6 ms·

Russia is bad though, they just bombed a children's cancer hospital yesterday.

by axpvms 2y ago

greenavocado 2y ago
[flagged]
- kspacewalk2 2y ago
  Each side of what? Are you attempting to draw equivalency between the actions of Ukraine and Russia?
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    The war is between the US (allies) and Russia. Ukraine is just a proxy country. Did the war start with the invasion of Ukraine or many years before when NATO decided it needed to expand?
    - jiggawatts 2y ago
      Sigh. Ukraine begged to join NATO because they saw this coming a mile off. They’re still begging. Asking to join the neighbourhood security watch is offensive only to burglars. PS: If your argument over NATO membership is a valid one, then why is Russia not equally upset about Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Why not invade those sovereign nations on their border as well to prevent their membership? Is it because they don't particularly care about NATO unless it gets in the way of a planned invasion? Could that be it?
      - senderista 2y ago
        What if Panama invited China to establish a giant military base on its territory, given that they were unlawfully invaded and occupied by the US just a few decades ago and presumably have an interest in preventing it from happening again? Do you think the US govt would be cool with that? Why not? Doesn't Panama have a right to choose their own allies, and also discourage a future invasion from the US? Why would the US object to this at all unless they were planning a future unlawful invasion? I'll close with a quote from former CIA director Bill Burns, who tried to talk the Bush administration out of pushing for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia (this is from 2008): "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. At this stage, a MAP [Membership Action Plan] offer would be seen not as a technical step along a long road toward membership, but as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze…. It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine."
        jiggawatts 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Panama_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Panama_relations "Panama wants to make ties with China" Let's see... the US is preparing for the invasion next -- checks notes -- oh never. They're not planning to invade at all. Huh. Interesting. Interesting... Similarly, China has been "courting" Pacific islands that were previously in the "sphere of influence" of Australia. It's been in the news a lot recently over here. Instead of immediately ramping up military recruitment for an imminent invasion, our government instead sheepishly admitted that it's a bit shameful how we haven't been paying much attention and should be nicer to our neighbours so that they'll ally with us instead. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/resetting-australia-s-relationship-pacific-three-ideas https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/resetting-aust... Love instead of tanks. Who would have thought such a crazy notion could work!?
        ziml77 2y ago
        What a bullshit quote. Ukraine didn't join NATO and Russia took Crimea anyway. And now they're attempting to take Ukraine. Russia is only afraid of NATO because they know it will stop them from taking the territory that they want. And it's pretty clear that they're trying to restore the Soviet Union, so they want quite a bit of territory.
        mopsi 2y ago
        China already has bases much closer than Panama, in another country Russian apologists like to bring up as an example, Cuba. It's such a non-issue that you're not even aware of it. Burns has changed his mind since 2008 and now advocates for greater military support for Ukraine.
        senderista 2y ago
        They're (alleged) intelligence facilities, not military bases. The fact that Burns is hawkish on Ukraine after Putin invaded does not imply that he's changed his mind about what could/should have been done to prevent it.
        2y ago
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        They are upset more with Finland because of proximity. But Belarus is the buffer country in that region. If it looked like they were going to join NATO they would invade. Ukraine is a buffer country.
        jiggawatts 2y ago
        Finland has a 1,340km border with Russia, and the closest part of Belarus to Finland is 462km away. So again, why did Russia not invade Finland to stop Finnish membership in NATO? Russia claims this is their casus belli for their invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and tankies accept this at face value. They also claim that Ukraine deserved to be invaded because they were mis-treating ethnic Russians. Okay, but Ukraine's treatment of ethnic Hungarians near the Hungarian border was virtually identical. So... does Hungary have casus belli to invade Ukraine? Or if Putin takes all of Ukraine as per his stated goal of "returning" Ukrainian land to Russia "where it belongs", does he also plan on returning the currently Ukranian land back to Hungary that it lost? If not, why not? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-admits-ukraine-invasion-is-an-imperial-war-to-return-russian-land/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-adm...
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      It most certainly started years ago when Russia invaded and annexed parts of Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine was lukewarm at best to the idea of NATO before that (and in fact, substantial parts of it were very pro-Russia, a sentiment which quickly changed when they saw what happened to the people in the areas of Ukraine under Russian control).
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        The toppling of Viktor Yanukovych after refusing to join the EU in a US sponsored revolution is what caused annexing Crimea. Crimea represents access to the black sea a very strategic location that is 90% Russian.
        racional 2y ago
        The black sea a very strategic location that is 90% Russian. Between 55-80 percent of the people in these regions identify as Ukrainian, according to the most recent census. They may also speak Russian (to some degree), but that doesn't mean they consider themselves to be ethnically "Russian", or are desperate to be reunited with the Motherland. It just means that Ukraine is a bilingual country. You may want to take a serious look at what sources you are pulling such obviously misleading figures from. And in particular: at who is presenting these misleading narratives to you, and why.
        rcxdude 2y ago
        You say this like the latter is a perfectly reasonable reaction to the former (which is already a gross misrepresentation of events), when in fact it is completely unreasonable.
    - alemanek 2y ago
      NATO didn’t decide to expand. Countries scared of Russian aggression have been clamoring to join. Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine twice. They managed to get Sweden and Finland to join up thereby expanding their border with NATO by 1340km. Truth is Russia could have decided to be Norway if they would have just peacefully stayed in their borders and sold gas/oil to the EU. But instead they decided they would rather be North Korea. In a decade they will likely be just another client state of China. It is truly sad.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        The EU which represents majority of NATO countries (with the US and Canada excluded) did. The efforts to get Ukraine to join the EU and then the CIA toppling of Viktor Yanukovych over his refusal. Then we get the Cremeia response from Russia and this starts the ball rolling.
        mopsi 2y ago
        The CIA did not topple Yanukovych. Yanukovych got over 100 protesters killed and ran away from Ukraine when he understood that he was not going to get away with it and would be facing jailtime. Ukrainian parliament assembled to resolve the crisis and voted 328-vs-0 for holding new elections, which took place a few months later. Not even a single person from Yanukovych's own party voted in support of him.
    - pie420 2y ago
      What's wrong with NATO expanding? It's a voluntary organization that protects member states from aggressors? It's like saying a shelter for abused women is also somehow partially responsible for domestic abuse... One side is protecting the other is attacking. South ossetia, crimea, abkhazia are all examples of what happens if you live too close to russia and aren't protected by nato lol
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        What's wrong with trying to circle in Russia decreasing their military and economic control? That's viewed as hostile and we see what the response is. The strategic of circling of China is getting pushback. The idea of containment is hostile and creates pressure which is relied by wars but this kills innocent people.
jmprspret 2y ago
The US government, DoD, CIA, etc are all "bad" too. I'm not excusing Russia's actions, but if you're going the moral high ground, on civilian murder, you should be avoid US companies as well.
- alemanek 2y ago
  It’s not about morals. Russia and China are waging a hybrid war with the US/EU at the moment. Any US or European company absolutely should not trust a Russian or Chinese company at the moment. Especially not for antivirus. Just like any company based in Russia or China shouldn’t trust western companies. But also you are comparing autocracies to democracies. Don’t pretend that the control the US is able to exert over their companies is in anyway comparable to what is common place in Russia/China. Remember the rash of murder/suicides of Russian oligarchs where they decided to kill their families and then off themselves. Or how about when Jack Ma was disappeared for a year. Russia/China is in no way equivalent to western democracies on this issue. So please stop the whataboutism.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    I don't want to get into a whole thing, but just its maybe a bad moment to try to make the points your making! The amount of "control over companies" one state has over another is not going to be a strong debate point when your good guys here are, as we speak, sustaining an extreme act of at this point inarguable mass murder. All while, it should probably go without saying, sustaining a complete harmony in the respective state and private institutions at play. What a lovely coincidence I guess! This is not even get into maybe the not so fine details of USA democracy these days. I know you really felt like you had a point and some ground to stand at one time, but you gotta remain vigilant. History can move fast, and it does not reward loyalists.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    > Russia and China are waging a hybrid war with the US/EU at the moment. Russia is at war with Ukraine. The EU is at war with nobody. Who's at war with the US? You seem to be using the world "war" very lightly in a context where actual war is also happening. And that's the aspect that's hitting me the most: people get into a "we're at war" mindset without needing their government to actually make official steps nor actually engage their responsibility. Banning TikTok is ok because of that "war but not really" atmosphere, where China is not an actual diplomatic enemy with open proof and potential discussions of them, but companies can still be punished purely on the grounds of involvement with China.
Xen9 2y ago
Three meta-level points: (1) Public discussion in the web about what is, has and will happen in global / security / foreign politics is completely broken. (2) The reason is not and cannot be one-sided. However it may be better to think of groups with "mind control" powers and entities with not than any nation states or international organizations. (3) I have never seen an attempt by anyone to do something about this; it seems that hope of rational (web) discussions and analysis is, has always been, and will for foreseeable future buried by whatever this is.

Russia is bad though, they just bombed a children's cancer hospital yesterday.

by axpvms 2y ago

Russia is bad though, they just bombed a children's cancer hospital yesterday.

greenavocado 2y ago

[flagged]

kspacewalk2 2y ago
Each side of what? Are you attempting to draw equivalency between the actions of Ukraine and Russia?
- ipaddr 2y ago
  The war is between the US (allies) and Russia. Ukraine is just a proxy country. Did the war start with the invasion of Ukraine or many years before when NATO decided it needed to expand?
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    Sigh. Ukraine begged to join NATO because they saw this coming a mile off. They’re still begging. Asking to join the neighbourhood security watch is offensive only to burglars. PS: If your argument over NATO membership is a valid one, then why is Russia not equally upset about Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Why not invade those sovereign nations on their border as well to prevent their membership? Is it because they don't particularly care about NATO unless it gets in the way of a planned invasion? Could that be it?
    - senderista 2y ago
      What if Panama invited China to establish a giant military base on its territory, given that they were unlawfully invaded and occupied by the US just a few decades ago and presumably have an interest in preventing it from happening again? Do you think the US govt would be cool with that? Why not? Doesn't Panama have a right to choose their own allies, and also discourage a future invasion from the US? Why would the US object to this at all unless they were planning a future unlawful invasion? I'll close with a quote from former CIA director Bill Burns, who tried to talk the Bush administration out of pushing for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia (this is from 2008): "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. At this stage, a MAP [Membership Action Plan] offer would be seen not as a technical step along a long road toward membership, but as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze…. It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine."
      - jiggawatts 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Panama_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Panama_relations "Panama wants to make ties with China" Let's see... the US is preparing for the invasion next -- checks notes -- oh never. They're not planning to invade at all. Huh. Interesting. Interesting... Similarly, China has been "courting" Pacific islands that were previously in the "sphere of influence" of Australia. It's been in the news a lot recently over here. Instead of immediately ramping up military recruitment for an imminent invasion, our government instead sheepishly admitted that it's a bit shameful how we haven't been paying much attention and should be nicer to our neighbours so that they'll ally with us instead. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/resetting-australia-s-relationship-pacific-three-ideas https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/resetting-aust... Love instead of tanks. Who would have thought such a crazy notion could work!?
      - ziml77 2y ago
        What a bullshit quote. Ukraine didn't join NATO and Russia took Crimea anyway. And now they're attempting to take Ukraine. Russia is only afraid of NATO because they know it will stop them from taking the territory that they want. And it's pretty clear that they're trying to restore the Soviet Union, so they want quite a bit of territory.
      - mopsi 2y ago
        China already has bases much closer than Panama, in another country Russian apologists like to bring up as an example, Cuba. It's such a non-issue that you're not even aware of it. Burns has changed his mind since 2008 and now advocates for greater military support for Ukraine.
        senderista 2y ago
        They're (alleged) intelligence facilities, not military bases. The fact that Burns is hawkish on Ukraine after Putin invaded does not imply that he's changed his mind about what could/should have been done to prevent it.
        2y ago
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      They are upset more with Finland because of proximity. But Belarus is the buffer country in that region. If it looked like they were going to join NATO they would invade. Ukraine is a buffer country.
      - jiggawatts 2y ago
        Finland has a 1,340km border with Russia, and the closest part of Belarus to Finland is 462km away. So again, why did Russia not invade Finland to stop Finnish membership in NATO? Russia claims this is their casus belli for their invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and tankies accept this at face value. They also claim that Ukraine deserved to be invaded because they were mis-treating ethnic Russians. Okay, but Ukraine's treatment of ethnic Hungarians near the Hungarian border was virtually identical. So... does Hungary have casus belli to invade Ukraine? Or if Putin takes all of Ukraine as per his stated goal of "returning" Ukrainian land to Russia "where it belongs", does he also plan on returning the currently Ukranian land back to Hungary that it lost? If not, why not? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-admits-ukraine-invasion-is-an-imperial-war-to-return-russian-land/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-adm...
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    It most certainly started years ago when Russia invaded and annexed parts of Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine was lukewarm at best to the idea of NATO before that (and in fact, substantial parts of it were very pro-Russia, a sentiment which quickly changed when they saw what happened to the people in the areas of Ukraine under Russian control).
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      The toppling of Viktor Yanukovych after refusing to join the EU in a US sponsored revolution is what caused annexing Crimea. Crimea represents access to the black sea a very strategic location that is 90% Russian.
      - racional 2y ago
        The black sea a very strategic location that is 90% Russian. Between 55-80 percent of the people in these regions identify as Ukrainian, according to the most recent census. They may also speak Russian (to some degree), but that doesn't mean they consider themselves to be ethnically "Russian", or are desperate to be reunited with the Motherland. It just means that Ukraine is a bilingual country. You may want to take a serious look at what sources you are pulling such obviously misleading figures from. And in particular: at who is presenting these misleading narratives to you, and why.
      - rcxdude 2y ago
        You say this like the latter is a perfectly reasonable reaction to the former (which is already a gross misrepresentation of events), when in fact it is completely unreasonable.
  - alemanek 2y ago
    NATO didn’t decide to expand. Countries scared of Russian aggression have been clamoring to join. Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine twice. They managed to get Sweden and Finland to join up thereby expanding their border with NATO by 1340km. Truth is Russia could have decided to be Norway if they would have just peacefully stayed in their borders and sold gas/oil to the EU. But instead they decided they would rather be North Korea. In a decade they will likely be just another client state of China. It is truly sad.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      The EU which represents majority of NATO countries (with the US and Canada excluded) did. The efforts to get Ukraine to join the EU and then the CIA toppling of Viktor Yanukovych over his refusal. Then we get the Cremeia response from Russia and this starts the ball rolling.
      - mopsi 2y ago
        The CIA did not topple Yanukovych. Yanukovych got over 100 protesters killed and ran away from Ukraine when he understood that he was not going to get away with it and would be facing jailtime. Ukrainian parliament assembled to resolve the crisis and voted 328-vs-0 for holding new elections, which took place a few months later. Not even a single person from Yanukovych's own party voted in support of him.
  - pie420 2y ago
    What's wrong with NATO expanding? It's a voluntary organization that protects member states from aggressors? It's like saying a shelter for abused women is also somehow partially responsible for domestic abuse... One side is protecting the other is attacking. South ossetia, crimea, abkhazia are all examples of what happens if you live too close to russia and aren't protected by nato lol
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      What's wrong with trying to circle in Russia decreasing their military and economic control? That's viewed as hostile and we see what the response is. The strategic of circling of China is getting pushback. The idea of containment is hostile and creates pressure which is relied by wars but this kills innocent people.

jmprspret 2y ago

The US government, DoD, CIA, etc are all "bad" too. I'm not excusing Russia's actions, but if you're going the moral high ground, on civilian murder, you should be avoid US companies as well.

alemanek 2y ago
It’s not about morals. Russia and China are waging a hybrid war with the US/EU at the moment. Any US or European company absolutely should not trust a Russian or Chinese company at the moment. Especially not for antivirus. Just like any company based in Russia or China shouldn’t trust western companies. But also you are comparing autocracies to democracies. Don’t pretend that the control the US is able to exert over their companies is in anyway comparable to what is common place in Russia/China. Remember the rash of murder/suicides of Russian oligarchs where they decided to kill their families and then off themselves. Or how about when Jack Ma was disappeared for a year. Russia/China is in no way equivalent to western democracies on this issue. So please stop the whataboutism.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  I don't want to get into a whole thing, but just its maybe a bad moment to try to make the points your making! The amount of "control over companies" one state has over another is not going to be a strong debate point when your good guys here are, as we speak, sustaining an extreme act of at this point inarguable mass murder. All while, it should probably go without saying, sustaining a complete harmony in the respective state and private institutions at play. What a lovely coincidence I guess! This is not even get into maybe the not so fine details of USA democracy these days. I know you really felt like you had a point and some ground to stand at one time, but you gotta remain vigilant. History can move fast, and it does not reward loyalists.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  > Russia and China are waging a hybrid war with the US/EU at the moment. Russia is at war with Ukraine. The EU is at war with nobody. Who's at war with the US? You seem to be using the world "war" very lightly in a context where actual war is also happening. And that's the aspect that's hitting me the most: people get into a "we're at war" mindset without needing their government to actually make official steps nor actually engage their responsibility. Banning TikTok is ok because of that "war but not really" atmosphere, where China is not an actual diplomatic enemy with open proof and potential discussions of them, but companies can still be punished purely on the grounds of involvement with China.

Xen9 2y ago

Three meta-level points: (1) Public discussion in the web about what is, has and will happen in global / security / foreign politics is completely broken. (2) The reason is not and cannot be one-sided. However it may be better to think of groups with "mind control" powers and entities with not than any nation states or international organizations. (3) I have never seen an attempt by anyone to do something about this; it seems that hope of rational (web) discussions and analysis is, has always been, and will for foreseeable future buried by whatever this is.