…it’s a monarchy.
If anyone you read, or know, ever refers to a monarchy as progressive, you can immediately disregard everything they ever write, or say.
The only context where it’s at least explainable would be in a limited to direct comparison between Jordan and the other regional monarchs with large petroleum reserves.
You can categorize any smaller country as a pawn when they’re placed between two competing powers, but they often really don’t have much of a choice in that.
And TBF Castro wanted to push the Cuban missile crisis a hell of a lot further then then Khrushchev was willing to. So maybe more pitbull than pawn, at least for a time.
But real talk, America has horribly exploited and abused Cuba since the Spanish-American war, and let’s just say, still lightly meddled in their affairs for nearly 50 years prior to the post war occupation.
So getting your feels up in a twist about Russia managing to sail a handful of warships to Cuba, is kinda petty. Especially considering that it’s even odds that the fucking engines catch fire on the return trip.
I don’t think they’re making a moral argument, but pointing out the reality of the situation as it stands.
This is a problem that can only be fixed through legislation and aggressive enforcement backed by large punitive actions.
Until that happens, it’s better to acknowledge and understand the reality of the situation, than to believe that a morally righteous condemnation will somehow unmake that reality.
It sucks. I agree with your philosophical stance, except for the payment for personal data, as I’d prefer a complete opt-out. However, none of that changes where we’re at right now.
There’s too many factors to name in a brief comment, but here’s an interesting statistic:
In all recent European elections, all center-left parties that have tried to swing to the right on immigration to try and woo right-wing voters, have lost seats. No exceptions.
Edit: Clarified the swing on immigration was to the right.
WP artillery is legal illumination round, and it’s use in war is not this automatic war crime that people often believe.
You just described a legal application of WP:
Illumination of battle space to enable artillery spotters to coordinate indirect fire missions using standard munitions e.g. 155mm, mortars, etc.
However, intentional use of WP as an incendiary munition is where it does become a war crime.
I’m not saying US Forces in Iraq did, or didn’t, illegally use WP, but I am saying you described it’s intended and legal application.
Legal doesn’t mean moral, justified, or right, it just means it’s not a criminal act under the legal frameworks we currently use to manage warfare.
It’s telling that you think a multi-day combat operation over a geographically dispersed area is just one very long firefight.
It sounds like you’re basing this off a mixture of movies, television, and your gut.
Are you relying to the wrong the wrong comment? Or did you just not read mine correctly…?
Before I lay into the absurdity of your response as it relates to my comment, please double check.
Because it should be obvious that my comment adheres to the UN charter you reference and I never claimed that systemic only includes weaponized rape ordered through the chain of command.
Thanks for clearing that up, you’re being intentionally disingenuous.
Never have I defended the IDF, nor have I condemned any Palestinian combatants.
I certainly never expressed any skepticism about the genocide or sexual violence that does appear to be deliberately systemic within the IDF, or at minimum, widely tolerated up the chain.
So, with that out of the way. Re-read my comments, and then decide to engage honestly, or just go and try and peddle your uninformed garbage somewhere else.
There’s a huge difference between isolated incidents, and the systemic use of rape as a weapon of war.
One’s a regular criminal offense, and the other is Hague War Crime Tribal level of offense.
Did you really just try and claim that rape doesn’t happen during active and protracted urban combat…?
Also, while I agree that of the attackers that day, the Hamas forces were the least likely culprits due to training and defined mission objectives, they weren’t the only people to enter Israel after the barriers were breached. That doesn’t mean they didn’t, just that I think there are other scenarios with a higher probability.
And last, I’m not really sure if you’re being intentionally honest with your retelling of events, or if you really just don’t know that much about the scope and duration of the attack. Either way, you don’t really have a firm grasp enough to speak on this with any sort of authority, certainly not with the confidence you seem to have.
Rape happens in war. I don’t believe it was used systemically on Oct. 7, as Israel claims, or at least, there’s no evidence of that.
However, to claim that no one was raped during an attack that long and protracted, and with so many people involved, defies history and the realities of conflict.
What’s worse, anyone claiming “no rapes happened” as a counter to “it was systemically used”, means that a single case of rape invalidates their claim, and by default, bolsters Israel’s lie.
Sepuku or bust
Those Russian mercenaries are running recruitment operations to feed foreign nationals e.g. Syrians into the Ukraine theatre.
Next time, open the actual document.
"There is also talk that Russia is working to develop low-yield nuclear weapons and/or modernizing its nonstrategic nuclear weapons, perhaps with the intent of creating a class of nuclear weapons less likely to draw a nuclear counterattack and are therefore more “usable.”
That paper is from 2016, and those tactical nuclear weapons are now in service.
Also, as I’ve already written, I don’t view flooding Ukraine with Western arms as a significant risk to the escalation ladder. That is not the case for force on force conflict with NATO, especially on Russia’s doorstep. Which again, is laid out in their doctrine.
To clear, I just said to start with those links. You should definitely branch out and spend a lot more time reading up, because clearly you haven’t yet.
Please, finish reading all those documents, and then read some more, and then show me all the white papers, academic articles, or think tank papers that support your position, or disprove mine.
Start here:
https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/07/russias-nuclear-policy-after-ukraine/
https://www.ft.com/content/f18e6e1f-5c3d-4554-aee5-50a730b306b7
https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-nuclear-doctrine
Pay close attention to parts that discuss strategy and doctrine regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Also, lol at your lame personal attacks. Either get educated on the topics you speak on, or just shut up.
It seems to me that all your claims are based on a mixture of your feels and "trust me bro".
Ah, so I guess that’s a “no” on you providing a single source to backup your claims, or disprove mine.
Nice touch claiming that I’m “concern trolling”, but it’s pretty obvious who the troll is here.
Holy shit …
No, I’m saying flood Ukraine with Western arms because it’s worth it.
But putting in active duty NATO troops is a sure fire ticket to an uncontrollable escalation.
I have to admit though, seeing all you keyboard strategists act like force on force conflict between NATO and Russia is no big deal, makes me believe either you’re all genuine idiots, or are actually pushing a coordinated message yourselves. Most likely it’s the former, but that’s just a guess.
…are you seriously claiming that a direct conflict with NATO forces on their borders, or within their occupied territories, wouldn’t change Russia’s strategic calculus in regards to the use of nuclear weapons?
Please, tell me what base of geopolitical knowledge, or Russian military doctrine, are you basing this on?
Because every white paper and analysis of Russian First Strike Doctrine that I’ve read, would seem to fly in the face of your claims. So… please put my mind at rest and show me the sources that I’m missing here.
It’s NOT just about what Russia wants…
This is the type of plan that hawks in the west would draw up because THEY want the casus belli to justify deploying combat troops.
That’s my point. Those risks are intentionally high, because that’s what they want.
And no, that’s not okay. Russia has no chance to win a conventional conflict against the West, period.
What do you think they’ll do to avoid that crushing defeat by NATO forces right on their border, and within their occupied territory?
These are squad level ground launched air to ground munitions i.e. they’re small enough to be carried by infantry units and have the explosive charge more akin to antitank munitions.