191–200 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that the US also belongs in the agressor camp.
Do you mean globally in general? They're obviously not the aggressor in Ukraine. My Ukrainian friends didn't have their their family home annihilated US shells directly or indirectly.
[flagged]
> these shells have been redirected to Israel and are being used in Gaza The front in Gaza is not Israel's only wartime front, not in the current conflict and not during past conflicts: Currently, Israel needs this ammunition to defend itself from Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon that have engaged in heavy indiscriminate rocket launching against Israeli civilian populations in the Northern Israel. At least 65,000…
- targeted destruction of civil infrastructure (check rules of warfare regarding that)
- intentional destruction of a city
- a specified goal of displacing Palestinians living in Gaza
- blocking escape routes forbthose people
And all that after:
- turning Gaza into an open air prison
- controlling all utilities for Gaza
- blocking Gaza's access to the Medditeraneab
- blocking and controlling all border crossing into and out of Gaza
Maybe not yet Genozid yet, but clearly Apatheid and on-going ethnic cleansing. Stop defending that.
Just some numbers:
Displaced people, 1.8 million in Gaza, 3-5 million in Ukraine
Civilian casualties, 10,000 in Ukraine between Feb '22 and Nov '23 and 28,000 in Gaza as of Feb '24.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is currently loosing to Russia in Europe, it's all talk no walk, similar to west - europe.
The US is "loosing" because it barely dipped a toe in the conflict. Motivate the US to go all in and it's a different story altogether. But I agree on the reluctance of Western Europe and the US to give support, the Ukraine conflict could have been over by now with proper support.
If the Republicans abandon Ukraine, US credibility will take a huge hit, probably worse than when the US abandoned South Vietnam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine only housed Soviet nuclear missiles. They (Ukraine) would never ever had access to launch codes. That it is stated in Budapest memorandum along with the rest of the Soviet army leaving does not in any way make Ukraine a former nuclear power. We had Soviet nukes stationed in Czechia too. Does that make us a former nuclear power? I thought not... Slava Ukraini
> would never ever had access to launch codes What do you think, how many hours does it take to remove and jury-rig launch signal electronics for a motivated nation state at the cutting edge of weapons technology? If the Soviet troops had agreed to leave the bombs in situ, Ukraine would have had some sort of nuclear capability within the week. (And even if the Russians had sabotaged it, Iran and NorK prove that obtai…
For how long?
Nukes need maintenance. To maintain them, you will need to rebuild the entire supply chain on Ukrainian territory. Do you even have the necessary know-how? What percentage of GDP are you willing to spend on it?
Until today, Ukraine has lower GDP than Czechia. In the 1990s, it was even worse. With their economy destroyed by decades of Soviet rule, they were happy to survive somehow.
Tangentially, it is well possible that Russian nukes are actually under-maintained, for the very same reason: it is expensive to keep them in working order, and Russian economy is not very strong. Perhaps most of them would not explode. But we'd better not find out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, I think the burden of proof is on anybody who thinks a serious saturation attack on a carrier group (hundreds of missiles and/or decoys per wave, multiplied by multiple waves) from a peer adversary wouldn't work. If a conflict with Russia or China breaks out, I think the first thing that happens is aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles as quickly as battleship…
I agree with the general threat, but an aircraft carrier can still project force at a distance, so a foe must strike from a great distance. It's doable but expensive. So not sure about how quickly carriers will be obsolete or ever really. Only a really advanced and large foe can threaten them.
No weapon is beyond reach in war, or indestructible. And still, they have their use cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And shelling Donetsk City is somehow different?
I am also against the Ukraine war and believe a peaceful settlement is possible. NATO (the US) is using Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, though having to fight two wars at once is causing them to rethink their position. ICJ did rule against Russia, and it makes sense since they invaded, but the roots of the conflict go back to attacks on Donetsk like you say since 2014 and various aggressive moves by NA…
It should probably be restated that instead of the conflict in Ukraine catching our production capacity off guard, that rather it was our production posture along with denuclearization and disarmament of Ukraine that set the stage for the conflict. I’m not a “team America world police” advocate, much more the opposite. Even as stated in the article, most production is more interested in a deterrent. Hate ‘em or hate…
Ukraine only housed Soviet nuclear missiles. They (Ukraine) would never ever had access to launch codes. That it is stated in Budapest memorandum along with the rest of the Soviet army leaving does not in any way make Ukraine a former nuclear power. We had Soviet nukes stationed in Czechia too. Does that make us a former nuclear power? I thought not... Slava Ukraini
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that we should engage with reality as it currently exists. Davyd Arakhamia [1] is a Ukrainian member of parliament, in Zelensky's party. He was one of the negotiators early on with Russia. He stated that Russia's main demand was simply that Ukraine agree to not join NATO. Meduza has an article about it (which also links to the interview itself) here, as well as spin from various sides. [2] If you're unaware o…
The root issue is the culture of fear among Russian leadership. They are constantly afraid that someone is trying to stab them in the back. (And they are often right, but the backstabber is usually another Russian leader.) Because they live in fear, they cannot afford being trustworthy. And because they are not trustworthy, Russia's neighbors seek protection from other powers. Which in turn fuels the fears of Russian…
But if you accept this then it becomes clear that trust is impossible. You have a power that wants to overthrow you surrounding you with military bases and pointing countless nuclear weapons at you. That, by the way, is also not necessary to maintain mutually assured destruction type deterrence. But it is necessary if you want to consider a rapid first-strike complete annihilation type attack, hitting them before they can return fire.
Of course, vice versa, imagine the US disarmed. They'd be invaded by like 80% of the world within a fortnight. Unfortunately I think the cycle is unbreakable. I don't think there's anybody that actually likes war, but it's been with us since the advent of civilization, and I expect it to remain with us til the end of civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that only means that the US would give up on Taiwan before the fight would get any serious (from USA's point of view). I also kind of doubt that China is going to try, at least in the next decade or so, because those so far irreplaceable chip factories are almost certainly booby trapped and are a critical piece of the global economy, so China would be sabotaging itself first. (And Xi has probably a long way to go…
Mainland China wants Taiwan back since WW2, chip fabs are a bonus, maybe that is. The big problem of a Chinese invasion so is: the Taiwan straight. They have to get the invasion force across, that meens a lot of big, slow, fat transport vessels. Those are easily sunk, meaning not enough boots on the ground. Which leaves pounding Taiwan with missiles.
No one is crazy enough to go to war over it, and that might put Taiwan into panic mode.
Another is to isolate it politically and create a soft blockade around it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would never ever had access to launch codes What do you think, how many hours does it take to remove and jury-rig launch signal electronics for a motivated nation state at the cutting edge of weapons technology? If the Soviet troops had agreed to leave the bombs in situ, Ukraine would have had some sort of nuclear capability within the week. (And even if the Russians had sabotaged it, Iran and NorK prove that obtai…
"Ukraine would have had some sort of nuclear capability within the week." For how long? Nukes need maintenance. To maintain them, you will need to rebuild the entire supply chain on Ukrainian territory. Do you even have the necessary know-how? What percentage of GDP are you willing to spend on it? Until today, Ukraine has lower GDP than Czechia. In the 1990s, it was even worse. With their economy destroyed by decades…