3 ms·

I agree with your overall sentiment, except: "Like, in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms" Russia. Putin.

YC666943749 11mo ago
[flagged]
- idiotsecant 11mo ago
  What a surprise a 2 hour old throwaway post parroting barely coherent Russian propaganda.
- phba 11mo ago
  This "joke" is neither funny nor original as it comes up on social media everytime someone mentions Russia as a threat to Europe. Oh, look at that. A fresh account just to make this comment. What a coincidence.
moffkalast 11mo ago
I'm talking about our society internally, not potential external attacks on it. It's reasonably high trust and crime is rare outside a few outlier cities. We could not be further from warranting these sort of fascist style crackdowns. Ironically yes we could be spending funding used for domestic surveillance and bureaucracy on buying more Himars.
somenameforme 11mo ago
The chances of Russia invading a NATO country are essentially zero simply because it would, almost certainly, lead to nuclear war. The idea that nukes wouldn't come out is contradicted both by decades of wargaming. In fact this is exactly what led to the end of the Cold War. At one time the US thought we could end the Cold War by waving a bigger stick. But Proud Prophet [1] was an extremely elaborate war game played out in the 80s that demonstrated that literally every single aggressive strategy, regardless of how innocuous, invariably spiraled rapidly towards nuclear war and the depopulation of the Northern Hemisphere. This led the US to sharply scale back rhetoric against the USSR, drop ideas of successfully fighting a nuclear war, and a sharp shift towards de-escalation and away from strong-arming. 7 years later the first McDonalds would open in the USSR. The next year, the USSR would collapse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
- cmrdporcupine 11mo ago
  This has nothing to do with anything. Nobody said anything about nuclear war or formal invasion. Let's review. Russia shot down a civilian airliner, killing all 298 people onboard, mostly Dutch nationals. Russia performed a radioactive poisoning attack on British territory, contaminating British civilian areas and Russia also used a deadly nerve agent twice within a few months on British territory, including poisoning two non-Russian British nationals, killing one and injuring the other. And they actively fund far right and white supremacist organizations in western European countries and blatantly interfere in local politics, and also run active bot farms for the purpose of undermining social solidarity and democratic governance. Those are just a few things we know about. The threat from Russia is not external or invasive. It is internal and ongoing. The fact that they haven't nuked and won't nuke the entire western hemisphere is a bit of a strange bar to set.
  - somenameforme 11mo ago
    His comment said that "in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms." And in the past Europe dealt with never-ending wars which culminated in a war that left tens of millions dead. And even after that war, there was the never-ending threat of nuclear annihilation that was 100% justified as both sides lined up their nukes at one another and very nearly fired them. Nothing in your list is anywhere near the same scale. The only thing that would suffice is a fear that Russia invades a NATO country and effectively triggers WW3.
- red-iron-pine 11mo ago
  none of the countries that Putin could and would invade, e.g. Finland, the Baltics, Poland, have nukes. It would depend on the UK, France, and the US to back them with nuclear weapons. Would the UK electorate be willing to trade their existence -- potential nuclear holocaust -- for Latvia? And the US is under Putin's puppet, so they're not launching nukes. Would Britain and France go to war over an invasion of Poland? They did once, and didn't have a great time...
  - 11mo ago

YC666943749 11mo ago

[flagged]

idiotsecant 11mo ago
What a surprise a 2 hour old throwaway post parroting barely coherent Russian propaganda.
phba 11mo ago
This "joke" is neither funny nor original as it comes up on social media everytime someone mentions Russia as a threat to Europe. Oh, look at that. A fresh account just to make this comment. What a coincidence.

moffkalast 11mo ago

I'm talking about our society internally, not potential external attacks on it. It's reasonably high trust and crime is rare outside a few outlier cities. We could not be further from warranting these sort of fascist style crackdowns. Ironically yes we could be spending funding used for domestic surveillance and bureaucracy on buying more Himars.

somenameforme 11mo ago

The chances of Russia invading a NATO country are essentially zero simply because it would, almost certainly, lead to nuclear war. The idea that nukes wouldn't come out is contradicted both by decades of wargaming. In fact this is exactly what led to the end of the Cold War. At one time the US thought we could end the Cold War by waving a bigger stick. But Proud Prophet [1] was an extremely elaborate war game played out in the 80s that demonstrated that literally every single aggressive strategy, regardless of how innocuous, invariably spiraled rapidly towards nuclear war and the depopulation of the Northern Hemisphere. This led the US to sharply scale back rhetoric against the USSR, drop ideas of successfully fighting a nuclear war, and a sharp shift towards de-escalation and away from strong-arming. 7 years later the first McDonalds would open in the USSR. The next year, the USSR would collapse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet

cmrdporcupine 11mo ago
This has nothing to do with anything. Nobody said anything about nuclear war or formal invasion. Let's review. Russia shot down a civilian airliner, killing all 298 people onboard, mostly Dutch nationals. Russia performed a radioactive poisoning attack on British territory, contaminating British civilian areas and Russia also used a deadly nerve agent twice within a few months on British territory, including poisoning two non-Russian British nationals, killing one and injuring the other. And they actively fund far right and white supremacist organizations in western European countries and blatantly interfere in local politics, and also run active bot farms for the purpose of undermining social solidarity and democratic governance. Those are just a few things we know about. The threat from Russia is not external or invasive. It is internal and ongoing. The fact that they haven't nuked and won't nuke the entire western hemisphere is a bit of a strange bar to set.
- somenameforme 11mo ago
  His comment said that "in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms." And in the past Europe dealt with never-ending wars which culminated in a war that left tens of millions dead. And even after that war, there was the never-ending threat of nuclear annihilation that was 100% justified as both sides lined up their nukes at one another and very nearly fired them. Nothing in your list is anywhere near the same scale. The only thing that would suffice is a fear that Russia invades a NATO country and effectively triggers WW3.
red-iron-pine 11mo ago
none of the countries that Putin could and would invade, e.g. Finland, the Baltics, Poland, have nukes. It would depend on the UK, France, and the US to back them with nuclear weapons. Would the UK electorate be willing to trade their existence -- potential nuclear holocaust -- for Latvia? And the US is under Putin's puppet, so they're not launching nukes. Would Britain and France go to war over an invasion of Poland? They did once, and didn't have a great time...
- 11mo ago