171–180 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do this so more countries like Finland would join NATO. There is really no other reason.
My question is how come Finland, with their history with Russia, isn't already in NATO ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I mentioned elsewhere, this offensive holds no rational grounds even if you try hard to see it through a Russian lens - this is why they keep inventing new reasons of invasion on the fly (e.g. the biolab stuff, etc.) So still clinging to the thought that Putin has some kind of grand plan behind him is wishful thinking at best
It looks very rational to me. I say that as someone who lives across the Black sea and have suffered under their rule and feels for the Ukrainians. Placing weapons next door to any powerful entity is recipe for conflict. It sounds like you're repeating the same talking points over and over. Russia felt threatened and attacked. What did the US do to Cuba when the Soviets put weapons there? Oh, that's right. Eternal em…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going on a different tangent, I watched an interesting video [1] from The Behavior Panel podcast attempting to discern tactics from Putin's social cues in parallel to the trustworthiness of his messaging and, whether the historical context he provided were reliable or not. I think I can reasonably conclude from watching their perspective that he's masterful in deception. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCXGQzuaNi…
Do you think you should worry about Putin's social cues, or the one's our governance leaders give? Which is more meaningful in your life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their entire recent comment history is contrarian “maybe the Ukrainians are Nazis, maybe they aren’t, how can anyone know”, “the Soviet Union mostly did good things”, etc. This is either a victim of Russian propaganda, or an agent of Russian propaganda. As to the presented ideas in the talk - as someone who knows Russia well, speaks Russian, has Russian family, he’s spot on - but no Russian will ever agree , because…
yeah that talk is designed to reinforce your bias by mixing a bit of history to make it look scientific. just watch a real history of Russia lecture. you’re basically watching a history lecture from a career spy instead of from a historian. and you think I am a victim of propaganda lol
Luckily for me, I did actually spent 1 hour watching the video (more like 4 hours in between managing kids) and it made sense of many things I didn't understand before. As somebody coming from country brutally occupied by russian forces for 21 years on a 'friendly special mission', yes the part about mentality is spot on.
I don't think Putin is on some holy mission for slav unification, seeing how he immediately ordered 10,000 chechen killers on their closest slavic neighbor. He is just an ordinary smart thug, highly functioning sociopath, who got lucky being at the right time and place and having good KGB experience to get him to the top and sustain.
Also, its a great lecture on how to not even react and completely ignore the russian news full of 'pravda', intended to just divert attention from other nefarious activities purported by them. Don't play the games they lay for the west.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do this so more countries like Finland would join NATO. There is really no other reason.
My question is how come Finland, with their history with Russia, isn't already in NATO ?
During the cold war Finland was firmly Soviet aligned despite all the claims of neutrality, the Finnish president, Urho Kekkonen, was de facto a dictator who stayed in power through Kremlin's support (although he wasn't really bad for Finland) and Finland had a defence guarantee from the Soviet Union in the form of the YYK-agreement.
After the Cold War Russia was expected to become a western liberal democracy and as such not a threat, and even after it became clear that it wouldn't become one people still understood it as a "known threat" and a bully which would act tough and try to intimidate but who would never actually hit you.
The largest reason for why joining NATO got a surge in polls is that most people weren't expecting the Invasion of Ukraine (I myself believed that they would've limited themselves to just Donbass and Luhansk).
I expect, although I may be wrong, that once people calm down support for joining NATO will fall, although the FUD spread by NATO supporters about how we would need to fight Russia alone if were not in NATO despite being covered by EU's article 42.7 may keep it high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GPS spoofer), surely I don’t want to alert the enemy to it, lest they develop defences What normally happens is the GPS stops working and then you lose your satnav, so you dont know where you are going until you reset the satnav and even then it might not work. This is why Streetview logged all the wifi it could find and uses wifi to roughly place a phone in an area to make the gps locating algorithms faster. Now i…
> Society is constructed in such a way to be dependent on others and have to trust others which means you can be manipulated by more knowledgeable persons. I would describe it as co-dependence in order to be able to have a combined knowledge base greater than any single person could contain. You make it sound like a weakness rather than a strength! I cannot explain how floating points work, but I can explain how line…
No we are both pawns and useful idiots, because of the butterfly effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks very rational to me. I say that as someone who lives across the Black sea and have suffered under their rule and feels for the Ukrainians. Placing weapons next door to any powerful entity is recipe for conflict. It sounds like you're repeating the same talking points over and over. Russia felt threatened and attacked. What did the US do to Cuba when the Soviets put weapons there? Oh, that's right. Eternal em…
Your history is wrong. The sanctions against Cuba were all well in place before Cuban missile crisis began.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A rational plan would've been to confine the conflict into Donbas & Krim. I would make the argument that barely any sanctions would've been put in place if Russia had occupied the areas it was already fighting in, since the west barely cared in 2014
I'm not so sure. If you look at the map, if you want to connect the Krim by land you need more than what was held by the Donbas. That nice wide river coming down from Kiew would make a great border though. And you need something to 'give' in negotiations so you have to take more. Plus Kiew is on that river which would not be great. Would you want Ukraine's capital to basically sit right on your border? Also I bet you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To deny access to Russia is one reason. Not saying it's the only reason, or that it's not more likely that Russia has done this.
Its a stupid reason. Russian military equipment uses GLONASS. Granted, GLONASS is just barely limping along, but it does work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your history is wrong. The sanctions against Cuba were all well in place before Cuban missile crisis began.
Haven't been lifted because... completely unrelated reasons? Is that it?