Several US generals have commented that... — ssu

US weapons manufacturers are deeply entwined with both US government and US military. We agree on that, right?

US weapons manufacturers benefit in the billions from continued war. We agree on that, right?

US government officials do lie, at least from time-to-time to further their interests. We can agree on that too, right?

So how does any statement starting with "US [generals/officials/intelligence] says..." and ending with "... so we ought to continue arms shipments", not get met with immediate and damning scepticism?

It's about as useful as "Cigarettes are good for you", says major tobacco manufacturer.

If we're going to even attempt any real assessment of what's going in, we're going to need to do better than taking the intelligence of either the Ukrainians (with a massive security incentive to lie), or the US (with a massive financial incentive to lie), as our basis.

But I don't think that's the point. Such analysis is interesting, but ultimately a job for experts. I know we have a handful of historians here and a couple of people with military backgrounds whose analysis is great to read, but really, the matter for us laymen is which narrative to pick in the absence of overwhelming evidence.

That question has nothing to do with the mere existence of an argument for either case. That's taken as given. It's to do with the more political questions of trust, narratives, power plays, and worldviews. It's also about the more philosophical (small 'p') questions of decision making in uncertainty, erring on the side of caution, etc.

If we French start to bomb Corsica to dust, NATO will not intervene to stop us. It's not its role. — Olivier5

1. So, according to you, invading Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, is "internal politics" of Turkey? Invading, occupying, and annexing Tibet is "internal politics" of China? In that case, invading Ukraine is "internal politics" of Russia!

2. NATO did intervene in Serbia who wasn't threatening any NATO members.

3. NATO members are intervening in Ukraine by supplying arms, training, intelligence, propaganda, etc. even though the conflict is no threat to NATO.

So, not so "defensive" after all.

4. If NATO sees Russia as a "threat", Russia can see NATO as a "threat".

NATO doctrine: Russia is wrong even if right, enemy even if not.

If we're going to even attempt any real assessment of what's going in, we're going to need to do better than taking the intelligence of either the Ukrainians (with a massive security incentive to lie), or the US (with a massive financial incentive to lie), as our basis. — Isaac

So... that leaves you getting your information from the Russians. Right. :snicker:

Or then you could listen to what the UN Secretary-General says:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a violation of its territorial integrity and of the Charter of the United Nations.

It must end for the sake of the people of Ukraine, Russia, and the entire world.

I visited Moscow and Kyiv with a clear understanding of the realities on the ground.

I entered an active war zone in Ukraine with no immediate possibility of a national ceasefire and a full-scale ongoing attack on the east of the country.

Before the visit, the Ukrainian government issued an appeal to the United Nations and to me personally – expressed publicly by the Deputy Prime Minister – regarding the dire plight of civilians in the devastated city of Mariupol and specifically the Azovstal plant.

In my meeting with President Putin, I therefore stressed the imperative of enabling humanitarian access and evacuations from besieged areas, including first and foremost, Mariupol.

I strongly urged the opening of a safe and effective humanitarian corridor to allow civilians to reach safety from the Azovstal plant.

A short time later, I received confirmation of an agreement in principle.

We immediately followed up with intense preparatory work with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) along with Russian and Ukrainian authorities.

Our objective was to initially enable the safe evacuation of those civilians from the Azovstal plant and later the rest of the city, in any direction they choose, and to deliver humanitarian aid.

I am pleased to report on some measure of success.

Together, the United Nations and the ICRC are leading a humanitarian operation of great complexity – both politically, and in terms of security.

It began on 29 April and has required enormous coordination and advocacy with the Russian Federation and Ukrainian authorities.

So far, two safe passage convoys have been successfully completed.

In the first, concluded on 3 May, 101 civilians were evacuated from the Azovstal plant along with 59 more from a neighbouring area.

In the second operation, completed last night, more than 320 civilians were evacuated from the city of Mariupol and surrounding areas.

A third operation is underway – but it is our policy not to speak about the details of any of them before they are completed to avoid undermining possible success.

It is good to know that even in these times of hyper-communications, silent diplomacy is still possible and is sometimes the only effective way to produce results.

So far, in total, nearly 500 civilians found long-awaited relief, after living under relentless shelling and scarce availability of water, food, and sanitation.

The evacuees have shared moving tales with UN staff. Mothers, children and frail grandparents spoke of their trauma. Some were in urgent need of medical attention.

I hope that the continued coordination with Moscow and Kyiv will lead to more humanitarian pauses to allow civilians safe passage from the fighting and aid to reach those in critical need.

We must continue to do all we can to get people out of these hellscapes.

But I guess some will just continue with NATO bashing and telling how evil the US is. If someone should point out what Russia is doing in Ukraine, that is. I guess that is the purpose of this thread for some.

1. So, according to you, invading Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, is "internal politics" of Turkey? Invading, occupying, and annexing Tibet is "internal politics" of China? In that case, invading Ukraine is "internal politics" of Russia! — Apollodorus

That's what he didn't say, troll.

On the contrary, it is you who misinterpreted my position. You need (1) to show that you correctly understand others before blaming them for misunderstanding your incomprehensible statements and (2) make sure that your statements are comprehensible. — Apollodorus

As for (1) you didn’t show me that I misunderstood you before I showed you that you did misunderstand me, and repeatedly so. Therefore it’s you who needs to show me that you correctly understand me before complaining about my misunderstandings (and you didn’t show me any of my misunderstandings yet!). As for (2), I can’t make sure my statements are comprehensible to you if you conveniently chop them to build a straw man argument out of them.

From what I see, you seem to be some kind of Nazi who thinks people should shut up unless they think and speak exactly like you. — Apollodorus

To a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things, I guess.

The fact is that when I said "as far as I am concerned", I meant that it makes no difference to me personally, as it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever. The conflict might put up my energy bills, but other than that, it makes no difference to me. Hence I have no personal interest in "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" as you falsely claimed. — Apollodorus

And where exactly did I make such a false claim?! As far as I remember, I never claimed anything that relates "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" with your “personal interest” or the impact of the war in Ukraine in your personal life. I was talking about your legitimacy claims (some of which I quoted) in favour of Russia and against NATO or for a more equitable world (which is again in line with what you attribute to non-Western powers’ views, including Russia, and against NATO aspirations to world hegemony), independently from your personal interest. These legitimacy claims are the only claims of yours I found pertinent to address so far, "as far as I am concerned”. These legitimacy claims show exactly that you are against NATO involvement in Ukraine, and can’t possibly square with this statement of yours “Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win” from a normative point of view exactly because if NATO with all its hypocrisy and predatory attitude - as you claim - were allowed to fight and win over Russia, destroy it and exploit whatever is left of Russia, then NATO would have deserved it as the best fighter, in spite of all your other legitimacy claims opposing this scenario.
While your dodging pertinent objections against your legitimacy claims by arbitrarily shifting focus from them to talking about your personal interest is a goofy or dishonest dialectical move that deserves to be either ignored or rebuked, "as far as I am concerned”.
In short, you provided yet again another straw man argument.

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. If you were prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, North Cyprus back to the Cypriots, Kurdistan back to the Kurds, Germany back to the Germans, etc., then you might have some credibility. But as it is, you haven’t. IMO if you've got a rule or law, you must apply it consistently, not arbitrarily, otherwise it's just a joke. Unfortunately, there is no consistency whatsoever in the NATO position — Apollodorus

There are two reasons why I don’t find your “Western hypocrisy” kind of argument thrown at me (and others) as rationally compelling as you seem to believe:
1. Siding with NATO and against Russia wrt the war in Ukraine, doesn’t imply any (unconditional) ideological commitment to NATO expansionism and Western leaders/administrations’ choices, nor a dogmatic defence of Western foreign politics on both current and past affairs. As much as your siding with Russia and against NATO wrt the war in Ukraine doesn’t imply an (unconditional) ideological commitment to Russian imperialism, nor a dogmatic defence of Russian foreign politics on both current and past affairs. Yet I, you and other participants may have other ideological or pragmatic reasons to side either with NATO or Russia wrt the war in Ukraine. So if it’s possible for you to support Russia against NATO without being a pro-Russian troll, then it’s possible for me and others to support NATO against Russia without being a NATO jihadis.
2. Complaining about how fucked up the Western world and Western propaganda is an understandable and morally compelling reaction, yet turning that complaint into a reason for dismissing other political views just because they do not address or process Western injustice (even its impact at World scale, mind you!) in line with your general principles of democracy, equity and freedom is not only unjustified but dangerous.
It’s unjustified because as long as injustice is systemic, it is also the unintended outcome of cognitive asymmetries, moral hazards, bad habits and vicious loops embedded in complex societies. And for that reason systemic injustice can neither be entirely explained in terms of some popular “populist” narrative with agents moved by callous greediness for money or power on one side (the evil elite), and agents exploited and fooled by the former on the other side (the innocent mass), nor can be fixed at will, if only a large enough number of individuals could unite to oppose or revolt against the evil elites.
It’s dangerous because just preaching general principles and relying on the sheer force of a popular emotion (as the self-righteous’ indignation) in order to fix the World without having a fucking clue of what is feasible, sustainable, widely shareable and achievable in the medium-long term for individuals, decision makers and collectivities given all material, moral and cognitive constraining factors of our human condition might not only fail to fix the World, but it could arguably make it worse.

So, no, I don’t have to be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, etc., (whatever the fuck that means), nor I have to rely on NATO position consistency (whatever the fuck that means), to side with NATO countries in support of Ukraine against Russia. And no, I don't take fixing the World as an unconditional moral imperative for my political choices, nor I see how we are closer to that objective by making concessions to Putin's aggressive expansionist ambitions.

On the contrary, it is you who misinterpreted my position. You need (1) to show that you correctly understand others before blaming them for misunderstanding your incomprehensible statements and (2) make sure that your statements are comprehensible.
— Apollodorus

As for (1) you didn’t show me that I misunderstood you before I showed you that you did misunderstand me, and repeatedly so. Therefore it’s you who needs to show me that you correctly understand me before complaining about my misunderstandings (and you didn’t show me any of my misunderstandings yet!). As for (2), I can’t make sure my statements are comprehensible to you if you conveniently chop them to build a straw man argument. — neomac

May I commend to you both the power of silence. This is too tedious to even try to understand. There are some really interesting links and points of view being drowned in this febrile proving and demonstrating and strawman burning, of what can only be conjectures of what may develop, and guiding moral principles that may or may not not be shared. Just present your best case and let the enemy do the same instead of trying to win an argument that no one can possibly make on either side. For god's sake we do not need competitive misunderstanding!

1. So, according to you, invading Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, is "internal politics" of Turkey? Invading, occupying, and annexing Tibet is "internal politics" of China? In that case, invading Ukraine is "internal politics" of Russia! — Apollodorus

None of that has anything to do with NATO's mission.

2. NATO did intervene in Serbia who wasn't threatening any NATO members. — Apollodorus

As I said, they make exceptions every now and then.

3. NATO members are intervening in Ukraine by supplying arms, training, intelligence, propaganda, etc. even though the conflict is no threat to NATO.

Some NATO members do, some don't. I don't think the organization itself is formally involved.

4. If NATO sees Russia as a "threat", Russia can see NATO as a "threat".

Sure. They do as a matter of fact.

Take your own advice: stop cheering the Russians and enlist on their side. Then you get to rape and torture innocent folks yourself rather than vicariously. — Olivier5

I'm not cheering the Russians.

I have no problem saying maybe Ukrainians have just cause, but also maybe the Russians have just cause, maybe neither has just cause or maybe both have just cause.

My position is a negotiated peace is better for Ukrainians, Russians, Europeans, Americans and the whole world, than continued warfare, and a negotiated peace requires discussion and compromise.

The people cheerleading Ukrainians to fight to the last, either as a fanatical gesture or bravery or then useful proxy to US power, which definitely seems your position, should either clearly state they are using Ukraine as a proxy to do their dirty work with minimum harm to themselves or then clearly state their hypocrisy of the Ukrainian fight essentially pure just cause, a moral imperative to fight the Russians as they are so evil, but not going to fight themselves.

I do not state the Ukrainians "should be fought". As an external party I the "should" statement that I view applying to myself is promoting a negotiated peace and criticising the government structures that take actions in my name (participate in the whole "democracy" thing rather than slink away from it like a coward).

You clearly state the Russians "should be fought" ... so ... go fight then.

You say Zelensky is a hero and wise and moral: hear his call to go and fight.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Dante missed a few levels to get to people "brave" on social media but cowards in the real world, for the simple fact social media didn't exist at the time.

So... that leaves you getting your information from the Russians. Right. :snicker: — ssu

We've already gone over this: it's entirely possible both sides are engaged in propaganda and we should be skeptical of both. Once upon a time you mentioned yourself repeatedly the fog of war.

But I guess some will just continue with NATO bashing and telling how evil the US is. — ssu

Yes, if NATO baited Ukraine into a total war posture by:

1. Letting Ukraine believe it's going to be able to join NATO over an entire decade that Russia simply responded by preparing both to invade Ukaine and survive sanctions.

3. Keeping a "public" position that the door is open for Ukraine (lying to the whole world) rather than say the truth that Ukraine will not join NATO and so allow both Ukrainians, the region and international diplomacy a chance to deal with that fact. Yes, Zelensky is also a liar on this point, but he's only 1 with zero political experience in a severely corrupt system, whereas NATO is an entire institution made up of nation states that pretend to be the most moral agents with the best values and the least corruption on the planet. You can say "of course NATO won't say publicly the truth that Ukraine won't be allowed to join, that would be embarrassing!" but why would it be embarrassing? Only because NATO said Ukraine would be able to join, which turned out not to be true even according to NATO, so NATO is prepared to have tens of thousands of Ukrainians die rather than admit a mistake and tell the truth ... something it now says it's intelligence agencies have gone full hippy and and embraced radical transparency so you know everything that "leaks" is the god's honest truth and has nothing to do with any "information warfare" that, according to the CIA, it's the god's honest trust their helping Ukraine with and winning!

3. Providing enough arms and information support to maintain a total war situation in Ukraine ... but not intervention that would have a chance of actually defeating the Russians, for the sake of justifying sanctions that likewise won't defeat the Russians but happen to make American fracking profitable for the first time ... and maybe for the long term!

4. Encouraging Zelensky to reject peace terms (both through teasing things like a "no fly zone" and, seemingly, just flying to Kiev and telling him to keep fighting a la Boris Johnson, maybe with a little information warfare to prove Russia is "pure evil" on scant evidence sprinkled into the mix, as well as repeating everything he says as truth with zero criticism or scrutiny of any kind at a level reserved usually only for deities with respect to their zealots in relation to their priests) at each point of the war it seemed deescalation was possible. The first week had super light casualties and Ukraine did not topple, and there's no reason to believe Russia's offer (of the making the status quo before the war de jure) wasn't genuine, which exactly what "showing the will to fight" of a smaller power invaded by a larger power is supposed to accomplish: better peace terms than total capitulation while also avoiding the insanely massive harms of total war against a larger foe.

However, more importantly, NATO institutions, under US leadership, are currently the main instigators and maintainers of global ecological collapse.

This is no longer WWII or the cold war where there is some transcendental value (such as freedom and democracy) that the West represents and can excuse some "bad apples" and "mistakes" happening. Arguments, in the context of WWII and the cold war, I agree with in that context.

However, the health and safety of all ecosystems easily transcends freedom and democracy, which, through globalisation, we can also bring into question anyways (the West effectively governs vast areas of the globe without representations -- a very different situation to the largely isolationist America before WWII; which, granted still lot's to criticise such as the genocide of the native Americans, but we may nevertheless see pre-WWII American democracy as a better system than the alternative empires, monarchies and dictatorships, in particular the Nazi's and yes even the Soviets, that can't be said to be doing any better on the genocide front. Aka. the tribute system effectuated through the USD and asymmetric trade policies often implemented at the end of a barrel are taxation without representation, rendering the larger political system an Aristocratic one with geo-segregation of the aristocrats into clubs and quorums they call democracy; indeed, a nearly identical replication of the Athenian concept of democracy, rendering Western claims to that tradition far from ironic).

Now, we say Nazi's were evil for doing a genocide. Pause to think a little and keep in mind the Nazi's said they weren't evil but had just cause and from their point of view the "Allies" were evil.

The West destroys the whole world, perpetrates a genocide on all people's and the vast majority of life, and you think our pointing to that as obvious evil is caricature?

The only retort to this I ever hear is "well, yeah, maybe that's so, but the West has done good deeds in the past".

So have the Russians.

And, as for today, in terms of what actually matters, all life on earth, the Russians just so happen to be doing better than the West: they consume less—unintended moral dividends of centuries of inefficient economic systems—but, more importantly, Russian crude oil is far more ecologically friendly than tar sands and Russian gas far more ecological friendly than fracked gas. So, if we say our transcendent values (by no means perfect but "better") excused all misdeeds in WWII and the cold war (such as dropping nukes on civilians and then later agent orange and a long and fine tradition of torture), the Russian ecological policies (by no means perfect but likewise "better") stands to reason excuses all their miss-deeds according to our own moral system. If Vietnam didn't make US evil for these apologetic reasons of otherwise "doing better" on the transcendent planes of moralising, then the invasion of Ukraine likewise doesn't make Russia evil according to the Wests own dominant ethical system. The Russian's green hand washes its war hand, just as the West washed itself with a free hand in times long past.

So... that leaves you getting your information from the Russians. Right. :snicker: — ssu

I literally said in the same post...

the matter for us laymen is which narrative to pick in the absence of overwhelming evidence. — Isaac

I even put it in bold for you. Do you read my posts at all?

The question is about how we make decisions in uncertainty. It's not "Russians are bad therefore we'll believe everything the US says because they're the other option". We can believe neither. We can apply strategies for making decisions in the absence of evidence.

Or then you could listen to what the UN Secretary-General says: — ssu

I could, yes, but I don't see how that's relevant.

The issues I'm raising (the ones being opposed) are;

The extent to which NATO, Europe and the US took actions which were unnecessary and foreseeably increased the chances of war.

And

The extent to which further military support, as opposed to diplomatic support, is not going to be in the best interests of the Ukrainian people (and the rest of the world)

I don't see anything in what the UN Secretary-General says that supports your opposition to those two positions. Perhaps you could point out what it is in that speech you think supports your position.

The people cheerleading Ukrainians to fight to the last, either as a fanatical gesture or bravery or then useful proxy to US power, which definitely seems your position, — boethius

Absolutely not. I am a big fan of Zelensky's proposals for direct talks with Putin, and for self-determination referendums in Crimea and Dombass. When the Russians realize they can't win, maybe they will become more realistic and listen to him.

You also could try and pay better attention to what I am saying, if you were not a paid-for propagandist.

You also could try and pay better attention to what I am saying — Olivier5

Your entire contribution to this thread consists of debasing insults to anyone critical of the West and posting news articles without any opinion or commentary. How's anyone supposed to derive a position from that?

We've already gone over this: it's entirely possible both sides are engaged in propaganda and we should be skeptical of both. Once upon a time you mentioned yourself repeatedly the fog of war. — boethius

Hence that fog doesn't mean that a) we cannot say anything about the war, b) everything said is a lie and c) we'll have a more clear understanding of the conflict later.

3. Providing enough arms and information support to maintain a total war situation in Ukraine ... but not intervention that would have a chance of actually defeating the Russians, for the sake of justifying sanctions that likewise won't defeat the Russians but happen to make American fracking profitable for the first time ... and maybe for the long term! — boethius

I don't think this is so. I think both the Ukrainians and the West are thinking of "winning" in the sense that Russia has to submit to not perfect terms for it. There not going to enlarge the war to Russia proper. And there are genuine incentives for the West to have a peace deal in this war (or at least an armstice) starting from the 11 milloin refugees Ukraine has now. Biden and other Western leaders understand that there's no appetite for a decades long war in order just to keep Russia bleeding.

4. Encouraging Zelensky to reject peace terms (both through teasing things like a "no fly zone" — boethius

I don't think this has happened. Nobody promised a "no fly zone", especially with NATO participation.

This is no longer WWII or the cold war where there is some transcendental value (such as freedom and democracy) that the West represents and can excuse some "bad apples" and "mistakes" happening. — boethius

Really?

Assault on Ukraine is quite similar to the assault on my country in 1939 by the Soviet Union. Unprovoked and not well thought.

Now when Ukraine is fighting Russia, I understand how it felt in Sweden during the Winter War. There's a lot of interesting similarities, even if there are many differences:

You guys don't pay attention. You're here to shout at folks.

What else is new???

They behave like automatons. It's hard to have a conversation with bots saying "NATO caca" over and over again.

there are genuine incentives for the West to have a peace deal in this war (or at least an armstice) starting from the 11 milloin refugees Ukraine has now. Biden and other Western leaders understand that there's no appetite for a decades long war in order just to keep Russia bleeding. — ssu

This is just naive fawning. Look at the US's actual investment in a peace deal

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/09/is-the-us-hindering-much-needed-diplomatic-efforts/0p

there are several lines of evidence that suggest that the U.S. is inhibiting a diplomatic solution in Ukraine.

Ambassador Chas Freeman, who served 30 years as a U.S. diplomat, told me that “it is the opposite of statecraft and diplomacy that the U.S. is not involved in any negotiations.”

“At best,” he said, “the U.S. has been absent and, at worst, implicitly opposed.”

And...

Biden officials told the Post that they don’t see a “clear end to the military phase of this conflict,” meaning the US expects a long, bloody insurgency in Ukraine, and is willing to support it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-says-ready-support-kyiv-war-against-russia-that-could-last-years-2022-04-28/

"We need to be prepared for the long term," Stoltenberg told a youth summit in Brussels. "There is absolutely the possibility that this war will drag on and last for months and years."

Assault on Ukraine is quite similar to the assault on my country in 1939 by the Soviet Union. Unprovoked and not well thought. — ssu

Your persistent resort to whataboutism has been noted already. The argument was about whether 'The West' represented anything ideological to fight for, not whether Russia represented anything negative to fight against.

You guys don't pay attention. — Olivier5

Oh, did I miss something? I said...

Your entire contribution to this thread consists of debasing insults to anyone critical of the West — Isaac

...and your very next post was...

They behave like automatons. It's hard to have a conversation with bots saying "NATO caca" over and over again. — Olivier5

Was there some hidden text in there? Some cipher maybe? Because it looks (to those of us so attentionally challenged) as if it contained absolutely nothing but an insult to those critical of the west.

So do explain the other insightful contribution hidden in there.

Biden and other Western leaders understand that there's no appetite for a decades long war in order just to keep Russia bleeding. — ssu

Lmao. What it is like to have been born yesterday? With people like you who cheerlead for the US and run interference for any hint of criticism, they could run this war down to the last Ukrainian and people like you - and Olivier - would still be donning the pom-poms until they take their last breath. They've just conducted the world's most successful propaganda campaign to make people believe they give any shit about Ukraine at all beyond it's capacity to be a bleeding wound for Russia and you think they 'don't have the appetite' to keep this going? Hilarious.

The West is perfectly fine with interminable wars. They are fine with the infinite debasement of Palestinians. they are fine with infinite genocide in Yemen. They are more than happy to let Iraq continue to fester. In fact, they support and actively help all of these things. This is the dumbest, most stupid thing to have been said in this thread yet. The US is on record as wanting to give Russia 'it's own Afghanistan' in Ukraine. It will joyfully let Russia bleed there, along with the Ukrainians upon whom that blood will fall.

Dead Ukrainians are the best thing to have happened to the US on the foreign policy front since planes plowed through its buildings twenty years ago.

Nope. It's causing inflation. That's not good.

It's causing inflation. That's not good. — frank

Which will be paid for by rate hikes which disproportionately affect the poor. And companies love inflation. They get to price gouge, more.

Nope. It decreases return on investment. Everybody's paying off their mortgages because wages are unusually high right now, and inflation makes that easier.

Look at the US's actual investment in a peace deal — Isaac

Page not found.

Your persistent resort to whataboutism has been noted already. — Isaac

Your total irrelevance to what people actually write has been noted by many.

The US is on record as wanting to give Russia 'it's own Afghanistan' in Ukraine. It will joyfully let Russia bleed there, along with the Ukrainians upon whom that blood will fall. — Streetlight

It's the Ukrainians and Putin who can stop this war.

Sure. But the US has priorities, and one of them is keeping dead Ukrainians dead for their geostrategic peace of mind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/biden-ukraine-leaks.html

Even Thomas Friedman, who basically cums every time a non-American dies overseas, is worried about American interventionism in Ukraine.

Yea that's ridiculous

I'll take $33b worth of weapons over your rando opinion.

Nope. It decreases return on investment. — frank

They behave like automatons. It's hard to have a conversation with bots saying "NATO caca" over and over again. — Olivier5

Talking to automated bots. But I don't think the objective is to have a discussion. Just to express their views and dominate the thread and ad hominem others.