301–310 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
foot-wrap? What are you saying here? Is this a colloquialism that I'm not familiar with?
I think they meant "sockpuppet".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "interesting new phenomenon", obviously, is the potential of the generalization of what expressed in the title. It has very evidently both relevance to intellectual curiosity and a potential of impact on our activities.
> The "interesting new phenomenon", obviously, is the potential of the generalization of what expressed in the title. Why is this thing so difficult to name and you need to describe it in such a roundabout way? "Drones might be shot down a lot"? It's neither new nor an intellectual curiosity. "Drones are used for war" also not. It's been happening for years now. What is so interesting? Can you name it without referen…
Because it is a multifaceted thing. Where, how, how much, why, what next... And the rest of the "W"s.
Read the posts: we find them interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine had the nukes in physical possession and they had enough expertise to eventually disassemble them and replace the electronics. Choosing to not do this to avoid a hypothetical external aggression was a bad choice, because they were invaded anyway.
This isn't like Russia just shut off the lights. The control systems are designed specifically and solely to make it impossible for a third party to steal/activate the weapons, so I think simply assuming that Ukraine could achieve such is unjustified. And Ukraine's where they're at today because of bad decisions. Russia's negotiations to end the war started on literally day 2. And they involved absolutely no land con…
You've been there, right?
And do you know the meaning of the word "literally"?
Jeez, you russian clowns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This situation does not resemble the beginning of WW1. wW1 was caused more or less by an inept leader (the Herman Kaiser Wilhelm) with way too much power. Putin cannot play the part Wilhelm played in 1914 because Russia has very little power. Xi Ping cannot play the part Wilhelm played because he is too smart (he is one of the shrewdest and smartest leaders rn). If Xi Ping starts to lose it, then yeah, we may have WW…
And President Trump?
We seems scarily only one rogue actor or screw up from WW III in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
People keep bringing WW3 up but I disagree. There's such a huge aversion in EU countries against any kind of war against Russia and the governments know it. They will let a LOT slide on Russia's side before any kind of retaliation (and I mean by force) is coming. Russia could probably kill several service members with a drone, claim it was an accident and the only thing coming from Europe would be a stern letter, som…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're Shahed drones, used by Russia.
In September the Russians accused the Ukrainians of having repairing downed Geran drone airframes at the Lviv LORTA plant, transferring them to Yavoriv, and launching them unarmed into Poland. They presented various evidence like serial numbers, photographs of silver-tape repairs, claims that a Ukrainian SIM-card was used, lack of impact destruction, etc. What's true though? I don't believe that I have a way to find…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine had the nukes in physical possession and they had enough expertise to eventually disassemble them and replace the electronics. Choosing to not do this to avoid a hypothetical external aggression was a bad choice, because they were invaded anyway.
This isn't like Russia just shut off the lights. The control systems are designed specifically and solely to make it impossible for a third party to steal/activate the weapons, so I think simply assuming that Ukraine could achieve such is unjustified. And Ukraine's where they're at today because of bad decisions. Russia's negotiations to end the war started on literally day 2. And they involved absolutely no land con…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's astonishing how many people really seem to think that total collapse / destruction of a system can be an effective way for fixing things
To respond to both you and the parent at once. 1. While dragonwriter's point is not entirely wrong, I also wouldn't say I agree either. Czar Nicholas was "prosecuted" quite rapidly after the russian revolution. 2. The problem, ithkuil, is if the population does not see any other way to effectively fix things. (System capture, pareto distributions, disenfranchisement, etc.) As an aside, I created a new account for thi…
Most positive progress has been done via hard work, sacrifice and time; most basic rights that we all give for granted now have been achieved that way and not by violence and destructions.
Yes, there are occasional counterexamples when people had to get rid of dictators via violence, but that worked because gradual, grinding, collaborative progress under such rulers was not allowed.
What we're witnessing today is not that: we don't have a strong system that systematically represses people who have a different opinion and discuss new ideas; we have a system where people are increasingly immature and want results fast because their attention span is limited, take huge achievements for granted and are willing to burn everything down because they think it's a game and they have never lived under a civil war
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logic I’ve heard is that one of the more palatable defeat conditions for Russia is that they’d rather lose to NATO than Ukraine. So they’re fine to push limits because even the worst case scenario gives them better options.
No - Putin believes he can win, this is to scare NATO. He's not wrong - this is a war of attrition and Russia is about to raise 500K-1M soldiers - if they can do that, and keep Ukraine on their backs, it's possible Russia could break through. Unlikely but possible. Ukraine has difficulty recruiting and equally high desertion rates. 'Eventually something has to give'. I think it's unlikely and that Ukraine will be abl…
Russia has developed necromancy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Explain to me why reading news from the state is a good thing? When you get your news from RT, BBC, France24, DW, PressTV, NPR, Gulf News, DD, Al-Jazeera etc. you get "official" political propaganda from the respective governments that run these outlets. Political propaganda can be based on falsehood or factual truth(s) with a "biased" analysis on it. Government news outlets have to show some journalistic integrity…
As far as I know, it’s in the mission of most of these to give an unbiased report on what is happening in the world and inside the country. In practice, there may be influence by powerful politicians, but for these news outlets to spread government propaganda would constitute corruption. I know that the BBC in the UK, SVT in Sweden, the ABC in Australia go to great lengths to listen to both sides, whatever they may b…
You would think so, but that isn't the reality because journalistic "corruption" is judged on political ideology. Your whole notion of what is "corrupt values" is based on your political ideology. And one of the important roles of government news outlets is to propagate the political values that the country has adopted - that is why western media covers capitalism with a positive biases and disses on communism and socialism with negative biases (and vice-versa in say, Russia and Cuba). These political values are not examined neutrally by the media because the political powers have already termed one or other other as "corrupt".
Just look at the heavily biased (positive) coverage Israel receives in western medias. Western countries were imperialist powers and thus have no problem with Israeli zionism's settler-colonialists policies and the consequent repression of Palestinians. Where as the Global South, especially former colonies still remember what it was to be colonised by foreigners and thus are "biased" towards Palestinians. (Ireland is the exception in the west, with huge sympathy for the Palestinians, because it too remembers its oppression under the British).