Comments by "" (@timogul) on "WSJ News" channel.

@ At no point was Ukraine going to be getting nuclear weapons, but there are already more than enough nuclear weapons pointed at Russia to obliterate it dozens of times over. Why do you being up nuclear weapons when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?
1
@SeiyaSoiya-un4jj You lose the substance of the argument, so you take it personal? Like Putin?
1
@oxanasmith6512 Ukraine is not responsible for Putin's insecurities either. Ukraine is its own country, Putin has to solve his own problems within his own borders.
1
@oxanasmith6512 Yes, Russian forces and separatists in the region were attacking Ukrainian citizens, but they at least had some plausible deniability at the time. In any case, Ukraine did not attack Russia directly until after the full invasion.
1
@ They were separatists actively attacking Ukrainians before Ukraine attacked them. It was a valid police action. Russia had no lace to get involved. They were treating their minorities with respect, that had nothing to do with the war. The war happened because Putin wanted ownership of Ukraine. Nothing more than that.
1
@ I'm aware of what Russia would tell you about those things, but I'm also aware that nobody should listen to Russia about anything. The fact remains that even if everything you claimed was true, that would still be no justification for Russia to invade. If they felt they had legitimate claims, they could take it to the UN or to the international criminal courts. Make a case of it. They instead chose to murder Ukrainian civilians. This was not the right choice. One is CLEARLY better here, the one that did not invade the other.
1
@ I'm aware of what Russia would tell you about those things, but I'm also aware that nobody should listen to Russia about anything. The fact remains that even if everything you claimed was true, that would still be no justification for Russia to invade. If they felt they had legitimate claims, they could take it to the UN or to the international criminal courts. Make a case of it. They instead chose to invade their neighbor. This was not the right choice. One is CLEARLY better here, the one that did not invade the other.
1
@oxanasmith6512 Or, perhaps the actual situation was not as bad as Russia presented it to be. You do understand that their goal was to take Ukraine for themselves, why do you assume that they are reliable narrators? The one thing that Russia did not try was to walk away. There are plenty of people in the US of Mexican descent. In many cases, these people have been mistreated. Do you believe Mexico would be justified in using that as a pretext to annex Texas? I am not taking an absolutist view that one side is always bad and the other always good. I am taking the rationalist viewpoint that the evidence indicates that Russia has always taken the worst stance in global politics. They have the potential to be good, they just choose not to be. It is not absolutist to recognize reality for what it is, it would be idealistic, at best, to imagine a world in which they are better than they actually are, and present that as though it were fact. In the reality of the situation, this is entirely Russia's fault, and they cannot achieve any gains as a result of it.
1
@oxanasmith6512 So your argument is that it's ok for Russia to invade because they thought they had more military power than Ukraine. Nice. Again, Russia is not entitled to get what they want just because they once had a formidable military. It would not have been better for Ukraine to just give up their future in exchange for temporary peace.
1
@oxanasmith6512 So you concede that Russia had no justification for war, but instead switch to a pragmatic, "Ukraine should have just done whatever Russia wanted to avoid the war." "If only the UK had surrendered to Germany, the entire war could have been avoided. They should have been more pragmatic."
1
@ Russia wants to retake the Soviet Union. If the other countries do not agree, they have no right to do so. It would be impossible for any Ukrainian President to achieve peace with Russia without giving up the country's future. Russia would not settle for a free Ukraine. Russia attempted to take all of Ukraine, they only failed. They are incapable of advancing faster than they have, because they are weak. Russia invaded Finland, and got kicked back out. Finland joined NATO to prevent them trying again.
1
@oxanasmith6512 Finland certainly has no trust that Russia will leave them alone. Why is that? If Finland can join NATO, why not Ukraine? Ukraine is no closer to Russia than Finland is, and Ukraine, like Finland, has never attacked Russia, so why are they not allowed to be part of NATO?
1
@oxanasmith6512 Ukraine did not do the things you claimed. Perhaps some people within Ukraine did some of those things, but those people were accountable to Ukrainian law, not to foreign assault. Ukraine is certainly a better country for its Russian people than Russia is to its own people, is that an excuse for people to invade Russia and depose Putin? As for Russia's security concerns, they are not valid. There is zero chance of any outside country attacking Russia except in self defense or the defense of another nation. So long as Russia does not wage war, there is no chance of war being waged against them. Ukraine being allied with the west in no way changes the military calculus, Russia would be hopeless in any such conflict whether Ukraine is allied with the west or with them. This never had anything to do with security, it only had to do with power and control. They wanted to control and benefit from Ukraine's peacetime state. That choice is not theirs to make, it is Ukraine's. If they want to be allied to Ukraine, they should have done so using gifts, not threats. This is entirely black and white, you just choose the wrong side of it.
1
@oxanasmith6512 Sure. I'm just unsure how anyone could possibly be confident in any other position. This is a very clear-cut case of an unjustified invasion of a foreign country, for which the only just remedy would be a total withdrawal from its borders, and reparation for the damage caused. How can anyone not get fully behind that?
1
@zheyuanhuang7716 Yes.
1
Being a neutral buffer country did not work out for them, it led to Russia seizing their territory. They need to be in NATO to prevent that, because Russia cannot be trusted to be neutral.
1
He had no answer because it's impossible to calculate something like that. The answer is somewhere between ""enough" and "some." It would definitely at least HELP though, right? And you're right, follow the money. The money is in the fossil fuel industry, and always has been.
1
When was this?
1
I mean, that's not happening, but it's nice to see them "working the refs" like this, and it's at least not as irrational as the "change nothing, roll coal" idiots.
1
A pardon wouldn't be relevant in this case, as it was a civil verdict, not criminal.
1
@ Who told you that Ukrainian news was saying that?
1
@ "But also he gets to keep everything he already took."
1
Trump does have a history of hiring foxes to watch over henhouses.
1
@ I am a person, not a corporation.
1
@open2012 It's more cow burps that are the problem than their farts. But farts sounds funnier to five years olds and Faux News viewers.
1
@Youtubeisafascistcompany Then long term you need to shift the machines' designs so that the next generation hardware CAN use synthetic lubricants, because no matter what fossil fuel materials will eventually run out, but that isn't happening any time soon. In the meantime, NOBODY is arguing that we stop using fossil materials as lubricants, so I'm not sure why some people insist on bringing that up as a strawman argument. All that is being asked is that we stop BURNING it as fuel.
1
@residentgrey You do understand that fossil fuels harm more people every year than all the combined nuclear power accidents ever have, right? Even if we were running Soviet nuclear power plants it would be safer for everyone than to continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are, but we don't even need to do that, because more modern nuclear plants are much safer than the older ones.
1
Every Ukrainian that dies as a result of this is on Trump's hands.
1
It means that he would not be personally aware, so if he said "no," he might be wrong about that. This is why communications offices exist, to keep track of this stuff.
1
@jmakc3541 That's not gaslighting, that is just explaining the facts.
1
@waldoparsnip1025 No, as they are, which liberals TRY to explain to you.
1
@jmakc3541 You would just hand your personal emails over to people who hate you without any good cause? That seems dumb to me.
1
@mattt5006 That is not true. Dems did not say that.
1
@ It would be ineffective to get any "deal" that did not involve a restoration of their territory and a defense against next time. What do you think he should do, and why do you believe it would work for his country?
1
When they say "eliminate fossil fuels," they mean to stop burning it as FUEL, not to stop using it to create petrochemicals that are not burned into the atmosphere. So long as the materials are processed responsibly, it is not a problem. But you do make a good point that we need to figure out alternate sources for all of those things too, once the fossil fuels run out completely.
1
@ Which treaty do you believe NATO broke?
1