NimdaQA @ NimdaQA @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 135Joined 4 days ago
You mean touting the endorsement of war criminal Dick Cheney wasn’t a good thing?
Despite my… unpopular view on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
I’d like to say that this is nonsense. His street was closed off with massive police presence yet he deliberately took his kid to confront the protesters when he had many other options.
Comparing him to a parasite is mean to the parasite.
Let’s hope they do better in 2028.
Sure, this would not only perhaps prevent the rise in tensions but also partially benefit Russia’s economy which would only benefit the world especially with US, China, and India cooperating with each other.
The problem wasn't her idea of taxing the rich, it was touting the endorsement of bankers in regards for her economic plans:
"is why Goldman Sachs . . . is why Moody's, which is why Wharton School of Business, which is why 16 Nobel laureates, have collectively determined after analyzing our plans . . . mine would strengthen the economy, his would weaken it." - Kamala Harris
Especially when the one's that endorsed her economic plans can only be described as:
a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money "
Is touting the endorsement of bankers and Bush era war criminals really the most effective strategy that the democrat party can muster?
I don’t think Putin would want US to annex Canada on the basis that it would add tons of democrat votes on the basis of Canada not exactly being a MAGA paradise.
I just think it’s Trump being dumb as per usual.
If that is what you believe, than I suppose I concede.
The Russian Armed Forces have committed mass crimes such as Bucha and pulled an Operation Babylift.
The sanctions against them is for the 2022 invasion which overall isn’t really worst than say America’s invasion of Iraq, in fact less so if you compare civilian casualties in both. Russia and its predecessor employed the same tactics in Chechnya (filtration camps), Syria and Afghanistan as Russia now does in Ukraine but the regime did not have the intent to exterminate the Chechens, Syrians, or Afghanis. Compare this to actions of say Sudan, whose regime explictly wanted to exterminate the Darfuri people leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands in massacres.
Should US have been sanctioned because of Abu Ghraib? No? So why should Russia be sanctioned?
Despite this, Russia is treated as the kicking bag of the world. Look at 2014 annexation of Crimea where Russia took over Crimea without any shots fired, was welcomed with roses, and even the local military units decided to almost unanimously defect to the Russian side. But despite being rather bloodless compared to say western interventions, Russia's membership in G8 was suspended and America's membership was left untouched despite Iraq.
As to the genocide accusations, Biden said “yes,” but his administration, said “no,” or at least, “we are looking into it" per Rich Lowry of Politco. At least, as a conflict as a whole, I'd say no but definitions vary so outcomes of this question varies.
William Schabas states that, because killings of civilians were more common at the start of the conflict, that weighs against a finding of genocide.
Edit: sorry for the constant edits and re edits, I was quite known for that back in Reddit.
Then why have the veto power at all?
I mean, is something really stopping them from setting up their own task forces without America?
I don’t really see what’s stopping the others from setting up their own task forces without America.
The Black Sea ain’t an area where naval supremacy is really achievable.
People laugh at Moskva sinking to a country with no navy but forget that Ukraine has modern AShMs and the Black Sea is cramped and easy to deny access to. Russian ships sinking was a given.
Although I suppose with the Ukrainian military suffering disaster at Kursk, Ukraine is looking for any PR to send out.
Which is still not a wartime economy. You are right that Russia is forcing the private sector to pick up the slack. Majority of military spending does not go into the Special Military Operation. The majority of forces in Ukraine are from irregular volunteer formations recruited from regions across Russia. These irregular volunteer formations rely on their local regional government to supply them with weapons and equipment alongside crowdfunding campaigns and donations from organizations like the Popular Front.
This is well shown by the Tuvan volunteers who come from the poorest region in Russia which shows in their equipment:
Here are donations from the Popular Front:
Chechnya was probably affected the most by this war economically speaking as they have recently taken up the burden of training and equipping a large portion of volunteers:
So most of the federal government's military spending (which is still larger than the entirety of Europe's military spending combined when using PPP which is what really matters when talking about militaries) is actually not being used for the SMO but for a large-scale military buildup for future operations. This means regional governments are the ones footing the bill. But even so, they are not at a wartime footing. These regional governments outside of Chechnya are really only providing their soldiers with the bare essentials which really shows in Russia's performance in this war. Like instead of actual military vehicles, soldiers are recieving old bread loafs and other civilian vehicles.
No and not really.