How much truth is behind that statement. Today people repeat whatever they first search on Google or Wikipedia. Corporations offer strict agreements that must be followed word by word or risk their chances to keep working with them. The in-field reporter has turned into a press release copy paster and they have been easier to manipulate working at home with pandemic restrictions. Technology has made deepfakes accessible for everyone so recorded reality can be manipulated with ease.
It's not any different from possesing a religion (like the quantum mechanical or Rutherford-Bohr models). You know what you believe could not be true, but you hold strong to that faith because you won't accept your life has always been a lie.
When they aren't pretending something is the worst thing ever, they're covering up the worst thing ever. The only thing I trust anymore is the local weather forecast. At least it admits to having a reasonable chance of being wrong.
Stop with "I am 14 and this is deep" shit and grow the fuck up. What the hell are those downvoted blokes talking about? We're here to stop a war not spout nonsense bullshit. Go back to reddit or twitter or something.
As English and a Kingsman, I can say I've detested all sides --- not Ulster people --- in the conflicts over in the Northern Province, including my own military forces: in the end they are all republicans of one sort or another. Same with this shadow-war: people are induced to loathe Dread Vlad and blame him for millions of alleged deeds whilst applauding Iraq etc. shouting shrill cries of 'Whataboutism ! to absolve themselves, when any Russian leader would react the same way; and yet that scarcely means he is not a criminal.
He and any of the Oligarchs there are criticized for wealth-grabbing thieves whilst America's 1% do the same hogging tactics and greed with only a fraction of that disapproval and mostly plaudits. I just hope this war ends asap.
Yet America has wrought this to entrap Russia --- back in the '90s both George Kennan and Bill Clinton, noted Hawks, insisted that any expansion of NATO would bring a bitter harvest; whilst from Trump's hideous sanctions on Russia to the Democrats' senile McCarthyism, that nation sent over a billion dollars of war aid to Ukraine in the past year, so that they can watch both nations fight to the death without sacrificing anything of their own themselves.
Stop with "I am 14 and this is deep" shit and grow the fuck up. What the hell are those downvoted blokes talking about? We're here to stop a war not spout nonsense bullshit. Go back to reddit or twitter or something.
Copium overdose. They've had to up their intake ever since the high and mighty R*ssian military has been revealed to be falling apart at the seams. It's day 61 of the three-day invasion, after all.
Copium overdose. They've had to up their intake ever since the high and mighty R*ssian military has been revealed to be falling apart at the seams. It's day 61 of the three-day invasion, after all.
Who ever claimed that the war would last 3 days? Only the BBC and others like that.
Copium overdose. They've had to up their intake ever since the high and mighty R*ssian military has been revealed to be falling apart at the seams. It's day 61 of the three-day invasion, after all.
I think they're just addicted to being contrarian. The common narrative must be wrong, they must be part of the in-crowd that knows what's really going on. Because only sheep and fools believe the news! And that's not them, no siree, they're too smart for that! It's a shame, because deep down underneath all the paranoid conspiracy nonsense, there IS a measure of truth. Is there bias in the media? Do they sometimes stretch the truth for the sake of a story? Yeah, of course. You absolutely shouldn't just believe everything you see and read. But there's a world of difference between practicing some healthy skepticism and critical thinking and just assuming EVERYTHING you see on the news is all a big fake news lie.
Who ever claimed that the war would last 3 days? Only the BBC and others like that.
Moskals expected this to be over and done with in a couple of days, that Ukrainians would welcome them with open arms. Instead, Ukraine's given a damn good account of themselves, killed an unprecedented number of R*ssian generals, made absolute laughingstock of Veh Deh Veh - it's basically Talvisota 2: The Electric Boogaloo.
The moskals, in the meanwhile, have only managed to ruin their already piss-poor economy, turn themselves into an international pariah, commit war crimes, "liberate" like 90% of Mariupol into the fucking ground, the list goes on. Hell, they've done more for NATO unity than NATO itself has.
Hell, they've done more for NATO unity than NATO itself has.
And done more for NATO expansion than NATO has, too. No way in hell would Finland and Sweden be contemplating applications for NATO now but for the invasion of Ukraine both happening and going so poorly. (If Russia hadn't invaded at all, Finland and Sweden would've seen no need to join NATO; if Russia had steamrolled Ukraine, they wouldn't dare.)
Russian Paratrooper Unit Leads Direct Attack On Misty Lake, Local Fairies Alarmed By Drownings Marisa Borrows 30 Russian Tanks, 80 Missiles: "The Missiles Will Be Returned ASAP, Ze!" 2 Billion Dollar 'Ultra-Yacht' Owned by Remilia Scarlet Seized By Gensokyo Authorities
Copium overdose. They've had to up their intake ever since the high and mighty R*ssian military has been revealed to be falling apart at the seams. It's day 61 of the three-day invasion, after all.
By all rights, it should have worked. Blitzkrieg is most effective in flat, open terrain with well-developed infrastructure. It's why it proved so effective in Poland and France during WW2.
Well, I suppose it would have worked if the R*ssian military was worth a damn.
Oh, and apparently Sweden and Finland have finally decided to apply for NATO membership. Fucking neat.
No sane person has been worried about a conventional war 'Russian Threat' to Europe since around 1960. The Red Army was a mighty war-machine, but they couldn't have gone further into Western Europe in 1945 even were the American forces [ who are very like the Russian Military; just as America is the mirror of the USSR ] not there --- even that ass Churchill was prepared to re-arm German ex-forces, and he hated Germany.
The only theoretical world domination threats now are America and China: America can't afford any losses anywhere --- and I can't really worry about the Chinese taking Britain: it would be a very long march.
.
Events since the fall of communism has only further demonstrated their military, as well as financial, as well as ideological, bankruptcy. Some successes, like freeing Syria of ISIS, which the Americans failed at; but they both failed in Afghanistan.
Putin is a mighty leader --- when compared to the dismal set of half-wit presidents and the elected trolls who run Euro countries [ most of whom would suck at the Soviet teat instead of the USA's were the Soviets richer than America, just as they've been willing to suck up to the expatriate oligarch thieves of Putin's Federation ] and most world leaders --- but he's not as clever as he thought he was.
What I find odd is that they train recruits in a beastly brutal fashion just as if they were in the Gulag, and seem to think that will make them efficient.
I think they're just addicted to being contrarian. The common narrative must be wrong, they must be part of the in-crowd that knows what's really going on. Because only sheep and fools believe the news! And that's not them, no siree, they're too smart for that! It's a shame, because deep down underneath all the paranoid conspiracy nonsense, there IS a measure of truth. Is there bias in the media? Do they sometimes stretch the truth for the sake of a story? Yeah, of course. You absolutely shouldn't just believe everything you see and read. But there's a world of difference between practicing some healthy skepticism and critical thinking and just assuming EVERYTHING you see on the news is all a big fake news lie.
When most of the MSM seems to be pushing for war with Russia over this you should have some serious doubts when it comes to their narratives. (Unless you think these "journalists" are more than just mouth pieces for those controlling them) These are the same people who thought the middle eastern wars were a good idea. After those disasters it really shouldn't be surprising that a few people aren't going alone with the same emotional manipulation they used to drag us into twenty years of pointless nation building.
These downvoted comments are fucking cancer. So many people defending a country that would sooner destroy them than ever lift a helping hand.
As someone else said beforehand, its healthy to have skepticism, especially where mainstream media is involved, but you have to keep in mind that its not just NATO and the west that have MSM, as this art can attest to. Just as western media may focus entirely on Ukraine's wins as opposed to losses, Russian media would do the same but for Russia, though the main difference here is that western media would just have to lie by omission, while Russian media has to lie in general due to their invasion being a fucking failure.
Like, seriously, beyond the politics, beyond the opinions, beyond MSM, if you just look at the strategic goals of Russia that have been accomplished (which they change whenever its necessary to save face), Russia has become a laughingstock. They couldn't take the north nor its capital city, expansion to the west seems like a pipe dream at this point, and they even lost a major naval vessel within the Black sea. If I were Russia, I would just cut my losses and secure my territory in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, as trying to retain anything more would just be chasing bad money with good.
Also, to my fellow, uh, "Danbooruers" out there, keep in mind that Russia is a fan of having people propagate, well, propaganda across the internet, even in something as inconsequential as art comments. I'm NOT saying that those who were downvoted are Russian plants, but I AM saying they exist, though probably in not as extensive of a capacity as we think.
"If you are not with me then you are against us", typical warfare methods to continue the war machine on. If Russia is a failure there's no need to participate then. The fewer they are the quicker this will end for everyone.
It's not us siding with Russia (we are not) but you trying to censor everything not on your side and obliging everyone to join you. So nations make business selling weapons while everyone else does the dirty work for them (as always).
I have not doubts there are Russian bots puting their noses on everyone's business for personal interests, but Russia isn't the only one. In fact the U.S. and China are really popular at doing the same. Keep that in mind, for my part I not taking active part on a Third World War.
That's just your paranoia my friend. I've been on this site for more than 10 years commenting at mostly Touhou and KanColle fan arts. I simply click at the "Comments" button and once in a while comment at anything it picks my interest when I have free time.
EDIT: @blindVigil, oh that. I though I was being accused of being a Russian bot. What you call deflect is a brief explanation about why I don't pick the best of two wrongs.
That's just your paranoia my friend. I've been on this site for more than 10 years commenting at mostly Touhou and KanColle fan arts. I simply click at the "Comments" button and once in a while comment at anything it picks my interest when I have free time.
Nah, that's textbook deflection, someone even very throughly explained it in one of the other comment threads you were shitting up. "Russia does bad things but Russia isn't the only one that does bad things." is deflection. It detracts from the discussion by pointing fingers at unrelated parties.
While I agree with some of what you said, I think you are forgetting a major fact here: Ukraine has done as well as it has due to foreign aid. Despite Russia proving themselves to be run by, what I can only assume are, a bunch of Elites who got their positions through nepotism as opposed to merit, their incompetence alone isn't enough to justify their current losses. You wanna talk about what has been "censored" by the other side (the west in this case)? Its the fact that Ukraine has suffered major losses themselves and have been driven to the brink by Russia's actions. Its thanks to NATO and other foreign aid that they have been able to go on as long as they have, so no, "there's no need to participate then. The fewer they are the quicker this will end for everyone" is not a stance that mostly aligns with reality.
Now, if its individuals going over to Ukraine to be part of the war effort, then I do agree that there needs to be, at most, a small number of them to ensure that they, the foreigners, don't fuck things up. Its a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation then. But in regards to the military equipment and supplies that are sent to Ukraine, then perhaps even more countries need to participate lest Ukraine fall.
Finally, I commend you for not wanting to participate in WW3, but keep in mind this: just because the other superpowers do similar things to Russia, doesn't mean they are contextually relatable. For sure the U.S. and China have plants on the internet, but in this situation, all they would have to do is point out the facts of the invasion, as any reasonable person can see the facts and come to a conclusion that Russia hasn't been doing well in its invasion.
These downvoted comments are fucking cancer. So many people defending a country that would sooner destroy them than ever lift a helping hand.
As someone else said beforehand, its healthy to have skepticism, especially where mainstream media is involved, but you have to keep in mind that its not just NATO and the west that have MSM, as this art can attest to. Just as western media may focus entirely on Ukraine's wins as opposed to losses, Russian media would do the same but for Russia, though the main difference here is that western media would just have to lie by omission, while Russian media has to lie in general due to their invasion being a fucking failure.
Like, seriously, beyond the politics, beyond the opinions, beyond MSM, if you just look at the strategic goals of Russia that have been accomplished (which they change whenever its necessary to save face), Russia has become a laughingstock. They couldn't take the north nor its capital city, expansion to the west seems like a pipe dream at this point, and they even lost a major naval vessel within the Black sea. If I were Russia, I would just cut my losses and secure my territory in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, as trying to retain anything more would just be chasing bad money with good.
Also, to my fellow, uh, "Danbooruers" out there, keep in mind that Russia is a fan of having people propagate, well, propaganda across the internet, even in something as inconsequential as art comments. I'm NOT saying that those who were downvoted are Russian plants, but I AM saying they exist, though probably in not as extensive of a capacity as we think.
I don't think any of us have said that Russia has done a good job with their invasion, it's mostly just being anti-war.
I don't think any of us have said that Russia has done a good job with their invasion, it's mostly just being anti-war.
I think the disconnect comes from how they present their "anti-war" sentiment, as it appears to be less about the facts of the invasion and more about contrarianism and what-about-ism.
Its an unfortunate fact that Russia is the aggressor here, despite what charlatans may spout about NATO "egging" them on, so they will not stop the war on their end unless it involves Ukraine's subservience to them, or the dissolution of their remaining logistics. For Ukraine, only once Russia stops invading them will the war will be over. In this sense, since the end of the war hinges on whether Ukraine or Russia gives up, or Russia runs out of war resources, then choosing the non-aggressor in this case could be considered the "anti-war" stance. Now, the context of this changes if and when a foreign body sends in their military which, to my knowledge, NATO and the west haven't done yet, thereby keeping up Ukraine's side as the "anti-war" side.
I am anti-war as well, hence why I support the U.S. in not sending troops and only sending aid. This ensures that the Ukrainians can have the necessary equipment and supplies to fight off the invaders, while also making sure that the scale is not escalated due to foreign troop movement in Ukraine. My bringing up of Russia's incompetence only furthers this outlook, as it showcases how the fall of their plans may soon bring about the end of this war.
How do we know that we are not the ones deceived by the media?
Don't worry, there is no bureau that controls every media all over the world. Most of internet users have plenty of different sources of information, so they can read and judge information from different angles and they can use Tor, VPN or proxy to bypass their government restrictions, if their government is censoring the net. You can read BBC, Russia Today, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Wikileaks, KCNA, Autonom.org, Stormfront, 4chan or any other media and form your own comprehensive views. Some media trying to stay neutral, some media proofchecking their information, some media openly declaring their non-neutrality, some media using news only to earn money, some media using their power to manipulate your views on some topics, and the worst kind of media... silencing the news.
In August 1991, when a group of communist hard-liners attempted to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev’s government, television programs were interrupted; for days, the only thing on state TV was a continuous loop of Swan Lake Now everything has changed for the better. Slightly
I think the disconnect comes from how they present their "anti-war" sentiment, as it appears to be less about the facts of the invasion and more about contrarianism and what-about-ism.
Its an unfortunate fact that Russia is the aggressor here, despite what charlatans may spout about NATO "egging" them on, so they will not stop the war on their end unless it involves Ukraine's subservience to them, or the dissolution of their remaining logistics. For Ukraine, only once Russia stops invading them will the war will be over. In this sense, since the end of the war hinges on whether Ukraine or Russia gives up, or Russia runs out of war resources, then choosing the non-aggressor in this case could be considered the "anti-war" stance. Now, the context of this changes if and when a foreign body sends in their military which, to my knowledge, NATO and the west haven't done yet, thereby keeping up Ukraine's side as the "anti-war" side.
I am anti-war as well, hence why I support the U.S. in not sending troops and only sending aid. This ensures that the Ukrainians can have the necessary equipment and supplies to fight off the invaders, while also making sure that the scale is not escalated due to foreign troop movement in Ukraine. My bringing up of Russia's incompetence only furthers this outlook, as it showcases how the fall of their plans may soon bring about the end of this war.
The whataboutism is mostly they just pointing out the double standards in our leadership class (the US specifically) who have engaged in illegal wars as well, and despite that they act outraged when the Russians do the exact the same thing. The NATO (once again mostly just being the US, and I'm saying it as a citizen of the United States, because I'm not a big fan of what my government does) causing this makes sense since the initial invasion of Ukraine (the Crimea invasion) happened shortly after Euromaidan. Which seems like a western backed coup, you have the Nuland call and Hunter Biden getting a pretty lucrative position at Burisma like two months after it happens, as two examples of some rather suspicious activities going on. It could be a coincidence, but I think it should at least make you question the reasons why everyone in power seems so focused on Ukraine. As for the weapons if they're actually buying them I'd be more in favor of it, however spending millions to them while we have a lot of problems at home doesn't sit very well with me.
I disagree with your assessment. Many, and I mean MANY people, in and out of the U.S., protested the U.S. actions in their, shall we say, aggressive international dealings, and I personally condemn the actions of the U.S. during the Vietnam War and the conflict in the middle east, mostly due to how it brought attention away from domestic issues. Also, to call it "the exact the same thing" overlooks many factors at play here, mainly the different geopolitics. As well, to say that "NATO ... causing this makes sense since the initial invasion of Ukraine (the Crimea invasion) happened shortly after Euromaidan" implies that Russia could ONLY invade as a rational and reasonable response, which simply doesn't hold water. Finally, "it should at least make you question the reasons why everyone in power seems so focused on Ukraine" is such a ludicrous statement when you simply look at one of the effects of the war: gas prices. There is no duplicitous narrative at play here, at least in regards to the war's immediate effects; the war has let gas prices skyrocket, and whenever energy costs rise, so too does the costs of EVERYTHING else. "Everyone in power" clearly sees the writing on the wall in regards to the economic backlash this war is causing, and as a result, are hyper focused on the war.
I disagree with your assessment. Many, and I mean MANY people, in and out of the U.S., protested the U.S. actions in their, shall we say, aggressive international dealings, and I personally condemn the actions of the U.S. during the Vietnam War and the conflict in the middle east, mostly due to how it brought attention away from domestic issues. Also, to call it "the exact the same thing" overlooks many factors at play here, mainly the different geopolitics. As well, to say that "NATO ... causing this makes sense since the initial invasion of Ukraine (the Crimea invasion) happened shortly after Euromaidan" implies that Russia could ONLY invade as a rational and reasonable response, which simply doesn't hold water. Finally, "it should at least make you question the reasons why everyone in power seems so focused on Ukraine" is such a ludicrous statement when you simply look at one of the effects of the war: gas prices. There is no duplicitous narrative at play here, at least in regards to the war's immediate effects; the war has let gas prices skyrocket, and whenever energy costs rise, so too does the costs of EVERYTHING else. "Everyone in power" clearly sees the writing on the wall in regards to the economic backlash this war is causing, and as a result, are hyper focused on the war.
I specifically used "leadership class" because I don't think many regular Americans are generally in favor of war even if it is justified. As for the "different geopolitics " bit it seems odd when "denazification" is pretty similar to stopping the spread of communism and Islamic extremism. Also I think i's justified/rational through the Russian Governments view of it, personally I don't see why they'd bother, but when the US can declare unjust wars I think the Russians noticed and said "hey I can do that too." The last bit about economic damage, the lockdowns have done significant damage to the economy and kept doing them, and they were happy to let those continue and defended them to the very end. These economic issues are mostly caused by our sanctions which have have seemingly backfired the Ruble has made a comeback and meanwhile we're probably going to have food shortages due to a lack of Russian fertilizer.
Don't worry, there is no bureau that controls every media all over the world.
If only it was that simple, that one could just take care of everything by just replacing the man on the top. No, they simply are brought up in the same culture, go to the same schools, consume the same media, and are punished if they deviate too much from the group, of course they can keep the course of the narrative steady without a single person at the helm.
Most of internet users have plenty of different sources of information, so they can read and judge information from different angles and they can use Tor, VPN or proxy to bypass their government restrictions, if their government is censoring the net. You can read BBC, Russia Today, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Wikileaks, KCNA, Autonom.org, Stormfront, 4chan or any other media and form your own comprehensive views. Some media trying to stay neutral, some media proofchecking their information, some media openly declaring their non-neutrality, some media using news only to earn money, some media using their power to manipulate your views on some topics, and the worst kind of media... silencing the news.
You can read whatever you want, as long as you don't actually believe anything believe anything the others say, and make sure to ridicule and suppress anybody who thinks something you don't agree with
There's a lot I see that is problematic here, save for the first point. There IS a difference between people like you and I and the "leadership" class, I agree, though I would argue that divide is even larger in Russia than it is in the U.S., which is crazy to think about, considering that its as wide as an ocean here.
Also, I will refer to Merriam Webster's definition of Geopolitics: "a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state". In such case, trying to equate, or even imply, U.S. geopolitics to Russian geopolitics simply because "denazification" is similar to "combating communism/terrorism" clearly disregards MASSIVE aspects of the definition.
As well, stating "when the US can declare unjust wars I think the Russians noticed and said "hey I can do that too." ", is simply another way to espouse what-about-ism. Even before that, however, is the fact that this implies that Russia is reactionary towards the U.S. which, when you actually look at the history of the two countries, couldn't be farther from the truth. Both countries have a laundry list of unjust actions they have done, both provoked and unprovoked.
Finally, saying that "and they were happy to let those continue and defended them [the lockdowns] to the very end" simply doesn't make sense. The lockdowns had a CATASTROPHIC effect on the economy, meaning that the government was indeed incentivized to lift them as soon as possible. What stopped them from doing so was the very simple fact that the virus was still rampant in many communities, mine especially. NO ONE wanted the lockdown to continue, but we understood why it had to. Onto the sanctions, yes, those were what caused the spike in prices, but it was various countries way of fighting Russia without deploying troops. If its between imposing sanctions or escalating the war by sending troops, and not doing anything is off the table, then I choose sanctions.
Oh, and before I forget, "sanctions which have have seemingly backfired the Ruble has made a comeback" is either demonstrably Russian propaganda or ignorance of Russian economic matters, which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say its the latter. I won't get into the specifics, but essentially, Russia's central bank has limited selling and enforced buying, thereby creating an illusion that the ruble is doing well. Can't say I blame them in this case, considering the devastating economic effects this invasion has had around the world.
edit: removed the quote in order to shorten the comment.
...of course they can keep the course of the narrative steady without a single person at the helm.
Okay, let's paraphrase. I did say that there is no global bureau that controls all media. I didn't mean that nobody controls any media. Some media (sometimes with a huge population coverage) are controlled by media moguls. It doesn't mean that every media mogul is lying or telling the truth and it doesn't mean that every media controlled by media moguls. And media moguls are not the same: there is a man that outlawed hemp and there is a man that was against England's participation in the First World War.
indexador2 said:
You can read whatever you want, as long as you don't actually believe anything the others say, and make sure to ridicule and suppress anybody who thinks something you don't agree with
There are little or no wrongs with ridiculing (Do I really need to take Hitler's nonsense about "Jews, jews everywhere!!!" seriously? Or maybe I must pretend that this isn't just ridiculous, especially with copyright strikes?). And there are lots of wrongs with suppressing of speech. It's a shame that so many governments think that it'stheeasyway.
There's a lot I see that is problematic here, save for the first point. There IS a difference between people like you and I and the "leadership" class, I agree, though I would argue that divide is even larger in Russia than it is in the U.S., which is crazy to think about, considering that its as wide as an ocean here.
Good that we can kinda agree on that, though you could just look at approval ratings for Congress the people who actually do things to get the average Americans view on things.
Also, I will refer to Merriam Webster's definition of Geopolitics: "a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state". In such case, trying to equate, or even imply, U.S. geopolitics to Russian geopolitics simply because "denazification" is similar to "combating communism/terrorism" clearly disregards MASSIVE aspects of the definition.
Maybe, but any actual distinction between the stated reasonings behind the wars mentioned are very slim. Plus if we're going with an actual geopolitic view I think it makes an even better case for Russia being justified in their eyes. Having a massive border with a potentially hostile nation, with potentially extremely powerful allies isn't a great thing, economically Russia's most important export is oil and there's several pipelines in Ukraine that needlessly cut in the profits, and from demography the Russians and Ukrainians share the same past and were in the same Empire for the past few hundred years; not to mention there's still a large Russian speaking population in Ukraine.
As well, stating "when the US can declare unjust wars I think the Russians noticed and said "hey I can do that too." ", is simply another way to espouse what-about-ism. Even before that, however, is the fact that this implies that Russia is reactionary towards the U.S. which, when you actually look at the history of the two countries, couldn't be farther from the truth. Both countries have a laundry list of unjust actions they have done, both provoked and unprovoked.
God forbid we use other events to show the double standards of the people warmongering over this whole thing. Anyway it's more about standards, if you have a set of rules or laws everyone is supposed to follow and people start breaking it and nothing is done to enforce it's meaningless. I would also say it's maybe slightly hypocritical when the people who broke it in the first place start crying about it. Russia seems to be reacting to a western puppet, percieved or otherwise, in the form of Ukraine. I don't really see how it's surprising when it's in their backyard, it's very similar to how the US tried to overthrow Castro. Admittedly we went about it in a smarter way, but still.
Finally, saying that "and they were happy to let those continue and defended them [the lockdowns] to the very end" simply doesn't make sense. The lockdowns had a CATASTROPHIC effect on the economy, meaning that the government was indeed incentivized to lift them as soon as possible. What stopped them from doing so was the very simple fact that the virus was still rampant in many communities, mine especially. NO ONE wanted the lockdown to continue, but we understood why it had to. Onto the sanctions, yes, those were what caused the spike in prices, but it was various countries way of fighting Russia without deploying troops. If its between imposing sanctions or escalating the war by sending troops, and not doing anything is off the table, then I choose sanctions.
No, it makes sense. Several of nations and states in the US had no lockdowns, or very limited ones. It was mostly a political issue that had no regard for the economics of it or seemingly for public health. As for helping Ukraine I would have thought the massive arms shipments would have been enough of a way to fight the Russians; the sanctions seem pretty shortsighted when you remember how much we rely on Russia for something as important food production or in the case of Europe in particular energy.
Oh, and before I forget, "sanctions which have have seemingly backfired the Ruble has made a comeback" is either demonstrably Russian propaganda or ignorance of Russian economic matters, which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say its the latter. I won't get into the specifics, but essentially, Russia's central bank has limited selling and enforced buying, thereby creating an illusion that the ruble is doing well. Can't say I blame them in this case, considering the devastating economic effects this invasion has had around the world.
Admittedly isn't something I'm terribly knowledgeable on. However the fertilizer thing is more pressing and I'm pretty sure that's pretty universally agreed that it's a major deal. And like in my previous it seems to have backfired because if there's one thing that actually really matters it's food.
Going to no bump this and sorry for the length the format just made it easier to reply.
This comment chain has gone on long enough, so I will just say this. I believe you are misguided in your attempts to make sense of this whole situation; being able to look at the facts and come up with interpretations deviating from them. I think this stance has been influenced by Russian propaganda or individuals who cannot critically look at the situation, so not necessarily a fault of your own. As said before, skepticism is healthy, and there are definitely things that should be questioned on the Ukrainian/NATO side, such as not letting males leave the country, but the fact of the matter is that Russia IS the aggressor here, they are the invaders, they are the genociders, and no amount of political posturing will change that fact. A personal belief of mine that I hold is that even if Russia wins, the war will NOT stop, as they will simply move on to the next target, probably Moldova. Russia's actions here are simply unacceptable, just as they would be if it was China or the U.S., and I commend everyone in the world, Russians included, who will not stand for it.
As a final aside, I'll leave a quote that someone said on the internet: "The most common reason people hesitate to take a hardline stance on Russia is because "U.S. bad". But as we all know, while "U.S. bad" is largely true, it is not a substitute for a political philosophy".
This comment chain has gone on long enough, so I will just say this. I believe you are misguided in your attempts to make sense of this whole situation; being able to look at the facts and come up with interpretations deviating from them. I think this stance has been influenced by Russian propaganda or individuals who cannot critically look at the situation, so not necessarily a fault of your own. As said before, skepticism is healthy, and there are definitely things that should be questioned on the Ukrainian/NATO side, such as not letting males leave the country, but the fact of the matter is that Russia IS the aggressor here, they are the invaders, they are the genociders, and no amount of political posturing will change that fact. A personal belief of mine that I hold is that even if Russia wins, the war will NOT stop, as they will simply move on to the next target, probably Moldova. Russia's actions here are simply unacceptable, just as they would be if it was China or the U.S., and I commend everyone in the world, Russians included, who will not stand for it.
As a final aside, I'll leave a quote that someone said on the internet: "The most common reason people hesitate to take a hardline stance on Russia is because "U.S. bad". But as we all know, while "U.S. bad" is largely true, it is not a substitute for a political philosophy".
I look at critically the Russians do bad things, but everyone else does as well, and there's plenty of other atrocities going on that we seemingly don't care about. I'm not interested in sending my countrymen to die for another corrupt regime in Eastern Europe, I feel bad for the Ukrainian people who are caught up in this mess. I also think we are also being propagandized into having a hot war with Russia, the blue and red team have never seen a war they didn't like. Russia is the aggressor and maybe a genocider if you use the extremely wide definition of genocide, though I'd use something like the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, or even the Holodomor, though that probably had more to do with Soviet incompetence rather than malice. Basically I just want consistent standards you have a terrible war in Yemen that we're actively aiding in and then you have a more serious case of genocide in China with the Uyghurs, but those are rarely talked about in the same way the Ukraine invasion is. It's generally just a sad state of affairs and I feel like we're being manipulated for very cynical reasons.
You need to understand for the Nth time we do not stand for Russia. And because of that we are neither obliged to stand for the U.S.
Life isn't black and white. We know U.S. propaganda and fear methods for manipulation. Previous history has shown their power for distorsion of the supposed facts and so its influence over governments out of their jurisdiction through bots, sanctions and conditional aid. We may reconsider once Russia takes a next target (and probably they will because that's also what the U.S. has done too), but until then Russia is a reflect mirror of the U.S. I really hope they take a good look at themselves and reflect on their actions for the future.
I just leaving current event pool since that slap and ukrainian nazi post then lots of thing happens, from vtuber simp wrestler to some seductive food that makes you makes ahegao face and cums, and now this. I dont want to read all your essay
I'll tell you why does it matter, because it's white people killing other white people. That's why massive media is really concerned this time.
You can be the next Willy Joseph Cancel if you want, at least he died helping for real. Contrary to the posters here that insist on inciting violence without their participation, so their nations can profit from selling weapons while others carry their own deaths.
I'll tell you why does it matter, because it's white people killing other white people. That's why massive media is really concerned this time.
Ah, yes. "White" uzbeks. "White" avars, dargins and other dagestanians. "White" tuvans. Other "white" ethnic groups of Ukraine and Russia, like crimean tatars. And slavs - the special Whites. Maybe that's why so many people were bothered with the Yugoslav wars and the war in Donbas.
I'll tell you why does it matter, because it's white people killing other white people. That's why massive media is really concerned this time.
You can be the next Willy Joseph Cancel if you want, at least he died helping for real. Contrary to the posters here that insist on inciting violence without their participation, so their nations can profit from selling weapons while others carry their own deaths.
You are projecting so hard, especially in cases like mine where I detailed my reasons and background for picking my stance.
Answer this question: Taking on its own, was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia lawful and/or ethical?
Well, I didn't mean it like I was against your stance. I'm just tired of the news making these (so far) three months worse than any other war that went for year lapses. Is it because the country's not etnical people has the economical resources to run away and refugee everywhere else in big numbers? We didn't have previous wars refugee camps back then on my country. Is it because big countries expect everyone else to dirty their hands because their direct involvement could lead to a bigger conflict, yet they expect to profit from it? I honestly can't even tell. However it brings me untrust the covering of this war is different to any other war that has been covered for the past twenty years.
Answering your question, I'd be insane if I would answer what Russia did was right, of course I'm against it. But this stance coming from the same country that nuclear bombed two cities unlike any other that has done nuclear threats, who also had control over the media's previous wars to hide its own atrocities makes me wonder: Should I side to a burglar, a mercenary or an assassin (metaphorically speaking)? I choose to not involve further on this conflict except for helping victims of this war from both countries if possible. No, I'm not deviating the topic. I'm briefly explaining why I can't either choose the other side.
The hilarious thing is that the original woman who did this, instantly got hired into some German TV network. And then some time later ukranian refugees went around protesting, for her to be fired from there. lmao
