6 ms·

hm, not much would change. - we'd still see palestine destroyed - iran bombed - iraq bombed - lybia bombed - afganistan bombed - lebanon bombed Imagine if all

hm, not much would change. - we'd still see palestine destroyed - iran bombed - iraq bombed - lybia bombed - afganistan bombed - lebanon bombed Imagine if all countries would put their energy into building peace and prosperity. That would make a difference.

Svoka 6mo ago
ah, here comes whataboutism. And you are correct. It would be great if russia didn't destroy Afghanistan and Syria. Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today. "all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
- nullorempty 6mo ago
  Just pointing out that nothing would change. And you are obviously fixated on Russia. May be broaden your perspective.
  - Svoka 6mo ago
    only things you point out are russian propaganda points.
    - nullorempty 6mo ago
      that you need to broaden your perspective? Russian propaganda said that about you?
      - Svoka 6mo ago
        How listening to same disingenuous false propaganda points would broaden anyone perspective? False equivalency between conflicts remain false
        nullorempty 6mo ago
        [flagged]
gljiva 6mo ago
Actually, a lot would change. Each one of the Ukrainian lives destroyed is a whole life destroyed. A damaged car is a setback for a family. There are whole cities and villages razed in Ukraine, fields polluted or rigged with explosives. Countless lives lost; each person's story and potential ended by some Russian's "command-following" drone or missile strike. No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.
- nullorempty 6mo ago
  A lot would change for a few, not for the 8b people on this planet.
  - gljiva 6mo ago
    I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.
    - nullorempty 6mo ago
      Both sides had the option to de-escalate. All Ukraine needed to do is to implement Minks agreements instead of killing ppl of donbass.
      - gljiva 6mo ago
        Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference

Svoka 6mo ago

ah, here comes whataboutism. And you are correct. It would be great if russia didn't destroy Afghanistan and Syria. Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today. "all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.

nullorempty 6mo ago
Just pointing out that nothing would change. And you are obviously fixated on Russia. May be broaden your perspective.
- Svoka 6mo ago
  only things you point out are russian propaganda points.
  - nullorempty 6mo ago
    that you need to broaden your perspective? Russian propaganda said that about you?
    - Svoka 6mo ago
      How listening to same disingenuous false propaganda points would broaden anyone perspective? False equivalency between conflicts remain false
      - nullorempty 6mo ago
        [flagged]

gljiva 6mo ago

Actually, a lot would change. Each one of the Ukrainian lives destroyed is a whole life destroyed. A damaged car is a setback for a family. There are whole cities and villages razed in Ukraine, fields polluted or rigged with explosives. Countless lives lost; each person's story and potential ended by some Russian's "command-following" drone or missile strike. No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.

nullorempty 6mo ago
A lot would change for a few, not for the 8b people on this planet.
- gljiva 6mo ago
  I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.
  - nullorempty 6mo ago
    Both sides had the option to de-escalate. All Ukraine needed to do is to implement Minks agreements instead of killing ppl of donbass.
    - gljiva 6mo ago
      Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference