3 ms·

So far: rape, looting, murder, deportation, stealing, systematic destruction of hospitals and civilian buildings, using thermobaric weapons against civilian str

So far: rape, looting, murder, deportation, stealing, systematic destruction of hospitals and civilian buildings, using thermobaric weapons against civilian structures. Still missing: use of weapons of mass destruction.

cmurf 5y ago
Let's not forget that NATO had a "flexible response" policy 40 years ago. This is of course public, that's how deterrence works. Because Russia had a conventional force advantage over NATO at that time, flexible response stated the response would be intentionally escalate to use nuclear weapons as a defense, and also why there was a no first strike policy. By expressly taking first strike off the table, it was in effect blaming Russia should nukes be used in a conflict by tying the use of nuclear weapons to Russia invading Europe with conventional forces. But the roles are now reversed. NATO's conventional force vastly exceeds that of Russia. And in effect Russia's policy is to escalate to using nuclear weapons if they get cornered by conventional warfare. This hopefully explains some of the reluctance to confront Russia directly, including no fly zones. While I think Russia (or at least Putin) deserves WW3 for what they've done, and Ukraine is already experiencing it, the problem is does the rest of the world deserve WW3? ~50% of the world being unwilling to hold Russia accountable for starting a war of aggression and asking them to stop I think is really problematic. I think it is an invitation to another world war to be neutral on such a central tenant of the U.N. Charter as Article 2(4) is, and the conclusion of Nuremberg that wars of aggression to expand borders and/or subjugate people is the supreme international crime. If it really is that big of a crime, then no country should be abstaining let alone agreeing unless they truly stand separate and outside the Charter. If that much of the world is even questioning the relevancy of the Charter so much that they will weaken it in this fashion, as China and India have - in my opinion humanity is fucked. Then we are doomed to have a WW3 at some point. The U.N. is very dysfunctional, as it is a reflection of the world. But it's the best hope we have to avoiding another world war. If we can't, and it surely would involved nuclear weapons, we are looking at death so much worse than the worst hell we've created so far... it boggles the mind. But maybe that's our fate, and we actually aren't that civil or intelligent or worthy of being excluded from the kind of suffering that would ensue. shrug
- jacquesm 5y ago
  We're quite aligned, I think. What is the value of all this freedom if it means standing by and doing nothing while people are slaughtered like cattle?

cmurf 5y ago

Let's not forget that NATO had a "flexible response" policy 40 years ago. This is of course public, that's how deterrence works. Because Russia had a conventional force advantage over NATO at that time, flexible response stated the response would be intentionally escalate to use nuclear weapons as a defense, and also why there was a no first strike policy. By expressly taking first strike off the table, it was in effect blaming Russia should nukes be used in a conflict by tying the use of nuclear weapons to Russia invading Europe with conventional forces. But the roles are now reversed. NATO's conventional force vastly exceeds that of Russia. And in effect Russia's policy is to escalate to using nuclear weapons if they get cornered by conventional warfare. This hopefully explains some of the reluctance to confront Russia directly, including no fly zones. While I think Russia (or at least Putin) deserves WW3 for what they've done, and Ukraine is already experiencing it, the problem is does the rest of the world deserve WW3? ~50% of the world being unwilling to hold Russia accountable for starting a war of aggression and asking them to stop I think is really problematic. I think it is an invitation to another world war to be neutral on such a central tenant of the U.N. Charter as Article 2(4) is, and the conclusion of Nuremberg that wars of aggression to expand borders and/or subjugate people is the supreme international crime. If it really is that big of a crime, then no country should be abstaining let alone agreeing unless they truly stand separate and outside the Charter. If that much of the world is even questioning the relevancy of the Charter so much that they will weaken it in this fashion, as China and India have - in my opinion humanity is fucked. Then we are doomed to have a WW3 at some point. The U.N. is very dysfunctional, as it is a reflection of the world. But it's the best hope we have to avoiding another world war. If we can't, and it surely would involved nuclear weapons, we are looking at death so much worse than the worst hell we've created so far... it boggles the mind. But maybe that's our fate, and we actually aren't that civil or intelligent or worthy of being excluded from the kind of suffering that would ensue. shrug

jacquesm 5y ago
We're quite aligned, I think. What is the value of all this freedom if it means standing by and doing nothing while people are slaughtered like cattle?