• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    link
    181 year ago

    Seems like a convenient way to brush the story of how AP almost started WW3 under the carpet. This story obviously got editorial approval, and a nod from US government before it was published. What we really need to know is who these anonymous officials that are trying to start a nuclear holocaust are.

    • @pingveno
      link
      -51 year ago

      AP almost started WW3

      This is an extreme exaggeration. NATO has the Article 4 process where member countries must consult first. The aim of the Article 4 process is to favor deescalation.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        link
        81 year ago

        Thing is that individual NATO members can act on their own. If say Poland was willing to engage in the conflict and US admin gave it a green light then a NATO member would be involved in the war. Then when things go badly for Poland there would be a huge amount of pressure for other NATO members to get involved.

        • @pingveno
          link
          -51 year ago

          They can, yes. But the idea is that if you have every getting together and consulting with each other, cooler heads will prevail. NATO doesn’t want to get sucked into a war. It exists so that attacking its member states - especially the smaller ones - is unappealing.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            link
            9
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The idea is that this kind of “reporting” has been used by US in the past to start wars, Gulf of Tonkin is a good example. Meanwhile, the history of NATO is full of invading other states. Claiming that this is defensive is at odds with what this alliance actually does.

            Rational voices have prevailed this time around, but the fact that US admin leaked this to AP clearly suggests that there are enough insane people in your government who do want to expand this into a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

            • @pingveno
              link
              -4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              NATO’s history is not nearly as full as that article suggests at first glance. I see three distinct conflicts:

              • Balkans
              • Afghanistan
              • Libya

              Say what you will about those conflicts, but it’s equal or less than, say, Russia’s history over the same time period.

              enough insane people

              There are insane people in Russia who want to expand this conflict. It doesn’t mean shit if they don’t have enough people willing to go along with them.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                link
                31 year ago

                Say what you will about those conflicts, but it’s equal or less than, say, Russia’s history over the same time period.

                You forgot a bunch of conflicts NATO has been directly and indirectly involved in. Afghanistan alone eclipses anything Russia has ever done. Libya has literal slave markets now. NATO is also facilitating a genocide in Yemen as we speak. War on terror project, championed by key NATO member which is your country, murdered over 6 million people.

                I have to ask, are you genuinely ignorant or are you intentionally spreading misinformation?

                There are insane people in Russia who want to expand this conflict. It doesn’t mean shit if they don’t have enough people willing to go along with them.

                The more sabre rattling happens the more agency insane people on both sides have. Before the conflict started most Russians weren’t interested in a war, and support was lukewarm. After the west went after all things Russian it galvanized Russian opinion behind the war, and justified to Russians the things Putin has been saying.

                Likewise, lots of people in the west think that the only way this war should end is by defeating Russia by any means necessary. As the Ukrainian project continues to collapse there is increasing probability of more desperate actions by NATO powers.

  • @guojing
    link
    121 year ago

    Its always very easy to blame an individual and fire him. Much harder to change processes in an organization. Nowadays it seems that most companies (and governments) choose the easy solution.

  • krolden
    link
    31 year ago

    I can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this

    lol