racional

43 ms·

241.
by racional 2y ago
"Check in on ", "alongside"
242.
by racional 2y ago
The problem is that the GP is just lying, straight up.
243.
by racional 2y ago
In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Completely disagree -- the decision to heed Russia's request and not issue the MAPs to George and Ukraine in 2008 (where the matter has stayed ever since) was an impor
244.
by racional 2y ago
So much so the west felt free to ignore Russia warnings and invite Ukraine into NATO. Except they did not, in fact, issue an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO.
245.
by racional 2y ago
He definitely has no choice about "holing up" in Russia. His native country revoked his passport, after all. As to whether he has given up information -- we just don't know. I don't know about you, but in situations wh
246.
by racional 2y ago
You heard me the first time And it was just as delusional the first time.
247.
by racional 2y ago
So it's not true that many Ukrainian regiments assisted the Nazis in WWII? As in every country under the Nazi occupation. Including Russia, by the way -- and in significantly larger numbers than in Ukraine. But this was 80 years ago
248.
by racional 2y ago
The one doing the twisting and turning on this subject is you. The simple fact is -- you didn't do your homework on Azov, and so within minutes you got debunked. Own it, and move on.
249.
by racional 2y ago
All his comments are pro war in Israel and Ukraine. This is 100 percent false, and in fact the complete reverse of my position in regard to the Palestine conflict. The statement "pro war in Ukraine" is nonsense also. This is a
250.
by racional 2y ago
The brigade with literal Nazi symbols as their main insignia. It's not a "literal Nazi" symbol. Importantly, it has a reverse orientation, and different proportion of its segments when compared with the Wolfsangel symbol
251.
by racional 2y ago
Which "literal Nazis" are you referring to? There's only one group which this could possibly refer to -- the Azov Brigade. You can say anything you want to about them -- but they definitely are not "literal Nazis",
252.
by racional 2y ago
What is happening in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide. According to the definition for genocide as provided sections (a)-(2) of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention ("acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in p
253.
by racional 2y ago
I see Americans will ... You have no bleeding idea what I am. But you are welcome to be disgusted by whatever you like.
254.
by racional 2y ago
It wasn't ignored -- it got a lot of attention all right. But then 2014 happened, and everything changed. Once you choose to ally yourself with a foreign power that is aggressively attacking the larger nation you are attempting to sec
255.
by racional 2y ago
NATO was literally founded on the USSR's border ("Russia", as a top-level sovereign, did not exist), it had nothing to "expand up to", on either the Eastern or Western side. Well that's not a fair assessment.
256.
by racional 2y ago
Yeah, but they're doing it a lot, and in a way that's just -- weird. And seems designed to evoke empathy. Specifically when they keep saying "Russia needs [to do various awful things]" when referring to the desires of t
257.
by racional 2y ago
Hello, there was no "Nuland-designed Maidan coup", and no, there was no indigenous violent rebellion in the Eastern regions. Nuland was so personally involved that she was handing over food and drinks to "protestors" A
258.
by racional 2y ago
Even NYT admits that 'the world' is literally with Russia. That's very clearly not what the article says. Its key themes are that the world is "fragmented" and "ambivalent", and that Western sanctions h
259.
by racional 2y ago
Disagree fundamentally with the idea that countries hold "beliefs" about anything. Political figures and other individuals with their hands at the levers of power, on the other hand, do.
260.
by racional 2y ago
Then you could perhaps be more precise in your choice of actors here: In particular -- Russia most certainly does not "need" to dominate its neighbors. It's just what the current regime feels it needs to do to maintain its c
261.
by racional 2y ago
I meant in terms of apologetics, in the sense of "vigorous defenses". Which seemed to apply to the first two comments of yours that I responded to. If that's not what they were, then I misread them. In regard to the peace n
262.
by racional 2y ago
Order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of ... Getting invading troops out of Ukrainian territory.
263.
by racional 2y ago
That's a more interesting question, and history behind the answer, than you might expect. Indeed. I'm just glad that there exist people whose purpose is to stay on top of subjects like this.
264.
by racional 2y ago
Judaism emerged in the most illiterate area of its time. How do we know this? The very fact of its emergence (and reliance on written teachings) speaks to the very opposite.
265.
by racional 2y ago
Yes, there's an incremental point to be made about the location of the gas reserves. But to get to the real point here - why do you keep defending the actions of a blatant 19th century-style imperialist bully, as if it's some kind
266.
by racional 2y ago
Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? One shouldn't, and both should be condemned of course. And not apologized for, like you are doing here.
267.
by racional 2y ago
Not sure what to make of an analysis that amounts to: "To the contrary, Russia does need the Crimea, because natural gas reverses. Although it actually does not need to extract them, it would just be a nice bonus of they could."
268.
by racional 2y ago
They were clearly on the verge of integrating with NATO if not already doing so and close to the point where Russia was out of options. Sorry, but this plainly nonsense. The only way you could say they were "on the verge of joining&q
269.
by racional 2y ago
"... territories on which he is currently sitting ..."
270.
by racional 2y ago
Russia doesn't need to have territorial sovereignty over the Crimea. The ideologues currently running Russia desire to have the Crimea for its symbolic significance -- as a means of projecting power, and of thumbing its nose at the W

More ›