Russia has been embarrassingly bad at conquering Ukraine, but it's truly incredible how thoroughly their talking points have conquered conservatives in the USA. They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia, as if Russia didn't send its conquering army out of its borders and couldn't withdraw that army at any time and be left alone.
>"They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia..."
This has been common among many groups for a long time; I recall the GWB administration proposing a missile interceptor system based in Eastern Europe in the mid-oughts, and Democratic Party members in congress opposed it as 'provocative'. The (Liberal) Canadian government of the time opposed that as well as the Alaska based 'shield' as being 'aggressive'.
I suspect this has something to do with (politically self-identified) disempowered groups generally wanting to 'shoot down' initiatives, but the Trump administration seems to have a different motivation.
Just like Iran has been aggressively being encircled by our helpless inmocent bases for decades? Can't believe people are still swallowing this imperial propaganda. A tale as old as time and people still refuse to learn from it.
No, those two things are not equivalent. Posture and capabilities are open to interpretation in a way that armies crossing a border and bombing your cities simply isn't.
It would be indeed a "misstep" had I not reacted to an open call for the genocide of the Russian people. (Allowed by the way quite liberally on your "social networks" and here.)
As for "false equivalence", you are not a Russian, so it is really not for you to speak.
Russia has been embarrassingly bad at conquering Ukraine, but it's truly incredible how thoroughly their talking points have conquered conservatives in the USA. They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia, as if Russia didn't send its conquering army out of its borders and couldn't withdraw that army at any time and be left alone.
>"They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia..."
This has been common among many groups for a long time; I recall the GWB administration proposing a missile interceptor system based in Eastern Europe in the mid-oughts, and Democratic Party members in congress opposed it as 'provocative'. The (Liberal) Canadian government of the time opposed that as well as the Alaska based 'shield' as being 'aggressive'.
I suspect this has something to do with (politically self-identified) disempowered groups generally wanting to 'shoot down' initiatives, but the Trump administration seems to have a different motivation.
Just like Iran has been aggressively being encircled by our helpless inmocent bases for decades? Can't believe people are still swallowing this imperial propaganda. A tale as old as time and people still refuse to learn from it.
No, those two things are not equivalent. Posture and capabilities are open to interpretation in a way that armies crossing a border and bombing your cities simply isn't.
1 reply →
In a security order based on mutual assured destruction, a capable missile defence system is a threat.
1 reply →
Think about what you can see on a political level and now think what you don't see towards children education where Trump started his work in 2017
Well, the nazis tried it with the Jews, now you are trying this with Russians.
I cannot but wish you the same end as that of your nazi predecessors.
Well, the nazis tried it with the Jews, now the Russians try it with Ukrainians.
False equivalency at its best, apart from other missteps you make
It would be indeed a "misstep" had I not reacted to an open call for the genocide of the Russian people. (Allowed by the way quite liberally on your "social networks" and here.)
As for "false equivalence", you are not a Russian, so it is really not for you to speak.