That was quick. Imagine he was a politician (or a son of a politician... looking at you, Hunter Biden). That would take another several years of investigation and then he'd be let go.
"racist trees", "racist doorbell", "racist photos"... my god, when will all this nonsense stop? When will the mass media stop feeding people with that crap? As a lesson, every single news company that writes about racism more than twice a year must be canceled from all the platforms out there. This shit is out of control and has damaged many people's brains. Or is that coming from politicians who love the "Divide & Conquer" principle?
> When will the mass media stop feeding people with that crap?
They won't, and that's why I think we, as a society, need to move past journalism.
That sounds like sarcasm, but it isn't. And I know what you're thinking- "oh but a free press is one of the legs of the tripod of society!" Well it was, decades ago. Now it's literally all tabloids and propaganda. It's time let it go.
We have various tools that allow individuals to securely communicate with each other. Let people communicate the news, word-of-mouth. We don't need bloggers and corporations anymore to put a spin on the facts.
"Democracy dies in darkness" is a threat, not a plea. Do you listen to cancer when it admonishes you, "don't excise me, or you'll be sorry!"
By definition, the "free press" isn't limited to government credentialed organizations.
A free press is essential to a liberal society (real liberal, not leftist authoritarianism). Ben Franklin didn't publish for free, so we should recognize a free press includes for-profit press. And long before there were bloggers, there were pamphleteers. We need all of it.
I do not support Russia. But I do understand why Russia is doing what they are doing. There is a logical chain of events that led to the conflict. I do strongly support the idea that the US is the core issue here. Unfortunately, the US is not a free speech country. I'm not allowed to share "incorrect" opinion, which is why I use a throwaway account. I have more than 15 YoE and work at Google–pay a shit ton of taxes due to a sky-high FAANG compensations. The US is the sole coordinator of this war and my taxes go towards sponsoring the war. That is why I'm angry.
> There is a logical chain of events that led to the conflict.
No, there's theorising by John Mearsheimer which you subscribe to. It's an ideology of realpolitik/offensive realism, I've read it, I've watched it, I know what you mean and that's just a take, a view on the situation, please be mindful of that.
Or even worse, you are subscribing to Putinism, you are validating Putin. And saying you are Ukrainian, what the actual fuck? Stop hiding behind that throw away and deceiving us, like I told you before: it's boring and tiresome.
And still, you don't fucking expand anywhere on your "logical sequence of events". I asked before for you to expand on it and you didn't do it. Worse, you tried using that bizarre sequence of pseudo-rhetorical questions to drive no argument in the end. You are not participating in any discussion...
> Unfortunately, the US is not a free speech country. I'm not allowed to share "incorrect" opinion, which is why I use a throwaway account.
What the actual fuck? You're absolutely free to say whatever you want, you aren't free of the consequences of said speech.
You are not being persecuted, your views are, accept that just like I accept mine to be challenged and do not hide behind a throw away like a coward.
Like, you don't even comprehend what free speech actually means and think you are equipped enough to have not only a political opinion that's being regurgitated from somewhere else, but also that this opinion is the holier than thou one, where it's better because you thought of it. When you didn't even came up with your reasoning, you are copycatting it and not even completely because you can't even start to expose your argumentation.
Get off your high horse, you are being incredibly shallow in your argumentation. I don't care how much taxes you pay, or that you work at some Google-like place with Google-like pay, none of that is even close to relevant to any of the arguments you are trying to shove into this discussion...
Are you angry that your taxes go to war? Boo-fucking-hoo, you live in the US, you chose to continue living there due to higher paying salaries and so on, for that you need to also accept the other facet of your country: it's a hyper-militaristic power and due to that you have the privilege of being well paid, your taxes are funding exactly what enables the US to be the superpower it is.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. If you live in the US your taxes will very likely always be funding some war.
And you are angry about funding a war against an oppressor? Against a regime explicitly calling for the genocide against the people of Ukraine? A state explicitly saying that another state doesn't exist and trying to annex it. Against a real adversary of your country, which has been bled dry by peanuts of spending. That's fucking rich... It's one of the best investments your country has done for its own foreign policy. That's probably one of the wars where the US is actually on the good side of it, fighting for what's morally right.
Seriously look inside yourself and what you are spewing, it makes absolutely no logical sense that you hold all these views at the same time, it's a hodge-podge of idiotic reasoning. And it's disgusting.
I thought FAANG was supposed to hire mostly smart people, guess I was wrong.
> No, there's theorising by John Mearsheimer which you subscribe to. It's an ideology of realpolitik/offensive realism, I've read it, I've watched it, I know what you mean and that's just a take, a view on the situation, please be mindful of that.
It's _not_ only Mearsheimer, but aside from that, why is this view incorrect?
> Or even worse, you are subscribing to Putinism, you are validating Putin.
What if Putin is not lying? There is a mathematical chance that the so called "propaganda" is actually an uncomfortable truth for an average Joe living outside of Russia.
> I asked before for you to expand on it and you didn't do it.
I did. Read my other comment.
> Worse, you tried using that bizarre sequence of pseudo-rhetorical questions to drive no argument in the end. You are not participating in any discussion...
WTF? I brought up straight _facts_. Did you read my comment? 1991 -> 2007 -> 2008 -> Crimea -> etc. What's not clear?
> You're absolutely free to say whatever you want
No, I'm not. Example: BLM is a hoax. The BLM leaders purchased a shit ton of real estate in Manhattan. $200,000 were spent on clubs and prostitutes (see IRS filings). I can't say that in public. I'll be cancelled and my career is done within minutes.
> Boo-fucking-hoo, you live in the US, you chose to continue living there due to higher paying salaries and so on
I chose to live here because my kids were born here. I actually thought of moving back to Ukraine (before the war). I love my country, I lived there for 30 years, but its corruption is so high that I decided to punt that decision. Later, when I helped Ukrainians with aid, I received a _direct_ phone call on my cell phone from one of the organizations telling me that if I keep sending aid to Ukraine, they'll find me in the US and the conversation will be different. I got that call from Lviv.
> You can't have the cake and eat it too. If you live in the US your taxes will very likely always be funding some war.
Isn't that exactly why the war is happening in Ukraine? The US needs its military bases around the world to have a leverage. How hard is that to understand?
> Seriously look inside yourself and what you are spewing, it makes absolutely no logical sense that you hold all these views at the same time, it's a hodge-podge of idiotic reasoning. And it's disgusting.
The reason why I won't is because I always question any decisions irrespective whether they were made by the US or Russian leaders. Both parties have an opportunity to lie. Historically, there was a shit ton of lies against Russia. All these lies, again, according to the history, were pretty much always benefiting the US––not to save lives or promote democracy and throw rainbows around the world.
Let's imagine what Putin is saying is truth. Work backwards from that.
Now image the US is telling the truth. Work backwards from that.
The two paths outlined above will give you a picture in which the US is the sole reason of all the shit that is happening today. Dive fucking deeper. DO NOT READ NYT/CNN/WAPO. Look at the freaking historical facts and make your own conclusion.
You might call me a conspiracy theorist, but I mind you - there are endless number of conspiracy theories that end up being true. Never trust mass media - I worked in the largest mass media agency in NY - they are fucking driven by ad revenue only - there is zero trust. That is obviously a whole separate topic.
Your views are the US propaganda. How cool is that?
I'm exhausted, you live in a fantasy land of post-modernism where the truth can be anything, I really don't know what to say to you except for "bless your heart and farewell". Because, really, there's nothing I can actually say that will change your mind at all, you are subscribed to this world view and that's it, you're a follower and true-believer in it.
Just think about the type of government that Putin and the Kremlin currently are, do you believe this is a good moral standpoint? If so, good luck, if not, then question the fucking propaganda you've been eating.
I'm not from the US, I come from a country that the USA fucked over for decades, the US fostered a dictatorship in my country that killed one of my uncles, it's a country directly under the US sphere of influence because it's in South America, I have all the personal reasons to just hate the USA and go against its propaganda.
And I still can see how, from a moral standpoint, Russia is wrong here. No matter what comes from 1991, 2007, 2008, they fucked up, they are trying to annex neighbours and their regime doesn't care about human rights or anything that I stand for. Stuff that I hope you don't stand for either.
Defending Russia in this is defending Putin's and the Kremlin's morals, if you do you are completely fucked in the head, dude.
Bless your heart and farewell, you are just too far gone. I'm too old to have to keep fighting bullshit, it just takes too much to go around finding sources and giving you other points of view when you can just simply write whatever is living inside your head, bullshit is just too hard to combat. Unfortunately.
Your morals are rotten, I don't think we can really start having a proper conversation when our code of ethics is so different. You believe that in the 21st century it's justified for a country to invade a neighbour, that's absolutely fucked up to me.
Edit:
On this:
>> You're absolutely free to say whatever you want
> No, I'm not. Example: BLM is a hoax. The BLM leaders purchased a shit ton of real estate in Manhattan. $200,000 were spent on clubs and prostitutes (see IRS filings). I can't say that in public. I'll be cancelled and my career is done within minutes.
Yes, you are free to say whatever the fuck you want. What you want is having no consequences for the shit you say. The government is not gonna persecute you for it, society probably won't take it lightly but if you have a way to actually back it up with facts then you'll very likely even get some followers.
Do you have the data? The cold hard facts to say that BLM is a hoax? Did you do the investigation and have the threads to back this up? If you do, share it with the world, if you don't then you are just "believing" in it because of some tenuous connection and of course that people will frown at you. No one has to listen to all the crazies someone believe or thinks of but definitely some people will listen if you can expose it.
Because I will not go looking for IRS fillings, you have to show it, you are the one with extraordinary claims, it requires extraordinary evidence, not a call to "do your reserarch, sheeple", that's just fucking dumb.
Why is only Mearsheimer's reasoning correct and the one you subscribe to? You are ignoring a plethora of other political scientists, because you've subscribed to his ideas. That's why you are fucking stupid.
Mearsheimer has as his political philosophy his own offensive realism theory, where great powers only act only on their desires to become hegemonies, that's why I believe he is not entirely correct (not fucking stupid as you) on his take on Russia, there's more at play than just this real politik of offensive realism.
I don't think that great powers will only act to achieve hegemony (as does a number of other political scientists that aren't Mearsheimer). And if those powers do, we carrying the values of human dignity and rights believe that nations shouldn't annex other nations in the 21st century and so it doesn't matter that by offensive realism he states that Russia is correct, morally Russia is wrong and we judge the actions of nations by this morality.
He has developed this theory and so has to be the main supporter of it, and the real believer in it. It doesn't make it true because he has decades of political science studies. People like Herman Lundborg studied medicine and developed a theory where he stated some people of a specific skin colour were genetically better than another set of people of a different skin colour, he studied it for decades, doesn't make him right.
You didn't answer: where does your morality take you? You are not answering any of my prompts and focusing on one aspect to try to focus my attention into it, stop this bullshit and answer: what are your morals? Do you align yourself with Putin's morals? Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century? Do you believe it's right for the government of a country to call for the annihilation of a different nation?
CATO Institute is something that I would not touch with a 10m pole, you are agreeing with the think tank backed by Charles Koch, I hope I don't have to expand much on that after naming him. Yes, CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)
So yes, I'm exhausted, you are a coward hiding behind a throwaway and throwing dumb shit around, that's life I guess.
And again, stop running away from my morality questions, fucking coward.
I support Mearsheimer's reasoning because there is a logic behind it. There are no scientists that would provide an opposite reasoning as logical as the Mearsheimer's one.
> CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?
I do not support wars. But you can't ask a question like that. It doesn't make sense.
War is a mechanism for dispute resolution. Yes, we, people, don't like such mechanisms. But such is the life. These mechanisms are used by the US all the time. The US shows the world that this mechanism can be used. So, the US can, but Russia can't? It doesn't even matter whether it's Russia or any other country.
In the case of Russian-Ukrainian war, the dispute that the war is trying to resolve comes from the expansion of NATO and military bases next to the Russian borders. No expansion -> no war.
> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?
It doesn't matter which century we are in. The society hasn't reached a state in which a fairly complex dispute can be resolved without a war. Right now there is no state in which war is an impossible option. To make it more clear, for example, we are in a state in which the humanity cannot travel with the speed of light. We are simply not there yet. When it comes to wars, we are in state in which a war is a possibility.
When Putin asked the US (early 2000s) why NATO is expanding, they just mumbled some bullshit in response. How can military bases across the world create peace? You can't create peace by throwing weapon around the world. There will always be someone who won't like it.
The US should've take Putin more seriously in the first place, but they kept belittling his requests to stop the expansion for 15+ years.
> I support Mearsheimer's reasoning because there is a logic behind it.
There was a logic behind Hegel. Marx believed it.
There was a logic behind Marx. Lenin believed it.
There was a logic behind Lenin. Both Stalin and Mao believed it.
There was a logic behind Schopenhauer. There was a logic behind Nietzsche. Hitler believed it.
If the 20th century taught us anything, it was to be extremely wary of fine-sounding philosophers with their arguments about "logical necessity" and "historical inevitability". Way too often it was a rationalization of evil, or at least it was used by evil men to put a veneer of "necessity" on their evil.
Mearsheimer's position may be pragmatic, but it is deeply morally nihilistic. Are you also? Can you even spell "wrong"?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is wrong. Russia's missile attacks to destroy infrastructure are wrong. Russia's actions toward civilians in the territory they conquered are wrong.
Why is NATO expanding? It's really simple. Because nations on the periphery of Russia are terrified of Putin! They're terrified of Russia's "sphere of influence" being a "sphere of military operations". They've seen it too many times. Why did Sweden and Finland just decide to join NATO, after more than half a century of neutrality? Because they saw what Russia is doing in Ukraine, that's why! It wasn't because they were pushed into it by the US. They were pushed into it by Russia! They wanted a very clear sign that told Putin in no uncertain terms: "Don't try that here."
Your morals are leaving victims to their oppressors because "realpolitik". That's Quisling's morals, and Chamberlain's, and it's sickening.
> Why did Sweden and Finland just decide to join NATO, after more than half a century of neutrality?
It's a nitpick but one I believe just expands your point here, I live in Sweden and this country has been neutral and out of wars for more than 200 years. Putin has broken a 200 years stance on neutrality and forced Sweden, under a Social Democrat government nonetheless, to join NATO, something that was unthinkable and unsupported by the population barely a year ago.
Why is Russia so threatened about having a defensive alliance around its borders? Ukraine has been abused by Russia, the Baltics as well, Eastern Europe, these countries chose to protect themselves against Russia, why do you still push the narrative that Russia was threatened? No one was planning to attack Russia, they have fucking nukes, that's preposterous.
Putin is a fascist, looking for lebensraum/spazio vitale, if you don't see that you are a fucking dumb puppet.
You are on the wrong side of history, I hope you can forgive yourself in 20 years. Or probably not, you are deep in it and a true believer, you'll always think you are right.
There's a side here that's right and one that's wrong. The one murdering people, your people is the wrong one.
You stand for truth and justice, unfortunately you don't really know the meaning of that, you actually stand for nothing, you are an empty shell of morality, supporting Putinism based on some cynical view of the world called "offensive realism", you bought into that because of "logic" but your own logic doesn't allow you to see that murdering people (again, your own people) is not right. No matter what Putin wants, or warned against, it's simply and absolutely not morally right.
And you don't stand for that, what a fucking sad state of being.
I just can't stress enough the amount of US propaganda you've put in your mouth.
Chechen War has nothing to do with Georgia/Ukraine/NATO/etc. It's a different conflict.
Moldova was attacked by both Russia and Ukraine you simpleton.
The war in Georgia was the result of NATO welcoming Georgia.
Not a single country before the 2007-2008 events joined NATO to get protected from Russia. You are throwing misleading facts and misrepresenting the reality.
NATO knew that Russia would attack Ukraine because that's what they did in Georgia–for the same fucking reason. That's why the US was packing Ukraine with weapon since 2014.
The US doesn't like China's rising economy and the fact that they are friends with Russia, because this partnership negatively affects the US dollar. The US doesn't like they have less leverage in Europe, because it's the Russia who keeps the Europe warm and hooked.
You are naïve as a 5 year old.
I lived in Ukraine for 30+ years and then 10+ years in the US. I know these two countries very well. You know shit.
> Chechen War has nothing to do with Georgia/Ukraine/NATO/etc. It's a different conflict.
Yes, but it's just another example of Russia being imperialist and invading other countries it feels it has a right to.
> Moldova was attacked by both Russia and Ukraine you simpleton.
The Ukrainians were volunteers, but I guess it was a simple mistake to make, leaving that part out wasn't it.
> The war in Georgia was the result of NATO welcoming Georgia.
So you're saying Georgia was invaded because it tried to join an alliance to defend itself?. Super justifiable war.
> Not a single country before the 2007-2008 events joined NATO to get protected from Russia. You are throwing misleading facts and misrepresenting the reality.
Poland would disagree with this, Poland joined NATO in 1999, inpart at least to protect itself from Russia.
> NATO knew that Russia would attack Ukraine because that's what they did in Georgia–for the same fucking reason. That's why the US was packing Ukraine with weapon since 2014.
NATO has been providing weapons and training to Ukraine to defend itself since 2014, since Russias invasion first started.
> You are naïve as a 5 year old.
Insults like this are against the hackernews rules, please be more respectful in the future.
> I lived in Ukraine for 30+ years and then 10+ years in the US. I know these two countries very well. You know shit.
Appeal to authority is a great logical fallacy but unfortunately, even this appeal is impossible to check as you are using a throwaway. regardless though, just because you "lived" in a country doesn't mean you know anything.
Do yourself a favour and read "Fascism: A Warning" by Madeleine Albright. After that we can discuss how similar you are falling to Putinism as many other seemingly level-headed people fell for Mussolini, Hitler, Henlein and so many other fascists of the 1920s and 1930s. Seriously, just read this book and get back to me.
You don't believe in the values of democracy, you don't like wars but is supporting the side that's starting a war in name of Fascism and you don't even see it.
Do yourself a favour before you repeat history.
And once more you are a coward trying to evade a simple question: what ars your morals? What do you stand for? And I mean for, standing against stuff is an anti-model, it's meaningless as morality. So far you only showed to stand for the justification of Putin's flavour of Fascism, you're eating that and it's sad and enraging to watch.
>The US cannot simply lie about NATO's good intentions, because in Eastern Europe they are not.
NATO is a voluntary defense alliance, and countries from Eastern Europe want to join NATO due to the (don't even say it's only perceived, as history shows over and over again) risk of being invaded by Russia.
The US are not forcing countries to join NATO.
What do you think is not good about NATO's intentions from Eastern Europe's perspective, besides Russia not being able to invade their neighbors anymore?
If you stop Russia, you'll stop the war. They started it, they can also just put their tanks in reverse and get out.
This is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Nobody gives a shit about Ukraine. Why do you think the US is pouring money into this war like crazy? There was no threat from Russia before 2007. There were no events to push other countries to join NATO.
The root problem is that there is a troubled subset of our population who delight in smearing shit on the walls. We’ve all seen it in real life public toilets, in that literal fashion, but it also comes in the form of ratfucking, like Stone, and in QAnon-style promotion of crazy conspiracy theories, and in many variations in-between. They engage in acts of destruction against the public good; they are destroyers of peace, of reason, of society, and of democracy. Some are legit mentally ill, but other are very savvy and are doing it with deliberation. Social media has broadened their reach and increased the volume of their smear.
It sounds like you're saying that anybody who diverges from your status quo opinions is some sort of mental terrorist. Excuse me, "stochastic terrorist."
Thanks for illustrating both the problem and the reductionist rhetoric so popular by those invested in making things worse.
I imagine there are people out there who are fooled by the lazy syllogism "you're condemning those who make up lies for personal gain and nihilism / people who make up these lies are contradicting status quo opinions / therefore you are condemning anyone who says anything contrary to the status quo".
But to most of us that's so obviously fallacious that it feels dirty to even engage with.
Bring me evidence of democrats drinking infant blood in the basement of a pizza parlor and we'll talk. But don't tell me that I must accept such things
because they are contrary to what every reasonable person believes. And don't tell me that I have to either accept or reject every contrarian opinion as a single proposition rather than considering each one individually.
TIL skepticism of US war propaganda ≈ belief in "democrats drinking infant blood in the basement of a pizza parlor". No, I think you've perfectly illustrated the problem, thanks.
When Ukraine hits Poland (even by mistake), people take step back and blame Russia, because Ukraine wouldn't have had to use an anti-missile system if there was no Russian missile in the first place. Fair enough.
Now, why don't people use the same analogy for Russia starting that war? Let's take a step back and ask a basic question - who escalated this all? Who benefits from this war? Who pours money there? Why is nobody asking these questions?
It really seems like you are part of Russian propaganda. In another comment you say that you pay taxes in the US.
> Now, why don't people use the same analogy for Russia starting that war? Let's take a step back and ask a basic question - who escalated this all? Who benefits from this war? Who pours money there? Why is nobody asking these questions?
You clearly want to make a point here, so why don’t you answer these questions yourself. Who, in your opinion, escalated the war?
The way you formulate your questions, it seems like you are spreading conspiracy theories. So please enlighten us with your brilliant insights into a war that kills thousands of innocent people and kids, destroys so many lives, just because a dictator wants to boost his ego. Territorial war is unnecessary and useless. So prove that you are not a Russian troll, and explain what you want message you want to convey with your stupid questions.
> Now, why don't people use the same analogy for Russia starting that war?
Because a war of invasion and annexation is something we've learned since WW2 that won't ever be tolerated in Europe again, history has shown why.
> Let's take a step back and ask a basic question - who escalated this all?
Pretty easy: Putin and Russia. First 2008, then 2014 and a full-scale invasion in 2022. Russia chose to invade a neighbouring country in 2008 (Georgia, hope you remember it), Russia decided to escalate that and annex Crimea in 2014. Russia shadow-invaded Ukraine in 2014 (or have you forgotten all the military personnel wearing Russian gear that went "on vacation" to Donbass and Crimea?). Russia downed a civilian airplane in 2014.
Or isn't any of that escalation?
> Who benefits from this war?
Very good question, if the war ended in 3 days as it was Putin's fantasy who would have benefited from this war?
As it didn't end in 3 days, no one is really benefiting from this except the military industry in multiple countries, mostly in Europe, which didn't have to arm themselves for decades of relative peace.
> Who pours money there?
All the Western countries are pouring money in there, to fend off an invasion, to keep the sovereignty of a state, a thing that wasn't really required to be taken care of since the end of WW2.
> Why is nobody asking these questions?
Because they are fucking dumb questions posed by Russian propaganda, that's why.
If you want to expand on your points, please be clear and expand on them. Asking me to answer rhetorical questions as some kind of bizarre argumentation mechanism is tiresome and clearly against the kind of discussions I expect to be fostered on Hacker News.
Either do your own work and expand your argumentation so myself and others can properly reply or stop with this bullshit, it's boring to have to interact with this.
Also, by the guidelines, use emphasis like this, ALL CAPS is frowned upon on this forum. Thank you very much.
I intentionally asked you these questions so that you could answer the main question by yourself.
Russia has always been reluctant to NATO–the expansion was one of the main topics post-USSR crash.
Munich, 2007-Putin gives a massive speech on NATO. In the speech Putin blames the US on the expansion and clearly states that NATO is not welcomed next to the borders of Russia. He asks the west an important question: "since the USSR no longer exists, who is the enemy? If there is no enemy, then the NATO should be either dissolved or repurposed." Early next year, despite his comments and concerns the US welcomes Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. What's the reaction of Putin? The US does not want to partnership and belittles his concerns. That year Putin said: "Ok, if they want Ukraine, they won't get Crimea". That was 2008. The decision to annex Crimea was a _reaction_ to the NATO's expansion.
I can keep going and going, but at the end of the day the core problem is NATO. Later, the director of FBI said that welcoming Ukraine and Georgia to NATO was the biggest mistake the US has made within the past several decades. That comment was made before the war started.
This is a proxy war started by the US. I won't be surprised if Ukraine/FTX drama is real. There is a huge chance it's all real, because Biden kept telling us that there were no deals between his son and Ukraine. Eventually, emails between Biden's son and Ukrainian oligarchs were cryptographically verified (DKIM records) and confirmed to be real. So Biden was _clearly_ lying. So, I'm sure there are more lies and FTX could be one of them.
One important note to add.
In January 2022, Putin asked the US to confirm if the expansion continues, because otherwise he'll invade Ukraine. The response of the US: "Yes". That is why everyone knew about the war-Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy. Everyone except the citizens of Ukraine. According to Ukrainian government and their public announcement - they knew about the war, but had to make a tough decision to keep it all in secret.
> not the country that continually attempts to annex and invade post soviet states
when? post the NATO expansion?
> Ah yes I keep forgetting the US forced Russia to invade and then after that they even forced Russia to rape and torture Ukrainian children.
This is a play of words. I can say the same about my fellow Ukrainian soldiers - it's just not in prime time.
> My only question for you is how can you support this war given the countless documented and even caught on video atrocities that the Russians commit?.
I _do not_ support the war. That is a misleading assumption. What about the countless atrocities that the Ukrainians commit? Those are f*cking public as well.
The Russian Federation, the country that since its existence started in 1991 has invaded.
- Chechnya
- Georgia
- Moldova
- Ukraine
And continues upto right now, to threaten every country under the sun with nuclear annihilation merely for _helping_ Ukraine.
> when? post the NATO expansion?
NATO keeps gaining members because Russia keeps invading countries, it's the exact reason Finland and Sweden are now joining.
This in no way justifies Russias brutal war.
> I _do not_ support the war. That is a misleading assumption. What about the countless atrocities that the Ukrainians commit? Those are f*cking public as well.
Then I suppose you want Russia to leave Ukraine then, and stay out of Ukraine?.
I agree with you. The root cause is the complete erosion of civil society in Russia, the failure of the state to create and maintain a democracy and the failure of the West to turn Russia into a North Korea early on, when everyone figured out that the gangsters are actually running the country.
Why should the West do anything on the opposite side of the globe? Why does the West only care about democracy in the countries with a lot of natural resources? Oh yea, that must be a pure coincidence.
Yes, that would be the Russian neo-imperial ambitions becoming mainstream. I watched it happening gradually back when I lived in the country - fiction books about war "against Nazis" in Ukraine started showing up in mid-00s, and one first became a hit in 2008.
He is neither pro-Kremlin nor anti-Kremlin. Mearsheimer is a political scientist with 50+ years of experience. He relies on pure facts and explains why things are the way they are. Nothing more, nothing less.
He tells you the facts that you want to hear, that is all.
His view is Kremlin-apologist.
You are not in Ukraine, you rely on second-hand account. So for any 'facts' you have to rely on someone. Ukraine is a complex topic, and 'things the way they are' is extremely hard to get, there is an ideological lens to everything.
His lecture was shared recently on some Ukrainian forums and widely derided as just repeating Russian state propaganda talking points.
I'm Ukrainian, but I just want to throw a provocative thought in here. Everyone's talking about how bad and evil Putin is and all that. However, nobody's talking about the _why_ Putin is doing what he's doing. For the past 14 years, Russia is trying to find a solution as for the NATO's expansion to the east. The US does NOT want to stop the expansion despite anything. If I place a tent next to your house and start watching your windows daily, what's going to be your reaction? That is EXACTLY what's happening today. Nobody cares about Ukraine. Neither the US nor Putin. Ukraine is poor country. The _core_ of the problem is the US and its desire to place military bases across the world, including Ukraine, hence next to Russia's borders. Who'd like that? The US didn't like it in 60th during the Cuban Missile Crisis, so is Russia today.
Everything started in April of 2008, during the Bucharest Summit Declaration saying that "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO". Russia immediately said that this is not going to happen because it affects their security - and it DOES make sense, doesn't it? That led to a war in Georgia. Today it's a war in Ukraine, my home country.
Once again, Putin is just a side effect. The core, the _root_ cause is the US's maniacal NATO expansion aspiration.
You are right, Ukraine doesn't need the approval of Russia, however, becoming a member of NATO is only possible if membership does not affect security of any other country. That's written on paper and one of the conditions. But since the US politics is against Russia (for some _stupid_ reasons - do a research and educate yourself), Ukraine becoming a member of NATO is a direct threat to Russia.
Edit: I also want to add to this that the US is completely aware of the situation. They know exactly that their decision not to stop the expansion leads to a war. First, the US is not stupid. Second, there is a great example - Georgia, where war for the exact same reason took place. So, who's to blame here? Is it really Putin? My common sense tells the opposite.
SHIT, Ukraine is not in NATO, it is not on track on joining NATO,
It was clear for everyone in Ukraine that with Crimea and LNR/DNR nobody would accept Ukraine into NATO.
There wasn't much support for NATO in Ukraine internally before seizure of Crimea.
Who's in the wrong here? Hmm, I don't know.
According to what we know, if you have recovered from delta variant you have much stronger and longer-lasting immunity then if you get vaccinated against original Wuhan strain. Yet, EU Covid pass is valid for 12 months post vaccination and only 6 months post recovery.
Why is this one being downvoted when in fact what OP is saying is a 100% truth? Vaccines won't stop the spread because it's a sliding window problem. You vaccinate 10m people today, then you vaccinate 10m people tomorrow, by the time you vaccinate another 10m, the first 10m already lost their antibodies. We'd have to vaccinate the entire population within 4-6 months, which is impossible given the current state of things. There are no transactional guarantees, so to speak.
On top of all of that, vaccines do not stop the spread, but just ease out symptoms. You can be vaccinated and your symptoms can be so mild that you won't even know you are sick. So you'll walk around infecting others.
Because "stop the spread" is a very nice goal, but not the actual one. "Slow the spread so hospitals can handle the load" is closer to the real goal. Without the vaccines, too many people get sick at once and more people start dying.
On top of that, it's not just the vaccinations. Those who get the disease are also helping to slow the spread as they build their own resistance.
There's been enough resistance to the vaccines that it's probably impossible to end this with the best possible result, so we're going for second-best now. And that still involves keeping as many people vaccinated as possible.
Looking for about half a dozen papers confirming your following words
> You vaccinate 10m people today, then you vaccinate 10m people tomorrow, by the time you vaccinate another 10m, the first 10m already lost their antibodies.
Read it carefully. Pfizer falsifies clinical data and covers up significant adverse effects. FDA knows about all of that and covers their asses. Whatever comes from Pfizer will be authorized without any questions being asked. It's not even a legislation, but a straight up internal arrangements between FDA and Pfizer executives.
Whatever you see in media about Pfizer is a complete crap.
I also want to remind you that Pfizer is responsible for the largest health care fraud in history. They had to pay $2.3B fine in 2009.
> The Pfizer Phase III trial involved 44,000 people and 153 locations. From August 2020 through Sept. 17, 2020 — when she was fired — Jackson told CBS 17 that Ventavia accounted for at least 1,200 of those people and accounted for three sites.
The author of the BMJ piece is quoted as saying “people are going to use this to push a political position because that’s what they’re interested in”, so congrats on demonstrating that.
1986: Pfizer had to withdraw an artificial heart valve from the market after defects led to it being implicated in over 300 deaths. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew its approval for the product in 1986 and Pfizer agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation after multiple lawsuits were brought against it.
2003: Pfizer has long been condemned for profiteering from AIDS drugs. In 2003 for example, it walked away from a licencing deal for its Rescriptor drug that would have made it cheaper for poorer countries.
2011: Pfizer was forced to pay compensation to families of children killed in the controversial Trovan drug trial. During the worst meningitis epidemic seen in Africa, in 1996, Pfizer ran a trial in Nigeria their new drug Trovan. Five of the 100 children who took Trovan died and it caused liver damage, while it caused lifelong disabilities in those who survived. But another group of 100 children were given the conventional “gold standard” meningitis antibiotic as a “control” group for comparison. Six of them also tragically died because, the families said, Pfizer had given them less than the recommended level of the conventional antibiotic in order to make Trovan look more effective.
2012: Pfizer had to pay around $1billion to settle lawsuits claiming its Prempro drug caused breast cancer. Prempro was used in hormone replacement therapy, usually for women going through the menopause. The settlements came after six years of trials and hardship for the women affected.
2013: Pfizer paid out $273 million to settle over 2,000 cases in the US that accused its smoking treatment drug Chantix of provoking suicidal and homicidal thoughts, self harm and severe psychological disorders. Pfizer was also accused of improperly excluding patients with a history of depression or other mental disturbances from trials for the drug. Later, in 2017, a coroner in Australia ruled that the drug had contributed to a man’s suicide. The man’s mother campaigned to change the label on the drug.
2020: Pfizer reached an agreement with thousands of customers of its depo-testosterone drug in 2018 after they sued it for increasing the likelihood of numerous issues, including heart attacks.
The vaccines are being widely administered by dozens of countries, each with their own regulatory authorities, and the whole process is generating enormous amounts of data, including ones outside Pfizer's control/influence.
Wait a minute. I don’t see any political position in the comment you’re replying to. I don’t even see a hint of one. I can’t even figure out what political position on what topic would be likely.
The author was obviously aware of the possibility that "one of Pfizer's vendors did a bad thing" would likely be turned into "Pfizer bad/scary!" (with the implication that doubt should be cast on the vaccines/meds) as it is here.
If a politician hired a hundred vendors to send direct mailings, and one of them used forged stamps, would it be fair to say the politician used forged stamps?
This is more like.. what if you're a food manufacturer and find out the food was contaminated. Do you keep shipping it to recoup costs and stay quiet, or do you come clean and risk the negative PR?
The worst case scenario here is ~1,200 out of 44,000 trial participants in three out of 153 trial sites may have had bad data. I would hope that Pfizer and the FDA are double-checking the data from that vendor (and I strongly suspect that one vendor with aberrant data versus the rest of them is already something they keep an eye out for).
We've subsequently given (and monitored for the same sort of issues we look for in these trials) hundreds of millions of doses of the vaccine successfully.
Which is an assertion the BMJ article doesn't support.
"Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports"
"A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial."
> Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to “Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.” One of them was “verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,” a note indicates.
> At several points during the late September meeting Jackson and the Ventavia executives discussed the possibility of the FDA showing up for an inspection (box 1). “We’re going to get some kind of letter of information at least, when the FDA gets here... know it,” an executive stated.
> Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
> The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
The numbers are suddenly high, in part, because of this:
> Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by CDC...
There's a COVID-specific reporting requirement on a previously optional system.
Agreed. The reports that VAERS provides can hint at rare adverse outcomes for vaccines, but it simply doesn't hold any significance compared to clinical trials. Comparing them is just outright false equivalence.
There is no conspiracy theory here. Stop using that term to minimize the importance of things. VAERS is a data point. Check out similar data points from other countries. Numbers DO match.
What other data points? Can you provide peer reviewed high quality data to support your claims? Just because you want a conspiracy theory to be true does not make it so.
Can _you_ provide any other legitimate data point that tracks adverse vaccine reactions? Most likely not. Because the narrative is such that if there is anything negative comes out, people are immediately being canceled or fired.
"Due to the program's open and accessible design and its allowance of unverified reports, incomplete VAERS data is often used in false claims regarding vaccine safety."
VAERS is an unvetted database of adverse events that occur some time after a vaccine has been given. It does not mean that there is a causal link.
"CDC cautions that it is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event, or how common the event might be.[5]"
Particularly, in the current pandemic, we vaccinated a LOT of sick and elderly patients, and we vaccinated them first, in almost unprecedented numbers. So VAERS will have a LOT of "adverse events", simply because the sick and elderly have a lot of these adverse events, vaccine or not.
Related, FDA's War on Dr. Burzynski, after Burzynski won his court cases, the FDA gave away Burzynski patents to their FDA pharma buddies. The FDA stole it after they couldn't win lawsuits against Burzynski in multiple court cases.
I'm skeptical and I wait. I'll be the last one in line to take the shot. I'm a software engineer and I know that if you deploy a system to production RIGHT AWAY, something is gonna fail.
