*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[OngBonga]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.

Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.

That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

Also

Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.

And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.

Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.

[OngBonga]

They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA.

Sure they can. I've just read an article that makes it clear people can apply for asylum for the UK from outside of the UK.

If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.

By "send" I mean "transport". No need to be nitpicky.

What if there's a large number of them trying to do it all the time? What if they're setting off in the middle of the night? Should we turn our beaches into an armed camp to stop them, or is it enough that we just stop the ones we can catch?

What do you think we should do? Fuck all? Just leave them to it? Have a nice cup of tea and watch?

Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?

No.

And btw, do you think France just emptied the English channel of any French ships? Or do you think that they patrol it, but if they see a dinghy crossing they wave it through?

The Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. It's not the Atlantic Ocean. They should monitor their coats.

Can they stop everything? No. But they should be doing everything they can to stop as many as possible.

[OngBonga]

I might be just reading it in the wrong context.

[OngBonga]

Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are.

Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.

France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.

[OngBonga]

The whole problem here is the media has convinced people like Ong and a lot of others that it's France's responsibility to deal with our immigration issues.

They are in France! Anyone in France is the responsibility of France.

[Poopadoop]

They are in France! Anyone in France is the responsibility of France.

France is not mistreating them while they're in France afaik. They're being fed and housed.

[OngBonga]

France is not mistreating them while they're in France afaik. They're being fed and housed.

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle

[Poopadoop]

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle

Reductio whatabismo. The topic here is how the UK is behaving towards refugees. If anything, the French treating them badly should make us more willing to help them, not less.

[OngBonga]

France is not mistreating them while they're in France afaik. They're being fed and housed.

Oh, and letting people sail off into the sunset on a boat not fit for the sea because you'd rather they fuck off to another country is mistreating them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think poop ever said anything hinting at that.

At least he understands the law vis-a-vis asylum seekers more than most.

[OngBonga]

I don't think poop ever said anything hinting at that.

Then why are non-British people in France the responsibility of the UK? Because they want to come here? That's my point. You don't just say "I'm a refugee and I want to go to the UK" and that makes that the UK's problem. But that's what poop appears to be suggesting is what should be happening, because he thinks we should be picking these people up from Calais, as though it's our problem and not France's.

They are in France. They are not British. The only thing that makes this relevant to the UK is that they want to come here.

What is poop saying if it's not that?

[Poopadoop]

Then why are non-British people in France the responsibility of the UK? Because they want to come here? That's my point. You don't just say "I'm a refugee and I want to go to the UK" and that makes that the UK's problem. But that's what poop appears to be suggesting is what should be happening, because he thinks we should be picking these people up from Calais, as though it's our problem and not France's.

They are in France. They are not British. The only thing that makes this relevant to the UK is that they want to come here.

What is poop saying if it's not that?

I'm saying helping them get here is a lot better than letting them sit forever in Calais, or riding in a dinghy to get here. Your answer seems to be that France should both a) feed and house them indefinitely; and b) Keep them from trying to get here when it's here that they want to go to.

[OngBonga]

I'm saying helping them get here is a lot better than letting them sit forever in Calais

I agree. Not by ferrying them undocumented though. Rather, by having an immigration office in France to assist them, and those who are approved we do ferry in safely.

Your answer seems to be that France should both a) feed and house them indefinitely; and b) Keep them from trying to get here when it's here that they want to go to.

a) certainly. We just agreed that the UK has a responsibility to feed and house migrants in the UK. That should remain the case as long as they are in the UK and not supporting themselves.

b) partly, France should only stop them putting themselves at serious risk of harm. Of course France need to also enforce normal border controls at ports and tunnel train stations, for their own national security and ours, just like we check who's leaving our country for France.

[Poopadoop]

Of course France need to also enforce normal border controls at ports and tunnel train stations, for their own national security and ours, just like we check who's leaving our country for France.

Pretty sure they're doing this already.

[Poopadoop]

I agree. Not by ferrying them undocumented though. Rather, by having an immigration office in France to assist them, and those who are approved we do ferry in safely.

I guess I'll just keep saying this until it sinks in, or you go find it out for yourself.

They cannot apply for asylum in the UK until they're physically in the UK. You cannot therefore decide on their UK asylum status while they're in another country. So having a UK offiical in Calais checking asylum seekers' documents is pointless (and probably illegal).

[OngBonga]

I guess I'll just keep saying this until it sinks in, or you go find it out for yourself.

They cannot apply for asylum in the UK until they're physically in the UK. You cannot therefore decide on their UK asylum status while they're in another country. So having a UK offiical in Calais checking asylum seekers' documents is pointless (and probably illegal).

I think you're wrong. UK law states that we can refuse asylum if it can be shown they could have applied from another country. Why would UK law say this if it's not possible for asylum to be applied for in another country?

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

I didn't read that to imply that they could have applied for asylum in the UK from elsewhere.
Only that they could have claimed asylum somewhere else that is not the UK.

*shrug*

[OngBonga]

[...]if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

I didn't read that to imply that they could have applied for asylum in the UK from elsewhere.
Only that they could have claimed asylum somewhere else that is not the UK.

*shrug*

I was speed reading, but yeah this is where I lost context.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was speed reading, but yeah this is where I lost context.

[oskar]

Moscow now reporting 500 dead soldiers makes me believe the Ukrainian number of 2000 russians dead was lowballing it.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/PatrykJaki/statu...46080104775680

Just Poland being outraged with the EU. They accuse the EU of funding Putin's war (Euro 600 a day), while sanctioning Poland for not accepting enough "refugees", which of course actually means migrants in "humiliating camps". Meanwhile, Poland of course bears the brunt of the refugee flow from Ukraine, and isn't complaining about it. Yet the EU still sanction them.

[OngBonga]

What a fucking gang. Hard to decide which one is the most corrupt bastard here.

I believe this is, left to right...
Bono, Tony Blair, Putin, Bob Geldof.



Bono is probably the least tedious wanker here, and that really is saying something.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Bono is probably the least tedious wanker here, and that really is saying something.

[OngBonga]

Russian claims of them fighting Nazis is complete bollocks.

Oh wait...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Detachment, Azov Regiment, Azov Battalion (until September 2014), or simply Azov, is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi, formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine. Azov initially formed as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and has since been fighting Russian separatist forces in the Donbas War. On 12November 2014, Azov was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, and since then all members have been official soldiers serving in the National Guard.

I could keep quoting from this article. Better to just read it if you want to know who we're arming and training in Ukraine. Canada apparently have sent $2b, yes that's a b, in aid to these people, though cannot find reliable source.

Yes, lots of countries have problems with right wing extremism, including the UK, but the UK does not incorporate racist paramilitary groups into the army. Ukraine does. This is a matter of documented fact. It's not like they hide it.

There is video evidence, apparently, of Avoz Battalion crucifying Chechen Muslims in 2014. I'm not going to watch it, let alone post such videos.

Ukraine voted for a Jewish president, and right-wing groups perform poorly in elections. Ukrainian citizens are not, for the most part, Nazis. But actual Nazis are involved in their military and in the fight against Russia. We're arming the military, not the citizens. We're arming Nazis.

Russia claim that the bombing of the maternity hospital was due to the fact that Azov Battalion were using it as a base. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, and wouldn't know who to believe anyway.

btw, there's evidence Russia also has problems with Nazis. We're not arming the Russians though.

[OngBonga]

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ukraine has problems with nazi groups that operate in Ukraine near the Russian border.

This is well established.

IDK who you're preaching at with this, right now.


It doesn't give any nation the right to invade.

[OngBonga]

I mean if I were going to attempt to justify the invasion, I'd point out that Ukraine is a relatively new country occupying land that was once owned by Poland and the Soviets. Maybe if Ukraine don't want to give Crimea and Donbas to Russia, they should give back the west to Poland.

Nah, didn't think so.

Borders change throughout history. We're witnessing it happening right now. Donbas is lost, it's de facto Russian now, just like Crimea. Not our business. We can sit here and judge if we want, but we've waged wars of aggression. We sit back and do nothing while Israel expands its borders at Palestine's expense. Are we really well placed to judge Russia? While I despise war like any person with a conscience, I can understand from a geopolitical pov why this is so important to Russia, just like I can understand from a geopolitical pov why the British and American aren't in any hurry to correct the ethnic cleansing of the Chagos Islands. In order for great powers to project their influence, they need to control the highly strategic islands, capes and archipelagos. A great power becomes great by controlling these places.

The reason we're trying to stop Russia is because we want control of these strategic locations. Crimea in NATO hands would be a game changer for Russia, it would be checkmate. They rely on the Black Sea for a great deal of their trade. If we could blockade Russian ships in the Black Sea, they are finished. You can have all the oil you want, but it's useless if you can't ship it to buyers. It's not that we'd do it, but it's incredible leverage. Russia will no longer be able to challenge the West. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but then again maybe it is. Maybe we need a balance of power, rather than a dominant power. I'm not going to pretend I know which is better.

What I'm also not going to pretend is that this is a matter of morality for the West. It's not. It's a matter of geopolitics. And in that context, I can understand why Russia is doing what it's doing.

That's not the same as taking their side. Anyone who wages a war of aggression is a bad guy. We can only hope these psychopaths have enough restraint to not unleash nuclear, biological and chemical hell on the human race. Can't say I'm all that optimistic right now.

idk, what really irks me is the public reaction to media. I know that sounds like a petty thing to be worried about right now, but if we weren't so fucking gullible as a society, we'd have more control. The majority of people are not psychopaths. But those in power are. It should be the non-psychopath majority that run the world. Why is that not the case? Because the psychopaths are smart, and know how to control the masses with divisive politics and propaganda.

Honestly, I haven't got a fucking clue how the world really works. All I know is it's not how the vast majority of people think it works. For example, I'm almost certain that we're advanced enough to get all of our energy needs from renewable sources, but the psychopaths in charge won't let it happen because oil is such a powerful weapon. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it seems likely to me that the kind of people who send kids by the thousands to die in battlefields would rather cling onto their source of income and power than to allow humanity to evolve into something worth cherishing. What we have now isn't, all we really have is hope that one day we'll be a better species than we are now.

I'm not sure we're gonna make it.

That got a bit deep.

[CoccoBill]

I mean if I were going to attempt to justify the invasion, I'd point out that Ukraine is a relatively new country occupying land that was once owned by Poland and the Soviets. Maybe if Ukraine don't want to give Crimea and Donbas to Russia, they should give back the west to Poland.

Both Poland and Ukraine geographically have been contested so many time over the centuries that I'd say it's pretty hard for anyone to call dibs. Slavs have inhabited Poland periodically since 450BC and Ukraine since 600somethingBC. Go back enough, and no country can claim any piece of land their "own", it's always just what current consensus says. Russia has/had no legitimate claim on Crimea or Donbas.

We can sit here and judge if we want, but we've waged wars of aggression. We sit back and do nothing while Israel expands its borders at Palestine's expense. Are we really well placed to judge Russia?

Hm has Canada? I don't recall. Anyhoo, I for one strongly condemn (and have done so for decades) what the Israeli are doing. Stop the whataboutism.

While I despise war like any person with a conscience, I can understand from a geopolitical pov why this is so important to Russia

Oh for sure, Ukraine is strategically, politically ands economically almost a necessity to win. If they start leaning more west and get more prosperous, that's a really bad look for Kremlin (anyone else find it funny how close that sounds to Gremlins?), and Ukraine has massive amounts of minerals, they're the 2nd largest producer of wheat in the world, they used to have all of the major ports in the black sea etc. Plenty of reasons. A NATO threat on Russia's western border probably didn't make top10 even in the most paranoid of Russian minds.

The reason we're trying to stop Russia is because we want control of these strategic locations. Crimea in NATO hands would be a game changer for Russia, it would be checkmate. They rely on the Black Sea for a great deal of their trade. If we could blockade Russian ships in the Black Sea, they are finished. You can have all the oil you want, but it's useless if you can't ship it to buyers. It's not that we'd do it, but it's incredible leverage. Russia will no longer be able to challenge the West. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but then again maybe it is. Maybe we need a balance of power, rather than a dominant power. I'm not going to pretend I know which is better.

What moves exactly have you seen NATO make to achieve these goals?

What I'm also not going to pretend is that this is a matter of morality for the West. It's not. It's a matter of geopolitics. And in that context, I can understand why Russia is doing what it's doing.

IF at the moment Russia invaded, Zelensky had fled, the Ukraine army and people had surrendered and greeted them as liberators, yeah, I could understand it. He gambled stacks and lost. Then again, now after two weeks of bombing civilians, hospitals and maternity clinics, threatening the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, and northkoreaing Russia, my understanding is at a significantly lower level.

Anyone who wages a war of aggression is a bad guy. We can only hope these psychopaths have enough restraint to not unleash nuclear, biological and chemical hell on the human race. Can't say I'm all that optimistic right now.

Yup, agreed.

idk, what really irks me is the public reaction to media. I know that sounds like a petty thing to be worried about right now, but if we weren't so fucking gullible as a society, we'd have more control. The majority of people are not psychopaths. But those in power are. It should be the non-psychopath majority that run the world. Why is that not the case? Because the psychopaths are smart, and know how to control the masses with divisive politics and propaganda.

I try to remain a little less cynical, though it isn't easy. I know for a fact that many if not most people getting into politics mean well. A lot of them actually do care, and aren't or at least don't start off ass complete dicks. However, politics is messy, and power corrupts. Some people get sick of it and drop out, others succumb to it or get drunk on the power they're entrusted with. Politicians aren't a different breed, they're just people. There are things we could do to weed out some of the most outrageous shit and incentivize good behavior, but change isn't easy.

Honestly, I haven't got a fucking clue how the world really works. All I know is it's not how the vast majority of people think it works. For example, I'm almost certain that we're advanced enough to get all of our energy needs from renewable sources, but the psychopaths in charge won't let it happen because oil is such a powerful weapon. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it seems likely to me that the kind of people who send kids by the thousands to die in battlefields would rather cling onto their source of income and power than to allow humanity to evolve into something worth cherishing. What we have now isn't, all we really have is hope that one day we'll be a better species than we are now.

People on average are very risk and change averse. Just remember the amount of people that used to say how internet/smart phones/every new technological advancement is stupid and useless, until they can't live without it. Changing things on a societal level is hard, and typically takes a generational change. My grandparents, like most of their generation were totally fucked up by the wars, and I'm maybe the first generation that is starting to get over the trauma. Ukraine and Russia both will be fucked for at least a couple generations due to what's going on. It breaks my heart. I don't know if it's the great filter, but our inability to cooperate and have empathy sure seems like one.

I'm not sure we're gonna make it.

Sad to say but my thoughts exactly, or even if we should.

[OngBonga]

Ukraine has problems with nazi groups that operate in Ukraine near the Russian border.

This isn't a social problem, it's a military problem. And we're arming their military. Doesn't that concern you?

We armed Al Qaeda and ISIS. How did that work out?

It doesn't give any nation the right to invade.

I'm not attempting to justify the invasion. I'm expressing deep concern about who we're supporting.

[Poopadoop]

During WWII, the West sent thousands of tons of supplies to the USSR. Without these the Nazis probably would have conquered them. We could have just let the USSR fall, but then we would have been faced with an even harder task in defeating Hitler, if it would have even been possible all. Ultimately, the West decided that given a choice between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, the latter was the lesser of two evils.

If the choice now is between supporting Ukraine, even though they have some Neo-Nazis in their army, versus letting Putin's Russia overrun them, I'll take the former, and it's not even close.

[Poopadoop]

EU Eurolibtards fast-tracking Ukraine's application to join.

https://twitter.com/GitanasNauseda/s...03582337871874

Remember when Brexit was going to lead to a domino effect of countries leaving the EU? It's been six years, that never happened, and now the EU is looking to grow even more.

[OngBonga]

Without these the Nazis probably would have conquered them.

I'm really not sure about this. Russia is nearly impossible to conquer, certainly by land invasion. They just set fire to their own cites and retreat into the countryside, leaving the enemy in the bitter winter with no supplies. I'm sure we helped, but I doubt very much it won the war. This is obviously a matter of debate though, we can never know.

If the choice now is between supporting Ukraine, even though they have some Neo-Nazis in their army, versus letting Putin's Russia overrun them, I'll take the former, and it's not even close.

If we're going to help Nazis win a war by arming them, then we've got no right to sit here and use that word as a negative. And can they even win the war, even with our help? The best I think we can do is help to create a stalemate by keeping them armed. Ukraine are not going to reclaim Crimea, the best they can hope for is a Russian retreat from Ukrainian-controlled regions. That's not a win, it's basically a draw. A win would be for Ukraine to reclaim all of its territory. I don't see that happening unless NATO get involved, which they seem to be very keen to avoid.

So what are we even doing? Just negotiate. Let Russia claim the Russian-speaking provinces in the east. Give them the assurances they need with regards Ukrainian geopolitical neutrality. That probably ends the war right there.

Instead, we're allowing a dispute between Russia and Ukraine destroy the global economy. Is it really worth it? When the morality of the whole issue is questionable from both sides, I'm not sure it is worth it.

[Poopadoop]

I'm really not sure about this. Russia is nearly impossible to conquer, certainly by land invasion. They just set fire to their own cites and retreat into the countryside, leaving the enemy in the bitter winter with no supplies. I'm sure we helped, but I doubt very much it won the war. This is obviously a matter of debate though, we can never know.

Don't think you appreciate how close WWII was. Germany had a very very good army. Don't believe the war movies where one US or UK soldier kills dozens of Nazis without even breaking a sweat. In any fight where the numbers were even, they could beat anyone.

Germany had the USSR on the ropes for two years. Without our aid, if they weren't conquered, they certainly would have been emasculated and powerless to do anything to Germany. Germany could have ended up with a big slice of the USSR, a trade deal guaranteeing them oil supplies, sent all their armies West and we'd have never set foot in mainland Europe after that.

If we're going to help Nazis win a war by arming them,

As you know, we're not only sending arms to the minority of Nazi regiments in the Ukrainian armed forces, we're sending it to the whole country's armed forces, most of whom aren't Nazis.

So what are we even doing? Just negotiate. Let Russia claim the Russian-speaking provinces in the east. Give them the assurances they need with regards Ukrainian geopolitical neutrality. That probably ends the war right there.

Whoa whoa whoa Mujombo. Let Russia gain territory in an aggressive war? You think that's going to encourage Putin to keep the peace? He's just going to see we caved, wait a couple of years, come up with another excuse, and go back and take another chunk out of Ukraine, or maybe the rest of it. Then you'll come on and say we should give him what he wants again so we can have peace. Rinse and repeat.

Instead, we're allowing a dispute between Russia and Ukraine destroy the global economy. Is it really worth it? When the morality of the whole issue is questionable from both sides, I'm not sure it is worth it.

It's not destroying the global economy.

The morality of the issue isn't questioned by anyone but you afaik.

[Poopadoop]

Putin and Lukashenko meet Zelensky on the subway.

Edit: stupid youtube won't share video link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

[OngBonga]

About the economy... if this continues, it's not just oil and gas that's a global problem. Wheat and potash are an even bigger problem. The longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see famine. Maybe not here in the UK or USA, but in third world countries not allied to Russia.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And yeah. This hit to the global economy is not localized to Russia. We're all taking shots to the left foot in effort to put all our shots together on Russia's right foot. Or something. Get it?

We were making loads of money trading with Russia. They were making loads trading with us. Now no one's making nuffink.
Except China, of course.

China stands to sit pleasantly in the middle of all this and mediate all trade through Russia, getting it's processing fees to boot, I imagine.


My Chinese friend is infuriatingly a bit gloaty about it. She's all, "I mean, hey, it's good for China, so I don't care."
and I'm all, "You know you're a monster, right? Like... the world of suffering caused around this and you're just chill 'cause you'll make a buck?"
And she's, "Haha yeah. Sucks to be you. I bet I can help you get Chinese citizenship if you want."

[CoccoBill]

My Chinese friend is infuriatingly a bit gloaty about it. She's all, "I mean, hey, it's good for China, so I don't care."
and I'm all, "You know you're a monster, right? Like... the world of suffering caused around this and you're just chill 'cause you'll make a buck?"
And she's, "Haha yeah. Sucks to be you. I bet I can help you get Chinese citizenship if you want."

Genuinely human, genuinely relatable and genuinely sad.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No one should be comfortable with the idea of arming Nazis.

Your proposed alternative to just ignore this and let Ukraine or parts of Ukraine fall to a terrible tyrant who rules with lies and oppression is just untenable. Not simply to me, but to the vast majority of countries.

If you have any other ideas, keep them coming.

[OngBonga]

Don't think you appreciate how close WWII was. Germany had a very very good army.

I don't think you appreciate how vast Russia is, and how hardy their people are. Sure Germany had a very good army, but no army in the world is defeating Russia by invading. Not then, not now. It would require non-conventional warfare to defeat them. Like Japan in WWII, only Russia are ten times the military power Japan were.

There's a reason we chose to nuke Japan instead of invade. That too is an impossible country to invade, it's just too mountainous.

Geography matters more than the size and skill of an army.

As you know, we're not only sending arms to the minority of Nazi regiments in the Ukrainian armed forces, we're sending it to the whole country's armed forces, most of whom aren't Nazis.

Oh there's only a few of them, that's ok then.

No it's not ok. This "minority" are responsible for crucifictions of Muslims. And we don't even know how much of a "minority" we're talking about. I've shown one battalion, you think that's the extent of the problem? I don't.

Whoa whoa whoa Mujombo. Let Russia gain territory in an aggressive war?

Why not? We let Israel get away with it. We wage aggressive wars ourselves in the name of geopolitics. What right have we got to tell Russia they can't do it? This isn't our fight. If we're going to stop Russia, then we should stop everyone who tries to gain territory. It doesn't seem logical to pick and choose who we allow to expand. Unless, of course, we have our own geopolitical interests, which is of course precisely why we oppose Russia but not Israel.

He's just going to see we caved, wait a couple of years, come up with another excuse, and go back and take another chunk out of Ukraine, or maybe the rest of it.

I think Putin is finding out right now that taking Ukraine will not happen. The eastern regions might want Russian influence, but the west doesn't. They won't accept it. It will require constant troops on the ground, and it will be a long war. Nobody wants that, not Ukraine, not Russia, nobody.

It's not destroying the global economy.

I guess you haven't been to the petrol pumps in a few days.

The morality of the issue isn't questioned by anyone but you afaik.

I'm not the only person who has a moral problem arming Nazis. And I'm not the only person who has a moral problem with the West's hypocrisy.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think you appreciate how vast Russia is, and how hardy their people are. Sure Germany had a very good army, but no army in the world is defeating Russia by invading.

I mean I don't really want to get in a debate with a guy who doesn't know who fought on which side when in most wars, but yeah I do appreciate how vast Russia is. I also know about 70% of it is tundra and frozen forests. You don't win a war by holding onto tundra.

Germany came close to taking the USSR's three biggest cities in WWII. They seiged Leningrad for three years, they got to the outskirts of Moscow, they occupied 90% of Stalingrand. We were basically throwing them life preservers of supplies the whole time. They wouldn't have made it without our help, guaranteed.

In b4 you complain that we were hypocrites because the USSR army committed war crimes.

Not then, not now. It would require non-conventional warfare to defeat them. Like Japan in WWII, only Russia are ten times the military power Japan were.

Japan was the second greatest naval power in WWII after the USA, Russia was the second greatest land power after Germany. So they had different strengths, but they were both great powers then.

There's a reason we chose to nuke Japan instead of invade. That too is an impossible country to invade, it's just too mountainous.

Geography matters more than the size and skill of an army.

[Insert list of mountainous countries Germany rolled over in days in WWII.]

Yes, geography matters. But you eventually have to fight the other side to win. You can hope they forget to pack their winter boots but that isn't usually a good strategy.

Oh there's only a few of them, that's ok then.

No it's not ok. This "minority" are responsible for crucifictions of Muslims. And we don't even know how much of a "minority" we're talking about. I've shown one battalion, you think that's the extent of the problem? I don't.

What is a "crucifiction," is that like pretending to crucify someone, or is it a fake news story about crucifixion?

No-one is saying let's promote Nazism in Ukraine. There's some bad guys in their army. There's some bad guys in every army. What kind of teddy bears do you think volunteer to go to war?

Unless, of course, we have our own geopolitical interests, which is of course precisely why we oppose Russia but not Israel.

But you're saying we shouldn't try to defend those interests "because nazis."

I think Putin is finding out right now that taking Ukraine will not happen. The eastern regions might want Russian influence, but the west doesn't. They won't accept it. It will require constant troops on the ground, and it will be a long war. Nobody wants that, not Ukraine, not Russia, nobody.

I'd be surprised if he ever thought it was going to be easy. It seems more like he's throwing an escalating hissy fit than managing a well-planned out campaign. I didn't even think he would invade because he only had a fraction of his army on their border. He did anyways. It hasn't gone well, and either he should have known that but is crazy, or he did know that and doesn't care.

Even generals in other countries are scratching their heads. The first thing he should have done if he wanted to blitzkreig Ukraine is establish air supremacy. That makes the land war so much easier. He had the planes to do it. Instead he barely committed enough to contest the U air force.

I guess you haven't been to the petrol pumps in a few days.

I have. The amount i spend on gas has gone from £60 to £70 a fill. I may have to sell my house.

I'm not the only person who has a moral problem arming Nazis. And I'm not the only person who has a moral problem with the West's hypocrisy.

You're the only person I know who sees a moral equivalence between an invading army and one that has some assholes in it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Whoa there.
To the extent you're objectively comparing and contrasting the US's history in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. to gain perspective, that's great.

If you're getting to the point of drawing direct parallels, then you're no longer objective.

Don't forget to contrast as well as compare.
Try not to ignore the differences just because everyone else is ignoring the similarities.




This (biased, obv) video makes a pretty good point that does acknowledge a lot of what you're saying ong.
It also puts some of that into a better perspective.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even generals in other countries are scratching their heads. The first thing he should have done if he wanted to blitzkreig Ukraine is establish air supremacy. That makes the land war so much easier. He had the planes to do it. Instead he barely committed enough to contest the U air force.

Not had, but has.

It's been 2 weeks and he still hasn't done it.

WTF is that?

[OngBonga]

Try not to ignore the differences just because everyone else is ignoring the similarities.

This is a really good comment, and something I'll try to take on board.

Your proposed alternative to just ignore this and let Ukraine or parts of Ukraine fall to a terrible tyrant who rules with lies and oppression is just untenable. Not simply to me, but to the vast majority of countries.

The things is, my proposal is to let him have Donbas and Crimea. The people of these regions are culturally Russian, not Ukrainian. It's not like I'm suggesting we let him take regions where only outright oppression will keep them in tow. Russia most certainly should not be allowed to take Kyiv, not as long term territory at least. Ok in war cities get captured, but that's to force capitulation, if Russia take Kyiv it should definitely be returned upon their surrender.

I realise that the people of Crimea haven't always been pro-Russian, but that doesn't change the fact that right now, they are people and Crimea is their home. It's impossible to do right in these situations. I mean, should we give the Falklands to Argentina? Of course not, the people there don't want that to happen. Why should we ignore them and cave into the political demands of people who don't live there? That doesn't change the fact that the Falklands is a colony and perhaps we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But it's now, not then.

[Poopadoop]

Not had, but has.

It's been 2 weeks and he still hasn't done it.

WTF is that?

Maybe he knew the price of gas was going up and wanted to save money.

[OngBonga]

Both Poland and Ukraine geographically have been contested so many time over the centuries that I'd say it's pretty hard for anyone to call dibs. Slavs have inhabited Poland periodically since 450BC and Ukraine since 600somethingBC. Go back enough, and no country can claim any piece of land their "own", it's always just what current consensus says. Russia has/had no legitimate claim on Crimea or Donbas.

I agree with all this except the last sentence. Russia totally have a legitimate claim on these regions. The people want it. We can argue about where these people should have self determination or not, but I firmly believe they should. They are culturally different to the people they share a country with. They want to be part of a country they are culturally closer to. Who are we to say they can't have that? Ukraine was never going to let them have a referendum, and in the case of Crimea, where Russia basically took it without going to war, I can get behind that. Granted, it started a war in the east, perhaps Russia should just have occupied these regions at the same time in the hope it prevents a future war.

Hm has Canada? I don't recall. Anyhoo, I for one strongly condemn (and have done so for decades) what the Israeli are doing. Stop the whataboutism.

I mean people seem to say "whataboutism" in an attempt to not discuss the awkward truths. How we behave on the world stage has relevance. And how we morally respond to world events should be related to our own behaviour. We can't ignore the Iraq and Syria situations. They are relevant. Especially Syria, since it was Putin who basically came along and stopped us doing the same to Syria what we did to Iraq and Libya... get their leaders killed.

I read somewhere that when Putin saw footage of Gadaffi being assraped by a gun after the French captured him, he was actually shocked. Imagine shocking a man like Putin, a former KGB mafia thug. This was Western regime change in action. And the West dare to take moral high ground in geopolitical affairs.

And now we're arming crucifiers in an attempt to stop him from claiming land occupied by Russian speaking people.

This is why I can't take sides when it comes to Russia vs the West. We're both as bad as each other. We just go about things differently. Both sides are ruled by psychopaths. And frankly I feel like Putin is the more intelligent out of the world leaders of great powers. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

What moves exactly have you seen NATO make to achieve these goals?

Watch that video mojo linked above. NATO have acted in bad faith when it comes to Russia.

Politicians aren't a different breed, they're just people.

Maybe in Finland those in power are just normal people who want to live in a world of happiness and peace. Stay out of NATO for your own sanity, because the company you'll be keeping is psychopaths.

[OngBonga]

I mean I don't really want to get in a debate with a guy who doesn't know who fought on which side when in most wars...

I mean I don't even know what you're getting at here, but you're right, I'm not a historian.

I also know about 70% of it is tundra and frozen forests. You don't win a war by holding onto tundra.

This is exactly how to win a war if it's the only option you have left. And if there's any people on the planet more capable of living in frozen forests and tundra, it's the Russians. It's pretty much how they won the 1812 war with France. The Russians will outlast any occupiers in such conditions. And they'll nuke their own cities if they have to.

If the Russians retreat to the tundra, they'll survive, bank it.

Germany came close to taking the USSR's three biggest cities in WWII. They seiged Leningrad for three years, they got to the outskirts of Moscow, they occupied 90% of Stalingrand.

You're not going to win a war against Russia taking their cities. All you can do is get bogged down into an occupation that is slowly going to kill your men. Eventually you have to retreat, and the Russians emerge from the frozen forest. This is what having such a large and inhospitable country can do for you. This is why Russia will never be defeated. They can only be subdued for a period of time.

Japan was the second greatest naval power in WWII after the USA,

Nonsense. At the start of the war, the Royal Navy was the greatest naval power in the world. By the end of the war, it was the Americans. The Japanese were always a distant third. This is a matter of fact, based on the size of the navies in question In terms of merchant tonnage, our navy was five times bigger than Japan's. Five.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...f_World_War_II

[Insert list of mountainous countries Germany rolled over in days in WWII.]

Like Switzerland, right?

Every country has mountains, even we have them. The difference with countries like France and Japan is that France's mountains aren't quite as strategic. Japan's mountains cover, I believe, 70% on the land area. Maybe that's just Honshu, not sure. Oh, and they're also an island, unlike mainland Europe.

Hitler didn't take the one large country in Europe that is so well protected by mountains that it's practically impossible to occupy. He didn't need to of course, they were neutral, but he took neutral Belgium because he needed it to get to France.

And that's because the mountains of France did protect them from invasion from the south. The way to invade France is through Belgium, the flatlands.

Mountains are important.

What is a "crucifiction"

Thanks for the spelling correction.

But you're saying we shouldn't try to defend those interests "because nazis."

Well actually I'm saying let's not pretend we have moral high ground. We're playing the same game they are.

I didn't even think he would invade because he only had a fraction of his army on their border. He did anyways. It hasn't gone well, and either he should have known that but is crazy, or he did know that and doesn't care.

I agree with you here. I was surprised he attempted an invasion with the troops he had, and it certainly doesn't look to me like it's going to plan. Not sure why. My best guess is the Russian fighters aren't as motivated as the Ukrainians. Or maybe they're just ballsing it right up. I read somewhere, citation needed, that the Russians blew up a 5G tower, which killed their own communications. But I've also read opinions that think Putin is deliberately holding back because he hoped to win it with minimal bloodshed. Who knows why Russia are failing. I'm sure they're capable of much more.

I have. The amount i spend on gas has gone from £60 to £70 a fill. I may have to sell my house.

Next time it'll probably be £80.

This time next year it could be £250.

How long is this going to go on for? And even when it ends, how long do the Russian sanctions go on for? The longer it goes on, the worse it is for everyone.

You're the only person I know who sees a moral equivalence between an invading army and one that has some assholes in it.

I'm of the opinion that arming and training revolutionists in foreign countries is morally comparable to invading that country, especially when those revolutionists are jihadists and Nazis.

[Poopadoop]

This is exactly how to win a war if it's the only option you have left. And if there's any people on the planet more capable of living in frozen forests and tundra, it's the Russians. It's pretty much how they won the 1812 war with France. The Russians will outlast any occupiers in such conditions. And they'll nuke their own cities if they have to.

If the Russians retreat to the tundra, they'll survive, bank it.

You're not going to win a war against Russia taking their cities. All you can do is get bogged down into an occupation that is slowly going to kill your men. Eventually you have to retreat, and the Russians emerge from the frozen forest. This is what having such a large and inhospitable country can do for you. This is why Russia will never be defeated. They can only be subdued for a period of time.

Ok thanks for that expert analysis.

Nonsense. At the start of the war, the Royal Navy was the greatest naval power in the world. By the end of the war, it was the Americans. The Japanese were always a distant third. This is a matter of fact, based on the size of the navies in question In terms of merchant tonnage, our navy was five times bigger than Japan's. Five.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...f_World_War_II

Battleships, cruisers and destroyers were basically useless by WWII. A merchant marine isn't part of your battle fleet, so if we're talking about naval power, they're irrelevant.

Aircraft carriers ruled the waves. Japan had more and better aircraft carriers than the UK in WWII, until the US Navy sunk them all.

Like Switzerland, right?

Picks a name of a country that didn't fight in WWII. Well played sir.

Like Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway.

Well actually I'm saying let's not pretend we have moral high ground. We're playing the same game they are.

No, you've been saying you have a problem with helping Ukraine because some people in their army are bad people. Not the same as what you say here.

Next time it'll probably be £80.

This time next year it could be £250.

How long is this going to go on for? And even when it ends, how long do the Russian sanctions go on for? The longer it goes on, the worse it is for everyone.

So when we impose economic sanctions on ourselves you're not worried about it, but when we impose them on Russia you think it's going to ruin our economy?

I'm of the opinion that arming and training revolutionists in foreign countries is morally comparable to invading that country, especially when those revolutionists are jihadists and Nazis.

So you ARE saying you have a problem with helping Ukraine. I thought that's what I read before.

[Keith]

Like Switzerland, right?

Every country has mountains, even we have them. The difference with countries like France and Japan is that France's mountains aren't quite as strategic. Japan's mountains cover, I believe, 70% on the land area. Maybe that's just Honshu, not sure. Oh, and they're also an island, unlike mainland Europe.

Hitler didn't take the one large country in Europe that is so well protected by mountains that it's practically impossible to occupy. He didn't need to of course, they were neutral, but he took neutral Belgium because he needed it to get to France.

And that's because the mountains of France did protect them from invasion from the south. The way to invade France is through Belgium, the flatlands.

Mountains are important.

Thats not strictly true , HItler didnt invade france through Belgium because it was flat and mountains were protecting the french german border. After WW1 france protected that border with with the Maginot line which was a fortified construction.Hitler simply drove round it through Belgium rather than assaulting fortifications and losing men and equipment.

[OngBonga]

I mean there's so much bad faith argument there from poop I'm not even sure I have the energy to respond to that.

[OngBonga]

^ fair enough, though the point remains that Hitler couldn't invade France via Switzerland due to the terrain. And the invasion of Belgium demonstrated that neutrality was not an issue for Hitler when it came to invading countries. Taking Switzerland was too difficult and served no strategic purpose.

[Poopadoop]

Germany actually went through the most difficult terrain in Belgium, the Ardennes. Plan A was to do a Schleiffen plan mach 2 and go thru the plains, but a pilot crashed in Belgium with the plans on him, was captured, and so they had to scrap that and come up with a Plan B.

Plan B was to send most of their tanks thru the Ardennes, which the Allies' commander (Ong's distant relative, apparently) thought was too rough of country for tanks and so didn't properly defend it. Once through the Ardennes, they punched thru the Frenchies' lines at Sedan, then headed for the coast and rolled up the Allied front. After that, Dunkirk, and after that, the Frenchies said "sacre bleu!" and decided they had no chance and gave up. They didn't head for the Alps and say "haha you German types, you cannot get us here!"

It's a silly argument anyways because obviously it's harder to attack by fighting up and down mountains than just cruising thru plains. But being a mountainous country doesn't make it impregnable. The US had plans drawn up for invading mainland Japan. But they anticipated 100k Allied casualties, so they said fuck that, let's just nuke 'em. And in Europe, Germany rolled through Norway, Yugoslavia, and Greece pretty easily, despite them all being mountainous.

[Poopadoop]

Apparently 21% of people think a no fly zone means something like no more holidays allowed in Ukraine for the duration of the war.

[Poopadoop]

[Poopadoop]

Goddamn sauna-sitting Eurolibfinntard! How dare he point out how useless Boris is!

https://twitter.com/MatthewStadlen/s...74241119936518

[OngBonga]

I'd love to see the original text for that. What is Finnish for "la la land"?

This is ridiculous. Boris says he stands up to Russia, some ex-Finland says "but Brexit". I imagine these people have a huge board meeting once a month where they discuss world events and how they will respond. There's a war in Ukraine? Let's talk about Brexit.

You should attend one of these meetings poop, seems like your kind of thing.

[Poopadoop]

Boris says he stands up to Russia, some ex-Finland says "but Brexit".

To be fair, he was much milder in his language about Boris comparing voting for Brexit to the war in Ukraine than his counterpart ex-Ukraine.

[CoccoBill]

I'd love to see the original text for that. What is Finnish for "la la land"?

This is ridiculous. Boris says he stands up to Russia, some ex-Finland says "but Brexit". I imagine these people have a huge board meeting once a month where they discuss world events and how they will respond. There's a war in Ukraine? Let's talk about Brexit.

You should attend one of these meetings poop, seems like your kind of thing.

https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status...33283333033988

Obviously if people think BJ is a buffoon, it must be a global conspiracy.

[Poopadoop]

Boris compared the people who voted for Brexit to those people fighting for their lives in the war in Ukraine. I think it's pretty hard to go too far in ridiculing the person who comes out with such a thing. It's definitely a la la land kind of statement.

[OngBonga]

I hope to see you soon in la la land.

Probably NSFW if your superiors look down on the glorification of drugs.

[Poopadoop]

Goddamn cheese-eating EU surrender monkey Macron not shaking Boris' hand!

https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1506945401366192128

[OngBonga]

Oh, Boris is a buffoon, not disputing that, but frankly I expect better from the Nordic countries than to bring Brexit politics into the Ukraine crisis. I thought the Finns were more diplomatic and rational than that. At least it's a former PM, so probably just someone clinging onto relevance, like Blair.

[Poopadoop]

Not that we need more evidence that he's a posh twat clown walking shitshow of a PM, but here he is in parliament yesterday making faces at the opposition.

[Poopadoop]

Putin railing against cancel culture. Wait till he hears about woke people.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1507333553448800309

[CoccoBill]

My prediction is that both Finland and Sweden are NATO members by end of july. Either both or neither, we're cooperating in this.

Re: Russia feeling threatened about NATO spreading towards east and threatening them. WTF that's laughable, as if anyone thinks NATO would attack Russia unprovoked. What the westernization of former Soviet states means is that it undermines Russia's authority and values, and hinders their plans of expansion.

I seriously see no easy way out of this kerfuffle. If Russia gets anything resembling a victory out of this war, they'll continue to pursue their interests with Poland, Georgia, the Baltics, Finland etc. Funny how suddenly a global pandemic seems like a non-issue.

[Poopadoop]

Even if Russia does feel threatened by NATO, as long as being in NATO is the only thing keeping Russia from attacking a neighboring country, it's just going to keep getting new members. They (i.e. Putin) are basically shooting themselves in the foot with all these pre-emptive strikes on potential NATO members.

In other news, seems the war hasn't been going too well for ol' Rootin' Tootin' Putin. Reports of his generals lying to him about their failures to keep from getting Stalin-ed. Troops refusing to attack. Doesn't seem like a winning formula.

[OngBonga]

WTF that's laughable, as if anyone thinks NATO would attack Russia unprovoked.

This utterly misses the point. Geopolitics is not just about the threat of invasion or attack from another country.

If NATO were to build up a military presence in Ukraine, Russia will feel they have no choice but to have their own military build up ion the area to remain on equal footing. Failing to do so would lose influence in the region. Russia don't fear an invasion or attack from NATO, what they fear is the diminished control of the Black Sea, and the economic consequences of having to increase their military presence on the Western front of their country, which is geographically their weakest front.

Russia do not want to be a sitting duck. That would mean less leverage in geopolitical affairs. That's what matters to Russia.

If Russia gets anything resembling a victory out of this war, they'll continue to pursue their interests with Poland, Georgia, the Baltics, Finland etc.

I think this is just paranoia. It's understandable in the current climate, but Russia are not going to invade the Baltic states or Poland because that means going to war with NATIO. Invading Finland would also seriously risk world war, and in the best case scenario means a war with Finland that neither side will win, with the ultimate result of Finland definitely joining NATO to ensure it doesn't happen again. Russia invading Finland would be the dumbest thing they could do, short of invading a NATO country.

[CoccoBill]

This utterly misses the point. Geopolitics is not just about the threat of invasion or attack from another country.

If NATO were to build up a military presence in Ukraine, Russia will feel they have no choice but to have their own military build up ion the area to remain on equal footing. Failing to do so would lose influence in the region. Russia don't fear an invasion or attack from NATO, what they fear is the diminished control of the Black Sea, and the economic consequences of having to increase their military presence on the Western front of their country, which is geographically their weakest front.

Russia do not want to be a sitting duck. That would mean less leverage in geopolitical affairs. That's what matters to Russia.

"This utterly misses the point" and proceeds to argue for my point. Yes, Russia is worried that they'll lose influence and authority over their neighbors, and even their own population who might star asking questions if their western neighbors are prospering more than them. Them reacting the way they do is why NATO is needed in the first place, and why Russia's neighbors are so keen to join it. There's two sides to this, a bully, and those opposing that bully. I just find it odd the lengths some people go to show empathy towards the bully.

I think this is just paranoia. It's understandable in the current climate, but Russia are not going to invade the Baltic states or Poland because that means going to war with NATIO. Invading Finland would also seriously risk world war, and in the best case scenario means a war with Finland that neither side will win, with the ultimate result of Finland definitely joining NATO to ensure it doesn't happen again. Russia invading Finland would be the dumbest thing they could do, short of invading a NATO country.

I don't think the risk is an open full scale assault, it's sudden appearance of little green men in some areas, rumors of nazism, human rights abuses against russian nationals in foreign countries, small territorial disputes that lead to new funsized "independent" states a la Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Transnistria, South-Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. That's how Russia has operated for decades, taking small enough bites at a time for anyone to be outraged enough to act. What makes you think they'd now suddenly just stop what they've been doing since medieval times?

[OngBonga]

There's two sides to this, a bully, and those opposing that bully. I just find it odd the lengths some people go to show empathy towards the bully.

It's not this simple. Yes Russia are a bully. So too is NATO. This is all about influence and authority to NATO, too. They're not so different. They just go about their expansion in different ways.

What makes you think they'd now suddenly just stop what they've been doing since medieval times?

NATO

[CoccoBill]

It's not this simple. Yes Russia are a bully. So too is NATO. This is all about influence and authority to NATO, too. They're not so different. They just go about their expansion in different ways.

They are fundamentally different. One's interest is to be a bully, the other's interest is to stop bullies. If you're just looking at the interplay between those 2, yeah they seem similar I'm sure. If you look at them vs anyone else, the difference couldn't be greater.

NATO

Hasn't stopped them before, isn't stopping them now.

[OngBonga]

One's interest is to be a bully, the other's interest is to stop bullies.

I disagree, I think this is naivety. But maybe it's just me being cynical. They are both bullies who go about their bullying differently. You have to understand that when I talk about NATO, I talk about what I consider to be the USA plus its satellite states. USA is a global bully. Ergo, NATO is a bully.

All great powers are bullies. That's how they become great powers in the first place.

Hasn't stopped them before, isn't stopping them now.

Sorry, what did I miss? When did Russia attack a NATO country? NATO is definitely stopping Russia from invading Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. That's not stopping them attacking Finland, but there are other geopolitical issues at play here, not least Russia's desire to not see Finland (and by extension Sweden) join NATO. If Russia attack Finland, then that will certainly result in Finland joining NATO.

Finland have significant leverage against Russia. St Petersburg is a Russian port that is right next to Helsinki, and indeed Tallinn, a NATO member capital. Between Finland and Estonia (NATO), Russia's access to the Baltic Sea can easily be severely limited if not stopped altogether. Throw in Turkey being able to blockade Russia's access to the Med and from there the Atlantic, and we have enough to deter Russia from seriously provoking NATO. Attacking Finland should be seen as a red line that NATO cannot ignore.

I am certain that Russia won't attack NATO, and very confident they won't attack Finland. It would be suicide.

[CoccoBill]

Sorry, what did I miss?

The part where I explained probably no one expects Russia to just openly invade a NATO member, but I definitely wouldn't rule out "peacekeeping" missions, escalated cyber attacks etc. A hostile nation has more than military conflicts under their belt to pull dick moves. And none of that is gonna change. Putin's approval numbers are rising even by outside estimations.

https://www.ft.com/content/afce4687-...4-3c8940eaa19a

[OngBonga]

...but I definitely wouldn't rule out "peacekeeping" missions, escalated cyber attacks etc.

Fair enough, I wouldn't rule this out either. But let's not pretend this is exclusive to the enemy. We do "peacekeeping" missions. That's another way of saying we enforce our interests on rogue countries. I'm not saying that makes it ok for Russia to do what they like, this isn't excusing their behaviour. This is refuting your idea that Russia are the bullies and NATO/USA are the bully-stoppers. That's naive, in my opinion. All world superpowers are bullies, now and throughout history. Given USA are the current great superpower in the world, I'd say that makes them the biggest bully of them all.

Do I want another country to replace USA as the world's great bully? I'm not so sure about that. I'm not sat here hoping for the collapse of USA as a superpower. They are the UK's most important ally when it comes to geopolitics. Not so much economically, but if USA were to be replaced by Russia, that wouldn't be good for the UK at all, nor the rest of Europe. I understand why people default to "them bad us good" but it's not the real story. There are no good guys when it comes to geopolitics, everyone is out for their own interests.

[CoccoBill]

Of course, but there are varying degrees of bad. The US in particular is obviously not without guilt, and neither are all of the colonialist countries or pretty much any country if you dig back far enough. Perhaps having skin in the game alters my perception somewhat, but to just call everyone as guilty and treating them equally losing all nuance is naive. Are you worried that Germany will try to conquer europe? That
Spain invades Portugal? No. There might be shit boiling between Serbia and it neighbors, but even those are localized and contained, not some grand scheme of global domination.

Like I posted above, it's incredibly dangerous and far-reaching what's happening in Russia today. There's a whole generation of people brainwashed to hate the west, humiliated and impoverished, having delusions of imperial grandeur. We're likely gonna be enjoying this shitshow for decades to come.

[OngBonga]

Are you worried that Germany will try to conquer europe?

Not really, but I'm not going to pretend I'm comfortable with the idea of them restoring their military to the point it's the third best funded in the world, behind only USA and China. That's happening. Is it just history that causes that concern? Of course, I don't think they're likely to become aggressive again, but it's uneasy.

There's a whole generation of people brainwashed to hate the west

We're brainwashed to hate the Russians. Remember all that bollocks about poisoning in Salisbury? Did you buy that? I certainly didn't. We've had "Russia bad" drummed into us by media for a long time to the point of false flag events. Every time a Russian military plane comes near British airspace, it's news, even though they didn't actually enter. Meanwhile, we're always doing military things in the Black Sea, exercising our rights to international waters and airspace. That's not news unless the Russians respond. The media are not balanced when it comes to geopolitics.

I know there are varying degrees of bad. But I also know that I don't know the facts in nearly all geopolitical matters. We know what we're told. You might have more trust in Western governments and media than the Russian, but for the most part, I don't. Not when it comes to the major Western powers... USA, UK, France, Germany. We're all just as corrupt as the Russians, and we're all playing the same global influence game, we just go about it differently.

Let's not forget Syria. The West were intent on regime change in Syria, but Russia intervened and propped up their government, saving them from collapse. Of course you'll probably argue that's a bad thing, because the Syrian government used chemical weapons and whatnot, while I'll argue that's absolute bollocks, Western propaganda or, worse, Western-sponsored acts of terrorism.

It looked to me like Russia were the good guys in the Syria matter. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it at least serves to demonstrate why I don't default to "them bad us good". I don't trust our governments any more than I trust the Russians.

But, I also have skin in the game. So I do want NATO to prevail in this fight for dominance. That doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support Western aggression, and I'll continue to compare our aggressive posture with the Russians. We're not that different underneath it all.

[CoccoBill]

We're brainwashed to hate the Russians. Remember all that bollocks about poisoning in Salisbury? Did you buy that? I certainly didn't. We've had "Russia bad" drummed into us by media for a long time to the point of false flag events.

Wait so there's one case which (I suppose?) was a false accusation of a political assassination, so we must have been brainwashed? Sergei Yushenkov, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Alexander Litvinenko, Galina Starovoitova, Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov and others might disagree. Invasions of Afghanistan, Chechnya twice, Georgia and Ukraine, indiscriminate civilian bombings in Syria and Ukraine, raping and pillaging, execution and torture of civilians, attacks against schools and hospitals and goddamn nuclear plants, which other current country or regime would you expect these kind of actions from? ISIS maybe, but how many NATO countries? Maybe, just maybe, Russia has actually given people multiple good reasons over decades and centuries to hate them.

I know there are varying degrees of bad. But I also know that I don't know the facts in nearly all geopolitical matters. We know what we're told. You might have more trust in Western governments and media than the Russian, but for the most part, I don't. Not when it comes to the major Western powers... USA, UK, France, Germany. We're all just as corrupt as the Russians, and we're all playing the same global influence game, we just go about it differently.

The difference being use or lack thereof of systematic human rights violations and war crimes. Like I said the west is definitely not a bunch of boy scouts, but the level and number of dick moves are on entirely different scales.

Let's not forget Syria. The West were intent on regime change in Syria, but Russia intervened and propped up their government, saving them from collapse. Of course you'll probably argue that's a bad thing, because the Syrian government used chemical weapons and whatnot, while I'll argue that's absolute bollocks, Western propaganda or, worse, Western-sponsored acts of terrorism.

It looked to me like Russia were the good guys in the Syria matter. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it at least serves to demonstrate why I don't default to "them bad us good". I don't trust our governments any more than I trust the Russians.

We are looking at things very differently then. Could you point to just one source that would justify questioning what happened in Syria?

Here's an independent OSI report on it: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena...emical-attack/

But, I also have skin in the game. So I do want NATO to prevail in this fight for dominance. That doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support Western aggression, and I'll continue to compare our aggressive posture with the Russians. We're not that different underneath it all.

Look, I get it. You've lost faith in western media and governments, and for a large part for good reasons. It just simply doesn't follow that the opposite must be true, and doesn't justify giving more credit to the opposing side. Almost all of media have angles in their reporting (mainly to make money, not political ones), and all governments typically first and foremost look after their own interests. Lies or colored truths are spewed from all sides, but that doesn't mean the frequency and level of boldness is the same. Every news article should always be read like it's April 1st, but to say that the reporting of BBC, NYTimes and RIA Novosti are equally bad is to me laughable.

Btw re: the Salisbury poisoning, what exactly are you referring to? I'm assuming this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison..._Yulia_Skripal