_kbh_

40 ms·

271.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> IMO, the war crimes thing, unless very egregious, is not a very good argument. Because if there is a war, there will be war crimes, and wartime-legal actions that are as bad as war crimes, too. Basically, you start a war, you awaken th
272.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> That is not what anyone agreed to. You can read the "The US-Russia-Ukraine Trilateral Statement and Annex" of 1994 yourself: That is absolutely what was agreed to, you can read the Budapest memorandum right here. https:&#x2F
273.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
I think they are a great gauge of sentiment for exactly the first reason you pointed out. > * They are nonbinding, so they are purely symbolic. So then why didn't more of Russias allies vote for Russia and why did so much of the wor
274.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s A nuclear armed superpower threatening to nuke the country it invaded cause it's starting to lose a war, is certainly new when
275.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> But they didn't and now Russia gets to play the "same shit, different hegemon" card and instead of the entire world pushing back against the invasion of Ukraine, it's just ~40 of the US's closest allies. The re
276.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
You must of missed the part where I was specifically talking about sexual violence. I know that civilian causalities are high for both sides. The difference as I said before is that Russia and uses much more sexual violence and torture. Rus
277.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
None of what you wrote is true but truth matters little to Russian trolls.
278.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Neither of them has lost a war in which they were defending their own country. Exactly and Russia isn’t defending its country its trying to invade another country so why would it use one?.
279.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place? This how I feel a lot more countries will start feeling if Ukraine doesn't win or Russia successfully uses their nuclear blackmail t
280.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> That's not at all clear in this case. the USSR has lot multiple wars against non nuclear armed states. so has the US. > EDIT: ... because they may be willing to use nukes when they realize they're losing. Welcome to the en
281.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the bigge
282.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Do you have trouble reading? Clearly the agreement was completely non-binding and informal. This was stated from the start, multiple times. So it was non existent then some in-person informal not written down agreement that is non bind
283.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> A full chain is a difficult attack to create, and probably worth a lot more than $2.5 million - beyond the reach of one person. You need at least two novel, serious exploits. That's why they are so valuable. Depends if you're
284.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> He's one of the few people strenuously warning about the possibility of this war escalating to a nuclear exchange and reminding us that preventing this is the only thing that matters. In my book that makes him less batshit than mo
285.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
Let's look at some of the 'facts' in your post. > snubbing Russian attempts to join Nato This is false, Russia itself declined to join after being told it would have to follow the same process as everyone else. > and ex
286.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> I think it's terrible, just as much as it's terrible that the US rapes and torture civilians in the middle east. But the scale is different, that's what people like you are refusing to see. Just because one US soldier ra
287.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Not really if you live in a high cost-of-living (HCOL) country. Vulnerability weaponization is a very globalized industry and sufficiently easy that there is a oversupply from LCOL countrys. The real money is in deployment and usage as
288.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says? It was a comment
289.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> I tried to read the article using Google Translate but I found no evidence of this statement (capturing all of Ukraine). Could you point me to the relevant passage? >> Ukraine gained independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union disso
290.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose? When Putin is telling us Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine. I would say they are reliable yes. Just like when Russian media says they should destroy more da
291.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
China is already hiring everyone they can from TSMC they have no need to ransomware them. What remains to be seen if the response (if any) to this. You tread a fine line when you threaten the worlds chip supply.
292.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story its
293.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why. Because Russian media (RIA Novosti,
294.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> https://capl.army.mil/case-studies/wcs-single.php?id=78&titl ... A single case is hardly systematic. > My Lai massacre >> 16 March 1968 Whilst Russia is still stuck in the 1960's the rest of the w
295.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to
296.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> He was correct about where things were headed in his 2015 lecture.[1] Doesn't that lecture also say that he doesn't think Putin would try and capture all of Ukraine?, thats exactly what he's trying to do right now.
297.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Pretty sure based on what you're writing that the reality I'm perceiving is quite different from yours. The only thing the Wagner event demonstrated is the lightning-quick reflexes of the Russian decisionmakers and their abso
298.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Look at the reactions in the US to the story that came up just a few weeks ago about a possible Chinese "spy base" in Cuba. Cuba being a sovereign state and all, I'll let you draw the parallelism yourself... Theres been
299.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Why are you ignoring these heinously vile crimes against humanity and demanding yet more endless war from your in-place war criminals, instead of demanding they be frog-marched to rot in chains in The Hague, where they belong? Oh yeah,
300.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Are you seriously suggesting Russia is responsible for more death and destruction around the world than the US? I am suggesting that Russias wars are far more brutal than America's. There is no systematic rape and torture involved

More ›