4 ms·
Your analogy is way off base. This is how you've framed it: > Let's say I [the Netherlands] pay [!?] someone [Ukraine] to punch you [Russia] int the face every
by feoren 17d ago
Your analogy is way off base. This is how you've framed it:
> Let's say I [the Netherlands] pay [!?] someone [Ukraine] to punch you [Russia] int the face every day. Then one day when you [Russia] punch me [Ukraine] in the face do I have a right to complain?
Ukraine is defending itself, and nobody is paying Ukraine to do that. Russia is the aggressor here. It's weird that I need to point that out. We're talking about Russia sabotaging someone for selling defensive capabilities to Ukraine. So a better analogy is this:
Let's say I punch you in the face every day. Then one day you buy a baseball bat from Gart Sports to defend yourself, so I go in and punch the manager of Gart Sports. Am I in the wrong?
Yes, very obviously, when you frame the analogy correctly, you are in the wrong.
- vintermann 17d ago> defensive capabilities to Ukraine With you up until there. There's nothing defensive about drones. Retributive capabilities certainly, pre-emptive capabilities maybe, but absolutely offensive capabilities, not defensive ones. Attacking Russia back was a line that was definitively crossed in May 2024. You may argue it was justified, but not that it wasn't attacking. In terms of that stupid punching analogy (which wasn't yours to begin with, I know) this is going over to your bully's neighborhood with that baseball bat.
- hdgvhicv 17d agoSo when someone is firing missiles at you, it’s not defensive to blow up the launcher?
- don_esteban 16d agoThe Ukrainian drones are not blowing up launchers. They are blowing up refineries and warehouses.
- hdgvhicv 16d agoWarehouse containing kit to build the drones, refineries producing fuel to fuel the tanks
- vintermann 16d agoand people who could do those things. Sure. That was a line which was crossed, and everyone knew that - including Ukraine, which is why they didn't do it until two years into the war after getting explicit permission from the governments supplying them with weapons. But that leaves us back where we started doesn't it? If it's fair game to attack civilian infrastructure which was used or could be used to make the weapons you are getting hit with - then why should it make a difference if it's in the Netherlands? Or in China for that matter? I'm pretty sure that if Russian weapons were made in a state technically not in the conflict (say Belarus), that wouldn't stop Ukraine from sabotaging them. I'm not denying that Russia was the initial aggressor. I am saying enough lines have been crossed that we really can't fault Russia if they wanted to sabotage weapons production in the west.
- yakshaving_jgt 16d agoThousands of the first Shahed drones fired by russia at civilians in Ukraine were made in Iran. Ukraine has not attacked Iran. So you might be “pretty sure”, but to me it looks like you’re just wrong.
- vintermann 16d ago> Ukraine has not attacked Iran. Lol, no, not by themselves no. But in case you didn't notice, Ukraine's most powerful ally did. Ukraine totally would attack Iran's drone production capabilities, if they could and didn't have other options/more pressing things to do. And the same goes for them as for Russia, you couldn't blame them for it if they did.
- yakshaving_jgt 16d agoUkraine’s most powerful ally? Who are you talking about? Surely not Trump. If you are… what planet are you living on?