• TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    What part of what he said implies he’s “advocating for Russia to strike NATO countries for supplying weapons”.?

    Thats never really been grounds for war in the past. Otherwise we would have gone to war with the soviets for Vietnam, and the soviets would have gone to war with us for Afghanistan.

    If selling or giving weapons to your enemy’s enemy was a cause for war we’d all be dead by now.

    • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thats never really been grounds for war in the past.

      Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells? The crackers nearly destroyed the planet over it.

    • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We have gone far further than any of those.

      Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.

      That is an entirely different scale of involvement that has never been tested against a large power before.

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war

        While also providing direct targeting data for it to happen

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.

        You are falsely equivocating a 3rd party proxy war with a border conflict involving the actual imperial power. A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves. I don’t really think that would be cause to invade Russia after Mexico. If you are invading your neighbor, you should expect some foreseeable blow back.

        • combat_brandonism [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          1 year ago

          A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves.

          Huh, I remember something almost exactly like this happening 61 years ago that was probably the closest the world has been to nuclear war.

        • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.

          Distance is pointless when that capability only exists due to the missiles provided.

          WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland? Or striking a Western city in turn?

          We are relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.

            One wouldn’t have happened if you had not taken your initial action? Are we debating the moral merit of defending an attack vs making an attack?

            WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland?

            I would say that Russia probably should have thought about that before annexing their neighbors lands? Does Russia have no onus to limit their actions for the sake of peace?

            relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.

            And they rely on that perception to do whatever they want. Putin is not deranged, he doesn’t want to die in nuclear hell fire either. He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

            • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are we debating the moral merit

              No, you’re bringing morality into this when it doesn’t belong. You’re confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.

              Whether or not there’s a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.

              Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.

              He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

              I’m sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn’t matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

              I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it’s worth it.

              • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, you’re bringing morality into this when it doesn’t belong. You’re confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.

                Lol, now you’re sounding like fucking Brookings institute. Strategically speaking, one of the risk of starting a war on your border is the inevitable blowback on the home soil. Especially when that nation is being supplied by western nations.

                If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.

                According to whom? Ukraine has already made strikes on Russian territory with the help of western weapons, what was the rebuttal? It’s strategic gamesmanship, there are no rules set in stone.

                Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.

                Lol, I don’t plan wars… nor is this a moral policing action by America. Russia is competition to US interest, they are taking out a competitor. It’s not a moral decision, it’s an economic one. I’m just pointing out two wrongs don’t make a right.

                Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon

                I’m not saying they’ve been caught being naughty… I’m saying that America has been itching to do away one of the main competitions to us foreign interest for decades. Russia has largely avoided this confrontation by projecting their hard power via irregular military forces in locations the American public don’t care about.

                This scenario is different, as it is being done with regular military in a country with a large immigrant population in the US, who are perceived as white, and Christian. Putin overplayed his hand and is now engaged in a sunk cost fallacy of his own making.

                Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

                As his desire for expansion needs to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon… mutually assured destruction implies a mutual responsibility to maintain the status quo. You are basically arguing in favor for Nixon’s madman theory of foreign diplomacy, which didn’t work for him either.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ahh yes, I forgot that knowing basic history makes me a capitalist?

          When did the modern Russian state become anything close to communist or socialist again?

          • Venus [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re not a capitalist, you’re just a lib bootlicker

            Capitalists don’t waste their time defending capitalism online, they’re busy doing drugs and pretending to work

                • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lol, liberalism just isn’t a vibe or a neat slur to throw at people who don’t embrace every single one of your ideologies. It’s an actual political and economic theory proposed by John Locke, built around free market capitalism.

                  American politics have reshaped the national understand of the word liberal to suit their bi-polar view of geopolitics. But if we utilizing recognized geopolitical terminology, all liberals are proudly free market capitalist.

                  I don’t really even understand your use of the word if it isn’t recognizing the difference between the preferred economic systems. If liberals aren’t capitalist, what is your problem with them? In your “understanding” of the definition, can a person be a liberal and a socialist?

                  I suspect you don’t really understand political theory very well.

                  • Venus [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Of course liberals support capitalism and cannot be socialist. The problem is that capitalist is simply not the word for someone who supports capitalism in the same way that socialist is the word for someone who supports socialism. It’s an unintuitive language quirk, but not a unique one.

                    If we were to redefine capitalist to mean “everyone who supports capitalism” we need a new word for what capitalist means. And considering “everyone who supports capitalism” is a group consisting basically only of liberals and fascists, I don’t see why such a word is necessary. 99% of the time you would use this redefined form of capitalist, liberal would be sufficient.

                    I suspect that you are a pig with shit on its balls

        • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dang, you got us you master rhetoritician. There has never been a nuclear war so there’s no reason to think there may ever be a nuclear war. Gosh you’re smart. Especially when your arguments alternate between smug inanity and barely controlled frothing at the mouth.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There has never been a nuclear war so there’s no reason to think there may ever be a nuclear war.

            Opposed to…ah yes, they have nuke, which apparently gives them a license to invade whoever they want. Do you not see the problem with setting that precedent?

            smart. Especially when your arguments alternate between smug inanity and barely controlled frothing at the mouth.

            Lol, really a bit of a purple prose there. I’m being smug and silly, yet frothing from the mouth?