What an utter piece of shit.

  • During the cold war, there were plenty of instances of fighting between us and soviet forces, not to mention the huge amount of proxy fighting done. Personally, I’m not interested in drawing up a sequel to the cold war.

      • @letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Why though? There’s been plenty of hot and cold wars, plenty of proxy wars.

        This isn’t special in that regard, except now using the propaganda talking points of view a fascist enemy is done without a hint of shame from the stooges who do it.

      • @MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        -161 year ago

        As I see it, we’re at a turning point. Either we continue a path of escalation, or we back down, either would be feasible given our current position, but that said current position isn’t somewhere we can stay. We either need to accept that sacrificing some global influence is necessary to avoid foreign wars, or that maintaining our current global influence inevitably requires putting soldiers behind our words.

        • This is a weird take… The war in Ukraine is largely being fought because Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine. We’re protecting our allies in Europe, and looking to prevent further escalation, not simply exerting influence on a far-away foreign war.

          The escalating party is 100% the aggressing party that’s invading a sovereign nation. That’s Russia, not the United States.

          I mean, unless you’re speaking as a Russian citizen? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point of view here.

          • This is the exact attitude I was trying to call out. We are absolutely escalating our participation in this conflict. Trying to strattle the line of participation, where nothing we do is our own fault, and neither are any of the consequences we face. Because I’m not sure how well you did in middle school geography, but the US is, in fact, not a part of Europe. This war has no direct impact on the US beyond the extent we choose to be involved.

            Now if you view the benefits of involvement as greater than the risks, fine. That’s a perfectly coherent position. One I don’t agree with, but a rational position nonetheless. But to pretend our involvement is just a force of nature we have no control over? That’s just a bunch of excuses to support involvement without having to openly commit to a position of involvement.

            • @habahnow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              91 year ago

              Lol, we tried your strategy, it just just emboldened Russia. Remember their attach on Georgia? How about their first invasion of Ukraine? Obviously, Russia wants to do what they want to do, especially if there’s no consequences. Let’s try this different approach and see if they feel being violent still helps them secure their goals.

              • @jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                51 year ago

                Also, “appeasement” in this context should be awfully familiar to anyone vaguely familiar with history. It worked soooo well last time…

                  • If you seriously think taking some backwater nowhere gives Russia the military capabilities to invade the US, I’d like some of whatever you’re smoking

                • @habahnow@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  Give an actual reason we shouldn’t care about Russia’s history of attacks, that show you’re not ignorant of the topic, and I’ll actually provide you an answer. Your reply appears extremely ignorant.

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          fedilink
          121 year ago

          Are you seriously saying we should just stand back and let Russia take Ukraine?