it has the former, it never had the latter. Had that been an international agreement, we could discuss whether Russia alone was a successor to it and, if so, if they were the sole successor to it or, otherwise, what the effect of disunity among the former Soviet Republics as to intent to continue it and other questions that would determine whether it was still an operative, binding agreement, but it was never an a binding agreement in the first place, so there's was nothing for post-Soviet successor states to inherit. Not that even if a treaty did exist, it's violation by admitting willing members to a defensive alliance would justify an invasion of Ukraine. This is seriously like murdering a neighbor who is discussing selling land to someone because you thinks the prospective buyer isn't behaving in line with a casual statement never incorporated into a contract or other binding commitment that they made to your dad about not wanting to buy land near his a couple years before he died 30 years ago, when several neighbors, and your siblings who have inherited part of your dad's land, have voluntarily sold him land starting about a decade after that conversation. It's insane.
tony124 5y ago
I find this article (in german) very insightful; it has helped me to better understand why this war happened: https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-4-vom-15-maerz-2022.html https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-4-...
- nix23 5y ago
  Excellent book with the same narrative (in german): https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1053133782 https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A105313...
gruturo 5y ago
To nix23's answer, which is now dead and can't be further replied to: Funny, that link you posted was already grey on my browser, and yet I rest my case: NATO didn't invade any country and forced it to join. The fact that most eastern European countries lined up to join the very first moment they could, is because they knew fully well what monster lied to the east, and experienced its brutality within living memory. Most importantly, they lined up to join because they are free to choose, and so they did. Attacking countries because they don't like you and join your opponent is a laughably thin bullshit pretext. Russia already bordered 6 NATO countries, annexing Ukraine would actually push that number UP. Is that going to be justification for further aggression? You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny, therefore they are free to join NATO, the EU, my book club and whatever else they choose, or you don't, in which case I'd like to understand why, in your opinion, they are not free, and, apparently, why it's ok in your opinion to murder and invade them if they try. I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization, despite being convinced of that, because that's not the point here: even if they weren't, it's still NOT OKAY to attack countries who wish to stop being threatened by you, and seek its protection.
- nix23 5y ago
  >NATO didn't invade any country Oh really that's new for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations >You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis). >I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization Funny that you say that, because they think they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO >>NATO constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party
  - signatoremo 5y ago
    > Oh really that's new for me: Which countries NATO invaded again? > So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis) Cuba is still in charge of their destiny. They are still hostile to the US 60 years on. Cuba crisis was settled by the Soviet withdrawing their nuclear weapon, not by a US invasion. Apparently the Soviets cared more about having a stable relationship with the US than popping up Cuba.
Rury 5y ago
>They did not threaten anybody Try viewing things from another perspective for a moment. If there was an unfriendly alliance to the United States, and Mexico declared they wanted to join this alliance, and were being supplied military weapons and training by this alliance over the past few years... wouldn't you think the US would be somewhat alarmed or threatened? (Cuba missile crisis hello?) Furthermore, in such a situation, how likely would the US warn Mexico to not join this alliance, and/or threaten to invade if they didn't demiliterize? How likely would we invade if they refused? We did invade Iraq after all, over supposedly weapons of mass destruction - why not an unfriendly nation on our border that has been militarizing the past few years? Now replace Ukraine with Mexico, and Russia with US, and that's basically the situation.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  This happened in the run-up to World War I, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram Mexico then made it clear that they would not be joining an anti-U.S. alliance in the near term, and relations were kept quite cordial throughout. Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to.
  - k_sze 5y ago
    Huh? How does that prove the exact opposite? Mexico said they won’t join anti-US alliance. Ukraine still wanted to join NATO right before the invasion.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      There are many, many reasons why Ukraine would not have been able to join NATO in the foreseeable future, and this was very clear to all parties. Ironically, the Crimean situation is one which Russia has direct influence on. Ukraine's retaliatory moves on the status of the Russian language likely would've been naturally on the table in the context of joining either NATO or EU.
  - Rury 5y ago

323 5y ago

Russian cruise missile flying (slowly) over Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PORUIzOcVYE https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PORUIzOcVYE