3 ms·

So utterly Russian. No games for me, none for you. See also arson attacks in Germany earlier in the year.

thriftwy 2y ago
If you frame it that way, what are the downsides? There's already no games for me, why let you get the fun? What did you in question even expected when escalating?
- weweersdfsd 2y ago
  It's Russia who escalated, though. If they chose a path of co-operation and friendly trade instead of trying to enslave their neighbours, then they would be allowed to compete in the olympics. Of course the real problem is that it's ordinary Russians who bear the suffering caused by their own government, while the ruling elite enjoys luxurious lifestyle no matter what sanctions Europe and US do. The solution would be making life difficult for the oligarchy, but that would probably require measures West isn't willing to employ, because they would be illegal under international law (which Russia doesn't care about).
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    Even if they choose a friendly path no one will believe them. They would need to change their political class and write into their constitution clauses that punish any attack on their neighbours or even calling for such an attack as high treason. That would be a good start, but I have a feeling they are going to try to keep everything as is.
  - thriftwy 2y ago
    It is you who is trying to weaponize everything else, including the Olympics movement. It was your choice to make Olympics political and full of military messages, and then you act surprised when they start blowing up in your hands. You did not have to weaponize everything yet you did.
    - weweersdfsd 2y ago
      You didn't have to invade Ukraine, yet you did. Besides, it's not like Russia keeps sports and politics separate. They don't, they never have. Why do you think state-sponsored doping has historically been big in Russia and Soviet Union? Obviously, because sports is an important vector of propaganda for the state.
    - crabbone 2y ago
      Just a reminder: the historical spirit of Olympics required to stop all wars for the games. The reason for not admitting someone to participate in the games is that they don't act in the Olympic spirit.
      - thriftwy 2y ago
        2020 was actually sufficient for hostile actions to be taken and the hot war just didn't start yet. I don't see this historical spirit being applied in the century XXI against anybody besides Russia. And it's not like there is no wars. You are trying to frame escalations into some legalistic framework, but it only works domestically. Internationally, it is "you punch us, we punch you, we stab you, you stab us". No empty words are necessary and may cause additional violence in response.
        crabbone 2y ago
        Since Sochi Olympics, Russian athletes were consistently banned for doping and for their country's starting wars. Russia didn't change anything in this regard. I don't see why these Olympics should be any different.
        thriftwy 2y ago
        [flagged]
        bjord 2y ago
        what exactly are you arguing? russians should be allowed to keep doping and everyone should look the other way?
  - immibis 2y ago
    [flagged]
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
There was also the plot to assassinate a German defense company CEO. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/russia-assassination-plot-germany.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/russia-assass...
bamboozled 2y ago
If it's Russia, this is an attack on NATO.
- codr7 2y ago
  Only a fool would look forward to that interpretation, hopefully someone with a thread of common sense still has some kind of authority. But I'm sure they'll get their war one way or the other, seeing how everyone is so looking forward to it. Two words, Deer Hunter; and this one will likely be worse.
  - lucianbr 2y ago
    What's important about an interpretation is that it is close to the truth, not that it is convenient or pleasant to look forward to. The opposite is just burying your head in the sand.
    - codr7 2y ago
      Right, the Gulf of Tonkin truth. It gets old.
- dralley 2y ago
  Hardly the first. Using chemical (Novichok) and radiological (Polonium) weapons to conduct assassinations (and causing civilian casualties) was an attack on NATO. Blowing up Czech and Bulgarian ammunition depots (causing deaths) was an attack on NATO. Attempting to assassinate German and Bulgarian arms manufacturer CEOs was an attack on NATO. Not all "attacks" are immediately risable to the level of war, but lets be real here.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Using chemical (Novichok) and radiological (Polonium) weapons to conduct assassinations (and causing civilian casualties) was an attack on NATO. Don't forget the classic assassinations like the Tiergartenmord in Berlin [1]. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordfall_Selimchan_Changoschwili https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordfall_Selimchan_Changoschwi...

If you frame it that way, what are the downsides? There's already no games for me, why let you get the fun? What did you in question even expected when escalating?

weweersdfsd 2y ago
It's Russia who escalated, though. If they chose a path of co-operation and friendly trade instead of trying to enslave their neighbours, then they would be allowed to compete in the olympics. Of course the real problem is that it's ordinary Russians who bear the suffering caused by their own government, while the ruling elite enjoys luxurious lifestyle no matter what sanctions Europe and US do. The solution would be making life difficult for the oligarchy, but that would probably require measures West isn't willing to employ, because they would be illegal under international law (which Russia doesn't care about).
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Even if they choose a friendly path no one will believe them. They would need to change their political class and write into their constitution clauses that punish any attack on their neighbours or even calling for such an attack as high treason. That would be a good start, but I have a feeling they are going to try to keep everything as is.
- thriftwy 2y ago
  It is you who is trying to weaponize everything else, including the Olympics movement. It was your choice to make Olympics political and full of military messages, and then you act surprised when they start blowing up in your hands. You did not have to weaponize everything yet you did.
  - weweersdfsd 2y ago
    You didn't have to invade Ukraine, yet you did. Besides, it's not like Russia keeps sports and politics separate. They don't, they never have. Why do you think state-sponsored doping has historically been big in Russia and Soviet Union? Obviously, because sports is an important vector of propaganda for the state.
  - crabbone 2y ago
    Just a reminder: the historical spirit of Olympics required to stop all wars for the games. The reason for not admitting someone to participate in the games is that they don't act in the Olympic spirit.
    - thriftwy 2y ago
      2020 was actually sufficient for hostile actions to be taken and the hot war just didn't start yet. I don't see this historical spirit being applied in the century XXI against anybody besides Russia. And it's not like there is no wars. You are trying to frame escalations into some legalistic framework, but it only works domestically. Internationally, it is "you punch us, we punch you, we stab you, you stab us". No empty words are necessary and may cause additional violence in response.
      - crabbone 2y ago
        Since Sochi Olympics, Russian athletes were consistently banned for doping and for their country's starting wars. Russia didn't change anything in this regard. I don't see why these Olympics should be any different.
        thriftwy 2y ago
        [flagged]
        bjord 2y ago
        what exactly are you arguing? russians should be allowed to keep doping and everyone should look the other way?
- immibis 2y ago
  [flagged]

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

There was also the plot to assassinate a German defense company CEO. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/russia-assassination-plot-germany.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/russia-assass...

bamboozled 2y ago

If it's Russia, this is an attack on NATO.

codr7 2y ago
Only a fool would look forward to that interpretation, hopefully someone with a thread of common sense still has some kind of authority. But I'm sure they'll get their war one way or the other, seeing how everyone is so looking forward to it. Two words, Deer Hunter; and this one will likely be worse.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  What's important about an interpretation is that it is close to the truth, not that it is convenient or pleasant to look forward to. The opposite is just burying your head in the sand.
  - codr7 2y ago
    Right, the Gulf of Tonkin truth. It gets old.
dralley 2y ago
Hardly the first. Using chemical (Novichok) and radiological (Polonium) weapons to conduct assassinations (and causing civilian casualties) was an attack on NATO. Blowing up Czech and Bulgarian ammunition depots (causing deaths) was an attack on NATO. Attempting to assassinate German and Bulgarian arms manufacturer CEOs was an attack on NATO. Not all "attacks" are immediately risable to the level of war, but lets be real here.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Using chemical (Novichok) and radiological (Polonium) weapons to conduct assassinations (and causing civilian casualties) was an attack on NATO. Don't forget the classic assassinations like the Tiergartenmord in Berlin [1]. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordfall_Selimchan_Changoschwili https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordfall_Selimchan_Changoschwi...