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.
Cultural genocide is a thing, and Ukraine is engaging in it, though I was talking about physical extermination.
I consider Xinjiang a cultural genocide, but Russians in Ukraine is just whining and being over-sensitive. Ukraine is fully within its rights to make Ukrainian the official language, yet it didn't go that far. It isn't like Xinjiang where the CCP makes it illegal to own a Koran or to even speak the Uyghur language in private. Ukraine doesn't regulate non-public/government use of Russian.
Russia forcibly relocating Ukrainians in occupied territories and resettling them around Russia is a well-known type of cultural genocide, though, and one the USSR has used many times in the past.
The US did absolutely nothing as there was a genocide in Rwanda
At the end of the day, even though the Democrats very much wanted to, they did not do so for 2 reasons: (1) the lack of US logistics and infrastructure necessary to even consider any kind large scale of military deployment there, and (2) the clusterfuck of Somalia was fresh in Democrat minds.
Not caring about a genocide in central africa enough to spend enormous money and risking US lives to stop it isn't the same as supporting it.
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.
True, it's unfortunate that there aren't more reasonable people who you can actually have a discussion with. Too many people have a more zealot type mindset and can't be reasoned with. I have had a few people openly try to "drive me out" but I just blocked them so I don't get them in my inbox. I can still see their comments, though, if I look manually, and they're still at it, unaware I can't see their comments usually.
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 don't think I've downvoted you. I generally upvote your comments when I see them because you're usually putting effort into your comments even though they come from a very different perspective.
And yeah, I do laugh at people who embarrass themselves by calling Kiev "KEEEEEEV", because it's ridiculous.
I agree, it was a virtue signal to be look "look how culturally sensitive I am! I am using the local dialect!" Here's a whole article about why the libs changed it because the dirty Russians use "Kiev". It's always been Kiev in English and that's all that matters. We don't call Germany Deutschland. We don't call VW "fow vey". We don't call Japan "Nihon". We don't call "french fries" Pommes Frites (actually some snooty restaurants here do).
Dugina
I don't think Ukraine was able to pull off a car bombing in Moscow, and there's no evidence it was Ukraine. [FSB says it was based on "trust me, bro, there was totally a chick but she ran away"] If they did it, I would have expected them to keep going and kill a lot more people, and more important ones than her.
But things like infrastructure and satellites have dual use, so they can be considered valid military targets.
But the military has plenty of generators and doesn't rely on the civilian power grid, so it isn't really serving any significant military purpose. Bridges in key military areas? Sure. But going after the civilian power grid really isn't going to affect Ukrainian military forces.
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.
Problem was Russia wouldn't agree to that back then because they felt like they were winning, and now Ukraine won't agree to it because they feel like they're winning.
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.
I think Russia acts that way, not the US. People criticize the US all the time and we don't bomb or threaten them for it. Russia makes threats constantly over the smallest slights or perceived lack of respect.
Korea & Vietnam were purely defensive wars, to protect South Korea & Vietnam respectively.
Gulf War 1 was to liberate Kuwait, Iraq being the aggressor.
Kosovo was a NATO operation to protect Kosovo from a Serbian attack. While I disagree with NATO and think Serbia was justified, NATO was intervening to defend Kosovo not attacking unprovoked.
Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, which was an attack on the US launched by Al Qaeda, which was hosted by the Taliban.
Gulf War 2, continuation of 1 over WMD. More of a grey area.
Libya & Syria = yeah just bullying an unpopular (with the EU) dictator to take advantage of a moment of weakness.
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.
I consider Xinjiang a cultural genocide, but Russians in Ukraine is just whining and being over-sensitive. Ukraine is fully within its rights to make Ukrainian the official language, yet it didn't go that far. It isn't like Xinjiang where the CCP makes it illegal to own a Koran or to even speak the Uyghur language in private. Ukraine doesn't regulate non-public/government use of Russian.
Russia forcibly relocating Ukrainians in occupied territories and resettling them around Russia is a well-known type of cultural genocide, though, and one the USSR has used many times in the past.
At the end of the day, even though the Democrats very much wanted to, they did not do so for 2 reasons: (1) the lack of US logistics and infrastructure necessary to even consider any kind large scale of military deployment there, and (2) the clusterfuck of Somalia was fresh in Democrat minds.
Not caring about a genocide in central africa enough to spend enormous money and risking US lives to stop it isn't the same as supporting it.
True, it's unfortunate that there aren't more reasonable people who you can actually have a discussion with. Too many people have a more zealot type mindset and can't be reasoned with. I have had a few people openly try to "drive me out" but I just blocked them so I don't get them in my inbox. I can still see their comments, though, if I look manually, and they're still at it, unaware I can't see their comments usually.
I don't think I've downvoted you. I generally upvote your comments when I see them because you're usually putting effort into your comments even though they come from a very different perspective.
I agree, it was a virtue signal to be look "look how culturally sensitive I am! I am using the local dialect!" Here's a whole article about why the libs changed it because the dirty Russians use "Kiev". It's always been Kiev in English and that's all that matters. We don't call Germany Deutschland. We don't call VW "fow vey". We don't call Japan "Nihon". We don't call "french fries" Pommes Frites (actually some snooty restaurants here do).
I don't think Ukraine was able to pull off a car bombing in Moscow, and there's no evidence it was Ukraine. [FSB says it was based on "trust me, bro, there was totally a chick but she ran away"] If they did it, I would have expected them to keep going and kill a lot more people, and more important ones than her.
But the military has plenty of generators and doesn't rely on the civilian power grid, so it isn't really serving any significant military purpose. Bridges in key military areas? Sure. But going after the civilian power grid really isn't going to affect Ukrainian military forces.
Problem was Russia wouldn't agree to that back then because they felt like they were winning, and now Ukraine won't agree to it because they feel like they're winning.
I think Russia acts that way, not the US. People criticize the US all the time and we don't bomb or threaten them for it. Russia makes threats constantly over the smallest slights or perceived lack of respect.
Korea & Vietnam were purely defensive wars, to protect South Korea & Vietnam respectively.
Gulf War 1 was to liberate Kuwait, Iraq being the aggressor.
Kosovo was a NATO operation to protect Kosovo from a Serbian attack. While I disagree with NATO and think Serbia was justified, NATO was intervening to defend Kosovo not attacking unprovoked.
Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, which was an attack on the US launched by Al Qaeda, which was hosted by the Taliban.
Gulf War 2, continuation of 1 over WMD. More of a grey area.
Libya & Syria = yeah just bullying an unpopular (with the EU) dictator to take advantage of a moment of weakness.