Despite claims that Russian missile stockpiles are depleted, Russia continues carrying out regular, large-scale missile barrages against Ukrainian infrastructure;
Basically 100% of what the West does boils down to "it's OK when we do it" and "do as I say, not as I do". Don't be racist expired as soon as they wanted to ban Russian athletes, and don't invade other countries will expire as soon as they want to invade yet another country.
NATO bombs killed plenty of people, including in the civilian targets that they gleefully bombed.
And the Russian targeting of the power supply has had rather few casualties, so the West is not crying about civilian casualties, but about how wrong it is to do what they themselves did to Yugoslavia and many other countries.
It's bad when they do it! They bad! Our bombs good!
No retard sounds of yours (a retard), and no "War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the East has some costs" too.
They didn't "gleefully bombed" and it was always extremely controversial in their (our) countries.
Oh, if it being 'controversial' justifies it, then you need to make up your mind about whether the war is controversial in Russia or not.
The political leaders who never apologized are Putin's buddies Schroeder and Blair.
Impressive how you can turn the destruction of Yugoslavia into "Putin bad". Do we then agree that it was bad for the corrupt west to wreck that country?
It wasn't in winter, NATO was apologizing to the people of Serbia in their statements and even using non-destructible weapons (and I don't mean EMP, I mean strange physical materials that would disable electricity only until it's cleaned from power lines), wasn't targeting Montenegro, and their countries mass media weren't joyfully gloating over a prospect of mass civilian deaths incoming as Russian state TV does all the time (the official "rescuing oppressed innocent Russian speakers from Nazi genocide" has been replaced with the goal of instead making them starve [there was just a 100th Holodomor anniversary btw], die from diseases, and "drown in shit" for being such not-anymore-Russian speaking cannibal gay Satanists).
Just to be clear: you would not be complaining if Russia had done this at the beginning?
NATO was apologizing to the people of Serbia in their statements
Oh, you're without power cause we bombed your country to smithereens? We're so sowwy about that! Tehehehe!
and even using non-destructible weapons (and I don't mean EMP, I mean strange physical materials that would disable electricity only until it's cleaned from power lines), wasn't targeting Montenegro, and their countries mass media weren't joyfully gloating over a prospect of mass civilian deaths incoming as Russian state TV does all the time (the official "rescuing oppressed innocent Russian speakers from Nazi genocide" has been replaced with the goal of instead making them starve [there was just a 100th Holodomor anniversary btw], die from diseases, and "drown in shit" for being such not-anymore-Russian speaking cannibal gay Satanists).
You watch too much Russian television, or rather, follow the Twitter account of that insane woman too much.
War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the West has some costs.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and whataboutism is not a legitimate argument. It was wrong for NATO to target civilian infrastructure in Serbia, I 100% agree with you on that. I also think the rules of war have changed since the 1990s. I think certain things like taking out all power were commonly accepted SOP back then, but would not be seen in the same light now in any NATO operations. I cite the 2011 bombing of Libya, which, according to my general understanding and research I just refreshed, did not target civilian infrastructure and did not target the electric grid. So things have changed even since the 1990s. I also think Serbia was a "special case" because the Western media actually and honestly believed that the Serbs were in the midst of committing a genocide, and Western politicians blindly followed this belief, so more extreme measures were adopted than would otherwise be followed. And for the record, I reject the idea that the Serbs committed any genocide, and argued as much when I was in college at that time, with the rest of the class raging against me emotionally like good programmed sheeple.
In a "total war" scenario, I think hitting pretty much all infrastructure is legitimate, however, Putin has been very clear that this is a "special military operation" not a war at all, let alone anything remotely like a "total war". As examples of total wars, I would only point to WW2.
Russia deliberately avoided targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for a very long time in the war, outside of Mariupol, Kharkiv, and a few other places. It's extremely obvious to me that this policy only changed because Putin was angry and frustrated that Russia wasn't winning the war, and so decided to make the Ukrainian civilian populace suffer out of spite.
So yeah, I think it's pretty bullshit for butthurt russians to go out of their way to try to make things as hard on the Ukrainian civilians as possible and cause as many indirect deaths as possible, especially when they know Ukraine cannot or will not do it back to them. It is both petty as well as bullying, and Russia ought to be condemned for it.
I agree. My point is not that what Russia does is 'right' - morality is unfortunately irrelevant in international affairs.
It is that those who cry about Russian actions are hypocrites.
and whataboutism is not a legitimate argument.
Any time you call out hypocrisy of any kind, people are programmed to say 'whataboutism'.
It was wrong for NATO to target civilian infrastructure in Serbia, I 100% agree with you on that.
I believe you have opposed the entire enterprise, which is the correct position.
I also think the rules of war have changed since the 1990s
They 'change' whenever it is convenient for the Americans. The only way Russia can do the same and not be condemned for it, is to strike a target at the exact nanosecond the Americans do, otherwise, the rule will change the exact moment before they hit.
I also think Serbia was a "special case" because the Western media actually and honestly believed that the Serbs were in the midst of committing a genocide, and Western politicians blindly followed this belief, so more extreme measures were adopted than would otherwise be followed.
Your mistake is in assuming that Western politicians or media oppose 'genocide'. They are indifferent towards it: they support it when it is to their benefit, and pretend to oppose it when that is in the benefit.
I reject the idea that the Serbs committed any genocide, and argued as much when I was in college at that time, with the rest of the class raging against me emotionally like good programmed sheeple.
And that is also why I dislike it when people smear you, or call you an NPC, because they do not like one or two of your opinions.
Russia deliberately avoided targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for a very long time in the war, outside of Mariupol, Kharkiv [sic], and a few other places.
This is an interesting admission. Is this what you would be saying a few months ago too? Because you were on the 'Russia is rly brutal' tour.
It's extremely obvious to me that this policy only changed because Putin was angry and frustrated that Russia wasn't winning the war, and so decided to make the Ukrainian civilian populace suffer out of spite.
It's obvious that playing Mr. Nice Guy while the West justifies all the atrocities committed by its allies, and gives weapons with which Ukraine can commit war crimes and blow up civilians in Moscow, is stupid as well as ineffective, so Putin stopped cucking.
especially when they know Ukraine cannot or will not do it back to them. It is both petty as well as bullying, and Russia ought to be condemned for it.
I hope this remains your standard in the future. That if a country (and in this case a non-country) cannot or strike back in a similar manner, that it is 'bullying'.
It is that those who cry about Russian actions are hypocrites.
Nope. Nobody who is crying was involved in the bombing of Serbia. I know I wasn't. Therefore, I am certainly not a hypocrite. I can also easily turn this around on the pro-Russia whataboutists: if the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia was so horrible and such a war crime, that is an admission by the Russians that they are engaging in war crimes.
Any time you call out hypocrisy of any kind, people are programmed to say 'whataboutism'.
Hypocrisy and whataboutism are different things. Here, you are engaging in whataboutism, not identification of hypocrisy. It is easy to tell the difference because you can't point to a specific person engaged in a specific act of hypocrisy, such as citing a person who said the bombing of Serbia was totally good and legitimate, then turning around and saying blowing up Ukraine's electric grid was totally wrong and illegitimate.
Instead, what you are doing is saying "it's okay when we do it, because other people did it in the past", which is garden variety whataboutism.
I believe you have opposed the entire enterprise, which is the correct position.
Yes, we agree on this. I 100% agree with the Russian position when it is correct in a principled way. I also was against the NATO bombing of Libya & intervention in Syria. I also support Armenia against Azerbaijan's aggression.
They 'change' whenever it is convenient for the Americans. The only way Russia can do the same and not be condemned for it, is to strike a target at the exact nanosecond the Americans do, otherwise, the rule will change the exact moment before they hit.
It isn't up to America individually, it's a product of globohomo, which is primarily driven by the international media in the US, EU, and commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Aus, NZ). The US doesn't dictate to globohomo, it instead is forced to abide by the "consensus" although Republicans are more likely to rebel against it while Democrats are more likely to slavishly follow whatever the media says. One example of how globohomo cucks American power is how the media demonized burn pits, depleted uranium ammo, and white phosphorus, even though all these things are completely legitimate, important military tools.
The US was also forced to fight its wars with huge limitations the Russians don't follow, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even in Vietnam. So of course the globohomo condemns the Russians for not following its rules.
Your mistake is in assuming that Western politicians or media oppose 'genocide'. They are indifferent towards it: they support it when it is to their benefit, and pretend to oppose it when that is in the benefit.
I would ask "when have they ever supported it?" but I already know you will reply "the genocide of Russians in Ukraine because Ukraine put some restrictions on Russian language things" which is nonsense, so I won't bother.
And that is also why I dislike it when people smear you, or call you an NPC, because they do not like one or two of your opinions.
You see on Reddit and Twitter that the Left is like a cult, where even if you agree with them 99% of the time, if you violate the sacred party line even once, you will be marked as an apostate and condemned.
I thought the Right was better than that, but this sub proves they're not, at least to some degree. God forbid I hold 1 position that isn't the top-polling survey answer for the "far right", I get called all kinds of names and downvoted, lol. Another thing is that once I have committed one "sin", the same people downvote and talk shit very frequently. In my opinion, this is because these people are autistic. These aren't normal people.
This is an interesting admission. Is this what you would be saying a few months ago too? Because you were on the 'Russia is rly brutal' tour.
I was talking about the places I listed as exceptions, like Mariupol & Kharkiv. Also Bucha. And did you [sic] me on Kharkiv? lol dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv do your FSB regulations require you to only use the russian spelling of Kharkov? lololol. Your boys have to capture the city 1st to be able to spell it.
I used to think Perun was a clown when he was new, but as time has gone on and his channel has grown, he puts a lot more work and research into his videos now, so I consider them useful. His basic analysis here is that if you look at historical precedents for strategic bombing, it generally is not effective unless you can sustain it at very very high levels (Germany 1944, Japan 1945) which Russia cannot do. Russia blowing up a bunch of electric grid stuff twice a month isn't accomplishing much beyond pissing civilians off, because the grid is being repaired within a reasonable time much faster than the Russians can blow it up.
I hope this remains your standard in the future. That if a country (and in this case a non-country) cannot or strike back in a similar manner, that it is 'bullying'.
Nope. Nobody who is crying was involved in the bombing of Serbia. I know I wasn't. Therefore, I am certainly not a hypocrite. I can also easily turn this around on the pro-Russia whataboutists: if the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia was so horrible and such a war crime, that is an admission by the Russians that they are engaging in war crimes.
But I wasn't accusing you of being a hypocrite. I was accusing the Empire of Lies of being hypocrites. And I think the Russians would not object to bombing infrastructure specifically, but point out instead that the Yugoslavia war was completely unjustified and that the West defended what it attacks now.
It is easy to tell the difference because you can't point to a specific person engaged in a specific act of hypocrisy, such as citing a person who said the bombing of Serbia was totally good and legitimate, then turning around and saying blowing up Ukraine's electric grid was totally wrong and illegitimate.
Joe Biden.
It isn't up to America individually, it's a product of globohomo, which is primarily driven by the international media in the US, EU, and commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Aus, NZ). The US doesn't dictate to globohomo, it instead is forced to abide by the "consensus" although Republicans are more likely to rebel against it
Like with the war in Iraq. Which wasn't exactly great. That said, the US suffered no international consequences for that. No one stole the reserves of the Fed.
I would ask "when have they ever supported it?" but I already know you will reply "the genocide of Russians in Ukraine because Ukraine put some restrictions on Russian language things" which is nonsense, so I won't bother.
Cultural genocide is a thing, and Ukraine is engaging in it, though I was talking about physical extermination. The US did absolutely nothing as there was a genocide in Rwanda, and Germany and the US handed Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and/or precurors which he used to "kill his own people" as they later called it. The EU is presently supporting the genocidal government of Azerbaijan, funding his war machine, and taking photo-ops with Aliyev as a "reliable partner". Going further back, the US and UK aided the Soviet Union in its cover-up of the Katyn massacre that it committed.
So yes, they are perfectly fine with genocide when it suits them. As are the Russians, obviously, The problem is that you are in denial about the people you support, or don't support as in the case of Biden, because you have convinced yourself that he isn't as bad as Whoever.
I thought the Right was better than that, but this sub proves they're not, at least to some degree.
It isn't exactly the cream of the crop that moved to this Win. But even they are better than the radical left, as they are far more tolerant of slight dissenters like you and me than the radical left would be of someone who disagreed with them on that much.
Another thing is that once I have committed one "sin", the same people downvote and talk shit very frequently. In my opinion, this is because these people are autistic. These aren't normal people.
Some of them definitely have issues, yeah. However, I think I can say with confidence that I have never downvoted you. Because even when I disagree, you generally post interesting and substantive stuff.
I was talking about the places I listed as exceptions, like Mariupol & Kharkiv. Also Bucha.
But it's odd for this to be 'exceptional' when Russia is doing it. After all, it's standard practice for the US in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Many people don't understand why. The pro-Russia explanation appears to be that the Kremlin isn't taking the war seriously.
And did you [sic] me on Kharkiv? lol dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv do your FSB regulations require you to only use the russian spelling of Kharkov? lololol. Your boys have to capture the city 1st to be able to spell it.
Like I told you, you generally post good stuff, but accusing random people of being FSB officers is pretty crazy stuff. And yeah, I do laugh at people who embarrass themselves by calling Kiev "KEEEEEEV", because it's ridiculous.
I don't support going after civilians. But things like infrastructure and satellites have dual use, so they can be considered valid military targets. The sooner this was can be brought to an end, the better. And as you perhaps remember, I supported making peace in the early weeks in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of the People's Republics and Crimea, because I thought that long wars are rarely worth it.
His basic analysis here is that if you look at historical precedents for strategic bombing, it generally is not effective unless you can sustain it at very very high levels (Germany 1944, Japan 1945) which Russia cannot do. Russia blowing up a bunch of electric grid stuff twice a month isn't accomplishing much beyond pissing civilians off, because the grid is being repaired within a reasonable time much faster than the Russians can blow it up.
We'll see.
True only if they are not the aggressor.
With due respect to your country, and I think you often mistake criticism of its foreign policy as an attack on the country or its people, but when in the recent past has the US not been the aggressor? And I say that while being OK with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
And the West continues to cry about it.
Go back to when NATO was doing it, and they were defending it and putting the blame on their victims.
Basically 100% of what the West does boils down to "it's OK when we do it" and "do as I say, not as I do". Don't be racist expired as soon as they wanted to ban Russian athletes, and don't invade other countries will expire as soon as they want to invade yet another country.
This "strange materiał" I mentioned was this, from non-explosive bombs (and so not killing anyone): https://youtube.com/watch?v=QY904Uj859g
Your other commenter mentioned Libya, where they used non-explosive (concrete filled, no warheads) smart bombs to target firing positions and vehicles in civilian areas. "They" here being the French (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/france-dropping-non-explosive-bombs-libya/350160/), with the Americans and the Brits also employing small warhead munitions like the Brimstone missile.
NATO bombs killed plenty of people, including in the civilian targets that they gleefully bombed.
And the Russian targeting of the power supply has had rather few casualties, so the West is not crying about civilian casualties, but about how wrong it is to do what they themselves did to Yugoslavia and many other countries.
It's bad when they do it! They bad! Our bombs good!
Thank you, me lord, for... sometimes refraining from using non-explosive "smart" bombs in your war of aggression.
They didn't "gleefully bombed" and it was always extremely controversial in their (our) countries.
The political leaders who never apologized are Putin's buddies Schroeder and Blair.
Biden: https://youtube.com/watch?v=urspubn1pmw
No retard sounds of yours (a retard), and no "War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the East has some costs" too.
Oh, if it being 'controversial' justifies it, then you need to make up your mind about whether the war is controversial in Russia or not.
Impressive how you can turn the destruction of Yugoslavia into "Putin bad". Do we then agree that it was bad for the corrupt west to wreck that country?
It wasn't in winter, NATO was apologizing to the people of Serbia in their statements and even using non-destructible weapons (and I don't mean EMP, I mean strange physical materials that would disable electricity only until it's cleaned from power lines), wasn't targeting Montenegro, and their countries mass media weren't joyfully gloating over a prospect of mass civilian deaths incoming as Russian state TV does all the time (the official "rescuing oppressed innocent Russian speakers from Nazi genocide" has been replaced with the goal of instead making them starve [there was just a 100th Holodomor anniversary btw], die from diseases, and "drown in shit" for being such not-anymore-Russian speaking cannibal gay Satanists).
Just to be clear: you would not be complaining if Russia had done this at the beginning?
Oh, you're without power cause we bombed your country to smithereens? We're so sowwy about that! Tehehehe!
You watch too much Russian television, or rather, follow the Twitter account of that insane woman too much.
War is hell. It's unfortunate, but it is what you guys asked for. Prostituting yourself to the West has some costs.
"Insane woman" for her showing the madness that millions of Russians watch every day?
Biden personally apologized to Serbia years ago. Without making your retard sounds.
"At the beginning" there was winter too.
I note you immediately grasped whom I was talking about.
Hey, about that whole killing thousands of your fellow countrymen? I'm sorry! [poses before fireplace] C'mon man, don't be lame and such as!
Time does fly.
Then in May. Or would you then say that it's not OK because winter is coming?
It would just be easier if you made your standard 'anything Russia does bad, anything Murica does good'.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and whataboutism is not a legitimate argument. It was wrong for NATO to target civilian infrastructure in Serbia, I 100% agree with you on that. I also think the rules of war have changed since the 1990s. I think certain things like taking out all power were commonly accepted SOP back then, but would not be seen in the same light now in any NATO operations. I cite the 2011 bombing of Libya, which, according to my general understanding and research I just refreshed, did not target civilian infrastructure and did not target the electric grid. So things have changed even since the 1990s. I also think Serbia was a "special case" because the Western media actually and honestly believed that the Serbs were in the midst of committing a genocide, and Western politicians blindly followed this belief, so more extreme measures were adopted than would otherwise be followed. And for the record, I reject the idea that the Serbs committed any genocide, and argued as much when I was in college at that time, with the rest of the class raging against me emotionally like good programmed sheeple.
In a "total war" scenario, I think hitting pretty much all infrastructure is legitimate, however, Putin has been very clear that this is a "special military operation" not a war at all, let alone anything remotely like a "total war". As examples of total wars, I would only point to WW2.
Russia deliberately avoided targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for a very long time in the war, outside of Mariupol, Kharkiv, and a few other places. It's extremely obvious to me that this policy only changed because Putin was angry and frustrated that Russia wasn't winning the war, and so decided to make the Ukrainian civilian populace suffer out of spite.
So yeah, I think it's pretty bullshit for butthurt russians to go out of their way to try to make things as hard on the Ukrainian civilians as possible and cause as many indirect deaths as possible, especially when they know Ukraine cannot or will not do it back to them. It is both petty as well as bullying, and Russia ought to be condemned for it.
I agree. My point is not that what Russia does is 'right' - morality is unfortunately irrelevant in international affairs.
It is that those who cry about Russian actions are hypocrites.
Any time you call out hypocrisy of any kind, people are programmed to say 'whataboutism'.
I believe you have opposed the entire enterprise, which is the correct position.
They 'change' whenever it is convenient for the Americans. The only way Russia can do the same and not be condemned for it, is to strike a target at the exact nanosecond the Americans do, otherwise, the rule will change the exact moment before they hit.
Your mistake is in assuming that Western politicians or media oppose 'genocide'. They are indifferent towards it: they support it when it is to their benefit, and pretend to oppose it when that is in the benefit.
And that is also why I dislike it when people smear you, or call you an NPC, because they do not like one or two of your opinions.
This is an interesting admission. Is this what you would be saying a few months ago too? Because you were on the 'Russia is rly brutal' tour.
It's obvious that playing Mr. Nice Guy while the West justifies all the atrocities committed by its allies, and gives weapons with which Ukraine can commit war crimes and blow up civilians in Moscow, is stupid as well as ineffective, so Putin stopped cucking.
I hope this remains your standard in the future. That if a country (and in this case a non-country) cannot or strike back in a similar manner, that it is 'bullying'.
Nope. Nobody who is crying was involved in the bombing of Serbia. I know I wasn't. Therefore, I am certainly not a hypocrite. I can also easily turn this around on the pro-Russia whataboutists: if the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia was so horrible and such a war crime, that is an admission by the Russians that they are engaging in war crimes.
Hypocrisy and whataboutism are different things. Here, you are engaging in whataboutism, not identification of hypocrisy. It is easy to tell the difference because you can't point to a specific person engaged in a specific act of hypocrisy, such as citing a person who said the bombing of Serbia was totally good and legitimate, then turning around and saying blowing up Ukraine's electric grid was totally wrong and illegitimate.
Instead, what you are doing is saying "it's okay when we do it, because other people did it in the past", which is garden variety whataboutism.
Yes, we agree on this. I 100% agree with the Russian position when it is correct in a principled way. I also was against the NATO bombing of Libya & intervention in Syria. I also support Armenia against Azerbaijan's aggression.
It isn't up to America individually, it's a product of globohomo, which is primarily driven by the international media in the US, EU, and commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Aus, NZ). The US doesn't dictate to globohomo, it instead is forced to abide by the "consensus" although Republicans are more likely to rebel against it while Democrats are more likely to slavishly follow whatever the media says. One example of how globohomo cucks American power is how the media demonized burn pits, depleted uranium ammo, and white phosphorus, even though all these things are completely legitimate, important military tools.
The US was also forced to fight its wars with huge limitations the Russians don't follow, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even in Vietnam. So of course the globohomo condemns the Russians for not following its rules.
I would ask "when have they ever supported it?" but I already know you will reply "the genocide of Russians in Ukraine because Ukraine put some restrictions on Russian language things" which is nonsense, so I won't bother.
You see on Reddit and Twitter that the Left is like a cult, where even if you agree with them 99% of the time, if you violate the sacred party line even once, you will be marked as an apostate and condemned.
I thought the Right was better than that, but this sub proves they're not, at least to some degree. God forbid I hold 1 position that isn't the top-polling survey answer for the "far right", I get called all kinds of names and downvoted, lol. Another thing is that once I have committed one "sin", the same people downvote and talk shit very frequently. In my opinion, this is because these people are autistic. These aren't normal people.
I was talking about the places I listed as exceptions, like Mariupol & Kharkiv. Also Bucha. And did you [sic] me on Kharkiv? lol dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv do your FSB regulations require you to only use the russian spelling of Kharkov? lololol. Your boys have to capture the city 1st to be able to spell it.
wat
Here's a video from a popular youtuber named Perun about how going after civilians is not an effective strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE6RINU8JLg
I used to think Perun was a clown when he was new, but as time has gone on and his channel has grown, he puts a lot more work and research into his videos now, so I consider them useful. His basic analysis here is that if you look at historical precedents for strategic bombing, it generally is not effective unless you can sustain it at very very high levels (Germany 1944, Japan 1945) which Russia cannot do. Russia blowing up a bunch of electric grid stuff twice a month isn't accomplishing much beyond pissing civilians off, because the grid is being repaired within a reasonable time much faster than the Russians can blow it up.
True only if they are not the aggressor.
But I wasn't accusing you of being a hypocrite. I was accusing the Empire of Lies of being hypocrites. And I think the Russians would not object to bombing infrastructure specifically, but point out instead that the Yugoslavia war was completely unjustified and that the West defended what it attacks now.
Joe Biden.
Like with the war in Iraq. Which wasn't exactly great. That said, the US suffered no international consequences for that. No one stole the reserves of the Fed.
Cultural genocide is a thing, and Ukraine is engaging in it, though I was talking about physical extermination. The US did absolutely nothing as there was a genocide in Rwanda, and Germany and the US handed Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and/or precurors which he used to "kill his own people" as they later called it. The EU is presently supporting the genocidal government of Azerbaijan, funding his war machine, and taking photo-ops with Aliyev as a "reliable partner". Going further back, the US and UK aided the Soviet Union in its cover-up of the Katyn massacre that it committed.
So yes, they are perfectly fine with genocide when it suits them. As are the Russians, obviously, The problem is that you are in denial about the people you support, or don't support as in the case of Biden, because you have convinced yourself that he isn't as bad as Whoever.
It isn't exactly the cream of the crop that moved to this Win. But even they are better than the radical left, as they are far more tolerant of slight dissenters like you and me than the radical left would be of someone who disagreed with them on that much.
Some of them definitely have issues, yeah. However, I think I can say with confidence that I have never downvoted you. Because even when I disagree, you generally post interesting and substantive stuff.
But it's odd for this to be 'exceptional' when Russia is doing it. After all, it's standard practice for the US in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Many people don't understand why. The pro-Russia explanation appears to be that the Kremlin isn't taking the war seriously.
Like I told you, you generally post good stuff, but accusing random people of being FSB officers is pretty crazy stuff. And yeah, I do laugh at people who embarrass themselves by calling Kiev "KEEEEEEV", because it's ridiculous.
Dugina.
I don't support going after civilians. But things like infrastructure and satellites have dual use, so they can be considered valid military targets. The sooner this was can be brought to an end, the better. And as you perhaps remember, I supported making peace in the early weeks in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of the People's Republics and Crimea, because I thought that long wars are rarely worth it.
We'll see.
With due respect to your country, and I think you often mistake criticism of its foreign policy as an attack on the country or its people, but when in the recent past has the US not been the aggressor? And I say that while being OK with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.