4 ms·

Europe is under attack from Russia. Why isn't it fighting back?

27 points by c420 2y ago

fulafel 2y ago
Framing terrorism as "war" and saturating the news with it worked really well in recent history for transforming your country into a paranoid proto-fascist state.
ChumpGPT 2y ago
>Western intelligence officials believe the attack, which took place in July, was a trial run by Russian agents who planned to place similar bombs on flights to the United States. It's only a matter of time before they bring down a US Cargo/passenger plane. Perhaps Americans will finally wake up and come around to the fact that Putin and Russia are not their friends like Tulsi, Trump, Hegsseth, et al have said.
- christophilus 2y ago
  For what it's worth, I don't know a single Republican who thinks Putin is their friend. They just think that there might be a better way to contain your enemy than outright war. For the first time in my life, the Republicans around me are the ones who are championing non-war-like conflict resolution.
  - popalchemist 2y ago
    30% or so of Republicans are the extreme right who have been fully taken by propaganda. Those people are pro-russia, anti-america, as in, dismantle and burn the federal government to the ground. This is what they mean when they talk about "draining the swamp." It's born from the intersection of willful ignorance, resentment over their poverty, and targeted propaganda via algorithms that stokes radical belief. Just because your friends aren't in that 30% doesn't mean they don't exist.
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throw16180339 2y ago
        > Also, if you'll remember through the partisan haze of polarized thinking, it used to be considered a good and reasonable thing to not want war or unmeasured foreign intervention, and it was a widely held belief by the progressive side of U.S politics. Now however, the Republicans get derided for holding more to that view, or just accused of automatically being friends of Putin, which, as the other comment states, is a gross bit of mendacity. Trump's "bromance" with Putin during his last term, coupled with extensive evidence of corruption, makes it reasonable to question whether he might prioritize Putin's interests over U.S. strategic goals. Historically, ties to foreign powers would disqualify a candidate from public office, yet the Republican Party seems largely willing to overlook these concerns. Even Joseph McCarthy, notorious for his paranoia about foreign influence, would likely see Trump as a textbook case — and for once, he wouldn’t be wrong. > I'd be willing to bet money, to anyone who offered, that during the Trump presidency, the U.S will emphatically not cease support to Ukraine, because, certain posturing and a small few fringe nuts aside, the Republicans do know that Russia is the real aggressor and has to be shown a strong hand for the sake of keeping American reliability credible on the world stage. Even Trump knows this perfectly well. As for the claim that Trump understands the importance of standing firm against Russia: his past behavior doesn't inspire confidence. I'd estimate at least a 30% chance that, under another Trump presidency, the U.S. could abruptly cut off support for Ukraine. Why? Because decisions wouldn't hinge on strategic considerations — they’d depend on Trump’s whims. Possible scenarios include: • He feels like it. • Putin flatters or bribes him. • Ukraine refuses to pay him off when asked. This pattern of impulsiveness defined his previous term, so why assume it would be any different now?
      - sgentle 2y ago
        When you ask a question like that, are you making an implicit commitment to change your mind if a source is provided? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10763974/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10763974/
  - ChumpGPT 2y ago
    If conflict resolution means giving Ukraine to Russia, then I can agree with you. Vance says he doesn't care about what happens in Ukraine and Trump said he has a very good relationship with Putin and could stop the war in the first 24 hours after the election. Tulsi believes there are USA BioLabs in Ukraine and Putin was right for invading his peaceful neighbor. Hegseth believes Ukraine doesn't deserve US support and is unworthy of helping. There is the old guard that understands very well that Russia is the greatest threat the US faces but they no longer have much of a voice. MAGA is in charge and they are fine with America's strategic defeat and the downfall of Western democracy.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > they are fine with America's strategic defeat This is a silly statement, for all of MAGA and the modern right's pitiful shortcomings. Ukraine is profoundly low on the priority list of strategic American positions. Arguably even Crimea was more strategically important, and the US let that get annexed pretty comfortably when that happened. If Ukraine was seized it would set a terrible precedent for Europe - but the West doesn't have any strategic stakes there outside potential NATO candidates.
      - bdangubic 2y ago
        this is very short-sighted… you think US strategically cared about Vietnam?! it doesn’t matter whether ukraine is on the US strategic priority list - it matters what ukraine represents. if US is cool with russia invading european sovereign states - fantastic. surely putin being a fair and cool guy and all will stop there, right?
        farting 2y ago
        I'm not exactly a scholar on the Vietnam war, but I don't think it was about what Vietnam "represented". Communism had already been spreading with incredible ease, helped by the USSR's investments, and we were afraid of it spreading more, as it's a detriment to capitalism's global profit extraction scheme. There was a very real and very big risk to our bottom line with the whole communism fight. If Ukraine falls, Russia gets a whole bunch of agriculture exports, but other than that what do we lose? Sure it sets a bad precedent for global tensions and all, but the US isn't at risk of losing as much as we (thought) we would with the Vietnam fight.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    For the first time in my life, the Republicans around me are the ones who are championing non-war-like conflict resolution. And yet, by not just saying "Look, we need to negotiate with Russia", but literally "We don't give a fuck about Ukraine, and we'll end the war in 24 hours" (meaning, if we are to take them at their word, very likely agreeing to the vast bulk of Putin's stated terms, including his demand for recognized sovereignty on the territories he is claiming) -- they are in effect signaling a promise to fully legitimize Putin's war aims, thus championing his very much "war-like" style of conflict resolution.
  - ashoeafoot 2y ago
    But..we did all those better ways, we signed agreements,we sacrificed small countries, that process of showing comprises got us where we are today. Which is..at war.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    For what it's worth, I don't know a single Republican who thinks Putin is their friend. For what it's worth, here's what Trump said about his relationship with Putin recently: “You know, he was a friend of mine,” the former president told the athlete on speaker phone, as recorded in a viral video. “I got along great with him.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-putin-friend-john-daly-b2029785.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... Of course he's blatantly talking out of his ass, as usual. Just like he is when he tells you that he's anti-war.
gamesetmath 2y ago
[dead]
throwaway290 2y ago
[flagged]
farting 2y ago
[flagged]
jopsen 2y ago
If these attacks are likely not a serious threat. And if you want to get payback you don't need to take action against Russia. You can simply donate military aid to Ukraine, which they will convert to Russian casualties. So why respond to a cut cable?
mopsi 2y ago
From the article: > If not for a delay in a connecting flight, the incendiary bomb would likely have burst into flames in the belly of a plane flying high above the European Union. Instead, it ignited on the ground in Germany’s Leipzig airport, setting fire to a DHL air freight container. Yesterday, a DHL cargo flight from Leipzig crashed on approach to Vilnius. One crew member died, three other were hospitalized. The plane narrowly missed 12 people who were in the building it hit. Reason for the crash is currently unknown, the possibility of intentional sabotage has made political circles anxious. https://avherald.com/h?article=520c0e2b&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=520c0e2b&opt=0
tim333 2y ago
>Why isn't it fighting back? There has been $36bn in military assistance to Ukraine and Criminal Court arrest warrants from the Hague for Putin, Gerasimov and others. Maybe we could do more but it isn't nothing.

27 points by c420 2y ago

Framing terrorism as "war" and saturating the news with it worked really well in recent history for transforming your country into a paranoid proto-fascist state.

ChumpGPT 2y ago

>Western intelligence officials believe the attack, which took place in July, was a trial run by Russian agents who planned to place similar bombs on flights to the United States. It's only a matter of time before they bring down a US Cargo/passenger plane. Perhaps Americans will finally wake up and come around to the fact that Putin and Russia are not their friends like Tulsi, Trump, Hegsseth, et al have said.

christophilus 2y ago
For what it's worth, I don't know a single Republican who thinks Putin is their friend. They just think that there might be a better way to contain your enemy than outright war. For the first time in my life, the Republicans around me are the ones who are championing non-war-like conflict resolution.
- popalchemist 2y ago
  30% or so of Republicans are the extreme right who have been fully taken by propaganda. Those people are pro-russia, anti-america, as in, dismantle and burn the federal government to the ground. This is what they mean when they talk about "draining the swamp." It's born from the intersection of willful ignorance, resentment over their poverty, and targeted propaganda via algorithms that stokes radical belief. Just because your friends aren't in that 30% doesn't mean they don't exist.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw16180339 2y ago
      > Also, if you'll remember through the partisan haze of polarized thinking, it used to be considered a good and reasonable thing to not want war or unmeasured foreign intervention, and it was a widely held belief by the progressive side of U.S politics. Now however, the Republicans get derided for holding more to that view, or just accused of automatically being friends of Putin, which, as the other comment states, is a gross bit of mendacity. Trump's "bromance" with Putin during his last term, coupled with extensive evidence of corruption, makes it reasonable to question whether he might prioritize Putin's interests over U.S. strategic goals. Historically, ties to foreign powers would disqualify a candidate from public office, yet the Republican Party seems largely willing to overlook these concerns. Even Joseph McCarthy, notorious for his paranoia about foreign influence, would likely see Trump as a textbook case — and for once, he wouldn’t be wrong. > I'd be willing to bet money, to anyone who offered, that during the Trump presidency, the U.S will emphatically not cease support to Ukraine, because, certain posturing and a small few fringe nuts aside, the Republicans do know that Russia is the real aggressor and has to be shown a strong hand for the sake of keeping American reliability credible on the world stage. Even Trump knows this perfectly well. As for the claim that Trump understands the importance of standing firm against Russia: his past behavior doesn't inspire confidence. I'd estimate at least a 30% chance that, under another Trump presidency, the U.S. could abruptly cut off support for Ukraine. Why? Because decisions wouldn't hinge on strategic considerations — they’d depend on Trump’s whims. Possible scenarios include: • He feels like it. • Putin flatters or bribes him. • Ukraine refuses to pay him off when asked. This pattern of impulsiveness defined his previous term, so why assume it would be any different now?
    - sgentle 2y ago
      When you ask a question like that, are you making an implicit commitment to change your mind if a source is provided? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10763974/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10763974/
- ChumpGPT 2y ago
  If conflict resolution means giving Ukraine to Russia, then I can agree with you. Vance says he doesn't care about what happens in Ukraine and Trump said he has a very good relationship with Putin and could stop the war in the first 24 hours after the election. Tulsi believes there are USA BioLabs in Ukraine and Putin was right for invading his peaceful neighbor. Hegseth believes Ukraine doesn't deserve US support and is unworthy of helping. There is the old guard that understands very well that Russia is the greatest threat the US faces but they no longer have much of a voice. MAGA is in charge and they are fine with America's strategic defeat and the downfall of Western democracy.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > they are fine with America's strategic defeat This is a silly statement, for all of MAGA and the modern right's pitiful shortcomings. Ukraine is profoundly low on the priority list of strategic American positions. Arguably even Crimea was more strategically important, and the US let that get annexed pretty comfortably when that happened. If Ukraine was seized it would set a terrible precedent for Europe - but the West doesn't have any strategic stakes there outside potential NATO candidates.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      this is very short-sighted… you think US strategically cared about Vietnam?! it doesn’t matter whether ukraine is on the US strategic priority list - it matters what ukraine represents. if US is cool with russia invading european sovereign states - fantastic. surely putin being a fair and cool guy and all will stop there, right?
      - farting 2y ago
        I'm not exactly a scholar on the Vietnam war, but I don't think it was about what Vietnam "represented". Communism had already been spreading with incredible ease, helped by the USSR's investments, and we were afraid of it spreading more, as it's a detriment to capitalism's global profit extraction scheme. There was a very real and very big risk to our bottom line with the whole communism fight. If Ukraine falls, Russia gets a whole bunch of agriculture exports, but other than that what do we lose? Sure it sets a bad precedent for global tensions and all, but the US isn't at risk of losing as much as we (thought) we would with the Vietnam fight.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  For the first time in my life, the Republicans around me are the ones who are championing non-war-like conflict resolution. And yet, by not just saying "Look, we need to negotiate with Russia", but literally "We don't give a fuck about Ukraine, and we'll end the war in 24 hours" (meaning, if we are to take them at their word, very likely agreeing to the vast bulk of Putin's stated terms, including his demand for recognized sovereignty on the territories he is claiming) -- they are in effect signaling a promise to fully legitimize Putin's war aims, thus championing his very much "war-like" style of conflict resolution.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  But..we did all those better ways, we signed agreements,we sacrificed small countries, that process of showing comprises got us where we are today. Which is..at war.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  For what it's worth, I don't know a single Republican who thinks Putin is their friend. For what it's worth, here's what Trump said about his relationship with Putin recently: “You know, he was a friend of mine,” the former president told the athlete on speaker phone, as recorded in a viral video. “I got along great with him.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-putin-friend-john-daly-b2029785.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... Of course he's blatantly talking out of his ass, as usual. Just like he is when he tells you that he's anti-war.

gamesetmath 2y ago

[dead]

throwaway290 2y ago

[flagged]

farting 2y ago

[flagged]

jopsen 2y ago

If these attacks are likely not a serious threat. And if you want to get payback you don't need to take action against Russia. You can simply donate military aid to Ukraine, which they will convert to Russian casualties. So why respond to a cut cable?

mopsi 2y ago

From the article: > If not for a delay in a connecting flight, the incendiary bomb would likely have burst into flames in the belly of a plane flying high above the European Union. Instead, it ignited on the ground in Germany’s Leipzig airport, setting fire to a DHL air freight container. Yesterday, a DHL cargo flight from Leipzig crashed on approach to Vilnius. One crew member died, three other were hospitalized. The plane narrowly missed 12 people who were in the building it hit. Reason for the crash is currently unknown, the possibility of intentional sabotage has made political circles anxious. https://avherald.com/h?article=520c0e2b&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=520c0e2b&opt=0

tim333 2y ago

>Why isn't it fighting back? There has been $36bn in military assistance to Ukraine and Criminal Court arrest warrants from the Hague for Putin, Gerasimov and others. Maybe we could do more but it isn't nothing.