131–140 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poland too, huh? Have they thought through the implications of that one?
War on NATO, Russia loses quickly or we all lose if nuclear war.
The people are convinced that NATO won't hold up to its promises.
Re nuclear weapons. I really doubt that this shit is still functional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've quizzed many many people I had connections with and literally all of them support the war up to some extent. I would have reconsidered my approach to making connections if that happened to me :)
1) I'm an asperger and my ability to build social links is severely impaired 2) I'm not in touch with these people anymore though I've tried to reach everyone I was able to and get their opinions. My conclusion is: the propaganda is extremely effective. People there easily pronounce self-contradictive statements and easily turn to aggression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that mean? Is the US a military state?
Yes, quite obviously yes, I would have thought. All imperial states are military states aren’t they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
Its also #22 in military spending as a percentage of GDP. However the US is #3 in per capita military spending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since it is constantly ignored by American media. It is? It seems to be talked about a fair bit for being ignored.
If you ask Americans how long the war in Ukraine has been going on, they'll almost all say “about a year”, whereas Ukrainians would say “about nine years”.
The invasion in 2014 was generally limited to Crimea. After that, Russia held its ground, allowing some level of peace and stability.
The current war, that includes active invasion of the entire country, started in 2022. The conflict began much earlier, but semantically, "war" is generally inferred to mean the current conflict specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His speech is not worth the paper it was written on. Calling out one obvious lie: "It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force." In September Russia "held" a "referendum" in occupied territories and immediately adjusted the Constitution to include the occupied territories.
> His speech is not worth the paper it was written on. Isn't that true for any politician? > Calling out one obvious lie: "It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force." Obvious lie? That's fortunate for your opinion. >In September Russia "held" a "referendum" in occupied territories and immediately adjusted the Constitution to include the occupied terri…
The “occupied territories” are, more fully, Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. Which clearly shows that, under the usual meanings of words, Putin’s claim of no intent to occupy “Ukrainian territory” was a lie.
Now, obviously, under a definition where any territory Russia occupies is, ipso facto, not “Ukrainian”, Putin’s claim is tautologically true, but also devoid of all meaning. Putin’s statements, therefore, provide no actual guidance on his intentions, since his actual actions demonstrate that, to the extent that they have any meaning at all rather than being stated just for emotional impact at the time they are uttered, it has nothing to do with the usual meanings of the actual words used and can only be reconstructed retrospectively after observing the actions he actually takes and trying to fit what meaning the words could have around that.
Which, it should go without saying, is the polar opposite of being “clear”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero war support across friends/colleagues but maybe up to 30% support on the streets (taxi drivers, cashiers, mechanics, neighbors, ...). In small cities there shall be more supporters (less Internet, more TV).
I really doubt it's "zero". I've quizzed many many people I had connections with and literally all of them support the war up to some extent. The most common opinion is "we shouldn't have started this but we should win this war and take over Ukraine and Poland". It would be really strange to count such opinions as "anti-war".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poland too, huh? Have they thought through the implications of that one?
Well, I may speak for hours about my observations. Essentially they are sure that noone would vouch for Poland (also for Baltic countries). I've been shocked that well educated people, like software engineers, scientists, etc easily repeat the narrative of various propagandists and, moreover, they say that these are their own conclusions.
It’s hard to know exactly how heavy Ukrainian losses in the first phase and this second phase were; I suspect we’ll find out that they were quite a bit heavier than media coverage would lead us to believe. Actually, if you read Western mainstream media front line reports, past the headlines and between the lines, a picture of very heavy losses emerges. Units completely depleted or rebuilt several times. Territorial D…
> Actually, if you read Western mainstream media front line reports, past the headlines and between the lines, a picture of very heavy losses emerges. You don’t even have to read “past the headlines and between the lines”. The most common estimates I’ve seen are around 120K killed+wounded for Ukraine, which are very heavily casualties. Not as heavy as the 200K the same sources are estimating for Russia, but still ver…
It’s hard to know exactly how heavy Ukrainian losses in the first phase and this second phase were; I suspect we’ll find out that they were quite a bit heavier than media coverage would lead us to believe. Actually, if you read Western mainstream media front line reports, past the headlines and between the lines, a picture of very heavy losses emerges. Units completely depleted or rebuilt several times. Territorial D…
> “I am not going to pretend to be neutral here. I am on the side of the nascent democracy which was ruthlessly and lawlessly attacked without provocation by a larger and more powerful foreign power.”
I'm not going to quote anything else or what is missing, but overall:
Deep substance, neutral style or “pedantry” is not found in this article.
But there is one sided ideology propaganda, vilification and demonization, black and white thinking, omitting of crucial events, facts, and parties involved not just for duration since 2008 but just in 2022.
Strongly recommend avoiding this article and this author, unless you already wholly agree with him and want to reinforce your information bubble.