Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): During an appearance on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, Secretary of State Tony Blinken explicitly said that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow
What part of what he said implies he’s “advocating for Russia to strike NATO countries for supplying weapons”.?
Thats never really been grounds for war in the past. Otherwise we would have gone to war with the soviets for Vietnam, and the soviets would have gone to war with us for Afghanistan.
If selling or giving weapons to your enemy’s enemy was a cause for war we’d all be dead by now.
Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells? The crackers nearly destroyed the planet over it.
Yes, and by all accounts it was an extremely stupid event, but it didn’t start a hot war between the ussr and America.
Because it never lead to missile strikes on the US.
Removed by mod
Why God has produced people like you its beyond my understanding…?
Is it counter revolutionary to not cheer a capitalist country invading an even poorer capitalist country?
it is extremely counter-revolutionary to cheer on a proxy of the real evil empire (united states) and the nazis that fight for it
I feel like that’s pretty unilateral way of thinking. America is an evil empire, but it’s not going to be “the real evil empire” for everyone.
The real evil empire is the one who most recently killed all of your friends and family. Despite what you say America doesn’t have a monopoly on violence and capitalism, and just because you’re attacking American interest doesn’t make you a leftist ally.
We have gone far further than any of those.
Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.
That is an entirely different scale of involvement that has never been tested against a large power before.
While also providing direct targeting data for it to happen
You are falsely equivocating a 3rd party proxy war with a border conflict involving the actual imperial power. A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves. I don’t really think that would be cause to invade Russia after Mexico. If you are invading your neighbor, you should expect some foreseeable blow back.
Huh, I remember something almost exactly like this happening 61 years ago that was probably the closest the world has been to nuclear war.
Yep, the US was definitely at fault in the Cuban Missile Crisis for the missile placements in Europe and preparing to invade Cuba
What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.
Distance is pointless when that capability only exists due to the missiles provided.
WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland? Or striking a Western city in turn?
We are relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.
One wouldn’t have happened if you had not taken your initial action? Are we debating the moral merit of defending an attack vs making an attack?
I would say that Russia probably should have thought about that before annexing their neighbors lands? Does Russia have no onus to limit their actions for the sake of peace?
And they rely on that perception to do whatever they want. Putin is not deranged, he doesn’t want to die in nuclear hell fire either. He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.
No, you’re bringing morality into this when it doesn’t belong. You’re confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.
Whether or not there’s a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.
Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.
I’m sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn’t matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it’s worth it.
Lol, now you’re sounding like fucking Brookings institute. Strategically speaking, one of the risk of starting a war on your border is the inevitable blowback on the home soil. Especially when that nation is being supplied by western nations.
According to whom? Ukraine has already made strikes on Russian territory with the help of western weapons, what was the rebuttal? It’s strategic gamesmanship, there are no rules set in stone.
Lol, I don’t plan wars… nor is this a moral policing action by America. Russia is competition to US interest, they are taking out a competitor. It’s not a moral decision, it’s an economic one. I’m just pointing out two wrongs don’t make a right.
I’m not saying they’ve been caught being naughty… I’m saying that America has been itching to do away one of the main competitions to us foreign interest for decades. Russia has largely avoided this confrontation by projecting their hard power via irregular military forces in locations the American public don’t care about.
This scenario is different, as it is being done with regular military in a country with a large immigrant population in the US, who are perceived as white, and Christian. Putin overplayed his hand and is now engaged in a sunk cost fallacy of his own making.
As his desire for expansion needs to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon… mutually assured destruction implies a mutual responsibility to maintain the status quo. You are basically arguing in favor for Nixon’s madman theory of foreign diplomacy, which didn’t work for him either.
for my next magic trick watch all your comments disappear
hey comrade I like dunking on the libs too but this is a little ableist
Ahh yes, I forgot that knowing basic history makes me a capitalist?
When did the modern Russian state become anything close to communist or socialist again?
You’re not a capitalist, you’re just a lib bootlicker
Capitalists don’t waste their time defending capitalism online, they’re busy doing drugs and pretending to work
Lol, liberals aren’t capitalist?
Not generally. The capitalist class is a specific thing, it’s not based on vibes.
Lol, liberalism just isn’t a vibe or a neat slur to throw at people who don’t embrace every single one of your ideologies. It’s an actual political and economic theory proposed by John Locke, built around free market capitalism.
American politics have reshaped the national understand of the word liberal to suit their bi-polar view of geopolitics. But if we utilizing recognized geopolitical terminology, all liberals are proudly free market capitalist.
I don’t really even understand your use of the word if it isn’t recognizing the difference between the preferred economic systems. If liberals aren’t capitalist, what is your problem with them? In your “understanding” of the definition, can a person be a liberal and a socialist?
I suspect you don’t really understand political theory very well.
Of course liberals support capitalism and cannot be socialist. The problem is that capitalist is simply not the word for someone who supports capitalism in the same way that socialist is the word for someone who supports socialism. It’s an unintuitive language quirk, but not a unique one.
If we were to redefine capitalist to mean “everyone who supports capitalism” we need a new word for what capitalist means. And considering “everyone who supports capitalism” is a group consisting basically only of liberals and fascists, I don’t see why such a word is necessary. 99% of the time you would use this redefined form of capitalist, liberal would be sufficient.
I suspect that you are a pig with shit on its balls
I wasn’t replying to you liberal
I’m fairly sure they’re talking about the image…
Lol, got an example of the US or the ussr accelerating a proxy war to a hot war over supplying arms?
Dang, you got us you master rhetoritician. There has never been a nuclear war so there’s no reason to think there may ever be a nuclear war. Gosh you’re smart. Especially when your arguments alternate between smug inanity and barely controlled frothing at the mouth.
Opposed to…ah yes, they have nuke, which apparently gives them a license to invade whoever they want. Do you not see the problem with setting that precedent?
Lol, really a bit of a purple prose there. I’m being smug and silly, yet frothing from the mouth?