upvote

points

by shevy-java6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby skhr06806 hours ago|
[-]
Ukraine is "receiving money from others"? We are benefactors of the Ukrainians' bravery and sacrifices. How much money could we have not spent if Hitler had been stopped in Czechoslovakia?
reply
upvoteby gib4446 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Ukraine is "receiving money from others"?

Yes. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america...

reply
upvoteby latexr6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You are completely ignoring the argument of your parent comment. They are saying that money is being spent to the benefit and best interest of the spenders, that it’s not a handout.

You are, of course, free to disagree and make your point, but ignoring the argument does not advance the discussion.

reply
upvoteby 1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby crotobloste6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Ukraine is "receiving money from others"?

Factually correct.

> We are benefactors of the Ukrainians' bravery and sacrifices.

Who's we?

> How much money could we have not spent if Hitler had been stopped in Czechoslovakia?

Very different situation, in all aspects.

reply
upvoteby collinfunk6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You see zero similarities between Hitler invading Poland and Putin invading Ukraine?
reply
upvoteby brabel2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
As similar as any country who ever invaded any other country?!
reply
upvoteby roenxi6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There are some pretty substantial differences. Russia is on the strategic back foot here trying to figure out a way to stop NATO's advance. They've only turned to violence after long attempts at resolving the tension diplomatically and the US has been implacable. Putin's actually been pretty hesitant in his escalations so far; he's 70 and has a long history of trying to avoid war.

Hitler was more about wanting more land and resources for Germany, and he saw war as being a legitimate tool for achieving his aims that he deployed early and enthusiastically.

reply
upvoteby defrost5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
NATO has advanced into which part of Russia?
reply
upvoteby roenxi5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not Russia, Eastern Europe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
reply
upvoteby rcxdude2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Eastern Europe is not Russia and Russia does not automatically get a say in what Eastern Europe does because they are nearby. Russia seems to believe it is entitled to a sphere of influence. That the US does a milder version of what they're doing (which is also wrong) doesn't make their approach OK (or even effective).
reply
upvoteby defrost4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So, NATO hasn't advanced into Russia then?

Just Russia advancing into the Ukraine (after promising not to if the USSR nukes were given to Russia)?

Gotcha.

reply
upvoteby brabel2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I know it’s what about ism but I really hope you apply the same logic when Cuba once more tried to enter an alliance with Russia or China to defend itself against a larger aggressor next door. So while I agree that Russia should allow Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, I also think that’s only fair if countries like Brazil, Cuba and Venezuela are freely allowed to determine their futures by joining Russia, China and Iran military alliances. But you and I know that’s not going to happen. So please let’s stop pretending we don’t have double standards.
reply
upvoteby defrost2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As you've chosen to address me directly I'll reply honestly, I have zero concern about Cuba, Venezuela, any of the 190+ countries on the planet, wanting to join or form BRICs.

I have considerably more concern about the ability of a post MAGA USofA to successfully navigate such a world via soft power as they appear to have flushed all the competent diplomatic talent down a golden toilet.

reply
upvoteby collinfunk5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> There are some pretty substantial differences. Russia is on the strategic back foot here trying to figure out a way to stop NATO's advance.

His rationale for invading Ukraine was to "demilitarise and denazify" it. The NATO point seems largely be invented by people who dislike NATO in the west.

> They've only turned to violence after long attempts at resolving the tension diplomatically and the US has been implacable.

I hope the "tension" you are referring to was not the little green men taking over Crimea and the Donbas in 2014.

> Putin's actually been pretty hesitant in his escalations so far; he's 70 and has a long history of trying to avoid war.

This is a totally unseriousness statement. Can you remind me what Putin was doing in Syria again?

reply
upvoteby roenxi5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There's an english transcript [0] of his speech from when they went in up on the Kremin website. He opened with something like

> I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

They're claiming the NATO thing is relevant. Opening paragraph justification.

[0] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/67843

reply
upvoteby wiseowise5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Russia is on the strategic back foot here trying to figure out a way to stop NATO's advance. They've only turned to violence after long attempts at resolving the tension diplomatically and the US has been implacable. Putin's actually been pretty hesitant in his escalations so far; he's 70 and has a long history of trying to avoid war.

Is that why Russians rejected negotiations when Ukraine offered to never join NATO and Russians insist on keeping invaded territories?

reply
upvoteby 89547895435475 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[flagged]
reply