131–140 of 287 posts
As for headlines like this one, what's the basis?
And the rest of the article doesn't mention Falluja. wts?
oh, i forgot...Kyiv is a _civilized_ city.
Well yes. Artillery bombardment is THE Russian military doctrine. Any uncertainty on the headline would mean assuming Russia had developed some unusual qualms on the subject. And why would they? It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality. There is some basic facts, take it here from the German public broadcast >According to its president, Russia is seeking the "denazification"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that exactly the kind of the arrogance of the West pushing the boundaries as the East has argued is its red line ?
NATO membership is entirely voluntary. As such, there haven't been any "pushing of boundaries" unless you presume Russia gets to decide what independent nations like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc. may or may not do.
Yes and Russia doesn't deny that either. The request was for NATO to stop allowing countries like Ukraine to volunteer. Is that unfair ? Yes, it is a bully move. But that was the bully's request, and the West's stance is, effectively, we don't negotiate with terrorists. It's the attitude of: whatever, we do whatever we want. That's also fair, but don't be surprised why Russia proceeded, because they can have the same sentiment: whatever, we do whatever we want. The magnitude of recklessness is outsized, but the direction is the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is wanting to put your name in the history books not objectively rational?
Not if it kills you and not if it's infamy. Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that exactly the kind of the arrogance of the West pushing the boundaries as the East has argued is its red line ?
There are people in Eastern Europe who call [1] the arrogance statement like yours. [1]: https://www-capital-bg.translate.goog/politika_i_ikonomika/v...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think his behaviour was particularly irrational, as much as he has been acting on a few pieces of intelligence that ultimately proved to have been incorrect. 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at…
> 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest. > 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g.…
Getting paid dollars for oil and gas doesn't do you much good when you can't spend those dollars on anything. Imports into Russia have stopped over the past week.
> How do you know this?
The propaganda leading up to the 'Minor peacekeeping action in the Donbass' certainly didn't sound like he was getting everyone ready for a forever-war.
> e.g. in Chechnya
To most Russians - even the warhawks, the war in Chechnya (much like the Winter War of 1939) was seen as a debacle and an utter embarrassment.
I mean, it's entirely possible that the war will end this week, and my second point is moot. But it's looking like it's quite possible that it won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if it kills you and not if it's infamy. Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
Oh come on, there are plenty of people in history who are willing to sacrifice their family for fame or fortune. You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”. Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
> The seven characteristics of life include:
> responsiveness to the environment;
> growth and change;
> >
> have a metabolism and breathe;
> maintain homeostasis;
> being made of cells; and.
> >
Putin is defective, he's making the lives of his own kids harder.
I mean, I don't even need to say he's defective, it's obvious. He's a narcissist.
There can be no empathy for autocrat narcissists. They don't have any and they don't deserve any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By wavering the west has gotten into a position where Ukraine is being destroyed. And this I agree. So now maybe the United States will stop wavering on Taiwan.
Yes, the same logic should apply. Whoever puts troops there first stops the other side from doing it, under threat from ww3 and nuclear war.
The problem is that is equivalent to setting up a flag. The East views America as an imperialist, and this would be provocation of imperialist expansion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think his behaviour was particularly irrational, as much as he has been acting on a few pieces of intelligence that ultimately proved to have been incorrect. 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at…
> 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest. > 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guerillas, and partisans, were quite successful in places like Yugoslavia (WW2), Afghanistan (against the USSR and NATO), Ireland (against the British), Belarus (WW2), Poland (WW2), the Finish used some Guerilla style tactics (WW2 against the USSR). Ukraine was less a Guerilla hot bed in WW2 (it was early on, and then again after Stalingrad). None of those places were tribal societies (exception: Afghanistan to a deg…
Partisans in WW2 Yugoslavia were successful in mountainous parts of country, where you can hide after guerilla actions. Flatlands and big cities were liberated only when Red Army came along on its way to Berlin. We’re not talking about fighting only. There has to be a local support for guerilla to eat and sleep. That might work in primarily agricultural countriside but not in cities built around industry.
Another, if somewhat less successful, urban insurgent group is the IRA. The Troubles were almost exclusively urban fighting.