6 ms·

It's (e). They're getting intelligence from NATO countries. I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.

by flir 3y ago

_dain_ 3y ago
Yeah it's not a secret that this is happening. UK/France/Germany are helping with targeting.
zarzavat 3y ago
What confuses me is, how is this even a talking point? Under what theory is EU supposed to sit back and watch a bordering country get invaded and not pass that country intelligence? Are we supposed to believe that if the EU invaded Belarus, that Russia wouldn’t pass any intelligence to the Belarusian government?
- paganel 3y ago
  Because, firstly, EU is not a country, I'm a EU citizen and I certainly do not approve of this policy but there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions (I'm also not a French citizen, maybe that way I could have had an effect on Macron holding power or not). It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.
  - dainiusse 3y ago
    If you're an Eu citizen - you should care that russia is stopped in Ukraine as they said multiple times - their goal is up to Lisbon.
    - paganel 3y ago
      > their goal is up to Lisbon That was in fact Mitterand's goal in late 1989 - early 1990, the other way round, that is, until the Americans (well, the honorable James Baker) freaked out and nothing came out of it. I still think from time to time what could have been if "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" had become real, just as Mitterand had wanted it. [1] [1] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155777507.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155777507.pdf
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Last time I checked, Lisbon was in fact in the EU... Vladivosstok not so much.
      - fvdessen 3y ago
        It could never have been as Eastern European countries would do anything not to be in a union with Russia
        paganel 3y ago
        My country, Romania, had in fact signed a pact with the USSR after 1989, so not all Eastern European countries would have been against it.
    - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - azmodeus 3y ago
        If it was about your own home would you frame it the same way of „some land“? If it was your own family shelled or your own country would you argue the same way?
      - croes 3y ago
        Before the attack on Ukraine people said the same about Russia attacking Ukraine. There is no reason why Russia would do that, and look where we are now. As the farmer said, "I'm not greedy, all I want is the land next to mine.
  - croes 3y ago
    It funny that those people claiming to be disenfranchised have no problem with leaders who won't give them any rights at all.
    - paganel 3y ago
      It makes it more honest, for one thing. And second, it may sound as a paradox, but those authoritarian leaders are more connected with the masses and their needs (and vice-versa) compared to a pseudo-democratic and very opaque assembly composed of some hundreds of members (what are now called “parliaments”) of which no-one knows all that much, for that matter. So a switch to an authoritarian leader would in effect, and comparatively speaking, mean a return of effective power to the masses, because it is on those masses that the legitimacy of said leader depends. Today’s parliamentarian regimes have long lost their legitimacy (notice senile 90+ years old ladies being parliament members in the most “democratic” country on Earth), it’s all a Glasperlenspiel [1] at this point, following prior moves blindly while the reason behind those moves has long been lost. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game
  - arp242 3y ago
    > there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions You can vote for your country's elections. You can also vote for the EU parliament. And ever EU nation supports Ukraine, with the exception of Hungary. In this case the policy of the EU is very much aligned with the policy of ... pretty much the entire EU.
    - paganel 3y ago
      My country, Romania, has no effective say in this matter at the EU level. As for the European Parliament and its democratic legitimacy, the lesser said the better. We also used to have “elected” representatives under Ceausescu’s Romania, with the same effective results.
      - XorNot 3y ago
        Your country is going to be invaded and reoccupied by Russia if Putin gets his way in Ukraine and Trump delays article 5 just long enough for it to be "not worth it". Because why should we waste hundreds of thousands of lives on protecting "just some land".
        paganel 3y ago
        Let us care for ourselves, we did just fine before (we actually fought the Soviets/Russians on their home turf before, unlike the majority of the Western countries), and use those troops you mention for the defense of your own realms, we don’t need them here.
        catlifeonmars 3y ago
        If I was your neighboring countries, I would absolutely not let you “care for yourselves”. That puts my border at risk. Nothing is in a vacuum.
        justsomehnguy 3y ago
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >Under what theory is EU supposed to sit back and watch a bordering country get invaded and not pass that country intelligence? Has EU, or more aptly the comprising countries thereof, declared war? The only thing I hate more than warmongering are proxy wars. I'm all for Ukraine winning, because if they lose then Putin and Russia are vindicated in warmongering as a proper form of diplomacy, but I'm sick and tired of proxy wars. As an aside: Yes, as an American I stand with the Republicans in denying further aid to Ukraine if we're going to continue doing the same thing. If we're going to lend more aid, either we punt the money figures up a few orders of magnitudes or we send in American boots to settle it ourselves. No more halfassed "aid" that only prolongs the war indefinitely and enlarges the suffering of civilians.
  - victorbjorklund 3y ago
    Has China, Iran, Belarus, etc decleared war? All of them help Russia. Are those doing proxy wars?
  - allendoerfer 3y ago
    > I am against help, because we do not help enough. And he is using a website made for the smarter kids. This election is going to be golden.
    - vasco 3y ago
      > And he is using a website made for the smarter kids Being in a group that accepts people that say "this group is smart" annoys me to no end as the lowest form of circle jerk. Specially when it's not even true. There's no IQ test to access this site, there's no merit on the part of the users, the merit is on the part of the moderation, since the user pool is the same as any public website written in english.
  - resoluteteeth 3y ago
    The definition of "proxy war" is "a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved". Regardless of the scale or nature of the aid, since Russia is directly involved, the Ukraine war can only be a "proxy war" if you believe it was instigated by the EU/NATO/the US, which is essentially assuming the Russian talking point that it was somehow forced to invade Ukraine because it felt threatened. I disagree with that position and if you do to please do not describe it as a "proxy war" even if you think that other countries providing a limited amount of aid rather than getting actively involved will cause the war to be prolonged.
- ArnoVW 3y ago
  That. Plus the fact that everyone (Russia included) gave Ukraine security guarantees when in the 90s we convinced them to give their nuclear missiles to the country that had occupied them just before. At the time everyone was very nervous about proliferation of nuclear weapons and it seemed a sensible promise. But when push comes to shove it seems more complicated.
fock 3y ago
Well, in some countries the chancellor acknowledging that is publicly ostracised for "disturbing the opinion". Which is very fun, because apparently that's not something people want to have put into the remaining mainstream media. All that in countries which a) claim not to be at war (and crucially not doing an inch of the economic adjustments), b) are the good democracies and c) are trying to play this down to things like "satellite" and internet comms. Noone is putting this out: https://en.defence-ua.com/events/what_awacs_see_as_they_transmit_target_data_to_the_armed_forces_of_ukraine_unique_video_on_board_of_the_e_3_sentry_on_patrol-4630.html https://en.defence-ua.com/events/what_awacs_see_as_they_tran... . If you would go into a debate and say: "hey, we are fighting this war already and without our direct involvement Ukraine would be gone from the map" - I guess that would be called fakenews.

It's (e). They're getting intelligence from NATO countries. I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.

by flir 3y ago

It's (e). They're getting intelligence from NATO countries. I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.

_dain_ 3y ago

Yeah it's not a secret that this is happening. UK/France/Germany are helping with targeting.

zarzavat 3y ago

What confuses me is, how is this even a talking point? Under what theory is EU supposed to sit back and watch a bordering country get invaded and not pass that country intelligence? Are we supposed to believe that if the EU invaded Belarus, that Russia wouldn’t pass any intelligence to the Belarusian government?

paganel 3y ago
Because, firstly, EU is not a country, I'm a EU citizen and I certainly do not approve of this policy but there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions (I'm also not a French citizen, maybe that way I could have had an effect on Macron holding power or not). It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.
- dainiusse 3y ago
  If you're an Eu citizen - you should care that russia is stopped in Ukraine as they said multiple times - their goal is up to Lisbon.
  - paganel 3y ago
    > their goal is up to Lisbon That was in fact Mitterand's goal in late 1989 - early 1990, the other way round, that is, until the Americans (well, the honorable James Baker) freaked out and nothing came out of it. I still think from time to time what could have been if "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" had become real, just as Mitterand had wanted it. [1] [1] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155777507.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155777507.pdf
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Last time I checked, Lisbon was in fact in the EU... Vladivosstok not so much.
    - fvdessen 3y ago
      It could never have been as Eastern European countries would do anything not to be in a union with Russia
      - paganel 3y ago
        My country, Romania, had in fact signed a pact with the USSR after 1989, so not all Eastern European countries would have been against it.
  - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - azmodeus 3y ago
      If it was about your own home would you frame it the same way of „some land“? If it was your own family shelled or your own country would you argue the same way?
    - croes 3y ago
      Before the attack on Ukraine people said the same about Russia attacking Ukraine. There is no reason why Russia would do that, and look where we are now. As the farmer said, "I'm not greedy, all I want is the land next to mine.
- croes 3y ago
  It funny that those people claiming to be disenfranchised have no problem with leaders who won't give them any rights at all.
  - paganel 3y ago
    It makes it more honest, for one thing. And second, it may sound as a paradox, but those authoritarian leaders are more connected with the masses and their needs (and vice-versa) compared to a pseudo-democratic and very opaque assembly composed of some hundreds of members (what are now called “parliaments”) of which no-one knows all that much, for that matter. So a switch to an authoritarian leader would in effect, and comparatively speaking, mean a return of effective power to the masses, because it is on those masses that the legitimacy of said leader depends. Today’s parliamentarian regimes have long lost their legitimacy (notice senile 90+ years old ladies being parliament members in the most “democratic” country on Earth), it’s all a Glasperlenspiel [1] at this point, following prior moves blindly while the reason behind those moves has long been lost. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game
- arp242 3y ago
  > there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions You can vote for your country's elections. You can also vote for the EU parliament. And ever EU nation supports Ukraine, with the exception of Hungary. In this case the policy of the EU is very much aligned with the policy of ... pretty much the entire EU.
  - paganel 3y ago
    My country, Romania, has no effective say in this matter at the EU level. As for the European Parliament and its democratic legitimacy, the lesser said the better. We also used to have “elected” representatives under Ceausescu’s Romania, with the same effective results.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      Your country is going to be invaded and reoccupied by Russia if Putin gets his way in Ukraine and Trump delays article 5 just long enough for it to be "not worth it". Because why should we waste hundreds of thousands of lives on protecting "just some land".
      - paganel 3y ago
        Let us care for ourselves, we did just fine before (we actually fought the Soviets/Russians on their home turf before, unlike the majority of the Western countries), and use those troops you mention for the defense of your own realms, we don’t need them here.
        catlifeonmars 3y ago
        If I was your neighboring countries, I would absolutely not let you “care for yourselves”. That puts my border at risk. Nothing is in a vacuum.
        justsomehnguy 3y ago
Dalewyn 3y ago
>Under what theory is EU supposed to sit back and watch a bordering country get invaded and not pass that country intelligence? Has EU, or more aptly the comprising countries thereof, declared war? The only thing I hate more than warmongering are proxy wars. I'm all for Ukraine winning, because if they lose then Putin and Russia are vindicated in warmongering as a proper form of diplomacy, but I'm sick and tired of proxy wars. As an aside: Yes, as an American I stand with the Republicans in denying further aid to Ukraine if we're going to continue doing the same thing. If we're going to lend more aid, either we punt the money figures up a few orders of magnitudes or we send in American boots to settle it ourselves. No more halfassed "aid" that only prolongs the war indefinitely and enlarges the suffering of civilians.
- victorbjorklund 3y ago
  Has China, Iran, Belarus, etc decleared war? All of them help Russia. Are those doing proxy wars?
- allendoerfer 3y ago
  > I am against help, because we do not help enough. And he is using a website made for the smarter kids. This election is going to be golden.
  - vasco 3y ago
    > And he is using a website made for the smarter kids Being in a group that accepts people that say "this group is smart" annoys me to no end as the lowest form of circle jerk. Specially when it's not even true. There's no IQ test to access this site, there's no merit on the part of the users, the merit is on the part of the moderation, since the user pool is the same as any public website written in english.
- resoluteteeth 3y ago
  The definition of "proxy war" is "a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved". Regardless of the scale or nature of the aid, since Russia is directly involved, the Ukraine war can only be a "proxy war" if you believe it was instigated by the EU/NATO/the US, which is essentially assuming the Russian talking point that it was somehow forced to invade Ukraine because it felt threatened. I disagree with that position and if you do to please do not describe it as a "proxy war" even if you think that other countries providing a limited amount of aid rather than getting actively involved will cause the war to be prolonged.
ArnoVW 3y ago
That. Plus the fact that everyone (Russia included) gave Ukraine security guarantees when in the 90s we convinced them to give their nuclear missiles to the country that had occupied them just before. At the time everyone was very nervous about proliferation of nuclear weapons and it seemed a sensible promise. But when push comes to shove it seems more complicated.

fock 3y ago

Well, in some countries the chancellor acknowledging that is publicly ostracised for "disturbing the opinion". Which is very fun, because apparently that's not something people want to have put into the remaining mainstream media. All that in countries which a) claim not to be at war (and crucially not doing an inch of the economic adjustments), b) are the good democracies and c) are trying to play this down to things like "satellite" and internet comms. Noone is putting this out: https://en.defence-ua.com/events/what_awacs_see_as_they_transmit_target_data_to_the_armed_forces_of_ukraine_unique_video_on_board_of_the_e_3_sentry_on_patrol-4630.html https://en.defence-ua.com/events/what_awacs_see_as_they_tran... . If you would go into a debate and say: "hey, we are fighting this war already and without our direct involvement Ukraine would be gone from the map" - I guess that would be called fakenews.