5 ms·

In the end they are two sides of the same coin. If you think there are good guys and bad guys and the good guys are always on my side then I will remind you th

by ipaddr 3y ago

In the end they are two sides of the same coin. If you think there are good guys and bad guys and the good guys are always on my side then I will remind you that this isn't a movie. For every action any actor took there is a reason and justification that can be made. Would Trudeau and Freeland be so pro war if Freeland and her sister owned 5 apartment buildings in Russia instead of the Ukraine? Would Biden be so pro war if his sin had dealings with Russia instead of the Ukraine? Find me a pure moral action and I'll raise you two selfish actions.

cycrutchfield 3y ago
Two sides of the same coin. One side is an imperialist aggressor seeking revanchism. The other side is defending their lands trying to get out from under the boot of Russian subjugation. But sure, same coin.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin. You thought it was a movie? Good vs Evil
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin. I think this kinda of language takes agency away from countries like Russia, Russia chose to invade and was not forced by anyone, given the rhetoric in some of there now deleted articles I think theres evidence that it was for imperialistic reasons and not because of NATO. After all NATO doesn't appear at all in the now deleted Russian media victory article.
  - cycrutchfield 3y ago
    NATO fired the first shots? Believe me, if NATO was firing anything there would be tanks in the streets of Moscow right now. NATO is winning this war with Russia without sacrificing a single soldier, and by largely using up their stockpiles of Cold War-era hand-me-downs. How humiliating for Russia.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  I don't believe that imperialistic tanks and infantry vs. freedom loving tanks and infantry are a thing. It's just tanks made out of steel, and infantry recruited (or mobilized) from rural (or rust belt) poor. They work in the same way.
  - cycrutchfield 3y ago
    If you feel that way, surely you wouldn’t mind me moving into your house, sleeping in your bed, eating your food, etc. After all, there is no right or wrong, everything is grey, and reductionist logic can be applied to deflect from any argument that is inconvenient to one’s simplistic worldviews.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. To the contrary, you are saying this course of action was right and should be taken as a guidance, because it averted even larger catastrophe (which I have trouble contemplating) and because it will all pay off at the end (are they gambling?) That's not even grey area, that's bungee jumping. Another piece of discussion where a person suggested self-immolation to other parties. Reminds me of 3 reasons why one would consider sitting on a hedgehog.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. What if what led a country to become involved in a hot war its larger neighbour was entirely on its larger neighbour.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        As a gingerbread man, your first priority would be that you make sure nobody eats you. This is very important! As a country, your first priority is that nobody attacks you, especially a larger party. On whom this is, becomes irrelevant. I've often seen tourist guides telling tourists to not flash expensive jewelry and electronics on the street. They never seem to say "do what you want, you are an independent human being, if somebody decides to rob you it's entirely on them". But that's exactly what the world was telling Ukraine for decades. Still keeps telling. Teaches others to follow that history of success. From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.

by ipaddr 3y ago

cycrutchfield 3y ago

Two sides of the same coin. One side is an imperialist aggressor seeking revanchism. The other side is defending their lands trying to get out from under the boot of Russian subjugation. But sure, same coin.

ipaddr 3y ago
Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin. You thought it was a movie? Good vs Evil
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin. I think this kinda of language takes agency away from countries like Russia, Russia chose to invade and was not forced by anyone, given the rhetoric in some of there now deleted articles I think theres evidence that it was for imperialistic reasons and not because of NATO. After all NATO doesn't appear at all in the now deleted Russian media victory article.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  NATO fired the first shots? Believe me, if NATO was firing anything there would be tanks in the streets of Moscow right now. NATO is winning this war with Russia without sacrificing a single soldier, and by largely using up their stockpiles of Cold War-era hand-me-downs. How humiliating for Russia.
thriftwy 3y ago
I don't believe that imperialistic tanks and infantry vs. freedom loving tanks and infantry are a thing. It's just tanks made out of steel, and infantry recruited (or mobilized) from rural (or rust belt) poor. They work in the same way.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  If you feel that way, surely you wouldn’t mind me moving into your house, sleeping in your bed, eating your food, etc. After all, there is no right or wrong, everything is grey, and reductionist logic can be applied to deflect from any argument that is inconvenient to one’s simplistic worldviews.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. To the contrary, you are saying this course of action was right and should be taken as a guidance, because it averted even larger catastrophe (which I have trouble contemplating) and because it will all pay off at the end (are they gambling?) That's not even grey area, that's bungee jumping. Another piece of discussion where a person suggested self-immolation to other parties. Reminds me of 3 reasons why one would consider sitting on a hedgehog.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. What if what led a country to become involved in a hot war its larger neighbour was entirely on its larger neighbour.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        As a gingerbread man, your first priority would be that you make sure nobody eats you. This is very important! As a country, your first priority is that nobody attacks you, especially a larger party. On whom this is, becomes irrelevant. I've often seen tourist guides telling tourists to not flash expensive jewelry and electronics on the street. They never seem to say "do what you want, you are an independent human being, if somebody decides to rob you it's entirely on them". But that's exactly what the world was telling Ukraine for decades. Still keeps telling. Teaches others to follow that history of success. From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.