Twitter based map of Russian troop movements
maphub.net
maphub.net
I heard most stores are mostly out of stock ("only expensive food is left") and that supplies are expected to last 15-25 days, but I was curious if that was accurate.
Thanks for the tip about TransferWise -- I wasn't sure how to send money to people. My go-to is usually Venmo, but I haven't tried it internationally.
There's an interesting contrast between this comment and your previous one from yesterday, and she shares how you feel. She was taken aback by how this "came out of nowhere", even though it really didn't. Up until this morning, she didn't believe an invasion was possible.
None of my friends in Ukraine believed this would happen. I was often met with "Oh… You shouldn't believe everything you see in the media…".
I am devastated.
I doubt we could do that, but I'm sure they have enough spaces right now for all reffugees.
The news is that no ukrainian refugees want to stay in romanian provided places at the moment -- they either have relatives/friends where they'll be staying with or they immediately want to go to wealthier countries in Central/Western Europe.
That could probably change as more ukrainians flee -- those desperate and those that have no friends or means to travel to other parts.
I've seen footage of ukrainian mothers WALKING for two hours to the border with their children, it broke my heart.
There are ukrainian charities you can donate to.
Fully compensating increase in housing density = (P1 - F) / (H2) - (P1 / H1)
* P1 = Population of city before destruction
* P2 = Population of city after destruction
* H1 = Housing units before destruction
* H2 = Housing units after destruction
* F = Fatalities
The tipping point seemed to be reached when about 70% of a city's homes were destroyed. That's when people began to leave en masse and seek shelter in the countryside.
(1) https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...
It’s a real crisis.
There are humanitarian aid workers here, and mainstream media from around the world. You might see me standing in the background on NBC today; not sure. I don’t see much in the way of housing facilities here at the border, but there are buses constantly shuttling people from the border over to the nearest larger town.
To what extent do you feel that the sense of security there (disbelief this attack would happen) stemmed from the belief that Western interests would serve as an effective deterrent? Or do you attribute it to something else?
I'm ashamed that my government (Australia) has done so little in response. 10 days ago the government was touting how they'd offered online cybersecurity training for Ukraine. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
There should have been far greater support with defenses in place to effectively mitigate the risk. Did the West seriously take Putin for his word that he would respect Ukraine's borders and is the best we have in response sanctions? On top of that, Biden said that personal sanctions against Putin are still on the table [1]. Not done already? Doesn't this effectively amount to a green light to the effect of "Yes we're pissed, but its ok, just don't do something really crazy and we won't punish you personally".
I'm really sorry you've had to leave your country. I don't suggest troops or NATO getting involved. I don't have an answer that is better, but I'm pointing out that the lack of planning is simply astonishing. It's tragic that the people of Ukraine are paying for that.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/biden-says-sanctions-ag...
At least there are two ways out — you can relatively easily go to Isaccea or Galati.
It’s not safe.
The "media" gets a bad rap, but I think we have reached a particularly bad place if the general public is so distrustful of it that we can't use it to communicate about very serious public safety matters.
I think people just genuinely didn’t think Putin would call everyone’s bluff and be willing to eat all the economic sanctions.
A quick search gives this as the answer to who their largest oil buyers are: China, the European Union, South Korea, India and Japan.
China will do what China wants here. But South Korea, Japan, and the European Union will end up being harder to sell to, if possible at all, in the near future. India is a toss-up, depends on how they decide to participate in all this.
Yes. From Putin's POV: two mehs and one thumbs way up
This is probably why he gave such a strong warning against NATO intervention (re: veiled nuclear threat), he doesn't want anyone interfering with that initial push, which could then lead to a long drawn out conflict.
And this is also probably why Trump, Tucker and other hard right leaders and factions are still parroting pro-Putin propaganda. If "Shock and Awe" works, then the "post-war" narrative is going to switch to something like "See that wasn't a big deal, the media was just scaremongering, the Ukrainian people did not want to fight, and prefer to be a part of Russia. Everyone needs to chill out and move on."
This is not to say that I don't think Putin is crazy. But just trying to read between the lines, I think they think they can get away with this. After all they did invade Crimea with little pushback. On one hand, I hope Ukraine will pull through, but on the other hand, I do worry that the longer this draws out, the further we get away from Putin's playbook, and then more erratic he will be. But if this thing is over in a few days, watch for the right wing to start pushing for a quick return to normalization with Russia.
That's your problem. Putin doesn't care about Russia. This invasion has nothing at all to do with the economic or strategic well-being of the nation of Russia. This has to do with the preservation and expansion of the political power of one single man and his oligarchal cronies. The rest of the country can burn as long as they hold power.
Biggest mistake the West has made is thinking that soft power will work with Putin. He just doesn't care. Sanction some oligarchs and he still goes home to his palace like nothing ever happened.
It's simply not true. He has enriched them not the other way around.
It's very common amongst leaders who have been in power for so long.
Also given his age he is unlikely to be around to see the negative decline of Russia as a result of this action.
For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO.
If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia would be basically surrounded by NATO forces.
The biggest issue here is that USA has been placing rockets near the borders of Russia in NATO countries and these rockets just happen to face Russia. If Ukraine joined NATO, who's to say that USA wouldn't place rockets there's as well and thus have an incredibly huge reach into Russia.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, if I could I would remove all militaries, there's really no reason to have them, since I believe that with rational conversation you can solve any and all issues.
But a fact is still a fact even if you don't like it...
I've been waiting for ten years and am still waiting for my country to legalise marijuana.
Everyone just needs to chill~
Can't we just pass the joint around and be friends?
Also, what strategic value does Ukraine have, that for instance the Baltic countries (also NATO members) do not? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that the “Russia doesn’t like NATO and Ukraine becoming a member is a bridge too far” argument feels more like a straw man than anything else.
I’m probably just too dumb to get it, so if someone more enlightened would like to clarify why invading Ukraine helps the Russian anti NATO effort I’d be much obliged!
That's mostly because in terms of NATO war isn't allowed, thus generally speaking there's isn't a lot of reason to be scared of the huge army that NATO represents.
What's really annoying to me as a coder and gamer is that, strategically speaking what Russia did was logical and expected. I'm speaking from a point of view of if this was StarCraft, EU4, CK2 or Civ5. And from that point of view, my biased monkey brain is telling me that if US left the EU alone, there wouldn't be a possible WW3 brewing...
Mildly interesting note, my father is studying Multinational law thing and we were talking about the role of NATO, the function it serves. We got to that topic because my argument was that my country (Slovenia) should either stop having a military or focus on having few but very specialised units, because as it is now, it's mostly just a waste of money, that's because we've got a population of ~2 million and about ~4-7k military units, depending on how you count them. Regardless, it's a number that compared to other countries is not even note worthy. Which is why my argument was that our military in its current state is a waste of money. BUT because we're so small we don't really have air forces, which is where NATO comes in. Because we don't have air forces our air is protected by currently Hungarian forces and the ones from Italy a few years ago.
What I was trying to find out with the conversation with my father was, if there's a way to gain the protection of NATO without having an army. But sadly that's not possible, because too be in the NATO, you have to have an army... There also UN which could protect you, but there response isn't guarantied and the response time is much longer then NATO. Thus ima way you're kinda forced to have an army...
I would still prefer removing our army, I mean... We've got pretty lakes and nice mountains, also good wine, why would anyone want to attack us? :D
But I agree that in the modern world, conventional armies tend to be a massive waste of money. It's just that occasionally a Putin-level threat comes along, and at that point you'll be glad you have them.
This is obviously a very sensitive topic at this time, and I hesitate even to post this comment. But I think everyone should be free to draw their own conclusions.
This is a pretty low quality source for anything Russia related.
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/vladimir-putins-apologists-sp...
Could it perhaps be related to the fact that they were promised neutrality (also by Russia) in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons... and then Russia invaded Crimea anyway?
The reason is simple and trivial: because EU and NATO are much better friends than Russia. This is why countries willingly join it.
He’s quite happy to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of millions of Russian people if necessary in pursuit of this plan. He’s quite happy to preside over chaos and destruction and call it peace.
Putin won’t stop until he is stopped with force and he has very clearly stated his long term goals - the expansion of the Russian empire for his profit. He has not been subtle about this, the invasion was planned at least weeks ago and the signs were all there:
Except those countries are actually in NATO, so the circumstances will be quite different. Won't stop him from influencing pressure though.
His stated goal is to reconstitute the USSR. One route past the nato problem would be to fund opposition groups in these states, poison opponents and induce them to leave NATO prior to invasion.
If he is allowed to take Ukraine he will not stop there.
This was one of the pivotal moments: "US President George W Bush, in 2002, pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565
Since then it has been slow and steady escalation https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/
while we fritter away the time that would allow us to deal with Climate Destruction.
Yes Putin == $BAD_MAN. Yes USA == $OTHER_BAD_MENS. No, neither of those justifies military action on either side.
This is a stupid waste of time.
"I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners."
I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA.
But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia.
Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.
All the neighbors of Russia have always known that one must expect that Russia will invade them at the first opportunity, so they made efforts to join NATO as it was obvious that like Ukraine, they do not have enough resources to fight alone against Russia.
Entering NATO was not easy for them, because the main NATO countries imposed a lot of conditions and the new NATO members had to actually unofficially pay their membership with billions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies from various old NATO members.
The NATO membership was not a free gift and it was paid dearly precisely because the new members were those who wanted the NATO expansion, to be protected against the Russians.
It was not the old NATO who desired the expansion towards Russia.
Moreover, calling the new NATO members as "ex-Soviet satellite states" is an insult. They have never been satellite states by their own will.
All the countries from the Eastern Europe are states who have been invaded by the Russians during WWII and where the Russians were able to install puppet governments and steal whatever they wanted as a consequence of the agreements between USA and Great Britain with Stalin.
The states from Western Europe have paid their freedom from Hitler with little of their own money but mostly with what was not theirs to give, i.e. with the countries from Eastern Europe, which were given to the Russians.
This idea that it somehow coercing Eastern European countries to join is baseless and ridiculous.
Not everything comes down to dollars and cents. The Russian president spelled out in his speech that he believes that Ukraine has always been a region of Russia, and never an independent state, and therefore he believes it has no right to an independent existence. The motivations are mostly in historical terms, even if there are economic gains for Russia in the end.
Also, an authoritarian state like Russia using its military might to shut down a nascent democracy like Ukraine is a pretty powerful narrative for the pre-emininence of the former type of government over the latter. There has been quite a bit of solidarity on this subject between authoritarian governments like Russia and China in recent years.
I don't think the accuracy rate for these predictions will be too good but plenty of people seem to think otherwise.
But plagues and pandemics were a thing in the past. So were wars. And man-made ecological disasters.
Therefore, while climate change and COVID might be real, most of the proposed solutions are completely fake.
And to be frank, I "saw it coming", but not that much more than her. I was maybe 50/50 on an attack up until yesterday.
Unfortunately, it does no one any good. All we can do at the moment is sanction Russia. But it does argue that we should be prepared for a nuclear response if they cross any line west, as long as Putin or some other madman is in power there.
I would rather die than live in a shithole under Putin.
The only madness would be not using nuclear weapons against Putin if he crosses NATO lines. If he wants to die rich, he can live a long life. Otherwise let him die with his missiles, and his daughter who dances.
There's still the hope that nobody, not even an imperialist Putin, would be willing to risk the total destruction of his own country if not of human civilization over some territorial ambitions.
Luckily, this is Russia. There is always someone willing to stab the tzsar in the back when the time comes.
So the solution of the OP is to be madder than him and start nuclear war first?
I wish there were someone to replace the mad tzar, its long overdue
And yes, it's evil, and no, it has nothing to do with their border security, that's a ridiculous suggestion, in the same vein, you would be ok with Russia annexing Poland, Lithuania, Finland or Estonia because they are armed and bordering Russia.
As for the whataboutism, that wasn't the subject.
No, it's ridiculous.
Russian economic development through war doesn't save Russian babies, it will kill them.
Ukraine's attempts to prepare against invasion do not justify said invasion.
you don't have to be the head of intelligence to understand importance of ukraine, even if it isn't technically our job to defend it. Germany, UK and Italy have scored an own goal, as has US policy of russian reset. zero upside, heavy downside, bad trade.
NATO is now more relevant than ever before.
Wow, this must be a new low in these threads.
No, Eastern Europe is Europe's 'backyard', and in fact it isn't a backyard. Romania, Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Czechia, and so on are all solidly part of Europe.
Calling Siberia or Kamchatka Russia's backyard might be accurate. But just like Canada isn't America's backyard neither is Ukraine - or any other former USSR vassal state - Russia's backyard.
Neighbors is an entirely different term.
As for Europe-Russian disputes, there is such a thing as NATO, which was good enough to be relied on after 9/11, I take it that it is still in force? If not can you point me to the news that I apparently missed?
>An area nearby to a country or other jurisidiction's legal boundaries, particularly an area in which the country feels it has an interest. https://www.yourdictionary.com/backyard
Which seems spot on, I swear I didn't just write that myself. The WSJ even went so far as to call Equatorial Guinea (in West Africa) part of America's backyard: https://archive.fo/8UjYC
"In my own backyard" would connote what you are saying, but there's an extra word "own" there.
That's like saying that United States and North America are "neighbors". Is that "true"? Or is it a category error?
Not only does this assume everyone in the thread is American, but also completely disregards the sovereignty and historic significance of many Eastern European countries.
My own country only exists because India wanted to get back at Pakistan and helped us in our independence war. If they hadn’t, we’d still be part of Pakistan—which would be what it would be.
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Biden played it like shit. If they had never warned of war maybe Putin could have saved face.
Instead Biden antogonized Russia, pledged support to Ukraine but didn't actually do anything. They sold out Ukraine. They wanted Ukrainians to do what, fight and die? What good was US intelligence? The US isn't doing shit...
How exactly did he antagonize Russia?
> The US isn't doing shit...
What do you want the US to be doing? Are these actions feasible?
Nothing because it's too late. But had the west given some concrete promises to Ukraine, I don't know at any time in the last few years, do you really think Russia would have invaded?
> How exactly did he antagonize Russia?
Really? He kept threatening sanctions, kept saying the invasion was happening... Even Zelenskiy told Biden to stop...
Edit - now Biden is gloating about being right, talking about sanctions but not helping Ukraine
Edit2 - Biden's press conference is so bad SMH... Hahaha Biden just said the sanctions will be just as bad as Russian missiles are to Ukraine. Clown world...
What specifically do you mean by "concrete promises"?
The US has been sending military aid to Ukraine for years. Trump tried to withhold it but was eventually forced to send it anyway, it was a pretty big story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#...
Actually admitting it to the EU or NATO. Actually pledging to defend it.
I'm confused by how this is antagonizing Russia. By saying what Russia was actually doing is the reason they kept doing it?
So he made a bunch of threats then publicly said he won't do anything... Do you think this helped the situation? Even Zelenskiy told him to STFU.
They could have stationed troops in Ukraine. Or they could have taken NATO membership off the table. Or done any number of things but they literally did nothing except threaten sanctions.
Then Biden went on TV to gloat about being 'right' after giving up Ukraine... SMH
Like, I get that the previous buildups could be dismissed as saber rattling and training exercises, but Putin literally announcing, "HEY I'M COMING IN, I'M SENDING IN TROOPS TO UKRAINE NOW", how do you dismiss that?
You're never sure whether the Chinese submarine is "exercising its rights to international waters" or is preparing for a strike; or the US-Swedish troops are just making friends with each other or getting ready to invade.
That's totally apart from the obvious "sabre rattling" bit.
Kind of like the IT admin that doesn't check backup integrity often enough because there's never been a data loss issue in years.
The government still isn't recommending fleeing. They want to stay and fight--not preside over refugee flows to Poland.
That kind of humanity is of course much harder to experience when bombing or using drones, but I do not know if they're being used.
So far Russia's done precision strikes and is simply rolling troops down roads. They won't encounter much resistance.
A month (or more?) ago Zelenskiy said he's not sending Ukrainians to die. Today there's a lot of tough talk but there's no indication that Ukrainians will put up a fight and die en masse...
There's no evidence to the contrary. It has just begun.
Russian army just does what it's been told. They're risking their lives to make a select few oligarchs a couple billion richer each. They don't want to be there.
If this doesn't end within a week, it'll take years. Putin knows this, hence the offers of unconditional surrender.
When Germany invaded NL for the first little bit there were not many casualties, those came later.
It's bad but it's obviously modern warfare and there likely won't be massive casualties because the Ukrainians aren't marching to die since the west already abandoned them.
We were told Russia would be rolling tanks through the mud and fighting in trenches... Lots of propaganda.
And an hour ago I watched Biden say sanctions are as bad as missiles SMH...
Anyhow, the west abandoned Ukraine, I really doubt too many Ukrainians are eager to die for nothing.
As in: you don't believe that Ukrainians will defend their country?
Because the confirmed number of military KIA in the first hours of the war is only "several dozen" it's "a weekend in Chicago". Just incredibly ghoulish.
To believe that Ukrainians will just let their country be run over is naive, what bugs me is that they are left to hang in the wind rather than that they receive help, that's the one thing that Putin really fears right now judging by his performance earlier, clearly aimed at persuading the public in the West that he would rain nuclear destruction on any country that decides to interfere.
Good enough to supply troops to NATO, not good enough to be defended when it matters? They should go back to 1989 as well?
Besides, there is no reason for Putin to claim those, nor a real strategic value. Ukraine has value: the pipelines, the coast, the Dnieper, and the example for Belarusians not to get ideas once Lukashenko goes. That it would remain a Moscow satellite was basically the agreement post-1990, this makes it more explicit. Sucks for self-determination and all that, but again, avoiding nuclear holocaust is probably worth losing the occasional battle.
> Besides, there is no reason for Putin to claim those, nor a real strategic value.
The strategic value of Lithuania or the North of Poland for Russia can not be underestimated.
> Sucks for self-determination and all that, but again, avoiding nuclear holocaust is probably worth losing the occasional battle.
It isn't the West that is threatening nuclear holocaust here, Putin did just that on live television and if that threat works this time I don't see any reason why it would not work the next.
Historically appeasement of dictators never ends well, I don't see why this would be the exception.
Oh but I referred to sentiment at the other end of the alliance.
> if that threat works this time I don't see any reason why it would not work the next.
Eh, I don't completely disagree, but the risk/reward calculation of invading a full NATO member with deployed military infrastructure is undoubtedly different - if anything because the stay-behind capabilities in those areas would be very difficult to uproot.
> Historically appeasement of dictators never ends well
The luxury of getting rid of dictators in certain countries by swinging a bigger club, effectively ended in Hiroshima in 1945.
France/UK argued that helping elected governments (or people's militias) against their invader could ignite war spreading throughout Europe, so they would rather not irritate these angry dictators. Where did this strategy get us? It's hard to imagine just how different Europe (and probably the rest of the world, for better or for worse) would be today if the western powers had intervened at that time.
It's also worth noting already at the time, social-liberal democracies from the USA to France were very unwelcoming of refugees from the nazi regime. Let's make sure to make them welcome no matter what our governments say, there's quite empty housing for everyone!
No, France was invaded because they didn't shore up their Northern border.
> Let's make sure to make them welcome no matter what our governments say, there's quite empty housing for everyone!
I absolutely agree, except I reckon this is the time for the Visegrad bloc to take them, for once.
Technically correct, yet completely misses the point. If you don't want to be bullied, don't let someone bully anyone else. To be clear, i'm extremely hostile to any colonial Empire (Russia/USA/France/etc) and i'm certainly not a fan of military intervention.
My point is not to compare modern Russia to the nazis, but rather that this laissez-faire policy in regards to military invasions of sovereign territories doesn't exactly have a history of leading to a more peaceful situation overall (see also: France in Mali, USA in Iraq/Afghanistan, China in Tibet, Turkey in Bakur).
And why do you expect Ukrainians to march to their deaths if your country and NATO won't help?
It is very much like the run up to World War II, when countries were making all kinds of deals with Hitler regarding neutrality because they believed that that would keep them out of the firing line, when in fact it enabled a war on a much larger scale than would have ever materialized if the allied sphere had immediately struck back. But even the United States only responded after Pearl Harbor. So, now we have a real problem, and the people of the Ukraine get to choose between abandoning their country, fighting back or living under the Russian jackboot for as long as it takes to plunder their country.
This is not a good day, for anybody.
You say nice words and the "right thing" but the US hasn't done shit for Ukraine.
I agree we should have an even stronger response to Russia right now in terms of just completely crushing their country economically. And perhaps provided more air defense weapons.
But I wouldn't take a bet that Putin wouldn't call our bluff (of troops sitting in Ukraine). And if it's not a bluff......
No, they won't die for this.
He called a former Ukrainian colleague today. According to him Russia obtained complete air souvereignty today. Ukrainian air defence was destroyed by sea-launched cruise missiles. Regular Ukrainian troops are not fighting. They leave their weapons behind and go away. High ranked russian staff promised not to chase them. To the majority of Ukrainian soldiers it just feels not right to shoot russians. So Russia covered a lot of ground today without firing much. Extremist formations on both sides and Russian mercenaries are the ones who do real fighting.
This is consistent with the media insofar as you would usually expect: x killed troops in y, z troops caught, strategic installations damaged etc. You cannot get these reports if one side literally throws their guns away and goes home.
In my friend’s opinion Kiev will fall within the next few days if not tomorrow, the government will either flee or get captured and he joked there will be elections next week.
This is very false, there have been forces deserting, but not in any significant numbers.
While in the morning, attack was sudden and situation looked very bleak for Ukraine, towards the evening, army has been more or less mobilized and started to take back territory.
Unfortunately, the worst is to come.
>In my friend’s opinion Kiev will fall within the next few days if not tomorrow, the government will either flee or get captured and he joked there will be elections next week.
Your friend is a terrible human being.
… do you have anything else to add to the discussion?
Well, do I even have to at this point?
It's hard to know what is serious and what isnt.
It's very obvious that his demands are impossible. Putin is really a master at playing people. It's kind of shocking people are _still_ falling for it.
All of those negotiations were a strategy for confusion, not solution.
Putin never intended anything else than an attack.
'Negotiations as misdirection' makes literally no sense. Who would he be misdirecting? Nobody is coming to Ukraine's aid.
The US waited until the actual invasion began to impose serious sanctions. Misdirecting for a few days could easily have bought Putin enough time to make arrangements for both his personal and national finances. That's idle speculation on my part, but it doesn't seem terribly unlikely.
After he has attacked, he has the initiative, and can threaten ww3 if any NATO troops enter the combat zone, and a few troops are not much use anyway.
Timing.
As for the talks:
They were instrumental in getting away with the attacks, Putin played that for all it was worth, taking a leaf right out of Hitlers playbook.
This is the sort of rhetoric that is why no one believes the media, too much fear of sounding unhinged and delusional.
The more likely explanation is, IMO, that Trump was just unhinged enough to actually do something, unlike the mellow Biden, who'll obviously just sit and wait (or, well, sleep).
Also, he let Erdogan do whatever he wanted. And the Saudis. He didn’t care!
And even if you don’t believe that, Trump is currently okay with the invasion.
He introduced new sanctions for Iran and killed one of their highest ranking officers. Precision strikes instead of wasteful wars.
Turkey and SA are US allies, Trump just continued that long-standing policy, as does Biden.
> And even if you don’t believe that, Trump is currently okay with the invasion.
Quote? Trump said Putin's "pretty smart", which, judging by their progress towards Kyiv, and the lack of response by the West, well, you can't say it's not smart (at least in the short term... long term, remains to be seen).
Let us not devolve into the Rorschach test that is Trump's administration and our personal interpretations. It serves no purpose but to feed relative trolls.
This is a sub thread discussing some nuance of how we got to this point.
> Let us not devolve into the Rorschach test that is Trump's administration and our personal interpretations.
I don't appreciate the gratuitous insult that we can't objectively discuss the actions of a past president.
Regardless of any point made on the subject, what one side considers objective, the other side considers biased and tainted. Your rejoinder on the existential insult (though a consequence of human nature) is noted -- and your wish shared that we could exist with any real semblance of objectivity. We primates aren't objective creatures when it comes to arguments that at least one side has turned its axioms into articles of faith.
For the record, I expect we agree substantively on an analysis of Trump's presidency, both in terms of motivations, outcomes, and impacts.
Trump praised Putin at every turn (even did that again today and called the invasion "smart"). Went against NATO. Had closed door meetings and got rid of the transcripts. Asked that the US ambassador to Ukraine be fired. Wanted dirt on Biden in exchange for releasing the (congress-approved) military aid to Ukraine. And so on. An entire book could be written on this based only on public information.
If Trump is Putin's puppet why did he publicly criticize Germany for being overly reliant on Russian pipelines for their energy needs?
The recent deployment near the border wasn't the first, although it was definitely an order of magnitude bigger - there were, in fact, questions on whether the exaggerated scale was so brazen and disproportionate (and unbalanced - their Asian border is now pretty weak...) that it couldn't be anything more than posturing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+military+drill+ukrai...
He does not run the world.
Because he has the World's most powerful intelligence agencies behind him?
I know, children and propagandists will say "but, what about Iraq?" or some-such.
But most serious people know that we generally hear about the relative few intelligence failures versus the multitudes of successes, and that the U.S. and its allies unquestionably wield the World's foremost intel services.
And, here, we have the benefit of hindsight so we know unequivocally: our intelligence had it right and "she" would have done well to "turn to America's president for information".
I think I'm justified in having these beliefs, and some portion of people might agree with me, while another portion might call me an idiot, but the reality is that no matter how objectively "right" or "wrong" I am in having these beliefs, the fact still stands that the end result is I no longer believe a single thing mass media says. If they ever do have a legitimate, "true" message they need me to receive, whether about Ukraine, or Covid, or whatever comes next, they no longer have any ability to influence my thoughts or actions.
At this point I feel standard mass media has become so institutionalized, so corrupt, so completely politicized, that there's not even reform possible; the whole system has to be torn apart and replaced with some new system, before I'll even consider listening again.
He told "we will prosecute those responsible for the terract in Odessa!"
This second it was crystal clear to me the invasion was planned and going to happen in a matter of days.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
We saw this at the start of the pandemic too.
"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon, is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
No I do not appreciate it that the comments under this thread all expecting civilians to be well prepared for escalation of war.
"For example, consider a narrow river valley below a high dam, such that if the dam burst, the resulting flood of water would drown people for a con- siderable distance downstream. When attitude pollsters ask people down- stream of the dam how concerned they are about the dam's bursting, it's not surprising that fear of a dam burst is lowest far downstream, and increases among residents increasingly close to the dam. Surprisingly, though, after you get to just a few miles below the dam, where fear of the dam's breaking is found to be highest, the concern then falls off to zero as you approach closer to the dam! That is, the people living immediately under the dam, the ones most certain to be drowned in a dam burst, profess unconcern. That's because of psychological denial: the only way of preserving one's sanity while looking up every day at the dam is to deny the possibility that it could burst. Although psychological denial is a phenomenon well established in individual psychology, it seems likely to apply to group psychology as well."
> In March and April 2021, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian military to begin massing thousands of personnel and equipment near its border with Ukraine and in Crimea, representing the largest mobilization since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. This had precipitated an international crisis and generated concerns over a potential invasion. Satellite imagery showed movements of armour, missiles, and heavy weaponry. The troops were partially withdrawn by June 2021.
People underestimate how quickly a tense situation can turn to horror. My mother told me people in ex-Yugoslavia were going to their cabin to wait for it to blow over at the dawn of war. Even while it's going strong they underestimate just how bad it is; for instance in the middle of it (like 3 years in) you keep thinking it's gonna pass sooner rather then later. Then there was a bit of a lull and people thought it was over, life coming back to normalcy - hence why we hadn't fled yet, and why I was born in that period. Before you know it, it gets worst then it's ever been, literal hell on Earth and you're trapped for it, with army and blockades at every exit restricting movement and catching deserters. We were lucky to be in a region where it was possible for my mom, my brother and myself to get out (pretending you're going next town and some bribe money, but you obviously can't pack your things and show blockaders that you're getting the fuck out) and reach an embassy to seek asylum (unlike poor souls who were stuck in hell holes like Sarajevo or god forbid Srebrenica). If you're a man it's even harder as you're a deserter in some warlord's conflict, my dad couldn't have escaped his nth drafting without savvy trickery, and we know for a fact he wouldn't have made it out alive if we didn't turn on a dime and bail.
Obviously not the same situation, but if people in ex-Yugoslavia were able to justify sticking to it for years, expecting it to blow over and not see how the whole situation was a powder keg, it shows how easy it is to miss war turning for the worst, let alone when it's lurking over the corner.
However, what is happening now is very different. This is more like when the US attacked Libya and it was over in two weeks.
If by over you mean becoming a failed state and years of subsequent civil war then yes.
Putin will face a similar problem in Ukraine, he can punish it but he won’t be able to hold it because the population absolutely hates Russia’s guts.
In my opinion the more likely outcome if Putin doesn’t stop is Syria: total collapse, the civilian population flees and only militants remain.
I just meant to point out, using my family's experience and in response to GP's girlfriend's "out of nowhere" comment, how easy it is to not recognize the seriousness of a conflict as it is starting and even as it's been ongoing for years.
My parents knew that war started that morning but they were really cheap faucets. Wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity.
To everyone questioning why Ukranian population haven't heeded the warnings from Biden/West and left already - I can only assume you have never been in a comparable circumstance. It is easy for me to suggest/advise people leave, but I know all too well that's easier to type on a keyboard than act on in real life.
And it just got that much more complicated to leave.
1. Keep your passport on you at all times. It's your best protection against official soldiers (from every side), although it may not help against unofficial militias. Stay away from them.
2. Make sure your embassy knows where you are at all times. You are their problem.
3. If you can, make your way quickly and quietly out of Ukraine.
4. Avoid posting things like this publicly. It draws attention to you and puts the people around you in danger.
The EWRC is https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/emergency-assistance
Oh, and here is the Canadians Abroad registration info: https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/registration
Urgh, I hate this.
Quite. Russia is now a pariah, until Putin is gone they will not be able to live this down. I'm really disappointed that Italy and Germany block kicking them off Swift, that should have been the first response.
Neither is a death sentence. You just have to weigh your risks.
I'm in decent shape (probably top 10% of the population) and I did 114 km this summer in great weather on an old mountainbike with a slick rear tire on gravel roads. It took me about about 5½ hours effective riding time.
To go out biking winter-time 100+ km, in freezing temps or slightly above that, with high humidity and possibly rain/sleet/snow you better be well prepared. Especially if you don't know where you will end up and if that place will have water / heat / electricity.
So far the info from the US government has been very accurate.
But maybe they didn't want out.
As of a few days ago, it was quite clear that Russia would invade Donetsk and Lugansk. It was not at all clear whether an invasion of Kiev would actually take place, or if it was a fairy tale, just like Saddam's WMDs.
0. Do not panic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60454795?ns_mch...
Persisting with the concentration of power in individuals has shown throughout history to have dire consequence. We continue risking civilization on the mental health of those who already show significant issues with their obsessive clammer for power. The cult of the leader is toxic and, as far as I can see, illogical and lacking evidence for benefit.
Where are the voices that seek a structured shift away from personality cult politics? The innovation we all need for the future are those voices.
Cheney pulled a similar move of cynically planning and instigating a war of aggression, which is why many people consider him to be a war criminal even within the US.
He wasn't really the head of a cult of personality, though. He just took advantage of the gullible people who surrounded him.
It's always an oversimplification to attribute global events to an individual, but sometimes you can point to one person without whom an event could not have occurred.
Here's how the Iraq war could have been prevented:
* VP doesn't push for it
* President (the Commander in Chief) doesn't give the orders to attack
* Powell never gives the UN speech and resigns in protest
* Senate doesn't vote to authorize war
* Intelligence agencies push back on WMD accusations
* Military officials push back on the strategic value of occupying Iraq and push for alternative measures
* UK opposes the US war effort
* Saddam allows UN inspectors back in with unrestricted access
* If enough of the US was anti-war (it wasn't), threaten impeachment
* etc.
Sure, leader's drive initiatives, but there's still a chain of conditions and any break in the chain can cause the event to stop or change course (at least temporarily).
I think it's important to remember that with a separation of powers, we aren't powerless to stop our leaders. These things only happen because we lack the will (or the desire) to stop it.
Part of the issue is populism, which is as strong on HN as anywhere else. If I said 'hey the US & other countries should move away from a presidential system to a parliamentary one, because by making choosing the leader less democratic it reduces the cult of personality', I'll get a ton of downvotes. If I said 'the US shouldn't have primaries but instead let party elites choose their candidates [the way the rest of the world operates] to reduce the cult of personality', I'd get a ton of downvotes. If I said 'hey strong political parties are actually a good thing, and candidate-centered politics where candidates can appeal directly to the voters without party elites gatekeeping out demagogues is actually really bad'- I mean, same.
The way to 'shift away from personality cult politics' is boring and technocratic, and we're in the middle of a populist, anti-elites age. Less direct elections, more appointed offices in our democracy, stronger parties, more gatekeeping & no primaries- it's exactly what we need, and it's exactly what the mood of the 2020s doesn't want right now
That age might be coming to an end, but it's less about some vague general mood of the 2020s and mostly due to proliferated networked communications. This allows people to find their frens exchange ideas and coordinate actions. Oh and everyone starts to see how transparently duplicitous the official lines are.
We perceive all this as "populism." From Arab Springs to meme stocks to Donald Trump, the phenomena are clearly a form of network dynamics. Is it bad? Is it good? Well... it's certainly disruptive, and is probably both good and bad in different cases and at different times. Which are which depends on your point of view.
But disruption of any kind is certainly bad for the managers, so the natural reaction is precisely what you suggest, effectively, sinification: tighter control ("moderation") of online communications, suppression of opposition parties. Policy drafted by career mandarins. The CCP has done alright, so I suppose if (big if) they can execute it well it might buy them some more time.
But unless you are a party insider, I'm not sure why you would throw your lot in with them.
There are many things to reform in the US democracy, but it is obvious that it is highly oligarchic already.
I don’t think that’s true. Even autocrats need allies to stay in power and stay safe. They might obtain those through fear, bribes, etc., but they’re still allies.
Autocrats also help elevate those that agree with them so if you also think Russia should return to USSR (or Russian Empire) borders, you’re going to get more power, more perks, etc.
Just like any country there will always be nationalist leaders and a good portion of the population that supports them.
Russia’s leaders from Putin to Stalin (and probably before — I don’t know my Russian history that well), have always had territorial ambitions. See: Georgia, Crimea, Afghanistan, Poland, etc.
Putin is the face right now, but I think it runs far deeper than just him.
We probably slaughtered them off millions of years ago, when the cultist tribal leader our ancestors followed identified them as some 'other.' Tribalism is in our biology. We self domesticated ourselves and selected for features such as subscribing to a social hierarchy and being submissive to an authority. We did this by refusing to breed with people who didn't fit into our social order and also slaughtering those groups who stood in contrast to our social order.
It's not just a military thing- of I were to suggest Jeff Bezos has too much control over the working conditions of 1.5 million employees, many people will happily step in and say it would be a great tragedy if society stepped in and reduced his ability to order 1.5 million people around.
You should look at what anarchists have been saying in their criticism of the state and capitalist system.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-ed...
Much like Bin Laden and al Zawahiri told us their motivations and nobody listened for ten years, the Kremlin told us their motivations for this and nobody is listening: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
Reaching for a simple explanation precludes real conversation about why this is happening.
After bad experiences with their last kings, the Roman Republic was based on the principle that it is dangerous to concentrate any powers into any single individual.
That is why for all the public functions of the Republic at least 2 people were assigned and no important decision could be taken unless all those having a function agreed to it.
So there never was a single "President of the Republic" but only at least 2 consuls. (with the exception of extraordinary events that required very fast decisions, e.g. wars, when a dictator could be appointed for a short and limited time)
So all present republics fraudulently claim a historical link with the Roman Republic, because all of them are more or less controlled by a single human, who frequently succeeds to circumvent whatever checks and balances are supposed to exist.
Such a unique leader is contrary to the base principles of the original Republic.
I pray that we’ll never have to use tools like these for anything other than leisure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulf_War_Did_Not_Take_Plac...
This is probably a great opportunity for Russian and Chinese tech companies to gain market share as western companies are banned from operating in Russia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act
I wouldn’t be surprised if future historians point to this thorn in putin’s side as one of the main reasons for pissing him off enough to start a war.
We have the technology to put a ton of pressure on the powerful elite trying to flex their way out of bearing responsibility for ruin they caused.
Not if they've made peace with giving up on jet-setting and simply being kings in their own country:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/us/politics/russia-biden-...
> And perhaps most notably, Mr. Putin and his closest aides and partners in Moscow might not suffer much themselves from sanctions, analysts say....
> Some of the hard-line nationalist men around Mr. Putin were already on a Treasury Department sanctions list and accept that they and their families will no longer have substantial ties to the United States or Europe for the rest of their lives, said Alexander Gabuev, the chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center.
> “They are the powerful everybodies in today’s Russia,” he said. “There is a lot of posh richness. They’re totally secluded. They’re the kings, and that can be secured in Russia only.”
> Furthermore, because of their roles in state-owned enterprises and their business ties, they are “the very guys who are directly benefiting from the economy becoming more insulated, more detached from the outside world,” he added.
Thankfully people die eventually.
edit: after thinking about it, the above seems like punishing the Russian people more than the Russian government which shouldn't be done IMO
It's not like government or military leaders are the ones that can't get basic medical supplies or food in a sanctioned country.
For example, when I see a twitter video of army trucks going down a freeway geotagged, I can at least use satellite view on google maps to match up landmarks and confirm the location is accurate, and I can check the sun position and weather to get an idea if the date/time is accurate.
Most 'fake news' stories seem to fail even these basic checks, although it would be pretty easy to fake these elements too.
> For Eastern Ukraine specifically, this has included a supposed infiltration by Ukrainian saboteurs into Russia. [2] Geolocation of the footage (taken from the helmet of one of the Ukrainian soldiers that supposedly participated in the infiltration) debunked the story within an hour after it turned out that the supposed incursion into Russian territory was carried out from separatist-held territory. [3] Rather than showing the bodies of the five Ukrainian soldiers that were supposedly killed in the raid, Russia instead showed a destroyed BTR-70M armoured personnel carrier (APC) that was painted in an ill-conceived attempt to make it look like a Ukrainian vehicle. [4] Ironically, Ukraine doesn't even operate the BTR-70M, further showing the attention (or lack thereof) that goes into these false flag operations.
Source: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/false-flag-shenanigans...
Disproving them takes far more resources than spreading, and doesn’t spread
At this point, after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 and after repeatedly saying they wouldn't invade Ukraine etc etc everyone should know that even if we don't always trust our own, Putin and those loyal to him are absolutely untrustworthy.
There have been attacks all over the country today.
Explosions in Odessa, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Mariupol, and more.
Fucking everywhere.
My friends and loved ones woke up to explosions.
My employees woke up to explosions.
Many can't leave because the roads are massively congested. Cash machines have stopped operating. The shops are running out of food.
There are no flights. None. All the airports are under missile fire.
They've raised the Russian flag over buildings.
This is all out war.
Evidently, sanctions do jack shit.
---
You will all see videos of this, and so will your children's children.
Here's one for a start.
https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1496805801628995587
это просто пиздец.
The THREAT of sanctions hasn't had the desired effect, and if they are enacted, they will take a while before their effect can be felt by the people involved - weeks, months, I don't know. And if they maintain a good relationship with China they may be able to avoid it entirely - although China may then risk its relationship with the rest of the world, if it's found out they're funneling money to Russia.
The system has failed. People are dying.
This is our Hitler.
Diplomacy was never an option.
Putin recorded his declaration of war before telling the world that diplomacy was still an option.
He will only be stopped by swift and decisive military action from the entirety of the free world.
Anything short of that, and the blood of Ukrainians is on the hands of the Western world too.
Only countries which can speak out are those which were against the NATO bombing and don't recognize Kosovo, everyone else has blood on their hands even without Ukraine.
I didn't realize that he was intervening in an ongoing genocide
Aren't euphemisms wonderful?
Well, no.
He may be claiming loosely similar things, but people can claim similar things when doing radically different ones.
Things get complicated when you go toe to toe with a nuclear superpower.
What outcome do you expect when an authoritarian dictator with nukes is cornered and being bombarded by Western military from all sides?
Especially one ruled by a egotistical madman with a grudge
That said, nato should have made huge show and noise about the Russian preparations around Ukraine directly causing nato to strengthen and beef up on the eastern boarder, and upped the troops on nato states massively. Things they are doing now. Those things should have been done before.
The sanction timeline is okay, the nato beefing up an communication around it was late.
Putin doesn't care about Russia economy the way you think he does: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-rus...:
> Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
Putin's clique actually stands to gain from sanctions. They control the Russian industry that would have to replace the imports.
> And if they maintain a good relationship with China they may be able to avoid it entirely - although China may then risk its relationship with the rest of the world, if it's found out they're funneling money to Russia.
They will: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/world/europe/china-russia...
> China on Wednesday criticized the expansion of economic sanctions against Russia, saying that they were unlikely to solve the Ukraine crisis and that they had the potential to harm average people as well as the interests of Beijing.
It's also worth noting that China has been turning inward under Xi, so it's becoming increasingly willing to "risk its relationship[s] with the rest of the world."
In a way, something similar seems to be happening with Erdogan in Turkey, whose popularity is starting to wane as an effect of the horrible economic situation.
So, I think that long-term, sanctions may help, even though there is no guarantee (but when is there ever?).
Why?
Russia's response to the global Magnitsky Legislation shows that hitting the power structure in their oligarchs' assets works.
The point is that they are a prime example of how economic sanctions are effective, especially against Russia. If anything, there should have been the threat of more sanctions for invading, and now with countries like Germany pulling out of energy deals and other action, we have only to see how it plays out.
I mean really, that's just gaslighting now.
Or maybe you can finally answer why sanctions made things worse?
The sanctions largely weren't imposed until after the war started. So, it was mostly potential sanctions that didn't work
Obviously.
Of course, kids alive now who pay attention to the news will see it. And future kids who are history or politics nerds might learn of it on their own.
I'd have to guess that has something to do with.. how things went for Germany in 1945? In my US public education we had a series of courses that covered "recent" history as in the last 20 years or so and another about current events.
Added some emphasis.
Granted I graduated about 18 years ago, but my experience, and one shared by everyone I've talked to about it, including those who went to school in other states, was that our time in k-12 history classes were spent about like this (numbers ballparked but basically correct):
20% Early civilizations (largely "cradle of civilization" focuses, rarely going past the Greeks and not covering any of that remotely thoroughly).
25% The "Age of Exploration" in Europe and early American (as in, the continents) colonial history.
40% US history from about 1760-1900
15% Everything else. Probably half of our education of post-WWII material concerned the Civil Rights Movement, but it was very poorly contextualized and more of a "greatest hits" approach (as with most of the rest, really). World history post-WWII was hardly covered at all.
At the pace those classes move, there's hardly time to cover anything but the basics, and that only by leaving out huge swaths of time.
I only went into college with any significant grasp on history thanks to personal interest. It'd be entirely possible to have passed every grade k-12 with a perfect 4.0 and have huge blanks in one's historical knowledge. Most of the rest was presented with so little analysis and context that it was pretty useless (again, at the snail's pace those classes move, and with limited ability to push work on kids outside of class [especially, these days, for anything that's not math or reading] there's simply no way to cover very much in the first place, and none of it well)
A bunch of factors contribute to this, including:
1) You can only really push history so fast on kids under a certain age (go low enough and reading ability becomes a factor, plus they start with no context for any of this, and bootstrapping up to the point they can really appreciate what's going on takes a bunch of time). Most kids attend at least 13 total years of school by the time they graduate from high school, but they're only really receptive to a good history education for, at most, half that time—before that you're just trying to get them the building blocks to be able to understand stuff later, and often that doesn't even happen. This differential-ability-at-different-ages thing is why a curriculum will often repeat coverage of history material in multiple years.
2) We used to focus more narrowly on European history & heritage (and, broadly, the "Western" heritage of Rome and, by way of Rome, Greece), and put that stuff directly into things like the reading curriculum. It's no longer acceptable to have such a narrow focus and literature reading plans have shifted far away from that, leaving history classes to largely stand alone while the scope of what they're supposed to try to cover has only grown. On top of that, history classes are often less well-resourced than others (math and English classes, especially), notorious (especially at the high school level, where more serious history could be taught) as a haven for teachers who are mostly in the career to coach sports, likely to receive pushback from parents and admin if homework or reading load creeps above the bare minimum (that time is needed for math and English—if every subject gave out homework like those do, kids wouldn't have time to sleep), and constantly at risk of angering parents with facts (let alone even the tamest and most uncontroversial of analysis). Everything's set up for it to be neglected, and it is.
I think there's little on modern conflict because recent conflict is more likely to be considered political and therefore controversial. It's true that there are parts of the nation where a textbook's take on the civil war might be controversial- but I think, where I grew up at least, you could teach up to WW2 without offending a parent's political sensibility.
Currently I've been watching four Telegram groups. Most are Russian propaganda / pro-war. But I still find it interesting to see everything.
- https://t.me/s/istorijaoruzija
- https://t.me/s/ukrpravda_news
And https://meduza.io/en/live/2022/02/24/invasion is also good.
(I use Chrome's auto-translate feature. Right click -> Translate to English. The Telegram app is actually less useful than the web viewer because of this.)
Start with watching actual TikTok clips.
Lviv is a city very close to the border with Poland, a NATO member.
How far will their ground troops then go? We shall see...
Apparently this phase won't last long because it can't (Russia according to analysts in the Guardian doesn't have many guided munitions in this range).
So we will perhaps see this map change very quickly as troops move in.
Imagine in a situation like this where the internet-based payment systems are seized, lines break down, there are power shoartages etc.
People would invent a new form of cash.
In all seriousness I do feel for you. Protesting against this will do little and get you in trouble so you’re basically forced to watch. You’ll need to accept these are things out of your control for your own mental health. Hopefully diplomatic efforts resolve it quickly.
As someone from the west, this is whole development is not surprising at all.
Even in the past week so many didn't believe it would happen. Meanwhile I've been watching the news the past week or two to see if they've invaded yet.
Do the same thing for US troops: traitorous. Immediate bannination. Probable investigation by the FBI.
Thanks
So many innocent people are going to die for absolutely no reason at all, imagine if US tried to take over Cuba or some other coastal island.
At least we now know what's going to happen to China when they take over Taiwan, lots of "sanctions" but no action because who is going to stop them and cut off all their manufacturing/supply?
With Russia there is nothing they have but natural gas and still nothing can be done except throw more bodies on the fire which won't happen.
Speaking of which, why wouldn't China just take Taiwan right now? World doesn't seem to handle multiple problems at once very well and they also need a "distraction" from covid and economy problems.
I think it'd be a bit more like the US trying to take over Canada, but sure.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-reports-ni...
It's a perfect time for distraction. I almost expect North Korea to do something stupid too.
Not like they haven't tried:
I immediately noticed the danger because any bear would be comming down the sloap and there was verry little room to get out of the way.
My wife took her phone and was trying to get closer.
I had to drag her and she made fun of me.
That is untill the mama bear with her cub came running down, then she started screaming and pannicking. I've never hit her in my life, but that moment I felt like punching her in the face, mostly to shut her up and make her move.
She was not alone, a lot of people were doing the same.
I was dumbstruck by how oblivious and heard-like people behave.
I know I was blindsighted in the past by danger, mostly because of my young macho self.
But my grandpa told me countless stories about survival and being prepared, and thankfully nowdays I try never to ignore my gut feeling.
If your gut feeling tells you something's not right, LISTEN and ACT -- acting usually means move out of harms way, fast.
You realize your limitations and make peace with yourself and are better prepared in the future.
The problem are people who don't acknowledge their dark shadow, like Putin and eventually it integrates and takes over them.