mathfailure

I click on the link - the website doesn't open.

Easy.

1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia.

2. NATO still thinks those are parts of Ukraine.

3. Some of NATO countries are now in talks about sending their troops to Ukraine.

I think it's the opposite: with US remaining in NATO, Europe will feel cocky enough to get dragged in a war, Russia will of course retaliate and further escalation (especially if Russia starts losing) highly likely will lead to the nukes.

Now look at the news: Germany sends troops (for permanent stationing) to Eastern Europe. GB, France and Germany discuss deployment of their troops to Ukraine.

Seems like I'm rather right, than wrong.

I am sorry, but it looks like you are just uneducated about the facts and events that happened prior to Russia taking Crimea back. You should not just read some, but actually dig a bit, if you are really interested. I'm not here for a political debate really, I'm not buying into your baity (and wrong) arguments. I shared my idea about how tariffs might be a step that might actually prevent a nuke war and I just expand on said thought.

Furthermore, Russia has no plans to invade any NATO country. It just won't let NATO invade^W expand to Ukraine. And no, this war is not how you describe it: said 'much smaller country' was 2nd biggest (in terms of military strength) in Europe after Russia itself.

And it's not a 1x1 war of big Russia vs small Ukraine: Ukraine got help from all over Europe, G.B., U.S. and Canada. Help in arms, in intel, in training, in money and other resources. Russia got sanctioned badly, by such a big bunch of countries that you'd rather be smirking not about Russia not being able to win already, but at Europe (and now U.S.) economy getting some hits... while Russian economy still stands yet. While all the sanctions are still in effect. For years.

Jobs are different; which jobs in your opinion are likely to be lost? I can't think of examples where less-skilled labor workers would lose their jobs as result of tariffs, other than in a case where they were a maid/gardener of some business that went bankrupt by said tariffs.

Give some good examples, please, to support your claim.

Surely there is:

> Europe clearly at least has a shot

I doubt Europe would be that cocky without a full support from their "big bro" from across the ocean.

As for attacking Poland - that sounds quite uncalled for: Poland doesn't have a meaningful share of Russian natives living there historically for the Poland to start oppressing them to the point Russia would start a war against Poland. I can't even think of any reason why Russia would attack Poland.

National stock market is owned by people, but the national debt is owned (and has to be payed) by the government. Basically, the government is just milking the reach now to lower gov's national debt. Poorer people rather win from this (even if no manufacturers come to U.S. to avoid tariff barriers, which some manufacturers will and which will be another small benefit for the poorer (more jobs)).

Where did you take this from? Trump is not from working class. Working class might've been his 'platform' for the election, but he's already elected now, he basically has no incentive now to fight for the rights/interests of his voters, he has his own wallet that needs to finally get filled. Unless you think he really aims for a 3rd term.

What was the point?

Well, you should then accept that some things will be very expensive for you as well. Is that what you want?

Exactly. Europe thinks it may join Ukraine in a war against Russia to actually win that war.

My point is that this is quite a reason why a nuke war may occur.

And if U.S. turns back away from Europe - Europe might 'sober up' and not seek the prolongation of a conflict. Non-nuke wars end somehow. One side usually loses, without such a loss - there would be no end for the war and more and more people would die. A bitter ending is better than endless bitterness.

It's different now, since at that time there were no weapons of total annihilation (and now there are quite some).

That's exactly why 'expansionist' regimes were ready to start some next war, being eager "to get some extra land" as a result of said war.

The current war is different: this is the war that started not out of appetite towards foreign lands, but, basically, out of primal fear, the fear concerning safety. The West was failing at self-reflection and was completely oblivious about their own actions being treated as crossing a real red line for Russia's safety.

You may scare a wandering bear away, but driving it into a corner is both stupid and fatal.

I'd like to correct you: wars don't happen when just one of the sides thinks they can win, they happen when BOTH sides think so.

I think that exactly for this reason Europe needs such a vaccine shot, so they stop they can win a war against Russia.

Then it'll be a good lesson for you to diversify investments.

I think this might be a move to stop a world war (between Russia and NATO/Europe). If U.S. also leaves NATO any time soon - the chances for a world war would decrease greatly.

While tomhow is of course welcome, I want to express gratitude to dang for years of quite fair moderation. I've been around multiple communities and he's nothing like those power-tripping libera.chat or reddit moderators.

You clone source from git, but then you use them to build some artifacts. The artifacts build time may differ, yet with reproducible builds - the artifact should match.

They reject the proofs now: they just show the spinner spinning indefinitely now. CloudFlare is broken and it has widespread so much that it looks like a cancer.

Is there a non-paywall version of this article?

Who decides if a nation is democratic or not?

Many people (even Americans) claim U.S. is not a democracy. Every country has corruption to some degree. The only backing and staying power there is - is the force a country has and its willingness to use it to defend something.

My apologies, I got carried away in the heat of the discussion.

What does "legally binding" do good at all? There are no other laws other than the rule of the strength.

U.S. was strong for a long time. It did whatever it liked.

Now Russia restored some of its strength to the point it can show others that sometimes you have to listen to when a bear warns you (quite calmly and nicely first).

Here's another word for ya: hoax.

There are Russian nationals that live in almost all the countries all around the world. So that's not bonkers, the logic is sound.

Now what's important is when some region has mere fractures of a percent vs when its something like 25%. If your country has 25% Russians and you oppress them - I think Russia has obligation to defend them.

Those countries all were allied (or were going to side with) with nazi Germany, so they are all square.

But even regardless of wars - there was always some degree of russophobia without any good reasons. Maybe it's just a fear of a big neighboring country, I don't know.

As for Katyn - you are right, it was indeed a crime by USSR's Stalin and it's a shame USSR hasn't admitted to that crime until as late as 1990.

Thank you for that reply.

[flagged]

That was in 2002, when it looked like after years of cold war U.S. and Russia can finally become good allies. That was before U.S. along with a group of other (mostly NATO) countries invaded Iraq in 2003 without any mandate in U.N. and which Russia has opposed to and before the invasion of Libya in 2011, before U.S. carried out Arab Spring in 2010-2012 and before U.S. carried out colour revolutions, especially Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and... Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004.

It is not a secret at all that U.S. carried those out and then it became quite clear that U.S. installs marionette regimes here and there and one of the places was... Ukraine.

Right after all those Russo-American relations going up, up and up merely some years ago.

Russia didn't like being stabbed in the back at all.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Because the sentence isn't detailed enough: means nothing to whom? If the vote results are this definitive, where the majority is so overwhelming that it simply can't be forged - what is even the point of having a referendum? It was merely a formality: no one disputes the results, after all. The international independent observers were invited to said referendum, but they decided not to come. And it is obvious why: because they aren't really that independent after all.

Personally I realized that if you dig deep enough you realize that all those documents, formalities, treaties and agreements - they don't mean much, as we aren't some tenant entities with an overlord above us who could judge us in case of disputes. International (I don't even know what's the right word here) situation happens mostly as a consequence of who's more powerful and who controls what.

U.S. invades other countries whenever it likes.

Why can't Russia do just the same?

> They started the war, and they can stop it and withdraw at any time they choose.

The comic part of the situation is that Ukraine can stop it any time they choose as well.

But neither side wants to stop it THAT way. Each side wants to win in this situation.

If Ukraine feels so lucky as to fight a Goliath - let Zelensky be that David and send as many soldiers to death as he please until the unrest inside his country ends his presidency or the other side's forceful actions lead to the same result. Harsh, but kinda fair. Know your fights. Don't fight with a Goliath alone, if you are a tiny David, and if you are - group up with others and bow to them if the success of your very existence becomes dependent on their help.

Zelensky didn't bow low enough and now gets what he deserves.

Why did EU countries always have some historical beef with Russia?