Ukraine will be able to use Danish and Dutch F-16s to strike into Russia, while Belgium is saying only for use in 1991-border Ukraine.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/Iv4Fu
Ukraine will be able to use Danish and Dutch F-16s to strike into Russia, while Belgium is saying only for use in 1991-border Ukraine.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/Iv4Fu
Retaliation is the opposite of hawkish? Are you listening to yourself?
The only reason there is no war between NATO member states and Russia is NATO itself. If a NATO member gets attacked and NATO does not retaliate, NATO ceases to exist. If there is no NATO, there is no defence for the Baltics, no defence for Moldova, no defence for Poland, and no defence against the stated goal of Russia, the finlandization of the whole of Europe.
A policy of retaliation against warmongers is a policy of promoting peace.
Don’t bother arguing with @hexbear, their history books skip the 30s
Not even just the 30s, they argue the same, and use the same tactics as the far right parties. I’m from a country where that shit was everywhere, the weirdest thing that only sticks out is that they repeat certain words in their arguments that have no clear definition, they won’t define either, and their objective is both to hollow that word out by diluting its meaning, and also weaponize it because you can’t easily argue against something with shifting definition.
Just look at how the US right wing uses “woke” and how these people use for example “escalation”. Russia shoots you, it’s explained away as “realpolitik”, and just how things are, but if you dare shoot back, or if you give money to their victims, or if you call out their genocide, that’s
ESCALATION
If you press them on the double standards, you get some genius answer back like “NATO is inherently escalatory”, with no further explanation on why banding together against an aggressor to preserve everyone’s peace is somehow “escalation” while publicly plotting attacks against all your European neighbours, or for example blowing up military bases as shown here is not done, if it’s done by Russia.
I’m not talking to them, I’m talking to you and people like you, because if this shit is pervasive without being challenged, people stop thinking critically and start mainlining the panels.
If I didn’t believe in the pervasiveness of human stupidity (and the GRU), I’d guess tankies are a right wing psyop from the CIA to discredit leftists by putting shit that fascists say in their mouth.
Operation Gladio (support for Nazis and other far-right groups in Turkey, West Germany, Greece, etc., use of false-flag terrorism and propaganda to rig elections in Italy to prevent the rise of communist countries that would align with the Soviets), Libya (bombing of innocents and destruction of the country, support for racist mercenaries who later brought back the open slave trade), participation in the brutal imperialist bombing of Afghanistan, this is the history of NATO’s “preservation of peace.” NATO is an organization created to maintain Western supremacy, and to act like it’s simply a “defensive alliance” “banding together against an aggressor” is fundamentally dishonest nonsense. Who is not thinking (let alone critically)?
As others in the comments have shown, Angela Merkel already admitted peace agreements were made to stall and arm Ukraine against Russia, so who is “publicly plotting attacks against European neighbors”?
Nah, Marxist-Leninist analysis of the 30’s is deep and paints an accurate picture of what was actually going down at that time based on material reality instead of… you know, vibes that help prop up the idealist liberal’s flawed worldview. But to the contrary, the NATO sycophants’ history books that just straight make shit up throughout the 20th century have an almost complete amnesia regarding many 21st century and especially recent events leading up to the current situation now. That way, they can just assign motivations willy nilly to the current actors involved, no matter how arbitrary or nonsensical so long as, again, it supports their worldview, as Marvel movie-like it may be, and even as untenable as it is in the face of any actual historical context. Kinda sad.
Would love a source for whatever you think this means
The U.S., by far, is the most aggressive country on the planet. You certainly don’t apply this logic to it, and there has not been a single time retaliation against the U.S. has deterred it from future aggression.
Finlandization comes from Dugin, and his book which has so far defined Russian foreign policy objectives. We can argue back and forth whether Putin and his government agrees with those goals, but support for right wing parties across Europe, dividing the US along racist lines, and supporting Brexit speaks to it being true.
The US is not an immediate military threat for Europe. Economic, ideological, maybe, but not military. Russia is. So US bad, yes, but Russia bad too, and Russia is here.
So “Finalndization” (again, whatever you think that means) is not in fact “the stated goal of Russia.” You claim (without sourcing) it’s from a Russian academic and then acknowledge there’s room to speculate how much impact that academic’s work has on the Russian government.
You’re changing the subject. I said:
All I’m saying that sitting here in Rotterdam, if the Ukrainian bro asks if they can bomb the peeps who said they will nuke Rotterdam, I don’t see people here saying no. Nobody here wants to fight anyone, WWII still has some open scars here. But so does MH370.
The US might be a fucktard, but it’s not them threatening us militarily currently. And on changing the subject, why are we talking about the US again?
Who is saying this? Russia sure isn’t. You keep making up threats.
If you actually believe that aggressive, militaristic countries should face retaliation to get them to back down – if you actually hold that as a principle – you would apply it to all such countries, and the #1 example of that is the U.S.
You don’t apply it to the U.S., which shows you don’t actually believe it. You only apply it to countries you’ve already deemed enemies.
You keep saying Russia is your enemy because they’re threatening you, but all you’ve mentioned are invented threats, not anything Russia has actually said or did towards your country.
Two days ago, a Duma member suggested nuking Rotterdam. The same thing happened months ago, and every few months in the past two years.
Russian soldiers also actually shot down an airliner full of Dutch people, and tried covering it up.
I didn’t say that I support US policy, and you keep trying to deflect by pointing to them saying they are worse. And they may be, but they aren’t currently threatening military action against the EU.
Show me a source. Earlier in this conversation you said something was the “stated policy of Russia,” then when you went to find a source it turned out it was not.
Presumably you’re referring to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That was not shot down by Russia, but by Ukranian separatists using a Russian-supplied weapon. I’m not aware of any evidence that anyone intentionally targeted it, either, much less intentionally targeted it because it had Dutch citizens. Non-Russians mistaking an airliner for a military target is not the same as Russia targeting you.
OK, so what military retaliation against the U.S. do you endorse? Do you apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, or not? That’s what I’m getting at – you do not apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, only countries you’ve already decided are Bad Countries. This isn’t deflecting, it’s showing that you are not being honest when you say “aggressive countries should see military retaliation.”