911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people are thirsty for War, looks like Russians, yes
I wish I lived in a world where it's so easy to know who is good and who is evil and to pinpoint them so well.
War and killings turn up the contrast, converting shades of gray to black and white, people to friends and enemies.
I rather would live in peacetime, where it’s less obvious who is good and who is bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of the big metal things that can "set sail" and "drop anchor" there happens to be a very large set of classifications... But using your heuristics, that catamarang crew should probably have been interviewed.
I think you tried to be a bit too clever there in choosing one of the "big metal things" that you didn't know how to spell :-)
The comment means nothing, neither mine nor the one I commented on so I won't even bother looking up the spelling.
It's more important to understand why the comment is there.
The GP asked what boat, parent effectively said "a boat" which doesn't answer the question. My comment was one of the least likely options, but hey I could have said sailboat...
Not an excuse either but realistically I on a daily basis speak two languages and often interact with people who can barely speak one of those two so I have some basic understanding of a third... Sometimes I can't remember which one spelling rules come from. Not an excuse, it's easy enough to look it up but just context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yet NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process Really? Russia, with the 6th largest army in the world, had to pull in Iran and Pyongyang to not get invaded by the 13th largest [1][2]. Moscow is being a nuisance. That doesn't make NATO or Europe look weak, it makes Russia look pathetic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/world/europe/uk…
> Really? That's exactly how the Russians perceive the EU. They are perceived as weak. There is no way they would have started the invasion if they were afraid of them. They are engaging in asymmetrical warfare because they are convinced they can demonstrate that to the world as well "look what we are doing there and well we get is phone calls form Sholz" [1] > Scholz condemned the war of aggression against Ukraine >…
It will end up in the need to destroy Russian saboteur boats on sight. Putin is a moron if he thinks piracy methods will help him.
It's not about "winning" it's about flooding the information space with doubt and crazy and fear.
But damage to communications is a tangible thing, so if this is going to get worse, Putin's boats will be just sunk in such areas as a preventive measure. And Putin will do nada about it despite all this threats, except may be looking for other places to cut cables and engage in similar trash behavior until he is chased out of there too.
Sinking of his ships is something he very quickly understands, since he practically can't make new ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A disruption in communications can mean only one thing: invasion.
It can also mean that Russia is posturing and retaliating for the US's announcement that Ukraine can strike inside Russia with US missiles. This feels more like the same kind of exercise that North Korea does with their missile tests than it does an actual invasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But for the French they all got rid of their colonies. Russia's historical land empire lives on, and the breakup of their most recent greater one is mourned by their current leader. Lets have some perspective.
great example, the french. Still encrusted north of brazil and calling themselves part of the Amazon. you really should have some perspective
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can also mean that Russia is posturing and retaliating for the US's announcement that Ukraine can strike inside Russia with US missiles. This feels more like the same kind of exercise that North Korea does with their missile tests than it does an actual invasion.
Didn't the cable get cut before the announcement regarding Ukraine being able to use U.S. missiles against Russia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia is responsible but not alone. This war could have been prevented by not pushing Ukraine into NATO. It's THE reason for the war.
Ukraine wasn't a candidate for NATO membership in 2014 or 2022, and this was agreed to in all major treaties/agreements with Russia. It's still not a candidate, and can't be while it's actively engaged in war. NATO membership has never had anything to do with it. Note how Finland has joined NATO since 2022, and faces no repercussions from Russia, despite a third of their land-based nuclear missiles within 400 km of t…
Was Ukraine candidate for NATO?
Yes, Ukraine has been a candidate for NATO membership. In 2008, during the Bucharest Summit, NATO members agreed that Ukraine would eventually become a member of the alliance. However, no formal invitation was extended at that time. COMMONS LIBRARY
In 2010, under President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine adopted a non-aligned status, halting its pursuit of NATO membership. This policy shifted after the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, leading Ukraine to renew its aspirations for NATO integration. In 2019, Ukraine amended its constitution to enshrine the goal of joining NATO. NATO
In September 2022, following Russia's annexation of parts of southeastern Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine had applied for NATO membership under an accelerated procedure. WIKIPEDIA As of November 2024, Ukraine remains a NATO partner country and has not yet achieved full membership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Delivery of Russian gas was stopped by Russia in violation of contract. European gas companies demands $20 billion in compensation. Nobody had incentive to blow up empty pipes except Russia. Of course, Russians used false flag as usual, to blame Ukraine, but Ukraine doesn't hide successful attacks on Russian infrastructure, because Ukraine has legal right to defend itself.
While a false flag operation cannot be ruled out, I don't think the case is as clear-cut as you suggest. > Nobody had incentive to blow up empty pipes except Russia. I disagree: Russian gas was the one leverage Russia had over Germany. Blowing the pipeline ensured that Germany wouldn't be able to get out of the conflict quietly - "Germany still receiving Russian gas" would not receive as much condemnation as "Germany…