Youtube comments of Alphabet Inc. (@official_alphabet_inc).
-
5700
-
523
-
141
-
100
-
92
-
@TheSuperi9 Dude, disregarding ISIS, Taliban, etc., you'd be hard pressed to find people more anti-American neo-imperialism than me. That said, your comment is both irrelevant and incredibly insulting to the men and women who, in god faith, risked their life for that bullshit cause. In fact, many vets who served in Afgh and Iraq, in addition to struggling with all the other "normal" trauma war entails, also struggle immensely with the guilt of participating directly in an unjust war. And hurting from being deceived by their own government and leadership.
Focus that negative energy on US politicians and US generals, because those are the ones who put the soldiers there in the first place. According to my calculations, military personnel represents about 1.3% of the total voting turnout in the presidential election, so you cannot put any considerable amount of blame on them - those soldiers who did the best they could given the shitty hand they'd been dealt.
And don't forget to blame the rest of our bullshit governments throughout the western world, who both accepted and even colluded in this 20 year long series of moronic decisions...
89
-
59
-
47
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
24
-
23
-
18
-
An important aspect highlighted by Mullis' story is, in my opinion, that there really is no such thing as the lone genius who revolutionises the world, all on his own. We often romanticise myths like "without genius A, we would never have X" and "without genius B, we would never have Y", but this is ultimately a highly simplified version of a much more complex story.
In Mullis' case, there are many necessary factors outside his own brilliant discovery and subsequent work, that all played their part in the ultimate symphony that brought the Polymer Chain Reaction to the story of mankind. To me, they all seemingly boil down to CHANCE and OTHER HUMANS (and/or their work).
In Mullis’ story, I want to highlight four aspects.
1) If Tom White hadn’t met, talked with and believed in Mullis, there’s a real possibility that Mullis would’ve never even thought about DNA in a way that led to his eureka moment. Their chance meeting at the bakery where Mullis worked, and the fact that White viewed Mullis as an “excellent synthetic chemist (…) because he’d been synthesising drugs at Berklay”, was what got him in the door at Cetus.
2) Mullis’ specific role at Cetus seems necessary too, combined with his own personality traits. If he hadn’t been working at the specific station he was, he likely wouldn’t have thought about this process at all. If he wasn’t working alone, with a slow, boring and repetitive job, combined with his perhaps “eccentric ADHD-brain”, his mind would’ve been too busy focusing on other things.
3) White again proves to be an essential player, because he saw potential where seemingly everyone else were shooting down Mullis’ work and theories. From how the story is told, it’s possible that the idea would’ve ended at this point without him, but I suppose he pushed the management at Cetus to allocate some resources towards this project. In that regard, it’s also worth crediting the leader[s] who green lighted the project, not to mention the entire team, besides Mullis’ and White (Arnheim, Erilch, Faloona, Saiki, Scharf and Gelfand).
4) Additionally, essential parts to PCR’s success is the bacteria itself (Thermus aquaticus), its discoverers (Brock and Freeze), and the scientists who isolated Taq polymerase from the bacteria (Chien, Edgar and Trella).
And of course, you can go on and on and on, because there’s turtles all the way down, baby. Would Mullis have had his eureka moment in the car that night if he was constantly listening to music and podcasts to silence his non-stop thoughts (like I tend to do too much of)? What if he was never introduced to psychedelics (again, like me, and you know where I’m getting at with this: I’m the real genius here /s). What about the different institutions that facilitated all this work, and who educated these people? What about the innumerable discoveries and inventions all this works builds upon in some way or another, all the way down to the human-like chimpanzee who initially discovered that if he hit a smaller, softer rock against a hard boulder, he’d have this new, cool shaped stone that served no other purpose than for his fellow chimpanzees to laugh at?
Ultimately, are we doing ourselves a disservice by focusing too heavily on very specific persons and happenings when crediting both human greatness, and, let’s not forget, human failure and destruction? Are there really any reason to believe that we wouldn’t have discovered the theory of relativity yet if Einstein’s father never bought him that compass? Is it naive to assume that using time travel to assassinate baby Hitler would somehow prevent the Holocaust? Are figures like Trump and Putin really the cause of so many horrible outcomes, as many would like you to believe, or are they perhaps rather a symptom of a deeper issue?
In the end, I don’t know. I can’t know. However, I firmly believe we ought to shift our focus towards such questions, instead of following down the paths we’re currently refusing to diverge from.
18
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@dadistos4538 I guess I could've been more clear in that I was referencing the Ukrainians burned alive by other Ukrainians in Odessa 02.05.2014 (and other, more or less similar, happenings long before Feb. of '22).
At the same time, it's kinda on you for not questioning why I chose the wording "burning to their deaths", like that's something that regularly happens in this war.
Then again, I'm used to people who think they actually know something about what they're talking about, so I prolly should've expected it.
Lastly, and least importantly, cheering on death is f'ed up regardless of context. If you're gonna respond, don't focus on just this part, because again, it's not the main point here.. at all.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@rickmartin9420 Lol. It's quite the opposite. USA "manufacters consent" as you said, in other words, lying about their intentions to get "permission" to invade. Thus, they're "legally" invading.
(Side note: but who tf cares whether it's legal or illegal. Wars are always bad, unless they're in self defence.)
Russia, on the other hand, says exactly why and how they're gonna do it. Ukraine is the only war where they have been slightly less truthful, as the 1/2 of the "reason" provided on the day of the invasion was supposed to be nazism.
Which is a wise move, both for gaining support within Russia, and if he ever were put on trial, he could put forth arguments that this was an act of self-defence. Also, Ukraine has a problem with nationalism - greater than in the part of Europe we usually classify as "The West".
Besides that, the Putin regime has been super upfront about why they're invading Ukraine, both months ahead of it and after. The only thing they haven't mentioned is resources - how the invasion affects Russia's export of oil and wheat positively, and how they're blocking Ukraine's ability to extract their enormous oil resources. But hey.. No one has ever admitted that their main reason to invade someone is mainly for economical reasons.
And this honesty is afaik a trademark of Russian Federation and Soviet Union wars. No bs. And this is obviously preferrable to the coy "exporting peace and freedom"-bs that other shithole countries does instead.
7
-
This is very human tbh. Of course, the more narcissistic one is, the more perfect one sees themselves, and thus, the more blame one shifts outwards. In the end, though, we're all regular victims to confirmation bias.. and when all you got is time to ruminate on why you ended up in a sticky situation, it's hard not to find any external reasons for one's fk ups.
So, in his example: I presume it's extremely rare to view oneself throughout life as an "evil" person, or someone destined to become a murderer. That's why he's searching for external reasons, e.g. 1) "I was obsessed with Columbine", 2) "my new friend was obsessed with violent movies, and he introduced me to them" -> "both of which made me more violent than I really was". Besides, 3) "he put the idea out there by asking me if I was down to kill someone -> which created and actual opportunity instead of being just fantasy". In that way, he proves to himself that he's not evil. Rather, these external reasons are to blame. And since there is some slight semblance of logic behind these thoughts, every time he thinks about these things, he solidifies them down more and more.
If he instead talked with the correct therapist/psychologist, or perhaps an intelligent friend, he might realise that there's some serious childhood trauma that created the basis for him to kill someone in this matter. Perhaps he has had some inner conflict since 10 about being "abandoned" as a baby - maybe without being fully aware of it. Coupled with have little to no social network, which strengthens the feelings of abandonment and aloneness. Which, on top of that, gave him lots of free time to nerd out on perhaps not-so-healthy subjects like school shooters and shit.
To be honest... From seeing the vids he and Torey created, and from his interrogation, I was kinda surprised Brian said shit like "I won't put all the blame on Torey, but...". I'd expect him to cry and shout about this being completely everyone else's fault - Torey, his parent, and everyone at school. Perhaps even Cassie herself.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@jlangerrr6240 It's annoying when people argument like this. Like things cannot change over 83+ years.
Sometimes when I've discussed the Russo-Ukraine war with my father, he refers to my POV as naive, while justifying his views in e.g. political/military policies, and single events, from WWII.
Also, the fact that we're talking about events that might transpire 10-50 years in the future makes it even less sane of you to be so assertive here. For the record, I'm not saying that this definitively won't happen. I'm just saying that it's pretty foolish of you to assert so confidently that CCP don't "really care about Chinese people", and, indirectly, that they would let many, many millions of its own citizens die "just because history, y'know?"...
Please do note that Phillipe wrote "_I DON'T THINK_ the Chinese leadership will [idly watch] millions of their citizens die", not "Chinese government won’t watching millions of their citizens die”. There's a huge, important difference in these two sentences.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ Haven't seen much of her, but isn't she more along the lines of "jeez, stfu, you're an idiot"?
Either way, she's [acting as] a arbitrator in small-claim court, which essentially means that the parties HAVE to utter some words here and there in order to win their case.
Fleischer's a judge in a real Criminal Court. The defendant (or his lawyer) doesn't really have to say anything, as the burden of proof is on the state [of Texas, via their prosecutor]. That means they have to prove he's guilty, and then the defendant can try to disprove if he wants to.
What Fleischer does by telling the defendants to stfu is essentially to ensure that the police and prosecutors does their job.
A (really dumb) example could be the prosecutor alleging that during a traffic stop, the police discovered 100 grams of cocaine in the defendants car, but they forgot to weigh it or document it at all. So it's just the officers word, and no good explanation for how the drugs disappeared from the police's evidence storage. The obvious defence here is the lack of proof, which would've had the case thrown out in the initial stages.. but before any attorney gets to present this argument, the defendant blurts out "100 grams?! It was AT MOST 10 grams". Now, he could very likely be jailed for the possession of 10 grams of cocaine. Fleischer doesn't want that. He wants police and prosecutors to work hard and especially properly to catch and convict criminals, without any tricks.
Ofc you could say "Well, the guy admitted to having 10 grams, so who cares?". But thing is, confessions have a notorious reputation for being a bad source of evidence. The guy might be crazy, having never done cocaine. Maybe he had 10g's of cocaine in his car 10 years earlier when he got caught by a friend, mixing up the two situations. Maybe he just got stressed by potentially having to serve 69 consecutive lifetime sentences for 100g, and rather admitted to 10g to get a lesser punishment (when he didn't have anything in reality). Et cetera.
So Judge Judy ain't really that comparable to this. Most (or at least a considerable amount of) prosecutors doesn't care about their defendants to the same degree as this. At least not the poor "lowlife scum"-type of defendant. That's why this is so commendable.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Germany has almost 8 times the amount of active military personell compared to Norway. They're very close in reserves though (50k vs 40k), but when accounting for that, Germany still has 3.7 times more military personell.
That's not accounting for equipment, but my assumptions would be that Germany has more heavy equipment than Norway too. However, Norway might be stronger in some specialised ways, due to how NATO-states cooperate on their military roles. E.g. I have no doubt Norway has a stronger fleet of submarine discovery tech than Germany, although correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, Germany has approximately 15 B61 nuclear bombs, and the capabilities of launching them. Norway has exactly 0 nukes. So even if Germany left EU and NATO today, they wouldn't be invaded by anyone, anytime soon...
So shame on you for spreading lies. How do you think? (Hint: you don't.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@glenjamindle
I'm assuming we haven't experienced the same gas/spray then. But how were you exposed to CS?
We were standing 10 people in a tiny shed, while the Staff SGT lighted up a small thing that slowly released the gas/smoke into the room. After letting it disperse through the room for a nervous 10-15 mins, we were told one by one, remove our mask, take a deep breath and then ask for permission to leave the room (worded in a specific way). When granted permission, we should exit the room and keep running down the street while flapping our arms like we were 5 year olds pretending to be birds.
I remember there were some after effects. Maybe some physical stinging in the eyes and throat, coughing, slime and stuff like that. I'm sure I could remember more by googling what the effects were, cause I rly don't remember anything after exiting the room (except that the running and arm flapping seemed to help)... because the physical and especially the overwhelming psychological effects of the gas were absolute horror. The feeling of being choked so intensely, but there's no hands on your throat. The immediate need for air, but total inability to actually take a breath (I'm sure I took many breaths, but I couldn't feel/sense that I was doing it). The constant coughing. It felt like a demon was choking me. By raping my throat.
I also remember guilty for thinking those team members who were in there with me was pussies, because shortly after removing my own mask, I understood finishing that sentence was impossible. But somehow, I managed to do it on the third try, and I think I was one out of like three or four that made it. Out of 35 people.
Maybe if I experienced the pepper spray first, it would actually feel bad, but the contrast from what I told above just makes it "meh". There's a photo taken like 15-30 min afterwards which I think encapsulates the feeling really well. I just look very tired and very sad.
I've always thought that experiencing the gas in a more "realistic way", like a gas canister thrown into a crowd at a protest, vs. the tightly packed shed, would drastically affect the experience, making it more tolerable. At the same time, I don't wanna know. I'd rather take pepper to the face as a yearly occurrence than to ever re-experience Diablo's dick down my throat.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@marius5723 You don't "apply" to join.
You're sent a form, which you have to fill out. Afterwards, you might be called in for a physical meeting (physical- and mental test + interview), to which you have to meet up for. And after all of this, you might get a letter stating when and where you should meet up, and even though I used the word "should", you have to meet up.
So no, it's absolutely mandatory. You can, however, apply for "conscientious objection", but in that case, you have to perform some kind of civil service.
If you still refuse, the punishment is jail for 3 months, up to 2 years (or up to 3 years in some special circumstances).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pawelkita64 All of what Hanna mentioned above has been mentioned in western media, although some parts have been omitted or rephrased to fit a grander narrative. What one side calls a coup, our papers called a revolution by oppressed, freedom-loving civilians. What some would call a civil war, our papers mostly called a terrorist problem, in line with the official explanation by Ukraine (PS: IMF doesn't grant loans to countries with ongoing wars, and EU & NATO does not grant membership to such countries). Almost all papers that covers international events has in fact written about the awful murders in Odessa 02/05/14, but it was only 1-2 short articles, and they were very light on information regarding the events.
If we turn the events of that day upside down (e.g. if it rather was pro-Russians that set ablaze a building, and then cheered as pro-EU people burned alive inside, while also shooting at those trying to escape AND those trying to help those inside) we'd probably see continued reporting on this event for weeks or months. And there would be no Ukrainian official report stating that there magically was people shooting from the building, although not finding a single weapon inside. And there would be no videos of a higher-up of the Odessan police shooting at people trying to escape the building, because the entire police and fire brigade would be there to help those dying inside.
But no, in reality, the roles was reversed, so all of what I've stated here are simply Russian propaganda and lies. All coins have one side.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
4:38 I think you have it a bit mixed up, Daniil. I'm pretty confident most Europeans, at least the citizens of EU in urban areas, view Israel and Russia as equals in these two conflict - that is Israel/Russia being Goliath, the unjust aggressor, the big, bad wolf.
In the US, it's a bit more complex because of the ties a lot people have with Israel and Islam (especially within the political Conservative movement and religious Evangelicalism). These people view Jews as a oppressed people that now deserves full support, despite their questionable actions, out of religious and/or humanitarian reasons. A large part of Americans also have a awful view of Islam/Muslims in general. Many of these people equate Hamas (as strictly a terrorist organisation) and Russia (who's foreign policy is on par with terrorism).
---
Personally (if anyone cares), I think both conflicts are a lot more complex than this, and trying to paint anyone as good or evil is beyond naive.
That said, I find it easier to outright condemn Israel than Russia.
Today's Palestinians have for their entire lives lived in a third world society, subjugated and oppressed by settlers of what was once their land, just because Europeans and Americans didn't want Jews in their country and/or felt guilty for the horrible treatment of Jews throughout history and/or wanted political control of the Middle East (+ the Jews had a historical connection to the area). That's why I cannot harshly judge some Palestinians for going to such extreme lengths as blowing themselves up in the name of their supposed creator, or committing other acts of so-called terrorism. Education is practically non-existent, and the citizens are having major issues covering their very basic needs, like security (shelter and violence) and food/water. Israelis, on the other side, live in a extremely well-off first world country. Good and free education, a robust social welfare program, and despite having a target on their back, they have one of the world's best military defence (at least judged in relation to territory- and population size). The main problem is that Israelis should be able to realise they have to compromise with their neighbours. They have to be the bigger man, for the common good of their own people and their neighbours. However, they are limited by religious conservatism ("we are the righteous, and Islam is inferior") and extreme nationalism (greed).
Russia and Ukraine has been, in large part, equals besides military power. In some ways, Ukraine has even been superior, like its more democratic governance (at least somewhat theoretically, if you consider the large amounts of corruption). In the end, I believe exactly that was the big problem, ironically, because if Ukraine was ruled more autocratically, its leaders would be very aware of their neighbour (and its political situation) - thus considering Russia in every policy decision. But exactly because of its democratic institutions, and because if its ethnically and politically divided people, it became increasingly polarised until there was no turning back. If Russia was too weak, or if Russia was a fair democracy, this wouldn't be such a big issue - but choosing "the side of the enemy" would inevitably lead to major issues with its neighbour (especially when holding such strategically important locations in regards to Russia - 1. Crimea/Sevastopol for being Russia's only warm-water port and control over the Black Sea in general, and 2. East-Ukraine being the ultimate vector of attack for a large-scale land invasion of European Russia - which is where most Russians, and their power elite, lives).
So in conclusion, while I in no way support the Russian invasion (or war in general), I think the Ukrainian political elite and "intelligentsia" has a substantial part of the blame of this conflict arising. I blame them because, for some reason, no one stood up and said "hey, almost every single Ukrainian wants a democratic society with individual political freedoms - but if we work together, we can achieve this without becoming members of EU or NATO right now". I feel like any intelligent person with a deep understanding of the politics and history of Ukraine and Russia would've seen civil war and/or a Russian invasion coming miles away, so I'm not sure if the political elite representing the nationalists and the pro-West lacked this knowledge, if they were too naive in assuming unconstricted support from the West, or if there were hidden motives explained by corruption and greed.
Now, while this "blame game" is true for Hamas in the Israel/Palestine-conflict as well, erroneously choosing aggression over cooperation is more excusable/understandable for Palestinians than it was for Ukrainians (for reasons discussed above). That said, I cannot blame any ordinary citizen for blindly choosing any side.
To sum up: two somewhat relevant comparisons which underlines my two most central points would be:
1. While I wish death upon no one, I have more sympathy for the one who dies from a lightening strike than the one who gets mauled to death after poking a bear, and
2. I have more understanding for monkeys choosing violence over a banana, than humans over oil.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
All of you seem to forget that there's two possible (but somewhat mutually exclusive) roles that AI might take in our future lives:
a) Lowering our quality of life: We are, in many ways, "replaced" by AI. Most of humanity is forced out of work and the economic market, and as such, we must live tragic lives as bottom feeders and/or slaves of some kind.
b) Elevating our quality of life: AI is being used as tools, enabling humans to both do their tasks more efficiently, and gives us more free time to either relax, focus on ourselves and our hobbies, and/or focus on bettering the lives of others/state of humanity in different forms.
It's easy to only perceive the pessimistic version as the only likely future, because we so often hear these warnings (and they are real concerns we should be discussing and watching out for constantly), and because as a form of media/story the alarming and terrifying dystopia sells better than the pleasant utopia.
Just think about it, when did you watch a movie about a guy chilling in the park while laying in the grass and staring at the clouds, then goes home to sit on his porch painting while sipping a bear and listening to chill music, followed by a visit from a couple of friends, whom he he have a nice dinner with, leading to deep conversations, laughter and cute moments far into the night, at which point everyone leaves, our main protagonist brushes his teeth, lays down in his bed and falls asleep with a smile on his face... and then the subtitles comes on screen? Have you seen something like this? Would you recommend that movie to your friends or would you demand your money back?
Judging purely from the historic progress of humanity though, we'll most likely have a lot of bad actors who will try to use AI for "evil" (deliberately or not), but all in all, it's going to be more along the lines of scenario b) described above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think this arguments relies on the simple assumption that the only reason for Russia's invasion was to gain more territory.
I could write pages upon pages about what I think about this, and try to support it with as much facts as possible, but I'll refrain from doing that. Instead, I'd like to point out that there's no logical reason for the political elite of Russia wanting to conquer the entirety of Ukraine without either a) "unaliving" or forcibly evicting the vast amount of Ukrainians that lives (and lived) there, or b) the vast amount of Ukrainians for some reason suddenly becoming very pro-Russia. Both seem extremely unlikely to me.
Yes, there's a lot of value in the territory of Ukraine. However, does this potential value outweigh all the obvious issues with having many millions of very hostile citizens within your territory? Well, perhaps if we were talking about something tiny and manageable like Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, The Vatican, Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc. But no... Ukraine is HUGE.
Try to think outside the tiny box that our so-called "experts" proliferate in the media. The real experts (without the quotes) usually aren't given the opportunity to share their opinions in the media, as their answers are far too long and complex, and not "confident" enough. PS: "Confidence" does not equal "correct".
3
-
Yeah, cause none of us normies ever minimise our own bad/stupid actions.
Seriously, think back to the last time you did exactly that. Perhaps you were in a discussion, and suddenly you're talking over everyone else, borderline shouting. And when confronted, you go "Well.. what you said was really provoking" or some dumb shit like that, instead of just saying "yeah, sorry". Or perhaps a different time you made a fool of yourself, and latched on to some lame excuse instead of just admitting immediately that you fked up.
Now.. Imagine you do the ultimate oopsie and fkin murder another human or four. And now your stuck in a prison cell, under-stimulated, struggling not to think about all of this again and again and again and again... Is it really that weird for him to cling on to some lame excuses? Sadly, this is perfectly normal.
He's obviously not getting proper help for him to discover where it all went wrong, why he's so messed up, and recognizing how he can move down a better path in life.
PS: Before you start bitching, I'm obviously not saying he's perfectly normal, or defending him in general. I'm just saying that this behaviour you're talking about is perfectly normal. Neither am I saying that suggesting a reason or two for one's bad actions should fully exonerate them from any consequences.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think it's perfectly fine for shit like this to happen in the heat of the moment. It's very human, and perhaps even healthy.
That said, shit like this should be talked about amongst each other on a more serious note, and especially with professionals. Talk it through, debrief, process the emotions, learn from the situations etc. That this is not being done is the organization's fault though, not the soldier.
However, that someone shows no remorse post-service, to the point that they make a public podcast to brag and laugh about the horrible shit they did, THAT'S just bat-shit crazy. That proves to me that this guy is nothing but a dangerous individual who society should be shielded from before he causes more harm to anyone.
2
-
@ Well, yeah.. Lviv is on the European continent. Just like Europe's most populous city: Moscow.
However, besides that, neither Ukraine nor Russia share a lot of values that are essential in European unity. Thus, they aren't especially "European" despite being in Europe. Much like e.g. Hong Kong and Macao aren't very "Chinese", despite being regions in China compromised of almost exclusively ethnically Chinese people.
Don't read too much into it though. It's just an annoyed counter-reaction to 1) some Europeans' and Americans' strong will to incorporate Ukraine into EU and NATO, while at the same time being completely against any such considerations in regards to Russia, and 2) some Ukrainians' adamant opinions about being nothing like Russia, despite their obvious strong historical and cultural bonds. Don't get me wrong: they are two independent countries, and it should stay that way. However, Ukraine (and its people) has more in common with Russia than e.g. Moldova or Poland.
TL;DR I'm annoyed with our political hostility towards Russia.
2
-
@genoric4094 That doesn't makes sense at all. You can't in good faith claim that the Russian Federation has been especially aggressive/hostile towards their neighbours in its existence, at least up until 2008. In that period, RF was involved in 8 conflicts: 3 of which it supported the "rebels"/"terrorists"/separatists (Georgian Civil War, South Ossetian War and Transnistrian War), 2 of which it supported the government (Abkhazian War and Tajikistani Civil War), and 3 of which were internal conflicts in Russia - fighting their own separatists (Dagestan, First- and Second Chechen War).
This isn't Russia being aggressive or hostile towards its neighbours. Of course, one can always make the argument that perhaps Russia supported the "wrong" faction in this conflict, but that is irrelevant. This is perfectly normal behaviour from a 3rd party country that has some form of interest in the conflict.
I'm not a fan about whataboutism-arguments, but following your logic, it would make a lot more sense for non-NATO states to join an anti-NATO organisation, and for NATO to kick the US out... But it isn't that simple. People, and groups of people (like a country or an organisation) acts accordingly with what seems to align best with their own interests.
Georgia and Ukraine flirting with NATO must be in the top 5 of the most shortsighted moves made by a country ever. Yeah, if you're nervous about what your neighbour might do to you, it could make sense to get some kind of protection. But joining NATO isn't like going to the gun store... unless you'd have to wait several years for the gun to arrive, and everyone knew that you'd ordered a gun. If someone was planning to rob or kill you, they'd rather act now instead of waiting for your gun to arrive. And anyone who's just in general nervous about you getting that gun would also intervene immediately. If that's the case, and you can't just move, it would make a lot more sense to befriend the neighbour in my opinion.
For real, what do think would happen if Mexico applied to join CSTO? Have you ever heard about Cuba? Or the Monroe Doctrine? Or CIA-operations in South America?
That said, I don't support Russia in this conflict in any way, but their actions has been perfectly understandable and predictable. So in my opinion, Ukraine is far from innocent in creating this conflict. They even had the luxury of seeing what happened in Georgia beforehand, and they still decided to double down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yyyymmddhhmm You don't think it's weird that someone with none to little knowledge of the language would allege that something translating to "join in" is one of two regular NK expressions for "comrade"? In my opinion, anyone who was just pretending to have knowledge would only mention "동무", as that literally translates to "comrade", according to Google Translate.
If you've learned any language different from your own, I'm sure you've come across many things that didn't make sense at all to you, but, however, were a fact of this language. Secondly, both words have the same "root"(?) ("동" = "dong"). And lastly, "join" makes some sense in being used as an expression for "comrade", if you consider the history of communistic uprisings. I.e. communist brothers ("comrades") were fighting for a cause, and everyone ought to join in on this fight.
That said, I have no actual knowledge of Korean language, and my quick attempt at googling this provided no insight. I'm just thinking out loud and playing devils advocate here. Some amount of scepticism is healthy, but I'm more skeptic to the conclusions he draws in his second paragraph than his claims of being Korean.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pawelkita64 Lol, you keep on deleting your own posts (4 so far) and sidetracking the conversation. This time you try to sidetrack by claiming I insulted you. I thought your "command of English" was "quite ok". In that case, you should be able to comprehend that stating someone is a hypocrite is not an insult.
Quite ironically, the only thing said by anyone in this entire thread that could be slightly insulting is you calling me a flat earther, climate change denier and not able to calculate 1st grade level math.
And you claim I'm trying to show dominance here, yet you are the one who has now "ended the conversation" for the third time now. Yet when I stopped replying, you made a second post a month later.
Warning: you should probably not read any further, because you'll probably interpret this as an extremely insulting personal attack. I don't want to hurt you, so I'm just giving you a friendly warning. Just saying. You have been warned. Please, don't do this to yourself. Final warning. Are you sure? Well, okay, then... Just remember that you chose to read this sentence despite my several warnings, so don't blame this on me.
Your behaviour is quite pathetic.
byyyyeeeee
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RippedNerdyKid I don't hate anyone or anything - literally. But people like you come very close. And I hope you don't take to much offence to this, because this group is actually most people, sadly... People that just say stuff, without having no actual knowledge on the subject.. They just feel that it's probably true. So they say whatever emotionally thought that comes to their head first, without researching anything an without actually proclaiming that they don't know this shit for sure.
The reason why you feel like "not many Russian products are sold in many countries" is because they don't really produce much goods for the consumer market, at least not directly. Well, that is pre-sanctions, cause over the years, they have been forced to produce a lot more consumer goods for their own people.
The only product category that many people would have an idea of where came from, on Russias list of top 35 most exported goods, is spirits. The rest of the list are products me and you buy without know where tf they come from (the list will be at the end of this post).
And I'm sure most of us buys Russian products, directly or indirectly, because they export a loooot. 215 billion USD a year globally. 24 billion USD was to the US (of which about 2 billion were services and 22 billion were goods).
So I'm sure that wherever in the world you are, you're probably regularly consuming products exported from Russia without knowing it. And even more so with Chinese products. At least 30-50% of the products you've used on a daily basis for the last 20 years have been manufactured in China. And there's no way you have any legitimate idea of which of these products were from China or not, and a general overview of their quality. The truth is... that shit is just something you heard multiple times, and now you think it's true without even researching it.
There many people saying (without having a clue ofc) that cheap labour is the one and only reason for their large share in goods traded on the global market, but the truth is... if their products were just shit, we would've stopped trading with them over all these decades.
You're just talking shit, dude..
And here's Russia's top 35 exports:
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Norwegian military leaders might not have the balls to make such a decision, but remember who they answer to... There's four good arguments for them doing it on behalf of someone else: "you will benefit from it economically (in terms of selling oil and weapon systems via the Kongsberg Group), it will hurt Russia (an adversary in terms of warfare- and economically), it will be beneficial to its allies (by prolonging the UKR-RUS conflict), and NATO allies could easily keep the fact that Norwegian military was behind this operation under the rug forever". Norway/Norwegian armed forces certainly has the competency and the money to do this + ease of access.
NOT saying they did it, but it's more a lot more likely imo than it being any Pro-Putin Russian or any Ukrainian.
But regardless of who actually did it, I think the decision to do this came from someone residing on Earth, but not in Europe, Asia, Oseania, Africa, Latin-America, an island state, the north- or south pole, underneath the crust of the Earth... or Canada🤔 Just a gut feelin'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@
1. Your comment ignored everything I've said here.
2. Whether Russia fails or not relies only on what their goals and intent of fighting is (what it initially was, and why they keep fighting). If, for example, 99% of the reason was to keep Ukraine out of NATO, then any peace treaty involving "Russia occupies X amount of Ukraine's territory, however Ukraine does not recognise this as Russian territory" will be a win.
Whether the cost (measured in lives lost, and primarily money spent) was worth it obviously has to be taken into consideration.
Another obviously major part of this conflict was Crimea. Crimea is unlikely to be recaptured by Ukraine alone, mostly because it's extremely easy to defend. And if they'd come close, then nukes. And it's unlikely that they'd receive any considerable amount of outside help in this mission considering nukes and M.A.D.
These are the two most important (of many) goals, so unless/until Russia politically and/or militarily implodes, it's borderline impossible that Russia will "lose", sadly. Russia simply won't settle for a treaty that doesn't at the very least include them keeping Crimea, and they DON'T want Ukraine to recognise that territory as Russian.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bro... Try to pay attention to what he says. He makes it VERY CLEAR (to everyone that tries to listen) that these lines are ABSTRACT DEPICTIONS.
If you're serious about this question though, I can try to answer a bit concrete, but do note that this is from my POV - not Spaniel's. The reason the red, yellow and white lines are (and always have been) on Ukrainian territory is because there's nothing factual indicating that they would be anywhere else. Sure, he could theoretically choose to put some (or all) of the lines in Russian territory, but that would only serve to confuse all of us that has a more realistic worldview on the current events unfolding.
There are only two (possible, but unlikely) scenarios where the lines would be in Russian territory for any foreseeable future. A) If Ukraine manages to hold on to Kursk, while also re-taking all of Crimea, and at least most of other Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory, and/or if B) there's a sudden and unexpected total collapse of the Kremlin, Russian Armed Forces AND Ukraine capitalises heavily on this by going on a massive offensive.
This channel is about game theory and realism, heavily based on current events (like the Russo-Ukrainian war, amongst other things). It's not propaganda, political signalling, wishful thinking or theories based upon what might be going on in alternative universes.
I hope this was of any help to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hugoguerreiro1078 By that logic, why is NATO even bothering discussing any Russia-related issue, as the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union has never invaded any NATO country? Membership is enough... We should not bother buying an actual alarm, when a sticker advertising a non-existant alarm system bought on eBay should suffice.
I might not be a fan of NATO, or that my country is part of the alliance, but I'm certainly not a fan of the political leadership in Russia. That said, they have good reason to be anxious about NATO in my opinion, regardless of the fact that we have never invaded them and that we brand ourself as a purely defensive organisation.
And to that very last point: things change.
AEG, Audi, BMW, Ford, Hugo Boss, Mercedes-Bens, Porche, Siemens etc. all used regular labour at one point, before they started using jews in concentration camps as cheap labour. Hitler was just a local politicians before he became The Driver. Jong-Un was just a kid before he became The Democratic Leader of Some Democratic Country. Griner was just a basketball player before she became the head of an international drug smuggling cartel. The elite of the US Democrats was just rich before they became a global, blood-sucking pedophile ring using local pizzerias as a front. I was taken semi-seriously until I used my examples for comedic effect. And NATO could possible become something more than just a defensive organisation some day in the future.
And even if we never end up actually pivoting that way, it's perfectly understandable that those who already are sceptical to the organisation might be nervous of this happening sometime in the future.
2
-
2
-
I'm not trying to legitimise the invasion of Ukraine with this, but I think it's important to note that there were less ethnically Russians in the Baltic countries than there were in Ukraine. Also, Russia had less military power, less [geo]political power and more internal problems in the early 2000s (compared to 2020s) to hinder the Baltic states' membership (or demand/persuade/pressure them not to join). The Russian elite might also have had less motivation to do so, due to a multitude of reaosns. And lastly, but most importantly, the Baltic countries were not shelling their Russian enclaves while applying for NATO membership.
Now, even if everything preceding the revolts of Donetsk and Luhansk really was entirely orchestrated by the Russian state, as some might argue (possible, sure, yet very unlikely imo), that doesn't legitimise murder in my opinion. And secondly, it morally legitimises an intervention by a third party. Well, yeah, obviously it didn't work that well from our point of view, because none of the Western media talk about this, but it certainly did for a large part of Russians living in Russia - which is whom matters the most here, and in the end are those who the regime derives its power from.
Just think about it. What if a group of people from your nation lived in a neighbouring country, and then they were shelled by the current government they lived under? Would you demand your government help them in any way possible?
What do you think about all the Africans who are killed yearly because they foolishly kidnap Americans in hopes of ransom? Part of me thinks "Well, why the fk are you living in one of the poorest, most unstable countries of the world as a white Christian missionary? You deserve this for making such a moronic choice, for such a moronic cause". Yet, another part of me totally understands why Americans want to spend billions on saving these individuals, and, in general, keep Americans as safe as possible wherever they might be.
Again, I'm not trying to say Ukrainians should die over this, or to equate their situation to Christian missionaries in Niger, but it's worth trying to think about something from different perspectives before shouting what's right and wrong.
2
-
My 2 pennies:
What they talk about is the rarity of "total obliterations" (at least, more or less totally obliterated). E.g. when the enemy is annihilated (everyone on one side are unalived), or one side flees from their territory in order to stay alive, or one side cannot fight anymore so they raise the white flag and runs/hides - or a combination of these. The result is that the winner takes it all.
They are rare because reaching such a victory is usually extremely costly, more so in modern times. (Side note: Furthermore, it's arguably not in human interest to kill and destroy (from a biological perspective). We act according to what we think are in our best interest, and when such solutions are reachable by other means than murder and destruction, we usually avoid this.)
What in reality usually happens is either at some point, both opponents realises how weak one of them are, so they make a deal which heavily favours the strong one, OR the opponents reach more or less a stalemate situation, and a prolonged conflict benefits no one, so the parties are incentivised to come to an agreement that works for them both.
I think none of your examples fit the description. E.g. both the Japanese and the Germans capitulated after major defeats/losses, and they both certainly exists today. They could have kept on fighting to the bitter end, but the correctly elected not to do so. True examples, rare or not, would more often than not be more akin to e.g. Native American tribes wiped out, or some communities/tribes wiped out by for example Romans or Mongols. As such, much less are known about these conflict, as there are very few, if any, that lived to tell the tale.
Ofc there are exceptions. Sometimes, things might just fizzle out. Like ISIS in Syria. They're certainly there, and they still attack in small scale from time to time, so the "war" isn't over. They're somewhere, and there's no deal to stop.
Edit: tairasayo and psychohist also mention a form of outlier. The Americans didn't sign a peace treaty with the Vietnamese, because they didn't have to. The war was not worth fighting anymore, the losses wasn't sustainable, but they didn't have to reach a deal to end it. Instead, they just left. Same with the US' and USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. If they were in a strong position however, they could've tried forcing whoever they invaded to sign a treaty that benefited the invader somehow, on the premise of them leaving.
2
-
2
-
@TuberTugger Sorry, I was a bit imprecise there. Most of the internet works like an echo chamber. All of social media (at least the biggest one's - FB, YT, IG, Snap to mention a few) has an algorithm showing content you what you want/is interested in/researching. Many people are thankfully aware of this, and most people are aware news agencies work like this, in the way that there are some biases/political leanings from the publishers. A lot of people don't know that the Google search engine works like this, and this is one of the most dangerous, as most people use this for research. Many blogs and forums tend this way too.
But yeah, the internet in it's entirety isn't an echo chamber. If one news agency say A, but the blogs say B, forums say C, then you can draw somewhat unbiased conclusions from this. People just have to learn to check a broad net of sources, but this was a problem even before the internet.
But the message of my post was so much more than just that aspect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Alex_Mitchell It was partly a joke, but in the largest cities, people obviously dress in high- and medium end fashion items, which in most cases are designed in western countries, and then produced in South-East Asia.
Outside, in the rural areas, people dress in more generic clothing bought from Costco-/Wallmartish clothing, which is most likely designed by a Russian citizen on commission by the respective company. The designs are then sent to China for manufacturing. And at last, the final product is shipped back to the company's warehouse somewhere in Russia.
Very much alike like how H&M, the only differences being that
1) H&M copies whatever's deemed high fashion in the west, while these Russian want's whatever the rural Russian citizens wants to wear, and that
2) H&M produces a vast majority of its products in China, with thee rest being produced elsewhere in South-East Asia, while Russia produces 99.9% of its outsourced production in China (for obvious reasons).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've been playing a lot of Texas Hold'em recently, and it's funny how much resemblance I see between poker and diplomatic relations/warfare in these videos (currently binging your vids atm).
In this case, if I, keep playing super aggressively by playing a lot of hands and raising a lot at every pot I enter, at one point, people realise that a lot of these raises are bluffs. Thus, they will be more likely to muster the courage to call my raises with thin hands (a pair that's not top pair, or even just Ace high), and win these pots.
Conversely, if I play super "tight" (meaning only playing a few hands), and I don't always raise, I can convince people to fold easily by betting hard, even though they have a very strong hand (miles ahead of me) and even though the pot is huge. They will only call if they have the "nuts" (meaning the best possible hand at that particular board).
Perhaps unlike real life though, the former strategy is in most cases the superior one, at least if you only had to choose between one:
- If you play the latter style all the time, any decent player could estimate with high probability when you bluff and when you are strong. If you only play 15% of hands, you are most likely only playing when you have the top 20-25% starting hand combinations (because position is also a factor). So when the flop comes, and the board shows 5 of hearts, 6 of diamonds, 7 of spades, and you bet a lot, the only strongish hands you could have is a pocket pair of tens, jacks, queens, kings or aces. If the other player already has two pairs, trips, a straight or a good straight draw, they would be foolish to fold. This strategy results in many small to large pots won, and a couple of small to medium pots won because of successful bluffing. The problem can often be that unless you end up in a situation where both you AND your opponent have really strong hands, but yours is slightly better, you're not going to win any large pots. This is because of your image at the table as a strong, no-nonsense player. This might be fine when you're playing a cash game, but can be problematic in a tournament where you have to continuously grow your stack of chips to avoid getting knocked out.
- If you play the former style all the time, there's a lot more uncertainties. Since you're playing more hands in general, and always raising, there's very little information to go on. So most often, the other players should only play back if they're really strong (unless the aggressor is a maniac). And even though you'd get called and lose some large pots a couple of times times, if played correctly ("you gotta knooow when to hold 'em... know when to *fold 'em*"), you should be at a net positive regardless. That's because at that point, you should have won many smaller pots by the other players folding, and some huge pots by others playing calling (and maybe even playing aggressively back) when they shouldn't have.
A superior strategy, however, would be to play very aggressively a lot of the time, but switch it up ("tighten up") at certain times and spots.
1
-
And in relevance to this video, Russias [perceived?] weakness has made Sweden and, in particular, Finland are confident in joining NATO, even though both of the two last nations that has shared a border with Russia AND flirted with NATO, has ended up being invaded.
Russia might've overplayed their hands, showed some weakness, and Finland is thusly calling a bluff here. All I wish for at this point though (besides the obvious and elusive world peace of course) as a NATO country bordering Russia, is that this won't give Finland the confidence to egg up on Russia after gaining membership in regards to former territories. If that happens, I'm unsure if I'll start protesting, or if I'm going to move to Latin-America :/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EspenX Well, that depends on what you mean by "normal". If you mean it in the often used, non-literal way of "normal = not wrong, abnormal/unormal = wrong", then sure.
But I certainly assume American English is the norm in Norway. I have no numbers to prove it though, but I'm fairly certain a large majority that actually uses English verbally on a more or less regular basis uses American English. Just based on common sense, personal observations and culture.
This is followed by a minority of speakers using "Norwenglish", usually the older generation and a few younger ones who lack education and/or experience talking. That said, if I counted all Norwegians, this might actually be the majority. However, I assume most of these people use the language very rarely, perhaps a couple of times per year, when a tourist ask them for directions, or when eating out during their yearly Gran Canaria- or Alicante-trip.
Then there's a tiny minority of people who speak British English. Most I assume do so because they've lived there a year at young age, or several years as adults. And perhaps two people that for some reason only watched British-made TV as kids. I seriously doubt any uses a British accent just because of football, as they surely watch a significant amount, if not more, of American television, film etc.
Same logic as in the last paragraph goes for other English accents, e.g. Australian, albeit these being even fewer of for natural reasons.
Again, no empirical evidence to back this up, but I honestly think assuming anything else is pretty weird.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Danheron2 Well, I disagree. Almost all participants of war dehumanize the enemy in war time, but most let that go in the years afterwards. They either stop thinking about it (to the best of their ability) or they change their minds about the narrative.
There's no doubt that vets with heavy combat experience are more dangerous on average than the rest of the population, both to themselves and to others. I don't blame them for it though, as its not their fault, but their government who sent them to war, and in many cases, didn't provide them with help adequate help afterwards.
However, just through making me think about this, I'm questioning if perhaps people like Jones are the least dangerous vets, exactly because they don't have any shame or guilt, which leads to unresolved anger which eventually boils over. Jones is the type who might get into fights extremely easily, but unlikely to visit a mall with two Glocks, simply because he lacks the intelligence to realise that what he's done is horrible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I believe this sadly is the tale of most food shops. Along most of the edges of the store, there are the (more or less) healthy foods: Fruits, veggies and meats + fresh baked bread (debatable?) and milk products (varying levels of "healthiness"). Personally, I try to only venture in the inner isles of a store when I need to visit the spice section.
Also, the claims of foods being healthy or unhealthy is largely a eternal labyrinth designed to keep you stuck in hell. Anything is unhealthy in too high doses, so we should rather discuss what the "limits" should be to the alleged "unhealthy" foods. McDonalds-type fast food will never be "healthy" - but it isn't "unhealthy" in the grand scheme of things if only consumed twice a year. At that point, any negative side effects of eating that crap will be offset by all the good food eaten the rest of the year.
Something important that was only said indirectly in this video is: buy ingredients! Try to buy only the following: vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans, meats, egg, fish, shellfish and spices. Also whole grains, but imo eat less of that and more of the other stuff. And then make the meals yourself.
If you "can't afford it", then make some way of affording it. Cancel your expensive subscriptions, stop buying expensive meals/snacks/coffees etc. Sell your car and use public transportation. Move into a cheaper apartment. Cancel your fkin gym membership, because eating right is way more important.
If you "don't have time to make meals", then make time for it somehow. Watch your time-wasting shows/YT while making food perhaps? Seriously.. consider what you actually spend your time on before saying this shit.
1
-
1
-
Remember that not everything that is stamped "Made in USA" is completely true. I remember a couple of years ago, there was this fuss about some high-end, allegedly Scottish or Irish beef being sold in stores here. Turned out these were Nigerian cattle, sent to Bulgaria to be packaged, and then sent to Scotland/Ireland for the labelling - just so they could label it "made in a country where the cows are super healthy, freely some beautiful, evergreen, giant pastures", and we consumers would eat that shit up (pun intended).
And since Americans are overly patriotic, and laws much more lenient on businesses, I'm sure this kind of trickery happens a loooot over there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elections late January/early February 2025. A united government takes over and stabilizes the country relatively quickly. The Kurds agree to give up hope for independence, and rather rebrands their identities as Syrian - working for the common good of the country. By the end of 2026, most of the country is rebuilt, and most of its diaspora has moved back home. By 2028, Syria is becomes the powerhouse of the Middle-East - a bastion of freedom, harmony and cooperation across religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age etc. Within 2030, the government of the new Syria will have united Israel and Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas. It will also export its successful model to Iraq.
The entire region is basically at peace now, so Martin, Ray, Gunnar and Boyng are trying to agree on whether North- or Sub-Saharan Africa is going to be invaded next.
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:50 Correction: It's not true that there isn't trade between the US and the RF. Billions have shipped to and from the US for many, many years each year. Yeah, the 8 year long has had a slow, but steady, reduction in trade (US exports down to 50%), and the Feb. 22 invasion has had a more serious effect (down to 10%), but there's still regular trading. US imports has not been as severely affected, at least not before June 22.
And whatever happens, whatever the result of the war is is, or if it last long enough for people to forget/stop caring (like Ukraine from early 2015 to Feb 2022), the trade will be back to normal.
And thank "god" for that, cause trade/money is the only thing (except nukes) that is stopping a direct West v. East war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As per usual, I have a lot of small pieces of critique towards the script here and there, but in this one, you provided a real banger of insight: Brian is (at least partly) blaming Torey for what happened, but he forgets to consider the alternative. If he acted alone, or if it was more up to him, he'd probably do something more akin to Columbine.. which would be so much more worse (in a strictly utilitarian perspective ofc). Thus, it's entirely possible that Torey's influence actually saved several people's lives, and saved Brian for spending more time in prison, and having more victims on his conscience.
Btw to everyone who's critiquing what Brian says. While your critiques might all be perfectly valid, you have to also consider his current circumstances: He's in a situation where he's on a daily basis forced to think about his actions and his life due to lack of stimuli. He ruminates on the same kind of questions we have, like "why did I/he do this?", "where did it all go wrong?". etc He also probably doesn't have a lot of proper avenues for discussing these thoughts with other people on a regular basis. Thus, because of how our brains are made up, because of confirmation bias, it's only natural for Brian's thought patterns and opinions to turn out like this. Hearing him in this interview is the first time he appeared like a regular human to me.
Of course, Brian isn't (or at the very least "wasn't") mentally "all there". Some screws are a bit (or ehm.. a lot) looser than the average human being, cause if not, he wouldn't be able to do what he did, in the manner he did. That said, I promise you, whoever it is that's currently reading this: you would most likely have thought and said the same shit as Brian did in this interview if you somehow ended up in a similar situation to him.
Whatever.. RIP Cassie <3
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SandyRyeng I don't see why e.g. a law firm would hire a 24 year old fresh out of law school, over a 25 year old fresh out of law school, but who also served as a conscript, if everything else about them was completely equal (I know, that's an unlikely premise, but theoretically possible). Even if the latter didn't propose any argument as to how his experiences as a conscript would benefit him in his future work as a lawyer.
I can see how perhaps a tiny amount of recruiters from the very "best" of Norwegian law firms could look at the former candidate and think "Well, this guy didn't waste any time in getting his degree, as opposed to the other guy who wasted a year in the military". But at the same time, that seems like a pretty weird line of thinking as Norwegian conscription is mandatory (in theory). It could be completely random as to why one guy was called, and the other was not. So while possible, it seems unlikely.
To me, it seems like choosing between the 99.9999% perfect candidate and the 100% perfect candidate. It's extremely close, but one of them clearly wins. Don't know why you're so adamant about this, but hey, this is my point of view on the matter.
I do not disagree, however, that officers training would be more beneficial - even something as worthless as the former conscripted corporals ("UB-course"). At least for most kind of work, in particular roles that involve leadership.
1
-
1
-
I think a fatal flaw in this experiment (from Santiago's POV/according to his thesis) is that their overarching, common goal is so clear and obvious to them. A shared human goal on this planet is obviously the survival of the human race, and secondly progress in terms of quality-of-life. I mean, that's embedded deep within the "code" (DNA) of all living things. But the problem is that this isn't that obvious to humans on the micro level - competition is more prevalent. In recent years, because of e.g. global warming and M.A.D., this has changed somewhat, but all in all, our societies are more set-up towards competition. In the end, more often than not, we compete in groups for our resources, and to achieve more progress than the other groups.
On a boat with 11 passengers, goals of cooperation and survival is so much more obvious to everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't understand why we in the west always have to call this "castling" move of Putin and Medvedev in 2012 as a "loop hole" when the constitution literally says "no one (...) shall [be president] (...) for more than two terms *in succession*". It's not a loop hole. Putin served for two terms, then served a term as PM, then back to being president.
I don't think this is a well-drafted law, and I'm not Russian, a "Russian bot" or pro-Putin, but I'm very concerned about and angered over this anti-Russia light propaganda that's being fed to us. The cold war was over, but I think this fear mongering has had an important role in reviving the conflict, and now it's making matters even worse.
I liked the castling analogy though. And I love your content, Harris & his team, but I really, really hope that you can strive for a more neutral language in the future. If you really are an independent source of information, I see that as your duty to be honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KameradVonTurnip Don't fool yourself into thinking you/we know for sure. Trauma is the source of most, if not all, mental illness. There's also some science pointing to heritance (but I'm sceptical).
Negative drug-induced experiences can be traumatic enough to trigger some underlying mental illnesses, yes, but there's no good science supporting that drug use in itself can "create" mental illnesses. If I were to think out loud, I believe it is because 1) once the drugs wear of, the vast majority of users realise that the experience did not actually happen to them, in a physical sense. And 2) they can easily avoid this experience by never doing the/a drug again. This is much different compared to being raped or stabbed.
There's no doubt that drug use can change one's personality though, so we do agree slightly there. But what significant experience does not hold the potential to do exactly that? And what's wrong with an experience changing someone's personality? However, I don't agree that there's any empirical evidence supporting your claim that it changes one's personality for the worse. There's nothing that supports this claim, besides your limited impressions of drug abusers.
I'm sure you don't claim the same things about sugar, chocolate, cigars, coffee, parachuting, sex, hugging and opening a Christmas present - despite the fact that all of these things works the same way on your brain that drugs do.
Anything can be abused. And anything can be safely used. You can inject cyanide or venom from a black mamba directly into your bloodstream without dying if the dose is low enough.
It's all about frequency, quantity and duration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TenForTheBigGuy.4381 I'm speculating if it has some novel mine clearing technology, because all of the first four mines seems to blow well ahead of the tank.
Of course, that could in theory be dumb luck, but in general the overall situation makes it seem its job is to clear mines. Firstly, because it seems unaffected by mine 5, and is only tracked by mine 6, which to me seems like better performance than most regular MBTs (correct me if I'm wrong). Secondly, and most importantly, the entire operation is aborted (at least on the vehicle columns part) once this lead tank is tracked.
Maybe it has some sort of strong magnet in front of it, which makes buried mines move just enough to set them off before the tank hull is above the mines?
Or perhaps it somehow shakes the ground in front of the tank enough to set of the mines?
I find this interesting as this goes against the common, unproductive memes of Russian soldiers being drunk farmers armed with shovels and their tanks being made out of cardboard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are some West- and Central African countries I'm not 100% up to date about their current political situation/stability (mainly Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, and perhaps CAR, Benin and Togo), as well as practically all microstates/island countries I in general know very little about. However, other than the uncertainty, I have no reason to consider them more unreliable partners than what I view the US.
Perhaps Palestine (for those of us considering it a country) would be a more unreliable partner - Well... Gaza, that is, considering the amount of power Hamas holds there at the moment. Perhaps Pakistan. Perhaps South-Sudan, Myanmar, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Cuba (although I'm leaning heavily towards these being more reliable partners than the US).
Probably DR Congo, Libya and Somalia.
I've looked over the entire globe a couple of times now, and there's no country I, with any confidence, would say I view as a more unreliable partner than the US. I won't consider Ukraine for obvious reasons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pawelkita64 Yes. I agree. If I see someone get stabbed in the streets, I would totally give them all the band-aids I own. For free. This is much more important than stopping the problem at its roots.
Let's also push our governments to donate their armies' surplus weapons to the Ukrainian army to make the war end faster.
PS: I took one day off from work, every week, from March 22 until the end May 22, and instead spent that time (pluss several evenings) negotiating with greedy landlords, supermarket- and restaurant owners to secure housing and food for Ukrainian refugees. And I organised and worked out the logistics (together with a team) of collecting, storing and handing out warm winter clothes for the refugees. I never asked my boss for compensation for the lost work hours. I just canceled most, and downgraded some, of my various subscriptions, and I spent less on food, electricity and other expenses, to make due with my lower income.
So, please... Don't come to me virtue signalling about some two-digit sum you donated to an organisation you probably didn't research who took 90% of the donations as overhead...
1
-
You assumed I hadn't done "something good like donating to the charity organizations supporting immigrants". you hypocrite. Instead of simply asking me, you made a false claim. But I doubt that you honestly was trying to make the world a better place by persuading me into doing "something good", like donating. You were almost certainly just virtue signaling due to your own feeling of superiority.
And you're assuming I don't believe in manmade climate change, the elliptical shape of the earth, that 2+2=5, and more. Or are you perhaps projecting someone elses beliefs on me? (PS: You don't need to answer this, cause I wasn't honestly asking you. I was just stating what I find most likely in a questioning manner)
And you're assuming I'm narrow-minded probably just because we disagree on one/some areas.
You seriously need to take a look in the mirror and reassess yourself before being so quick to judge others.
Also, I'm glad that you decided to donate to RC, out off all organisations. That said, coming from someone who has briefly volunteered there in my younger days, they have many expenses and thus takes overhead like every other charitable organisation. So my point still stands.
But whatever. I'm just glad you're as over this "conversation" as I already was. There's a good reason I never answered you after you wrote "so what that there is propaganda".
Bye, @pawelkita64
1
-
@pawelkita64
Deleting: Click "25 replies", then "show more replies" until you have the whole thread visible. Look at all the times I'm seemingly talking to myself. That's because you're deleting your embarrassing posts.
"Poor command of English": If your command of English is so subpar that you have to think about the posts for a long time before posting, then you don't have a "quite ok" command of the English language. That said; NO, I did not question your ability to communicate in English because of "mistakes", but because you claimed that me calling you a hypocrite was an insult. It is not.
And my next point was that I'm seriously doubting your ability to read and comprehend what I'm writing, so I'm not shocked you're now claiming you barely read my posts. You're a funny thing, dude. You go at me all day long for not being able to hold a discusssion, but you don't either care to read what you're replying to or you're just not able to comprehend it.
You talk to me like I don't know what editing is, but if you could read, you could clearly see that I've edited my last three posts. But they don't disappear like yours have.
Yeah, just call me a troll cause you can't handle this conversation. For your sake, I reallyhope you're not more than 11-12 years old, cause that would be embarrassing for you.
A waste of time, indeed. I'm glad I'm not spending any significant time on this dumb discussion.
But anyways, I'm not getting into this game. I guess your points raised above are not entirely clear, but we can just leave that discussion here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Crude Oil
Petroleum Products
Natural Gas
Machinery & Equipment
Ferrous Metals
Diesel Fuel
Liquid Fuels
Coal
Wheat
Aluminum - Unwrought
Lumber
Fertilizer Mixed
Fertilizer, Nitrogenous
Refined Copper
Iron Orea & Concenttrates
Fertilizer, Potassium
Gasoline
Pig Iron
Plywood
Synthetic Rubber
Ammonia, Anhydrous
Ferroalloys
Passenger Cars
Electrical Energy
Cellulose
Coke & Semi-coke of Coal
Wood In The Rough
Nickel, Unwrought
Methanol
Newsprint Paper
Trucks
Calcium Phosphate
Spirits (Russian Standard, Zyr, Husky, Hammer + Sickle, Green Mark, Mamont Siberian, Beluga Gold, Polugar, Jewel of Russia, Imperia - to mention some...)
Fabric of Cotton
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simplyforged4025 I wrote a lot in response, which all got lost randomly..
I don't feel like rewriting all that, or re-tracing my thoughts. But at the end of it all, my point would be I don't believe in the "deliberately evil"-part at all.
To some, American soldiers are spreading democracy and securing essential strategic and economic interests for the entire Western world. For others, they are inconsiderate imperialists.
To some, those masked guys beheading people and posting it online, or ramming 747's into civilian buildings, are terrorists. To others, they are merely standing up to Goliath, to an epic bully, to the real terrorist.
Is Blackwater and Wagner PMCs bad cause they're mercenaries-for-hire, participating in morally/ethically dubious missions for money? Or are they just a natural result of the market, and its current needs? And what really separate this from those who join a cause out of desperation, like the alleged criminals in Wagner, or the entirety of the French Foreign Legion?
The guys that killed 14-year-old Iraqi girl Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and then gangraped her... are they evil? Or is this a totally natural response of participating in a war?
More importantly, who's fault is this? Who's to blame? Well, of course, it's the soldiers. They did something evil. Deliberately. Premeditated, even. But what about their squad mates that should have seen this coming? What about their superiors, who allowed racist/ethnocentric culture to flourish amongst the soldiers, and even participating in or encouraging it? What about all those people who, in some way or another, are responsible for putting these soldiers in this position in the first place? The military psychologists that deemed them fit for service? The guys who got 'em through training? All those people, visible or hidden, who either wanted this specific war, or gave it an "OK" - generals, senators, Bush and private companies? What about the military pilots and drivers that transported them there? What about Saddam Hussein? What about Al-Qaida, and other terrorists(?) attacking the US? What about USAF's marketing teams, who's recruiting is most successful psychologically with those type of humans who are more likely to end up raping a 14 year old girl in a conflict zone, shortly after killing her family?
And did I lie to you earlier? Is the question of "who's fault is it?" important at all? Who tf cares who's fault it is, who's to blame, how many years they got in prison, etc...
Cause that family's dead. And she might've been better off dead too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ravenspace It's so sad we live in a world where the absolute lowest level trolls like this actually work.
I mean, it's totally fair and plausible that some Person X who'd watch a JRE clip on YT didn't know about Lex Friedman, or the fact that he has a podcast. What really fkin sucks though is that it has become totally believable that this person a) wouldn't be bothered to take 2 sec out of their life to google "rex frdiemannpodcast"... AND, fkin on top of that, despite not doing ANY research on the matter, instead of just being silent, b) accuse the person stating that fact of lying.
So, dear Raven: I don't blame you.. at all. But Lex' podcast is my absolute favourite podcast, and #2 doesn't even come close. Matter of fact, Lex' might be my favourite person ever. Besides myself of course. Well, he's at the very least in my top 5. Again, besides myself.
And if someone actually read all of this, go do something productive. The comment section is a cancerous place - please stay away... 'n have a good day <3
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knutknutsen5610 What does you being Norwegian have to do with anything? Do you get to stay in the room after they're done with their daily agenda at Equinor? Or are you perhaps the head of some other multi-billion dollar company, so you can relate in that way? Or is there just something with Norwegians that genetically render them unable to place explosives underwater, that only a Norwegian like yourself would know? Are they incapable of violence perhaps?
If I'd believe you'd actually take some advice from me, I'd suggest you start using words like "I believe", "might be", "perhaps" etc. because these meaningless "statements of truth" you put forward does nothing but prove how little knowledge you have on the subject.
And you keep calling this operation a lot of bad names, like it being idiotic, while the opposite seems to be true. It seems to me that close to the entire fkin world, except Ukraine, is benefitting from this operation, as the most probable effect of the blown pipelines is a prolonged conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dadistos4538 YT bots are deleting my replies despite not breaking any ToS atm, but what I've been trying to convey is that I'm not trying "to soften the crimes of the Russians" at all.
I agree that the invasion of Feb. '22 is illegal per international law, and that some Russian soldiers and officers have been perpetrating terrible war crimes (and possibly crimes against humanity). I certainly hope they receive some sort of karmic justice for this.
However, my point was always, as stated in my initial comment, that I've become less and less sympathetic towards those in support of the Ukrainian nationalist cause, due to what I've learnt about the 8 year long civil war (aka the "special operation" against Ukrainian "terrorists") that preceded the Russian invasion.
That said, I hope, above anything else, that the war ends, as quickly as possible, by any means necessary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dadistos4538 I’m not trying "to soften the cr*mes of the Ru*sians". I agree that the inv*sion of Feb. '22 is illeg*l per international law, and that some Ru*sian soldiers and officers have been perpetrating terrible w*r cr*mes (and possibly cr*mes against humanity). I certainly hope they receive some sort of karmic justice for this.
However, my point was always, as stated in my initial comment, that I've become less and less sympathetic towards those in support of the Ukrainian nati*nalist cause, due to what I've learnt about the 8 year long civil w*r (aka the "special operation" against Ukrainian "terr*rists") that preceded the Rus*ian invasi*n.
That said, I hope, above anything else, that the w*r ends, as quickly as possible, by any means necessary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Well, a "European State”, to be a bit more precise (this is after all a treaty, and as such, you most likely wouldn't have much success in counter-arguing judges and lawyers with “interpreting the meanings of such words is pedantry”). A substantial part of this criteria would naturally be the physical location of said state, like whether it's on the European continent, entirely or partly, and if not, how far from it. Other than this, their current integration with EU member states, and general compatibility with our idea of the "European model" for state governance, are two major points of interest. “Culture”, yeah, insofar as whether or not their culture is totally incompatible or not - not a scale on how culturally similar it is.
“Genetics, ancestry” “and so on”. Lol, what? The colour of their skin? History? Just a small boat trip hundreds of years ago? Eating snails? No. You interpret laws and contracts by, among other things, the intended purpose of the document (down to the specific choice of words) and the organisation as a whole. Marocco was not denied just because they were that one critical shade darker than Southern Spaniards. Who do you think they have more common genetics/ancestry with - Spain or DR Congo?
To sum it up for ya: you seem to be focusing too heavily on whether “they”, the population, is European-like or not. However, this is largely a tiny fraction in assessing what a “European State” is, in the context of a possible EU membership.
Anyways, this is a red herring. I just wanted to point out the irony of you accusing me of pedantry, while at the same time countering me by pointing out certain details of NATOs full name… on top of completely ignoring EUs formal criteria of which geography obviously is a huge part of.
That said, I fully admit that the last paragraph of my initial comment was a bit stupid. After all, my intension was initially just to point out the hilarity of your attitude in that first sentence. But thanks for helping us out with the details, sir.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wowswc The use of small, commercial drones (à la FPV- and quadcopter drones) in warfare started, at least in Ukraine, at a point where the Armed Forces of Ukraine was fighting (almost exclusively?) the militias of Donetsk and Luhansk. These militas had no air force (although they had some artillery, anti-air weaponry, and possibly ground-to-ground rocket launchers), no military reconnaissance drones, and Russia's air force couldn't intervene without international reactions. In other words, this usage of drones started at a point of the war when Ukraine had total air superiority. Consequently, I would not be surprised if it was in fact the "separatist" who were the first to use drones in this way.
However, regardless if AFU (or some "pro-Ukrainian militias") was first or not, I'm almost certain that the reasons for its heavy adoption was mainly because:
1) conventional air-to-ground munitions and artillery routinely resulted in civillian casualities (while drone-launched explosives had much smaller blast radius and as such could be used more precicesly. Also, while bombing unarmed citizens is never good, it's a lot harder to accept when it's technically your own citizens, and your opponent is using their deaths as political justification for their cause),
2) it was cheaper (to use and to lose),
3) it was easier to use (deploy and maneuver), and
4) they were familiar with the technology after already having used it as tools of reconnaissance for some time.
Lastly, and I'm just thinking out loud on this one, but the fact that the lines of control were so static makes me think that experimentation, implementation and perfection of such novel tactics are much more likely to occour.
PS: The following is almost completely unrelated to the above pragraphs. I just wanted to say that I used quotation marks on "separatists" and "pro-Ukrainian militias" because while these terms are definitively clearer and less confusing, I don't really like to use them. The initial wave of armed resistance (or "rebellion"/"terrorism", if you prefer) from the eastern part of Ukraine did not mainly come from a wish of total independence from Ukraine or cession of their territory to Russia, but rather as an opposition to the Euromaidan movement. And, as such, I think it's unfair to label them as "separatists", or (indirectly) as being "anti-Ukrainian". They seemed to mostly want to oppose the new political direction their country was heading towards, and if this was to be the new norm, they wanted more autonomy of their respective oblasts ("counties") - not complete separation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonslg240 For some reason, I re-read what you wrote, and I missed the last part (3 brothers: 18, 16 and possibly 14 years old). I didn't know there were three brothers in total, and I forgot the one at home was 16 years old.
That said, I believe he must've misspoke, because it seems pretty clear to me he's referring to the one who's upstairs (i.e. he meant to say "be here about a 16-year old"). Mainly because of the "what did you do to my baby"-exclamation. I find it highly unlikely that any 16 year old who has a normal relationship with his 4 year old half-sister would refer to her as his "baby". While it is entirely possible that this is just one of many delusions Keith had about what was actually going on within their family, I find it somewhat unlikely, as there supposedly are no other claims supporting him regularly suffering from this kind of delusional thinking.
That's why I assume the "my baby"-part was a fabricated lie, meant to support his arguments and allegation about his 16 year old brother being the abuser. Which I, all in all, believe was a deliberate effort to throw him under the bus, because, in actuality, it was Keith himself who was the abuser. Perhaps something happened in the cellar that day that made him kill Sabrina in a panicked effort of self-preservation. Perhaps he had been regularly abusing her for some time, but she had now reached a point where she realised this was wrong, and thus said or did something that made Keith realise she was going to out him for it. I
t's the only theory which makes any sense to me, considering all the facts and claims of this case, held up with how Keith behaves while putting forth his claims during the interrogation .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elections late January/early February 2025. A united government takes over and stabilizes the country relatively quickly. The Kurds agree to give up hope for independence, and rather rebrands their identities as Syrian - working for the common good of the country. By the end of 2026, most of the country is rebuilt, and most of its diaspora has moved back home. By 2028, Syria is becomes the powerhouse of the Middle-East - a bastion of freedom, harmony and cooperation across religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age etc. Within 2030, the government of the new Syria will have united Israel and Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas. It will also export its successful model to Iraq.
The entire region is basically at peace now, so Martin, Ray, Gunnar and Boyng are trying to agree on whether North- or Sub-Saharan Africa is going to be invaded next.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think he meant to definitively say that Turkey and Hungary are outright against Ukraine joining NATO - just that if anyone were to object, it would most likely be these two. The reason is as simple as their stance on Russia - obviously aligning with Europe and NATO first and foremost, but at the same time wanting to avoid straining their relationships any further with the Kremlin.
That said, Erdogan did say in July 23 that “there is no doubt that Ukraine deserves membership of NATO”. However, do note his choice of words here. They "deserve" membership, which obviously isn't quite the same as e.g. "Ukraine must be granted NATO membership" or "we would definitively vote for Ukrainian NATO membership". He could theoretically and honestly mean that they deserve it, but if for example Ukraine regains all lost territory and the war ends, he might still come to the conclusion that "while you do deserve it, we cannot vote for this, due to how this could effect our (and NATOs) relationship with Russia". Let me also add Spaniel's frequent reminder "Watch what the leaders do, not what they say".
If we take the people into considerations, they have been split (being in slight majority at times and slight minority other times) over the last few years on subjects like providing financial and military aid to Ukraine, so I would be surprised if there were a large majority in strong support for Ukrainian membership right now.
All in all, this is mostly just speculations from me. I think it would be impossible to know for sure what they'd vote until after that vote was held.
That said, I have not seen anyone in Turkey actively advocating for Ukrainian membership over decades, like you put it. If that's correct, that might change things. However, remember that what people meant between 1991 and 2024 might not be anywhere close to what they mean today.
The most important thing, in my opinion, is peace ASAP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:26 Great vid as always, but I disagree a bit with the last sentence the tortoise says. "You have to know that you have no free will, but live as if you do".
I [think I] understand why he says so, because if you accept that you have no free will, that often takes a huge hit (at least initially) on your motivation. But the tortoise's sentence makes the realisation all a bit meaningless. At least if it's meant as in taking the blue pill in The Matrix. I'll try to explain my viewpoint briefly (which usually is a challenge for me lol) with an example:
If everyone accepted the lack of free will, then we would all look very differently upon people who is going through a rough time (i.e. drug addicts). If we literally "lived as if we didn't know there was no free will" then we would just do as the majority does today - frame these people as bad people. In my opinion, we should rather accept that we have no free will and try to live accordingly in view of such knowledge. Thus, in my example, those who are able to should do their part to help those in need of help.
I'm sure you didn't mean it this literally. That the hare and the tortoise repeated the race, and then the hare went back to berating all the other animals in the forrest. It's just that this is the first time in all these years I've had a critique to your excellent writing.
I'm not sure of a good example for a substitute though. "...but live accordingly to that knowledge" doesn't hit well with the target audience imo. The best I can come up with is probably "You have to know that you have no free will, but not to the extent that you simply give up on life and lay down on the ground", which also isn't remotely on par with your writing.
But hey, I might be reading to literally into things. Alternatively, if I'm missing the point completely, I'd love an elaboration.
That said; thanks for providing us with such awesome content! <3 Both that which is free here on YT, and the literature you have for sale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The lines are meant to be abstract depictions exemplifying game theory in real life conflicts. Usually, they try to illustrate his points in regards to "bargaining friction" between two parties. They also illustrate how different factors might play into a potential peace treaty OR potential gains given a prolonged conflict.
E.g. if they chose to keep fighting to the bitter end, at this point in the war, the final outcome (new border between the countries) will be somewhere around this line X. However, if aliens suddenly spawn at the Kremlin, and donates their alien technology, Russia will be much stronger. Thus, if they keep fighting the new line Z will now be much further into Ukrainian territory.
The different lines, the distance between them and the "bargaining friction", also illustrates how these conflicts also are shrouded by a lot of uncertainty and perceived truths. E.g. Russia might be very weak now, but they don't want to admit this for obvious reason, so they feign strength, hoping to move their "line" further into Ukrainian territory than what it really is. They're line is truly at X, but they act like it should be at Y. However, Ukraine's intelligence has uncovered how weak they really are, so they know Russia's line is at X - however Russia thinks that Ukraine thinks that Russia's line is at Y, which affects the parties actions and beliefs, and so on :D And then the aliens comes to help Russia, but Ukraine doesn't know this, so Ukraine think the line's at the the weak X, while in reality, it's at the super-strong line Z.
In real life, this can be extremely complicated (and hard to explain for an idiot like me through text), but it helps to picture it in much simpler terms. Like playing a simple card game with a friend. You know what you have, but you don't know what he has in his hand. But you know for sure what you have. And you can make some assumptions based on what you have (he can't have those exact cards obviously). You can also make some assumptions based on what cards he plays (and doesn't play), and how he plays his card, and how many cards there are in total, and what cards are already played/"out of play", etc.
If you know a bit about Texas Hold'em, that's a good way to understand game theory, as there's limited information, a lot of uncertainty, and players feigning their strength/weakness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ That's more than one word. And it's also not enough words to convince anyone with a functional brain.
One one hand, you have a Denmark, who gives 1) Greenland 500 million USD with no strings attached, 2) lets Greenland take care of all their internal business, laws and regulations, and especially 3) has promised that Greenland can be completely independent if they want (through a referendum).
On the other hand, you have the US, who doesn't really care about anyone but themselves. They'll gladly fuck over anyone, as long as it's in their own best interests. "America" first, y'know?
So, how much money do you think the Greenlanders would demand to give up their sovereignty to the US considering this? A lot. And then you'd have to weigh that up with what the US would rationally be willing to spend. What's Greenland worth strategically for the US?
If they'd pay every Greenlander 1 million USD each, that means a total cost amounts to about 57 billion USD, which is wayyyy too expensive for the US, and way too cheap for the Greenlanders.
So yeah, it's pretty hard to imagine the US buying Greenland...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bd12544 (2/4) Those who murdered police forces in the Maidan revolution are protected by an amnesty for their crimes, meaning they'll never be prosecuted. The police forces, however, are being prosecuted for all murders on the protesters, despite the fact that it's extremely unclear as to who actually fired most of the lethal shots (and no, that's not according to RT, but amongst others Reuters, AP, BBC, Kyiv Post, Al Jazeera and Germany's primary news channel Das Erste).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I never claimed he was referencing the cyclist. I just pointed out that it's overwhelmingly likely that it is used in reference to Ukrainians, and that it is used by Russians, given the meaning and history of the term.
I do admit after reviewing the clip that it’s very possible that these are Russians laughing at other Russians given the fact that one of the guys says “Who the f is it? What’s his callsign?”.
However, I’m not 100% convinced, since I find it very weird that either Russians or Ukrainians in this conflict would observe their own doing something as weird as this, laugh at it, film it AND upload it for everyone to see. That said, many clips (unrelated to this war) find their way to the public through first being shared by a small group of friends, which then spreads further and further, until it’s available for everyone.
The fact that they’re listening in to their comms is not a deal-breaker, as it’s fully possible to eavesdrop on the enemies comms. However, it somewhat strengthens the case for the BMP and cyclist being their own.
So the last sentence might thus mean “Imagine what the Ukrainians think when they see us doing such dumb sh1t from their drones”.
In summary, I was most likely wrong when I said “The BMP in the vid is with a 99% certainty Ukrainian” and that the title of the video was wrong. However, there’s no need to say “I told you so”, @artos9406 , Vitaliy and SpacePony, cause nothing of what you wrote helped me reach this conclusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@123451248ify Everyone, disregarding age, gender, religion, shoe size, hair colour etc., wants an attorney in this situation, IF they fully understand the realities of the situation they're currently in. The reason people waive this right is because of bravado (a guilty person think they can fool the police/an innocent person think they can help the police understand the realities of the situation), lack of knowledge how the police works, blind trust in authority figures/the police, and/or the impression that requesting a lawyer makes them look more suspicious.
In other words, no one in their right mind wants to waive their right to have an attorney present. And most people who face these types of situations are not in their right mind (temporarily or permanently) for a multitude of reasons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thevol40k Your sentence is incomplete.
Unless there's supposed to be some sort of emphasis on the last "that", in which I have to admit: no, I don't know that imagine dragons fan. To be honest, I don't even know which imagine dragons fan you're referring to. I don't think I know any imagine dragons fans. I only know they exist. Or, uhm, well, hmm.. Since I don't know anyone personally, I can't know for sure they exist, of course. But since I've heard about imagine dragons (and their songs) so many times, it's safe to assume there's at least one fan out there. Unless, of course, it's all just simulated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@demifane What?! No! You ask people with "creative" and "interesting" theories to elaborate. Firstly, because their sources are often hidden far, far away in old scrolls or a dusty, unknown corner of the internet. Secondly, because such bold claims must be tested and challenged thoroughly.
Or you can ask people to elaborate when they just write a single sentence or smthn.
But, I gave you all the info you need, and then some. They claim that money disappeared the day before a terror attack/inside job. I said, no, a) it was mentioned on earlier occasions. b) Twice. c) 1.5 years prior to 9/11.
You don't need me to elaborate further. If it's just bcus you don't believe me, do what I did when I was encountered with this shocking "9/10 money gone"-claim appearedin front of my eyes: I googled it.
I mean... you can literally write stupid shit like "911 tribbion" and "11 semptombar 11 trillom" into Google (trust me, I tried those two exactly), and you still find pages upon pages of all the fact checking pieces written upon this subject over the last 6-7 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradgilpin9740 So does Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and many more. What's your point?
Kanye West probably has more political power than these royalties.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:14 Wow, that was unexpected. I'm sitting here watching YT videos, occasionally glancing out the window. It has been kinda daylightish (meaning "not pitch black darkness") outside for about three hours. In an hour or two, it'll be dark again. There's an extremely light snow storm brewing, maybe at one point becoming something relevant - who knows? I'm sitting here thinking about things to think about. Occasionally, I realise that I should go to the store. But nah, I'm not in the mood. It's a very short distance, I know, but this cold and darkness is completely killing my spirit. I can't even pay attention to this video, although Astrum vids are always good at catching my fleeting attention span.
THEN SUDDENLY - out of nowhere! He mentions my city: Thrrråmsøehh
I exist!🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹
(PS: Sorry for not being able to resist the temptation to bully you for your pronunciation! If I'm being honest, it was actually pretty decent for being a non-viking)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've been a subscriber for many years now, and I greatly appreciate your content, but today, for the first time, I have some critique for you: revealing your sources.
I was going slightly comment on how the graph at 9:20 was presented and interpreted when I questioned whether this was your presentation/interpretation, or if it was the source's. A bit shocked by the fact that you didn't provide the source yourself, I had to find it myself through googling the title. Thus, I realised that you're just presenting the source's graph and findings, so enough about that.
After this, I was left with a bit bitter taste regarding your content, because I've always looked at your content as professional, fact-based and striving to present as unbiased content as possible. But... Not presenting sources in a clear and precise way is one of the most essential parts of transparency, and is in my opinion a hallmark of professionality.
I know this is sadly the norm both in YouTube and conveying news in general, but that's no excuse when it's so simple. You've already done the most time-consuming part of providing sources: finding them.
My suggestion for you is that you in future videos:
1. Research phase: keep the link to a given source that you might use in the final video
2. Draft phase: attach the link to your manuscript where the source is going to be used
3. Production / video editing phase: add "[x]" somewhere in the video to convey to the watcher that what you're currently saying or what's being presented visually on screen is from a third-party source (where the "x" indicates what number source your referring to, in a chronological order)
4. Publication phase: Add a chronological list of sources used in the video description. I suggest using Google Docs or similar, so instead of bulking up your video description with to much text (like this post lol), you can share a spreadsheet with those who'd be interested.
Bonus tip: the last point about bulky video descriptions can also be used on your other links. Like those e-thots you promote their social media and OF etc., you can write something like "For my other social media links, to support me, or watch Caspian Report in other languages, visit [link]"
Anyways, I'm not expecting links to every single source used, like a professor who's going to grade your work (like a picture of a map or a video clip being used). But if your serious about this channel, which I presume you are, then you should be transparent about every claim that doesn't originate from you or your team directly.
Sorry for the wall of text, but this is important. Thanks again for informative and important content you provide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, sure, but you can wage war on someone's land while defending your own land. Quite literally since "your land" is "someone's land", and secondly, aggression can be used for defensive gains (but it's seldom the best tactic), e.g. if someone pulls a Glock on you, you can blow their hand off with a shotgun before they pull the trigger.
Edit: And thirdly, the land in question (the southern part of Ukraine, and in general, the entire territory of Ukraine) is disputed by the warring parties, which also pokes holes in your meaningless sentence, Hmar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robbieward3405 And how does this, i.e. the point she's trying to make, in any way relate to my statement? I'll repeat for convenience:
"The fact that she thought Louis was going to push her back demonstrates how delusional she is"
Regardless of whether the point she was trying to make was logical, regardless if I'd agree with her, regardless if I understood anything of what she said, it's still pretty insane to think that a calm, tall, 50 year old man would push this tiny, ancient woman - unless it was strictly necessary to do so. It was far from necessary, because she could get her point across verbally (which she successfully did). On top of it all, Louis knows how it'd look to many people if he went along with this, which makes it even more insane for her to assume he'd do so.
So no, I'm not "assuming some conspiratorial intention". I don't know where tf you get this from. I'm just pointing out how her brain is obviously malfunctioning here.
Alternatively, it could be explained by her own violent tendencies and/or world views, which honestly wouldn't be surprising given her and her nation's history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is so fkin weird... This vid was uploaded yesterday. I spotted this vid, but I had to go to sleep, so I put this video on, turned of the screen, and just listened to the video as I fell asleep (yeah, I know - not the best content to drift asleep to lol). I wake up, make breakfast, sit down by the table, and as I was about to open the lid on my laptop, I see a fkin u-boat. Outside my living room window, down in the fjord about 1km away. Nooooo.. No way! That's too big of a coincidence. So I grab my phone and zoom in, and it sure looks like one, but it's a bit too grainy and still too weird to be real. But hey! I have some binocs laying around here somewhere, so I run and grab them, and yeah.. It's a giant u-boat. Right there. Now I can even spot two people in yellow gear chilling in/by the hatch (which make me fully comprehend how giant the thing is). It lays still in the water for a while, then slowly do a 180 degree turn, and drifts off down-stream, out of my view.
I open my computer just to verify that this video wasn't actually a dream, but nah. Of course not.
And this is the first time I've ever seen a u-boat IRL, and it wasn't even a docked one.
Wtf.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OriginalCinemaVideo Idk what Soilent wrote, but I'm unsure if you should attack anyone's argument construction.
Firstly, just because something is new, innovative and/or advanced does not make it better. Technology has it's uses, but it has as many flaws as humans themselves. I'm sure you use some ancient piece of technology when you have to insert a nail into a piece of wood. Simplicity is key, and TikTok sucks.
Also, I'm terribly confused what you mean by taking "the longest route possible out of our food chain path just to kill an animal". Yeah, sure, we can consume and get nutrients from paprikas, kale and maybe even grass and bark, but our bodies absorbs the full amount of nutrients in those to varying degrees. A great benefit of eating meat is that it's very efficiently absorbed. I believe it's 100% (or at least close to 100%) bioavailable for our guts. So the animal extracts the nutrients efficiently from whatever it has been eating for millions of years, and then we eat it. Instead of us eating a ton of grass all day and still losing weight. What I'm trying to say is that humans eating meat seems like the shortest possible route in the food chain, not the longest. But I might've misunderstood this point though.
1
-
@purplespaceship2417 Those two studies you mentioned (without providing for the source) were two pretty selective in what they were testing. I wasn't talking about amino acide absorption in chicken vs a "plant based alternative", or protein absorption in red meat vs soy protein.
Also, you show me the source to these "countless" of cancer studies, and I'll pick out the flaw from every single one of them. It's most often how they measure, and then how they interpret the results. When they're doing a self report study, they never differentiate between the source, quality or type of meat. There's no denying that "above average consumers of red meat" to a larger extent get their food from McDonalds instead of expensive steaks from free range cows.There's no denying that vegans and vegetarians to a larger extent eat healthier, are more physically active, out in nature, smoke less, drink less alcohol etc. than the red meat eating group.
I've never seen a study on meat vs alternatives who has tried to take such factors into account.
Your very selective argumentation is familiar, but sadly, very effective for most people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wainber1 From where did you get that the IDF was surprised by the Hamas attack? I find that unlikely, as none of their military leadership are still in high school (or younger).
And from what leaked, Cyrillic document did you get that the Russians tried to fully conquer Ukraine? I find that unlikely, as none of their political or military leadership are still in high school (or younger).
I believe you need to stop chewing up whatever someone highlighted by the media as an so-called expert without questioning it in the slightest. If you'd ever look into this issue, you'd find that real experts (people who has been studying a subject for decades at some prestige university) often tend to answer complex questions along the lines off "Well, one one hand, blah blah blahahahblahblahbhal and blah, but on the other hand, blaaaah blah blaah blabbidy blappz. So, in essence, it's hard to answer this question conclusively, but blaaaaahahblahblah blah". Which is why they're rarely (if ever) asked for their opinions by the media. And in the rare cases where they're given TV time, they are usually cut short.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Guccikip: I agree with your analogy. I do, however, think that both Russia's AND the burglars anger is (somewhat) reasonable.
Even after Soviet's fall, and Russia's economic and political pivot to the West, they have never been included or seriously considered to be a part of our club. Even after they have requested membership at several opportunities, they have only been ridiculed for even asking. Even after German defence experts repeatedly has suggested that they should be included. And this is after being labelled as "Enemy of the World - Suppressor of All Things Free & Good" for several generations now. They've been on a continuous path downwards, and shit's only getting worse. I would be mad too when things seemingly is getting worse.
And I would also be mad if I was so down bad that I had to (or felt like I had to) turn to robbery to make a living, and then, when I turn up on a gold mine of a potential house, I realise they have an alarm system that makes the job so much harder. PS: I obviously don't believe that some people are inherently "good" and "bad". And I can have sympathy and an understanding for other people, even though they might do things the majority label as "bad".
1
-
@hugoguerreiro1078
Your main point was that Putin has no reason to fear NATO because
a) NATO has never invaded RF/SU and
b) NATO is a strictly defensive alliance.
I only tried to counter what I deem flawed logic by
a) reversing your argument: RF/SU has never invaded a NATO member, so NATO shouldn't bother spending any resources countering RF (e.g. by supporting those who fight RF or inviting their neighbours to join the organisation, holding conferences on "global security", spending a single dollar on new weapons etc.) because just simply being a member is enough to deter RF.
I'm not trying to say this is a fact. Quite the opposite. It's ridiculous. Just like claiming that "X or Y does not has to fear NATO cause NATO never invaded X or Y" is simply ridiculous.
b) pointing out that things change. I thought that was quite obvious.
Even if NATO was a strictly defensive organisation, they might one day not be. I feel like that's a very obvious, basic and true statement. Just like the fact that the universe has existed since the Big Bang, but at one point it might cease to exist. Just like Hitler was just some dude no one had heard about for a long time, until he ceased to be that, and became Der Führer. Just like we humans always believed there were some enormous difference between "us" and "them", until many of realised that the differences are almost entirely superficial or insignificant. Just like you and I, in some way or another, probably exist right now, but one day, we’ll most likely cease to exist.
I repeat, things change. Even if NATO is a strictly defensive organisation today, and always has been (PS: I disagree), it might not be so tomorrow.
1
-
1
-
To add to this point about RF having no reason to be afraid: NATO has since its inception had a anti-Soviet, -communist and -Russian agenda. They have since their inception kept SU/RF out of the organisation, and never seriously considered them as a partner. And the org. is dominated by the US, which has had an obvious rivalry with the Russian Empire/SU/RF because of oil (and at some point, for having a radically different political ideology).
Also, if you’d bother to look at the sources I’ll provide below, you’ll see that NATO has been involved in many military operations. However, not a single one of these has been a defensive operation to protect one of its member states. You can of course try to twist some facts or the entire narrative in these operations to claim that they are in fact defensive operations - but if you choose to do so, you cannot at the same time deny that what Russia is doing in Ukraine now isn’t a defensive operations. And don’t you fucking dare putting those words in my mouth… I’m only referring to what Russian officials have been claiming. To preemptively strike any attempt of a infinitely dumb, inevitable attempt at a counter-argument.
---
«the Soviet Union and Russia had a history of invading and annexing other foreign nations.»
The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. RF isn’t communist. Putin is not Stalin. Stalin was from Georgia and is dead, Putin was from Ukraine, and is the current leader of RF. When assessing the current geopolitical climate, I think it’s a lot more relevant to look at Putin and RF, not whatever his predecessors did.
RF has been involved in 14 conflicts outside its territory since its inception. NATO and the US has in the same timespan, and only two of those has been with/against/in countries that hasn’t historically been a part of their former empires (Syria and CAR). Not saying that this makes it any more okay, but it does paint a picture pretty clear picture of RF’s ambitions, in contrast to the west.
The US has been involved 17 conflicts outside its territory in the same time span. In the 21st century, exclusively in Africa and the Middle East, officially to secure global stability and peace, but in reality to control resources (oil). From 1991 to 1999, it was much of the same, but also excepting some force in Latin-America and the Balkans. On top of this, we’ll have to add at least 6 NATO-operations not directly related to the aforementioned conflicts, totalling at least 23 conflicts.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
And when you add proxy warring to the scales on both sides, e.g. us in Ukraine right now, the balance tips even further towards the west being much more aggressive in our «special military operations», compared to them.
And I think this is of less importance, but since it seems so important to you; during the days of the Soviet Union, the conflicts followed along the same threads. Ignoring WWI and II, SU was mainly bickering with its neighbours, which is fairly common in the entire human history. And also helping out communist allies around the world. The only exceptions being helping China with an Islamic rebellion in 37 and proxy warring the US through the Arab-Israeli conflict. The US, during this period, with the exception of beginning its Middle East oil campaign from from 82-91, and the World Wars, pivoted from problems at home and fucking up their neighbours down south to invading the Russian Empire during their civil war, and then traveling to and fighting communism/Russian influence wherever and whenever they could, as a self proclaimed world police. I hate warring in general, but if I had to pick the lesser of two «evils», I’d know who I’d pick.
There’s even a clear parallell in the establishment of the two empires. Yeah, some groups people who simply refused were killed by Russians establishing its kingdom, but it’s god damn interesting that most of its empire was spread peacefully, by cooperation, agreements and mutually beneficial trade. And then, they tried to establish and spread the most zen, hippy, super idealistic ideology ever (ignoring the initial revolution of course). The establishment of the US was far more bloody and forced.
1
-
«NATO isn't even a state»
Meaningless.
—-
«a defensive alliance where its members have to obligation to help in any offensive actions.»
Self-contradictory.
—
«US made plans to invade the Soviet Union before they had their own nukes and decided against it»
I don’t see the relevance tbh. Are you trying to portray the US as «good» here? Because I’m sure they didn’t because they couldn’t afford to or didn’t want to spend the resources to go through with this. In the spirit of bringing up fairly irrelevant points, I’d like to repeat that US has invaded the Russian peoples’ land, while the Russian people has never invaded US soil. And the reason for no invasions post-nuclear weapons is the same for the US/NATO as it is for SU/RF: MAD.
—
«The US, not to mention any other NATO countries, haven't showed a desire to invade Russia.»
The desire and inability to conquer the other has been equal both ways.
—
«Meanwhile Russia has invaded NATO countries before they joined NATO, and NATO is the only thing stopping Russia from invading again, as shown by Russia continuing to invade countries outside of NATO.»
Fair point. RF has even invaded other countries on two different occasions, and supported a civil war, just to prevent them from gaining membership to their hate club. So yeah, I don’t really disagree with you here, but I struggle to see any relevance if your mission is to disprove my initial main points.
—
«And since NATO countries are under no obligation to help in offensive actions it makes no difference whether a country is in NATO or not in the event there really was an invasion of Russia. Consider these 2 scenarios: scenario 1 - Ukraine in not part of NATO, and the US wants to invade Russia. In this scenario the US has to convince Ukraine to help in the invasion. Scenario 2 - Ukraine in in NATO. In this scenario the US still has to convince Ukraine to help. It makes no difference.»
You might have a point on paper, but reality tells a different story. There are more US/NATO bases, troops and weapons in NATO countries, than in non-NATO countries worldwide. And this obviously plays a major role in making offensives easier to go through with, and for RF to counter any possible aggression without risking attacking NATO troops at the same time (which means an East/West-clash aka WWIII).
And there’s obviously a lot more cooperation between the US/NATO military forces than with other military forces, meaning that if there ever was an offensive against RF, the entire alliance would most certainly join in, because not doing so would be picking a side, if only indirectly. And picking the side of someone you have no relation with seems highly unlikely and highly suicidal.
—
«I'd also like to point out that this war has made Russia way more vulnerable to an invasion by pulling troops away from its borders and severely damaging the Russian army, and yet they don't seem to be particularly worried about an invasion by NATO countries.»
I could write paragraph upon paragraph, but I only need three letters: M, A and D.
Amongst other things…
—
«This is why countries joining NATO only changes 1 thing for Russia: they can no longer invade those countries.»
I strongly disagree with the use of the word «only» in this sentence, but tbh I’m way to tired of responding to this post.
I’ll point out one thing though, since we're not adhering to keeping the discussion on point anyways:
Joining NATO changes (among other things, obviously) one thing for those joining NATO: they can no longer invade Russia.
Cause MAD, y'know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Curt_Sampson Nope, I intentionally wrote US/NATO to indicate that I was talking about both of 'em. I know one's a country, and the other's a organisation of countries. Yet, I intentionally wrote about both.
Side note 1*: It's ironic how you don't see that the *one time Art. 5 have been invoked, the US was attacked by members of organisation X, so we invaded a whole country and warred with organisation Y, because of alleged ties between Y and X, because of X's history within the country, and because some of X's members might be in the country.
This invasion lasted for 7268 days. And for 7267 of those days, Pakistan was left alone... uninvaded. And that perfectly illustrates that this wasn't really about Al-Quada. Afghanistan was invaded because we could, and somebody wanted it.
I will never understand how one can accept this so easily, while still condemning an invasion of a neighbouring country where the bogus excuse is self-defence from nazism.
*Side note 2*: It's ironic that while NATO, the organisation, is supposed to be a strictly defensive organisation, only 2 of it's 21 operations were based on Art. 5 ("Eagle Assist" + "Active Endeavor").
And all but 3 operations are the same kind of world policing as the US has led since post-WWII (Earthquake relief for Pakistan + "Display Deterrence" + "Active Fence").
It's hard not to view the organisation as an extension of US foreign policy at the cost of promising possible support in a future conflict.
*On topic*: I'm not going to argue to the point, because there isn't any common ground, and I disagree with close to everything you wrote. Thus, it'll be way too time consuming, and I see no good reason to spend that time in such a way.
Peace out
1
-
@Curt_Sampson You make very good points overall, but imo, your arguments are solely based on official statements released through our western media outlets.
(PS: I'm not saying western media = pure propaganda. Cause if I were, I'd probably write "MSM" instead ;))) lolol)
Thus, I fear that your arguments may build upon "surface level information", but if we were to dig deeper, or have the luxury to peer into the information available some time in the future, the story would be different.
Just like, at the time, there was no reason to disbelieve that Saddam harboured WMDs. Or that Nayirah Al-Sabah was lying about who she was and was lying about Iraqi troops were pulling babies out of incubators and smashing their heads against the pavement. Or the motives for invading Afghanistan, and the likelihood of succeeding at anything over there.
Or all the times various leaders or regimes have been painted as Hitler/Stalin/Mao, but in reality being far, faaar from it. In some special cases, one could even argue that the regimes was a net positive for the country/region, like (possibly) Gadaffi.
All this have even made me doubt the truthfulness of the alleged evil of Assad and his father - the former who I was extremely close to traveling half the world to fight myself. I can only be thankful that my former, less restrained self did not follow through with that.
As well as with Ukraines civil war, aka "terrorist problem". I've been following that conflict since the the first days of the Maidan revolution/insurrection. Even when our beloved western media stopped caring. I had to rely on google translate to "know" what was happening over there. But I'm so glad I never involved myself any deeper than exchanging my opinions, cause once Russia actually fkin invaded, I immediately had this deep feeling of something being "wrong".
So I took a second glance. I accepted that much of "our" reporting is not absent of bias, and I looked at it through that lense. I accepted that facts might be polished, or important facts might be omitted, to fit a grander narrative. And I took the same approach to the oppositions reporting.
And I spent just over two months digging through neutral, crowd-sources, reliable information on the history of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation, and the history of it politics - foreign and internal. And I took a second look on the Georgian conflict. And after this reassessment, I'm leaning more towards the fact that RF might be well within their rights for their aggression towards the US, NATO and "the west". I feel extremely bad Ukraine as a nation, and especially it's citizens, who (on both sides) has had to go through so much pain for being a pawn in a larger conflict. But this is in the end, the result of politicians in Ukraine, and it's eastern and western neighbours, failed political games.
However, as I say I believe the Russian Federation might be well within their rights, I seriously doubt that Putin and the political and economical elite in RF, are primarily doing this purely out of nationalistic motives or because this is necessary for the citizens. I think this is first and foremost about resources and personal gains, just as with all the other conflicts of at least the 20th and 21th century (except perhaps WWI and -II?).
Other than that, I think the concept of "truth" is extremely illusive, but we'll get closer to it regarding this conflict in the decades to come.
So yeah... these are my 6 cents regarding the conflict at large.
Regarding RF not vetoing or voting for intervention in certain conflicts, I just wanna say that they've done this purely because of an assessment that intervention aligned with their own economical motives, and perhaps, in smaller part, because they couldn't veto/vote against absolutely everything in spite, cause that would undermine the whole organisation, and thusly, their power within it.
And I never said that Ukraine would attack RF,. Only that Putin and his puppies claimed that this was an act of self-defence.
I'm not pro-Russia. But I'm not pro-NATO. And I'm becoming more and more aware of how our policies has been to RF's detriment. And when it hasn't, directly or indirectly, been to its detriment, it could easily have been viewed like this.
(Bonus weird analogy: Like there's nothing racist about the word "niggardly", but I'd rather avoid using it, especially in front of a dark skinned crowd, since it has perfectly adequate synonyms and it might unneccesarily upset the unknowing.)
For soon to be 22 years now, we still haven't realised that the correct policy forward would be inclusion - not exclusion.
1
-
@Curt_Sampson
"(...) evidence (...)"
The fact that you're stating this is "evidence" is the last thing I needed to confirm this is a pointless. And...
"(...) do you think that Wikipedia and its sources are possibly lying about this?"
Idk what Wikipedia says about "this", but the fact that you're trying to undermine the validity of crowd-sourced information from a information- and truth obsessed community like Wikipedia tells me all I need to know about your views on sources...
No. One mans word does not equal the truth, regardless of how much you like him.
"NATO can't always stop the U.S. from doing what it wants to do (...)"
If you're admitting that NATO the organisation or individual NATO members sometimes do things they don't want to do due to the pressure from the US, that's more than enough for me to want to disband the organisation.
"(...) which is about as far from being a pawn of the U.S. as you can get."
I used the word "pawn" pawn about Ukraine.
"major western countries such as France and Germany are concerned by things like this"
The only hope I've had within this organisation. German politicians has suggested Russian NATO membership at least twice. Too bad the invasion has killed all goodwill towards the Russian Federation - now, it's only a fraction of the SDP who remains...
"If you think that Russia could be "within its rights" to go around invading other countries that are "in its sphere of influence" or the like, you've bought into Putin's idea that Russia should have a sphere of influence like that (...)"
Ehh, no. What's the purpose of putting words in my mouth? It's so risky, cause when it's pointed out, it works against you in any regard :/
I've never mentioned anything about a Russian sphere of influence. I've never stated that Russia has the right to "go around invading other countries". I said that Russia might be within their rights in regards to their invasion of Ukraine last year.
So no. I'm just as opposed to Russkij Mir as I am to the _Monroe Doctrine_.
However, on the legality of the 2022 invasion: Opinio juris on the subject of Westphalian sovereignty is that it is no longer valid - which is a precedence set by the global powers (especially Russia's adversaries) over these two last centuries. The requirement for intervening in another state's domestic disputes are a) a reason that b) has popular, majority support. The most effective reasons seems to be humanitarian intervention, preemptive self-defence and/or fighting terrorism - of which a skilled lawyer could argue for all three in relations to the 2022 Ukraine invasion. The only problem they have is majority backing from the rest of the world.
To set a higher standard for Russia in relation to international law and _jus ad bellum_, compared to the rest of the world's states, would be very hypocritical.
And if it isn't obvious already; I'm not supporting the 2022 invasion. In fact, there isn't a single invasion or war in the history of human warfare that I support. The only reason to ever use violence is in self-defence. However, I want to provide a non-polarised counter-balance to all this "illegal warfare"-bullshit, because 1) it's as [il]legal as our own invasions, and 2) most of those claiming this is an illegal invasion is oblivious to this fact.
"As for "the correct policy [being] inclusion - not exclusion," that's exactly what the west has been doing with the rest of Eastern Europe, "
My god, I hope your only mission here is to win a debate, although you're doing a sub-par effort here.
I'm quite obviously talking about including the only North American and European state that has ever been excluded from the alliance: Russia.
Secondly, and you should know this, that the eastward expansion (while at the same time keeping Russia out) has only fuelled the flames of conflict. This went against Russian demands, on top of formal and informal promises made by NATO representatives, since the end of the Cold War.
(And I know: this was never codified. However, that obviously doesn't invalidate diplomatic promises.)
Lastly, I won't claim this as truth, but it's far from impossible that the last two promises of membership had intentional results. Because I struggle to believe there's more than zero NATO representatives, within the whole organisation, from 04/04/49 until today, that is or was dumb enough to think that having serious talks with Georgia or Ukraine about membership would lead to anything other than them being invaded...
If Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan is invited within the next 10-20 years, this theory is as well as confirmed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@virariueb7182
You: "Most of those ethical russians still wanted to be part of EU. Not Russia."
Me: "a small minority of Eastern Ukrainians wanted to be a part of Russia. However, a majority wanted more autonomy from Ukraine"
And then you try to "gotcha" me for "finally admitting" this? This is the problem in discussing with people like you... and by "people like you", I mean specifically how you discern information, and headlessly try to refute a minor point while disregarding all the major points I brought up.
How many people wanted to join Russia or not was never part of my arguments as to why Ukrainians are also to blame for this conflict. If you actually read my original post thoroughly, and responded honestly, you would've focused on this part: "but most importantly, the Baltic countries were not shelling their Russian enclaves while applying for NATO membership."
The fact of the matter is that enough people in Eastern Ukraine was so discontent with close to a decade of suppression of anything related to Russia and Russian identity, the growing amount of hardcore nationalism, and finally a coup d'etat of their governments after choosing to halt the EU-/NATO-process that they revolted. They'd had enough. If the state wouldn't give them autonomy, they would take it by force. With guns. That's fkin concerning. That really calls for sit downs and grown up discussions.
But what did the state do? The labelled them simply as terrorists, and started shelling them. Not only is this borderline evil and extremely short-sighted for a multitude of reasons, but they provided the perfect excuse for their neighbour to intervene.
And it's all so foreseeable that it really makes it harder to sympathize with them. Of course I feel bad for anyone who gambles away their families' life savings at the casino, because that must truly suck. However, at the same time, it's so incredibly foolish and naive for someone of average intelligence to think that they have discovered this secret technique of beating an established casino at the roulette that they (without even testing the technique) gambles and gambles, loss after loss, until there's nothing more to lose. It's poetic karma for being dumb and naive.
And this is much alike what some Ukrainian politicians did. They thought the could bomb away the problem and be saved by the West, despite recent history (6 years earlier) the outcome was exactly the same. And now, they sadly have to take the consequences for that ridiculous gamble.
To sum up: No, a majority of ethnically Russian Ukrainians did not want EU- or especially NATO-membership. And they neither wanted to be a part of the Russian Federation. However, a large majority wanted more autonomy from Ukraine - and for this, they were bombed.
Does this make it "okay" for Russia to invade Ukraine? No. But it is very predictable and understandable that Russia did so, therefore, it's hard to sympathize with them. Especially, when they complain about us not helping them enough - while at the same time bragging about now having the most powerful military in Europe, and that they would have the second most powerful military in NATO, and acting like they can push the Russians entirely out of their own country.
They need to grow the f up, and stop living in their fairy tale world. They need to finally accept some losses. They need to sit down at the table with the Russians, and finally realise that there's no end to this conflict without signing a paper that leads to some loss of territory and a permanent vow of neutrality.
Or they must accept their gamble of Ukrainian lives in hopes of Russia going bankrupt and/or the government being overthrown internally (which, for now, seems unlikely).
You probably don't have a mature or realistic response to this, so just go away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@psychohist What was the deal with the Vietnamese?
My point was that total obliteration, is exceptionally rare, especially in modern times. That's why virtually all conflicts ends in some form of negotiation - even if it's a heavily lopsided conditional surrender. Even if there isn't much actual negotiation, but rather just one side making a bunch of demands, and the other side sighing and signing. It might not seem much different than fighting to the bitter end, but it obviously is. The finale is settled by the stroke of a pen or the shake of two hands - not by drawing the last drop of blood.
I don't think anyone who thinks like this alleges that military force isn't at play. Military force, i.e. two BIG booms (military force), everything that preceded the booms (a lot of military force), and everything that would keep coming (more military force), were the main reason for Japan's surrender during WWII. That said, they did surrender, and the terms of the surrender was negotiated.
Perhaps you put too much emphasis on the wording "military victory". There's usually several (if not many) military victories before any serious talks of peace treaties or negotiated surrender occurs.
Or "negotiation". You're technically finalising a negotiation when you tap to buy a bus ticket in a phone app, despite that looking vastly different from Apple and Google finalising their $3bn contract.
1
-
1
-
Funny, original comment that fails on its own premise. Invades Georgia to prevent its membership. Invades Ukraine to prevents it membership. Are Ukraine or Georgia members of NATO today? No. Will they ever be? Extremely unlikely, unless there's a drastic change of power and political ideology of the entire Russian nation.
Sweden and Finland being members of NATO does not matter to Russia, because 1) Russia has no real reasons (motivation) to invade those countries, 2) Russia has no means of effectively invading these countries, regardless of affiliations, because of military logistics (primarily, because of local infrastructure along both sides of the Finnish-Russia border), and 3) Russia has no motives of invading a state who was already a NATO member, so the addition of the Swedish and Finnish army is insignificant.
[s] Finland should've been more worried about being invaded by the Mermaids of Atlantis along its Baltic Sea shores. [/s]
Lastly, it's pretty foolish to entertain the idea that any country has been invaded over one singular reason...
1
-
1
-
@TuberTugger Sadly, the entire internet is an echo chamber. I only watched this video because it was suggested to me (and I know Johnny from Vox and rly like him). It got suggested to me cause I watched some videos from flat earthers recently just to understand their logic. The same happens to them, only they automatically reject the uhmm "mainstream" way of thinking (sorry, I puked in my mouth from writing that sentence). And also, they support each other in the comment section, as you clearly can see. So once they're too far into the "logic" behind it, it's really hard to come out. And if they go so deep that they discuss these thoughts with normal people, and thus get rejected from society, they only have each other, and then it's reeeeaaally hard to get out. At least half of the reason these conspiracies grow is because we treat these people the way we do (just look here at the anti-flat earthers here, calling them names).
It's sad that the internet works this way, because it's really proliferating conspiracy theories like this. Not all flat earthers are low iq/dumb or have mental issues. But they do have a lot of trust issues to authority, which I can understand and somewhat relate too.
If only we could have mature discussions, a lot of fringe ideas would die out more quickly. Daryl Davis is a great example: when more and more people adopt his mentality, rasicm is gonna completely die out.
1
-
The claims of foods being healthy or unhealthy is largely a eternal labyrinth designed to keep you stuck in hell. Anything is unhealthy in too high doses, so we should rather discuss what the "limits" should be to the alleged "unhealthy" foods. McDonalds-type fast food will never be "healthy" - but it isn't "unhealthy" in the grand scheme of things if only consumed twice a year. At that point, any negative side effects of eating that crap will be offset by all the good food eaten the rest of the year.
Something important that was only said indirectly in this video is: buy ingredients! Try to buy only the following: vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans, meats, egg, fish, shellfish and spices. Also whole grains, but imo eat less of that and more of the other stuff. And then make the meals yourself.
If you "can't afford it", then make some way of affording it. Cancel your expensive subscriptions, stop buying expensive meals/snacks/coffees etc. Sell your car and use public transportation. Move into a cheaper apartment. Cancel your fkin gym membership, because eating right is way more important.
If you "don't have time to make meals", then make time for it somehow. Watch your time-wasting shows/YT while making food perhaps? Seriously.. consider what you actually spend your time on before saying this shit. And stop wasting time in the comment section (yeah, I'm also a hypocrite sometimes lol)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sackofpiss I didn't say that it was wrong. Just implying that it's a very, very dumb observation. You sound like a 14 year old Greek boy that had a random thought and felt like you just had to share it, without even thinking about what you were typing.
Ethnic Norwegians look like a bunch of other non-Norwegian people, all over the world. Because 1) all humans come from the same place, and, more importantly, 2) Norwegians travelled to other countries and either settled there or graped their women.
Furthermore, ethnic Norwegians varies a lot in how they look, as do Poles and Irish people. There are many Norwegians you wouldn't be surprised if they claimed they were Polish or Irish, and there are many Norwegians that don't look like what you'd stereotypically consider either Irish or Polish. For example, what about the Sapmi people - the ones who came here before the rest? The most Norwegian of all of us. Also, on average, Irish people have a lot more red hair and freckles than Norwegians, and Polish people have a lot more Slavic traits than Norwegians on average.
And lastly, what about e.g. Somali-Norwegians? They don't even look Norwegian. They look kinda... Somali?
So yeah.. unwelated and vewy, vewy weetawded. Maybe you should leawn something instead of twying to teach us cwap?
1
-
I didn't say that it was wrong. Just implying that it's a very, very dumb observation.
Ethnic Norwegians look like a bunch of other "non-Norwegian" people, all over the world. Because 1) all modern humans come from the same place, and, more importantly, 2) Norwegians travelled to other countries and either settled there or spread their genes before leaving.
Furthermore, Norwegians, Poles and Irish people varies a lot in their physical appearances. There are many Norwegians you wouldn't be surprised if they claimed they were Polish or Irish, and there are many Norwegians that don't look like what you'd stereotypically consider either Irish or Polish. For example, what about the Sapmi people - the ones who came here before the rest? The most Norwegian of all of us. Also, on average, Irish people have a lot more red hair and freckles than Norwegians, and Polish people have a lot more Slavic traits than Norwegians on average.
And lastly, what about e.g. Somali-Norwegians? They don't even look Norwegian. They look kinda... Somali?
You're just comparing the handful of Norwegians you've met/seen with the handful of Poles and Irish people you've met/seen. It's called "anecdotal evidence", and it's very uninteresting. So perhaps lay off the attitude, and stop telling random people to go "learn something"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:32:49 I feel like you're making it a bit too complex, Lex!
Unless I'm misunderstanding of course. Chess notation is a lot more easy to understand that it initially feels like when GMs are spewing them out faster than a machine gun. Bc3 is "Bishop to square C3". Rc3 is the same, but for a rook. Q = queen, K = king, N = knight and no letter (e.g. just C3) are for pawns. That gives you all information you need. X is used for when a piece is captured, but afaik, it's unnecessary, cause it will be fairly obvious since the square will be occupied by the opponents piece. O-O is kingside castling, and O-O-O is queenside. That's all you need. Convert that to morse code, and you have e.g.
Pawn to C3 = -- stop *--
Rook captures the queen on F8 = stop *** stop ---**
Bishop to A7 = * stop stop --**
Learning the morse codes seems a lot more of a challenge than understanding chess notation. Then again, I might've completely misunderstood you.
Edit: Listened to the interaction again, and if I'm understanding you guys correctly, Levi is saying just knowing the square would be enough, but you would need to know the entire move. And you would get that information by the method outlined above. Just one extra letter, except for when it's a pawn move.
The only issue I see is putting the device to near the prostate, cause it would be very stressful and embarrassing to visibly c00m your panties during a over-the-board game ;pppp
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@incremental_failure
1. Again, they don't just extract raw materials, but they also refine them (which separate them from underdeveloped and most developing countries).
2. Unlike all underdeveloped and most developing countries, their own country's companies are doing the extraction (and refining). It's not BP, Shell, Equinor etc. doing the extraction on refining, then paying some of the profits to a national fund, like it is in the rest of the world.
3. Yeah, you say that "oil extraction technology in Russia is mostly western", but how do you know that? Can you please provide me some sources, because I find no indications of this. You're not the first to say this, so I did some digging.
- A lot of their largest companies within the oil industry were founded in the early 90s, but that because of their economic overhaul. Other giants, like Bashneft, Tafneft and Surgutneftgas, were founded in 1946, 1950 and 1977 respectively.
- They also have eight national academic institution dedicated to oil and gas-technology (in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Tyume, Ufa, Almetyvesk, Irkutsk and Omsk).
- The world's first ever oil well and refinery was built in Ukhta, Russia... By a Russian (Fiodor Priadunov). In 1745.
- In the 1860s, the Russians were producing (extracting and refining) 90% of the world's oil in the Baku oil fields (Which was part of the Russian Empire back then, not Azerbaijan).
- In fact, when all of the western European companies were developing their oil industry, the US and Russians were the two giants. Which is obviously the root reason to their mutual hatred, and not American fear of communism (which I always believed to be the case).
- In short: The Russian Empire / The Soviet Union / The Russian Federation is, and always has been, in the top 2-3 of the world's oil/gas production and refinement in terms of quantity. I highly doubt that all/most (or maybe even "any") of that technology is "western", in the sense that they had to buy or steal ideas from us to make it work.
4. And highly developed countries manufacture nothing, in terms of consumer goods. That's their trademark. There are exceptions of course. First and foremost, the US has a lot of "American made" goods, but that's because of their extreme nationalism. So it's mostly a marketing ploy, and with their super lenient laws on businesses, I'm pretty sure most of the production of even those goods are produced outside the US. Second of all, you have individual exceptions like e.g. Canada Goose. Yeah, it's quality is very good, but that's because it's hand made compared with machine made. Hand made is better than machine made in all matters quality wise. But there's nothing better about hand made products in the west vs hand made products in the rest of the world. So not stitching by hand in e.g. China is just making the products unnecessarily expensive, but people with some nationalistic tendencies will eat that shit up. Also, you can also claim these products are more "green", cause most people don't know how little commercial shipping by sea actually pollute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your point is moot.
Russia likely does not care that much about Finland and Sweden joining NATO, as 1) invading Finland or Sweden was extremely unlikely to happen as there was no need or want for their territory or submission, and it was extremely unlikely be a successful venture for the Russians, and 2) Russia had no interest of invading another NATO country because of the ramifications of doing so, so the enlargement doesn't really matter to them. Summed up, Sweden and Finland joining really changed nothing.
Secondly, there's little evidence to assume any of Russia's most important reasons for invading Ukraine (or supporting the separatists) was rooted in the need or want for their territory (beyond the control of Sevastopol). At the top of the list was preventing Ukraine from being a NATO member, which they seemingly already has succeeded at. Ukraine cannot join NATO with an ongoing conflict, and no peace agreement will be signed unless neutrality is guaranteed.
All in all, this means the only other option Ukraine has is to push the Russians out of their country by themselves, which obviously leads to Ukraine and/or the entire world being a nuclear wasteland.
Go sing about vanilla snow instead of engaging in politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kaze919 Lol... 10-20% of Russian confirmed destroyed/lost hardware is their A-tier stuff. Y'know... Stuff we knew they had already. Yeah, they've lost ONE prototype. A prototype that was built in Sept. 97. The Russians for sure has prototypes that we, not even American intelligence services, know about, just as Americans have prototypes that we, not even Russian intelligence services know about.
It's pretty obvious that Russians are holding back a lot in the UA war. They're pushing conscripts and reserve equipment in to the battlefield a) cause they don't need to use better gear against UA, and b) they need the best stuff in case we'd attack them.
Stop being so naive.
Secondly, there's a lot of different nations out there producing shit.
And thirdly, this shit doesn't have to be that advanced. Did you evne watch the video? Some of these phenomenom can be a fkin civillian weather balloon. Like the "triangle UFOs" was most likely just a weird, optical phenomenon from looking at UAVs with IR cams. Those could've been Russian, Chinese, Saudi, Ukrainian... even American.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ewok40k Come on, this is extremely over-simplistic. While, yes, there were very few true separatists in Ukraine at any point during the last 10-15 years, at times, there were a considerable amount of "federalists" in parts (mainly Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and somewhat in Odessa and neighboring areas). They wanted more autonomy from the central government, some even calling for a federalisation of Ukraine. These were incorrectly and unfairly painted as "separatists" - both by the few actual separatists within Ukraine, by warmongers and power hungry elites in Russia, and from some Ukrainian nationalist hardliners.
Why the latter group did so is less clear/just speculation. For some/most(?) of these, it was most likely just ignorance. But at least some of these had some sort of agenda, perhaps wanting to push these people out of positions of power or perhaps even entirely out of Ukrainian territory. And for some of the most extreme, either because they just wanted violence/wanted to kill people, or perhaps some people in power wrongfully thinking that a larger conflict/war would benefit them.
In any way, to confidently allege there were NO separatists in a somewhat politically divided country with a population of almost 40 million is nothing but confidently stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1