4 ms·

>close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.

by iinnPP 4y ago

>close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered for the UN. Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about how many die and what is gained or lost as a result. Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away with far superior respect for your incredibly important family unit.

xiphias2 4y ago
What's interesting in this is how many people still think that in politics there's a ,,good side'' and a ,,bad side''. Europe would stay much stronger together with Russia, so it was worth for US to increase the conflicts between the two powers (destroying Nordstream wasn't the nicest move). Putin was used to high gas prices making his power the highest, but he wasn't used to the power of LNG that US has, as it's the first time that LNG comes into geopolitics in Europe so strongly. But as you wrote, nobody wants to kill people, it's a terrible consequence of geopolitics.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  So why did Putin attack Ukraine if it was so obvious that it would benefit the US?
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    He probably expected an easier win and smaller help from US, but again that's geopolitics, it's still not about ,,people liking killing people''
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    That's a great question worth a full deep dive. A debate where losing is beneficial and where being a spectator is worthwhile.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Russia has been developing its own LNG with the French know-how and with Chinese money, and while the volumes that EUrope imports are still relatively small, they are now only an order of magnitude smaller than pipeline methane at its peak... and growing. It's also questionable just how long the US will be able to afford to export that methane (phase change isn't free), since the related tight oil seems to already have peaked ? (Maybe a few decades still ?)
yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
That bit of land isn’t tiny, and the russians aren’t going to stop at 20% of Ukraine. The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine. That means genocide. Trying to make a “peace deal” means more dead civilians, not fewer. Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet fuck all real insight.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  I don't hold an opinion on this worth sharing, I was merely stating what I have heard from people beforehand as reasoning. I look at maps showing between 10-15% of Ukraine being of the Donbas region from 5+ random Google-provided sources. What source do you get the 20% from? As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it. Based on the personal attacks at the end, I'm not expecting a reply. My comment is for others mostly with a small hope that you can help further my understanding.
  - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
    > What source do you get the 20% from? The 20% figure might be outdated now after the Ukrainians liberated Khersonks'ka Oblast north of the Dnipro. The NYT most recently put the figure at 18%[0]. > As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it. The russians are only rarely going to state their aims so blatantly. It is only recently that kremlin officials admitted that the soldiers who invaded Ukraine in 2014 were indeed kremlin-backed. Until recently, they denied it. You can see fact #2 here[1] for a more detailed explanation, but to really understand the kremlin's perspective, there's quite a lot of material you need to follow and digest. More explanation from Carnegie[2]: > The Kremlin’s logic appears to stem from its thesis about the “artificial” nature of Ukrainian statehood. If Ukraine was “constructed” by Lenin in 1918, as Moscow now insists, then it can be just as easily and legitimately “deconstructed”: its neighbors have the right to claim Ukrainian territory, which Russia will not oppose. Indeed, it has already made a head start by declaring the annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September. I have Ukrainian residence and I was living in Ukraine for most of last year. I also have many personal and professional relationships in the country, so this imperialist war and the innumerable war crimes committed are of special importance to me. I have literally watched missiles fly and explode in the sky from my kitchen window. > Based on the personal attacks at the end, Sorry, my outrage isn't directed at you specifically. It is directed towards anyone who parrots kremlin propaganda. For some reason, this is all too common among intellectuals like Chomsky and his ilk who struggle with the painfully basic principle that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. --- [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html#:~:text=Ukraine's%20military%20has%20had%20significant,it%20illegally%20annexed%20in%202014 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain.... [1]: https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian-military-aggression-against-ukraine https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian... [2]: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585 https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585 More: - https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-continue-until-polish-border-says-tolstoy-descendant/ https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-continu...
BasedGroyper99 4y ago
> Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. But what if a woman wants to kill her unborn child?
- iinnPP 4y ago
  They don't see it as a person. Canada as a country doesn't see an unborn baby as a person for example. That is not a statement I am making or denying. Though I have noted that this definition could be used as a justification in someone's view.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ameister14 4y ago
>Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. I know a lot of people that believe killing can be justified and in that sense a "good."

by iinnPP 4y ago

xiphias2 4y ago

What's interesting in this is how many people still think that in politics there's a ,,good side'' and a ,,bad side''. Europe would stay much stronger together with Russia, so it was worth for US to increase the conflicts between the two powers (destroying Nordstream wasn't the nicest move). Putin was used to high gas prices making his power the highest, but he wasn't used to the power of LNG that US has, as it's the first time that LNG comes into geopolitics in Europe so strongly. But as you wrote, nobody wants to kill people, it's a terrible consequence of geopolitics.

rhaway84773 4y ago
So why did Putin attack Ukraine if it was so obvious that it would benefit the US?
- xiphias2 4y ago
  He probably expected an easier win and smaller help from US, but again that's geopolitics, it's still not about ,,people liking killing people''
- iinnPP 4y ago
  That's a great question worth a full deep dive. A debate where losing is beneficial and where being a spectator is worthwhile.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Russia has been developing its own LNG with the French know-how and with Chinese money, and while the volumes that EUrope imports are still relatively small, they are now only an order of magnitude smaller than pipeline methane at its peak... and growing. It's also questionable just how long the US will be able to afford to export that methane (phase change isn't free), since the related tight oil seems to already have peaked ? (Maybe a few decades still ?)

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

That bit of land isn’t tiny, and the russians aren’t going to stop at 20% of Ukraine. The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine. That means genocide. Trying to make a “peace deal” means more dead civilians, not fewer. Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet fuck all real insight.

iinnPP 4y ago
I don't hold an opinion on this worth sharing, I was merely stating what I have heard from people beforehand as reasoning. I look at maps showing between 10-15% of Ukraine being of the Donbas region from 5+ random Google-provided sources. What source do you get the 20% from? As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it. Based on the personal attacks at the end, I'm not expecting a reply. My comment is for others mostly with a small hope that you can help further my understanding.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  > What source do you get the 20% from? The 20% figure might be outdated now after the Ukrainians liberated Khersonks'ka Oblast north of the Dnipro. The NYT most recently put the figure at 18%[0]. > As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it. The russians are only rarely going to state their aims so blatantly. It is only recently that kremlin officials admitted that the soldiers who invaded Ukraine in 2014 were indeed kremlin-backed. Until recently, they denied it. You can see fact #2 here[1] for a more detailed explanation, but to really understand the kremlin's perspective, there's quite a lot of material you need to follow and digest. More explanation from Carnegie[2]: > The Kremlin’s logic appears to stem from its thesis about the “artificial” nature of Ukrainian statehood. If Ukraine was “constructed” by Lenin in 1918, as Moscow now insists, then it can be just as easily and legitimately “deconstructed”: its neighbors have the right to claim Ukrainian territory, which Russia will not oppose. Indeed, it has already made a head start by declaring the annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September. I have Ukrainian residence and I was living in Ukraine for most of last year. I also have many personal and professional relationships in the country, so this imperialist war and the innumerable war crimes committed are of special importance to me. I have literally watched missiles fly and explode in the sky from my kitchen window. > Based on the personal attacks at the end, Sorry, my outrage isn't directed at you specifically. It is directed towards anyone who parrots kremlin propaganda. For some reason, this is all too common among intellectuals like Chomsky and his ilk who struggle with the painfully basic principle that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. --- [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html#:~:text=Ukraine's%20military%20has%20had%20significant,it%20illegally%20annexed%20in%202014 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain.... [1]: https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian-military-aggression-against-ukraine https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian... [2]: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585 https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585 More: - https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-continue-until-polish-border-says-tolstoy-descendant/ https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-continu...

BasedGroyper99 4y ago

> Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. But what if a woman wants to kill her unborn child?

iinnPP 4y ago
They don't see it as a person. Canada as a country doesn't see an unborn baby as a person for example. That is not a statement I am making or denying. Though I have noted that this definition could be used as a justification in someone's view.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ameister14 4y ago

>Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. I know a lot of people that believe killing can be justified and in that sense a "good."