_kbh_

14 ms·

91.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> avoiding escalation seems like a sensible thing at this point as it’s clear neither side can easily win. Im not sure how giving a country being invaded the weapons it need to defend itself is "escalation".
92.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> When viewed from afar, war is just an extension of diplomacy. I am against any invasion whatsoever, but using any means necessary to ensure Ukraine does not join NATO (something that the US fought for), is indeed a defence of Russian i
93.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> I don't like him. But this is a good move. But the stated reason has turned out to be not true, once again Russian officials just used the threat of nukes to try and slow down Ukraine. Russia has threatened nukes about every secon
94.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Ukraine disarmed their nuclear stockpile. Obviously Russia wouldn’t have invaded otherwise. They disarmed their nuclear stockpile and their long range strike capability under an international agreement where the largest players in the
95.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
Here’s a link to a more full capture hi resolution image looks like tires to me. https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1699168108148089169?s=20
96.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> If Ukraine was accepted into NATO in 2008 then none of this would happen. Chomsky was against that, i.e. his views are worsening the situation. This isn't the only time that this war could have been averted. I also believe this wa
97.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Only now there is more people who start saying clearly that the war is not going to stop, it is going to last number of years, and impratant bit, Ukraine is going to be completely destroyed in the process. And what Ukrainian people are
98.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Exactly. These are stunts designed to keep morale high, in Ukraine and the West. Their impact on the outcome of the war is negligible. These are Ukraine + NATO dealing as much damage as they think they can get away with. And Russia abs
99.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Both sides use the drones. It's not a strategic advantage. It may not be, but only one side is using them to inflict damage that is upwards of 100M+ USD at a time (on occasion). The Russian use of drones appears to be less effecti
100.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion. Your source appears to indicate th
101.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative b
102.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin. I think this kinda of language takes agency away from countries like R
103.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Why is there so much secrecy surrounding it? Is it not a publicly funded project? It's a military project so it's not surprising theres a lot of secrecy around it. Even more so that it's likely related to some sort of in
104.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The Budapest Memorandum was annulled when one of its signatories blatantly violated its first clause in early 2014 (if not earlier). > ...and Russia annexed Crimea in response. Ah yes it's not because Russia invaded and annexed
105.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
I think one of your major mistakes is taking Russias and Putins word at face value and not accounting for the fact that they rarely keep any promises / agreements they have if it doesn’t serve them. Just see the Budapest memorandum as
106.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Good? Like a dozen more countries overthrew a democratically elected government in ukraine. Good for russia for protecting democracy in ukraine. What part of invading a country is protecting its democracy?. > Either this is the dumb
107.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. The fact that Jeffery Sachs even appeared on the show 100% colours his view on Ukraine. It’s
108.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation. That was off the table in 2014 when they did the exact same thing to Crimea, so theres no real change there, not that it c
109.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Here are a couple of insightful talks by esteemed American academics that shed some light on this dark period: > https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared > International - Path to Peace in Ukr
110.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> What is your point? That soldiers die if you shell them? My point is that the following paragraph doesn't exactly hold up if you consider Wagner to be "slight more competent weak opponents" which I would. > When confr
111.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales. Russia and America have fought albeit slightly indi
112.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Why ukraine? Russia's enemy isn't ukraine. Surely they'll use it on their enemies. Well they keep threatening to nuke Ukraine and like a dozen more countries, generally over things that happen in Ukraine. > What were
113.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
I think the x-47 could also be used for an insert satellite in orbit stealthily mission.
114.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> What nuclear taboo? I think hiroshima and nagasaki ended any hope for a nuclear taboo. Then Russia is free to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine and they are free to suffer the consequences too. If the nuclear weapons actually work that is
115.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead. I thi
116.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. What if what led a country to become involved in a hot war its larger n
117.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Plenty of NATO interventions, where not a single NATO member was attacked. But that’s not the context that Ukraine wants to join NATO in, Ukraine wants to join NATO to permanently kick the Russian imperialistic invaders out of their co
118.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
So Ukraine trying to defend itself from an imperialistic invader is escalatory now?.
119.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> If my country had huge amounts of excess fracking gas and the infrastructure to transport it overseas already existed but noone would want to buy it because it's much cheaper buying it from Russia transported through pipelines, th
120.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> BRICS called, they wanna give back some funny money they've been hoarding. I think you might want to send it to the folks in the UMBRAGE group, see what they have to (not) say about it .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w

More ›