4 ms·

I just think it's regrettable to have strong confident opinions with a shallow understanding of probably the most important event since WW2, Russia is trying to

I just think it's regrettable to have strong confident opinions with a shallow understanding of probably the most important event since WW2, Russia is trying to annex a democratic sovereign country of 40 million people. It's an attempt at mass-scale genocide. That is the type of opinion is passed on by the vast majority of alternative media podcasts - it's shallow entertaining stories that give the illusion of understanding a subject. The invasion of Ukraine is probably the most documented war in History, and you can get a very good understanding of the event in a short time with little effort. You can even access original documents, yet you prefer a low-resolution misinformed version of it.

johnisgood 2y ago
I must say that my comments do not necessarily reflect my own opinions. In retrospect I can see why it might have given that impression, as I may have phrased my sentences in that way. (FWIW you know "entertaining" is debatable, and I personally do not find either position entertaining).
- libertine 2y ago
  To clarify, the entertaining part doesn't come from the subject but from the perception of having an insight and opinion about a subject, which most of the time is someone else's idea built on top of another shallow notion. It's fun to believe you have an understanding of reality, that didn't require much effort to understand. This is the main problem we're facing at the moment with regard to information: people mistake a thin veneer of anecdotes and stories, for knowledge with some depth, but they don't care because it feels nice to know a lot of shallow things. The result is a wrong understanding of reality. Just for you to understand, your current stance - I want peace so we can focus on our "internal problems", let Russia keep what they stole and Ukraine needs to figure it out on their own - will make a direct conflict with China inevitable, and that will be a war where you won't be sending just weapons.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    > let Russia keep what they stole and Ukraine needs to figure it out on their own What do you think would be a strategically wise course of action? Should we consider peace talks, take drastic military action like using nuclear weapons on Russia or Ukraine, or explore other alternatives? I apologize for being so extreme, but I struggle to see how simply providing financial aid and weapons - which are finite resources - will effectively resolve the situation. Should we attempt to drain Russia's resources[1]? Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid? [1] Let us not forget history here though.
    - libertine 2y ago
      > What do you think would be a strategically wise course of action? Should we consider peace talks, take drastic military action like using nuclear weapons on Russia or Ukraine, or explore other alternatives? How do you go from peace talks to nuking Russia? What is the goal of nuking Russia? Do you want to go in and occupy the Russian Federation? Ukraine is a sovereign country with borders recognized by 193 countries in the UN - including Russia by the way. No one, except Syria and North Korea recognizes occupied territory as being part of Russia. The reasons are self-evident: if this precedent is opened, then it means we're back to pre-UN times where the strong can annex smaller countries. Countries might as well each get their own nuclear deterrence, and then you'll have nuclear proliferation. Which in case you might not be aware, was a victory to be able to prevent countries from pursuing this avenue. What's wrong about giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself, as we promised with the Budapest Memorandum? They're not asking for nukes, they're not asking for troops on the ground, they just ask to be supplied with what they need on time. Don't make a theatrical display of it, don't drip feed it, just do what was done when we helped the Soviets win against the Nazis, but on a much smaller scale. Providing financial aid and weapons is a small price when compared to the collapse of a global order that was won after WW2. Especially when you're giving them equipment that won't be used by the US and would be decommissioned - it's probably costlier to dispose of it than to give it to Ukraine. > Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid? We can mobilize a global industry to produce mRNA vaccines in a short period of time, that requires specialized resources, we boast about being able to land rockets upright... somehow you think we cannot produce 155mm shells?

johnisgood 2y ago

I must say that my comments do not necessarily reflect my own opinions. In retrospect I can see why it might have given that impression, as I may have phrased my sentences in that way. (FWIW you know "entertaining" is debatable, and I personally do not find either position entertaining).

libertine 2y ago
To clarify, the entertaining part doesn't come from the subject but from the perception of having an insight and opinion about a subject, which most of the time is someone else's idea built on top of another shallow notion. It's fun to believe you have an understanding of reality, that didn't require much effort to understand. This is the main problem we're facing at the moment with regard to information: people mistake a thin veneer of anecdotes and stories, for knowledge with some depth, but they don't care because it feels nice to know a lot of shallow things. The result is a wrong understanding of reality. Just for you to understand, your current stance - I want peace so we can focus on our "internal problems", let Russia keep what they stole and Ukraine needs to figure it out on their own - will make a direct conflict with China inevitable, and that will be a war where you won't be sending just weapons.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  > let Russia keep what they stole and Ukraine needs to figure it out on their own What do you think would be a strategically wise course of action? Should we consider peace talks, take drastic military action like using nuclear weapons on Russia or Ukraine, or explore other alternatives? I apologize for being so extreme, but I struggle to see how simply providing financial aid and weapons - which are finite resources - will effectively resolve the situation. Should we attempt to drain Russia's resources[1]? Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid? [1] Let us not forget history here though.
  - libertine 2y ago
    > What do you think would be a strategically wise course of action? Should we consider peace talks, take drastic military action like using nuclear weapons on Russia or Ukraine, or explore other alternatives? How do you go from peace talks to nuking Russia? What is the goal of nuking Russia? Do you want to go in and occupy the Russian Federation? Ukraine is a sovereign country with borders recognized by 193 countries in the UN - including Russia by the way. No one, except Syria and North Korea recognizes occupied territory as being part of Russia. The reasons are self-evident: if this precedent is opened, then it means we're back to pre-UN times where the strong can annex smaller countries. Countries might as well each get their own nuclear deterrence, and then you'll have nuclear proliferation. Which in case you might not be aware, was a victory to be able to prevent countries from pursuing this avenue. What's wrong about giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself, as we promised with the Budapest Memorandum? They're not asking for nukes, they're not asking for troops on the ground, they just ask to be supplied with what they need on time. Don't make a theatrical display of it, don't drip feed it, just do what was done when we helped the Soviets win against the Nazis, but on a much smaller scale. Providing financial aid and weapons is a small price when compared to the collapse of a global order that was won after WW2. Especially when you're giving them equipment that won't be used by the US and would be decommissioned - it's probably costlier to dispose of it than to give it to Ukraine. > Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid? We can mobilize a global industry to produce mRNA vaccines in a short period of time, that requires specialized resources, we boast about being able to land rockets upright... somehow you think we cannot produce 155mm shells?