aguaviva

36 ms·

511.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Is that view inaccurate? Technically no, but a more forthright assessment would be: "Russia has been winning the war of attrition, but very slowly , and only for the past year. At current rates, it would take several decades to re
512.
by aguaviva 2y ago
I never said those 2 incidents have anything to do with partition. Then they had nothing to do with my post. But you went on and on about them anyway. In fact even now I'm unconvinced you don't hold these views. If you prefer
513.
by aguaviva 2y ago
[flagged]
514.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Not "hundreds of thousands". That's just pure anxiety. Reliable estimate ranges are out there. They're easy to find. If you want to, you can find them. They're all below 100k.
515.
by aguaviva 2y ago
I know what I said, and I was careful with my words. Except your number is way off, and has no connection to reality.
516.
by aguaviva 2y ago
If all we have to go on is the man himself -- that means it's a lie of course, like nearly everything else he says.
517.
by aguaviva 2y ago
The same article you link only quote "speculation" on the role of Ukraine It does not, and you're misreading the one sentence in the article where that word appears.
518.
Elon Musk Asked People to Upload Their Health Data. X Users Obliged(nytimes.com)
13 points by aguaviva 2y ago|2 comments
519.
by aguaviva 2y ago
https://archive.md/iD723
520.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Because he needed all that time (2014-2022) to build up his forces and cash reserves. Also, he needed a green light. Which was provided in the form of the chaotic Afghanistan pullout in 2021. Not that he was counting on it -- but once it
521.
by aguaviva 2y ago
The "never have" part certainly isn't true. For a certain period of time, they definitely had significant influence. They just refuse to acknowledge how Russia really operates. By and large they have, actually, which is why
522.
by aguaviva 2y ago
NATO has engaged in a dozen wars and conflicts as aggressors. A careful examination of the list below suggests that, in terms of your choice of the words "dozen" and "aggressor", the way they are usually meant in Engli
523.
by aguaviva 2y ago
It has already been acknowledged that the rates are "lopsided", i.e. that Russian loss rates are higher than Ukrainian loss rates. But none of what you're saying means that Ukraine isn't also suffering from a very high
524.
by aguaviva 2y ago
If they were not in agreement on that point, how could Biden promise that they would put an end to it? Typical politician nonsense. None of which means he was intending, or suggesting the idea of actually blowing it up.
525.
by aguaviva 2y ago
It was reported by Ukrainska Pravda It was speculated as a possibility by that article, but then it was looked into by others, quite thoroughly, and the narrative fell apart. That happens, you know. The Foreign Affairs article in the afo
526.
by aguaviva 2y ago
A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight. A whole lot of people don't want to fight in any war. What matters is the relative portion . Though they my differ in the views as to whether the lost regions can be regained, or on
527.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than Russia that it has no rights to fight back Which absolutely no one thinks.
528.
by aguaviva 2y ago
The direct role of Boris Johnson in tanking the Istanbul accords. Which is a myth - oft repeated, but with precisely zero substance. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813032
529.
by aguaviva 2y ago
How dare they not do what we tell them! No one is telling Russia (meaning its current authoritarian regime) to do anything. Other than to pick up its toys, and get back to its own yard. And stay there, this time.
530.
by aguaviva 2y ago
To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians. That seems unfair. It's more of a meat grinder for the aggressor, but it's also one for the Ukrainians, by all indications.
531.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, Nope. He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that it obviously means -- that it would be shut off. everybody said "it was Russia" Nope -- som
532.
by aguaviva 2y ago
And when he flatly says "the population became 80-85 percent Russian", he's referring to the time period after the 1944 genocide (which he's choosing not to mention for for some reason). Before which the Russian populat
533.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Ask historians: you may get surprised. What they will tell you is -- up until the genocide against the Tatars (and other groups), the majority of its population was always solidly non-Russian. And that its prior ownership by whichever col
534.
by aguaviva 2y ago
I think it's fair to assume that by "Russians" they meant "the society within the Russian Federation, which as everyone knows is multiethnic, and which by and large supports or acquiesces both the dictatorship and the wa
535.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Rather, to accept the article without skepticism requires one to believe that Trump is a white supremacist anti-Semite. The matter of concern here (completely independent of the article) is that he doesn't seem to mind inviting such
536.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Russia hosts the largest Ukrainian refugee population. Absolutely false - Russia has about 1.7 million, other countries some 6 million. Whatever source you got that verbal snippet from is messing with your head.
537.
by aguaviva 2y ago
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was ... not part of the Partition, and occurred decades before in fact. The Bengal famine ... had nothing to do with the Partition either, last we checked. But because you want to look back at the imperial
538.
by aguaviva 2y ago
You're reading too much into it. I just found it to be a strange choice of wording.
539.
by aguaviva 2y ago
You're right, I haven't been.
540.
by aguaviva 2y ago
Then you misunderstand Trump. He isn't Putin's asset, and he isn't simply "bowing" to him. He's courting him because he respects him, agrees on a certain level with his worldview, and thinks he can make commo

More ›