this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
27 points (81.4% liked)

World News

32527 readers
704 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but this time for realsies!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Are you claiming there was already a recent change to Russia's nuclear doctrine, I'd be very interested to see a source.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, it's the opposite - they're saying that this isn't a change in Russia's behaviour.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I know what they're saying, but you seem to have misunderstood what I said. To my knowledge this is the first change in Russia's nuclear doctrine, so there's no "again" here. This is a significant change in nuclear use policy, and it would be sheer idiocy to dismiss it lightly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

It is the next step in a continued escalation of the nuclear threat.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Putin's final warning. It's like China's final warning but less serious.

[–] tellah 14 points 3 months ago (22 children)

Right, so we all better just let the Russian regime take whatever it wants, such as Ukrainian territory, in this case. Or else they will use nuclear bombs. And it’ll be everyone else’s fault, because we didn’t want to let them take whatever they wanted.

Russia is totally the good guy here, and if we don’t let them do whatever they want, they’ll use nukes and we will deserve it.

Am I getting that right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right, so we all better just let the Russian regime take whatever it wants,

so they can keep land taken by force like diego garcia, hawaii, sioux nation territory* or countless others were taken by force once and the new "owner" kept and exploited these lands since then? yes, that would be awful.

*(thats also where that "monument" stands that stands as an example to remind the the world which nation will never ever stick to laws, not even to its very own ones, but instead humilitate other peoples religions like it i.e. also does in hawaii)

no! i think we really should make such countries give the taken-by-force land back to their rightful owners immediately plus a compensation that is worth that name plus whatever it takes to undo any destruction or change or poisoning with whatever chemicals done to the land under such evil invaders (thinking of the enewetak atoll right now 😢)

And maybe we should concentrate on the cultures that were completely(!) deported long ago first, to at least give their children back the land that was taken from their parents or grandparents or grandgrandparents a.s.o. so diego garcia seems to be the easiest one, the current invaders there don't need it for a living and don't even call it their "home", so just make them leave the captured land that is not theirs now. rescueing a whole civilisation and culture from evilish invaders was never easier! then of course those who's ancestors had been deported and enslaved, those need to be compensated for but that cannot be aligned in money especially not since that money happens to be printed by those who's ancestors did the deportation and enslavement and the money presses were at least indirectly build with slave labour, so other solutions need to be found that are not only accepted by those of the deported families who live today but really(!) compensate for centuries of abuse. also the debt of not yet abolishing slavery needs to be compensated for as it is at least a slap in their faces every day and this should be compensated like a slap in the face of an officer today, but for each single day per affected person living during that time since slavery was first introduced into those laws until it is completely abolished (this would only be the compennsation for not yet abolishing slavery). also those countries where those long ago enslaved had been deported from have to be compensated for all the losses including but not limited to all losses that resulted or may have resulted in development that did not happen due to that deporting and enslaving their families friends and firefighters ages ago. also all damages that happened after that deportation like robbing of resources underground their land that they could not defend any more due to that deporting like robbed diamonds, robbed gold and robbed oil and maybe lots of other robbed resources too. this compensatoon needs to be done throughoutly and complete, just to give the russians that example that the west actually "can" do something good and would stand to rightful living together and not only robbing the world until everything is gone like the west does now. if the west would stand to its so called values, a war against robbers would be a good one, but as it is right now, fighing another robber nation would just be a fight about who can rob more and stands last which is a bad thing or do you actually like that idea?

so on which robber nations side are you? you seemed to want to sound like being on the russian side, so tell me how many nations had been invaded and robbed and enslaved by russia in the last ... lets say 400 years ? (next step would be to compare that with western nations to be at least complete when determining which robbers side would be the more civilised one to know which side to stand to - which seemed to me to be your real question here)

Or else they will use nuclear bombs.

i guess giving back sioux nations land, hawaii and diego garcia to their rightful owners and start compensating the damages done to other nations would put real moral pressure on the russians, but until then, the only thing that happens when "the west" keeps bubbling about the values they don't even fight for within their own captive taken lands is that one evil side shouts at the other but using bombs instead of real actions of good.

have a nice day!

[–] tellah 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No reasonable person will ever be convinced by this unhinged wall of text that tries to equivocate between European colonialism in North America over the past 400 years, and Russian imperialism happening literally right now.

Insane whataboutism - but in any case, it doesn’t change the fact that what the Moscow regime is doing is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

the civilisation of diego garcia people (or how the islands are named by them and how they name themselves) are forced away from their homeland 'right now', not only in the past.

hawaiian country is destroyed 'right now' by their invaders military, not only in the past.

not to mention how 'law enforcement' acts on people without that secure pale skin today in the us, which is happening 'right now', not only in the past and slavery is protected by us law 'right now', not only in the past.

Can sioux people walk their rightful land right now freely and follow their religion? ay, no they can't, some invadors don't allow that but keep captured their land 'right now', not only in the past.

it happens right now what you seem to want to see as some "history" things, so following your argumentation, the invasion of ukraine was in the past too (right? there are little changes nowadays and ukraine even got some land from russia, right?) so should we:?

  • not talk about it as the initial invasion already is history?
  • only talk about it cause its "the others" who do it?
  • ignore all wars and genocides supported by the west but claim other invaders do be the evil ones but the west to be the goodies despite all the warcrimes committed?
  • ... (your ideas here to maxbe stop maybe ALL invaders) ?

after how many years some evil act becomes "legalized by history" in your opinion? is it 20 years, 50years or 100years? you already complained about 400years to be too much, so plz tell me what you think is the time a land must be forcefully captured to 'rightfully' change ownership to the brutish invader? whatever number "the west" would say would be enough to legalize such past crimes, that would be exactly the number of years the west would in the same sentence tell russia to have to keep ukraine captive so that the status quo would be as legalized as in those countries or cities captured by the west already beeing said to be "historically legitimised" as the west seems to accept that as "rightful ownership" then. since the west seems to never give back once invaded land, it tells russia and israel to actually do the same and capture as much as they can now to "legally own"(style of "the west") it in a few decades, while israel already invaded and captured land in the (i think) northwest, they are driven by the wests real-world-definition of their so called "rightful ownership" to invade other countries now, and not only in some future.

maybe i didn't write it for people like you (how could i know u?) but for others who might want to read whole thoughts instead of only cheap and short propaganda. The evil ones always want the masses to forget at least most of what they did and "short and incomplete" is the tool of propaganda.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Thirty years of shrugging off promises, agreements, and red lines is how we got to 90 seconds to midnight.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

It's Wednesday my comrades!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Russia tries to keep Poland, Baltic states and other unfriendly bordering nations from getting involved in any military action against Russia by making it clear that response will be nuclear.

The desire to involve other nations against Russia goes up with Ukraine slowly loosing war against Russia. Tactical encirclement of 72nd Ukrainian battalion in Ugledar is the most recent example of losses on Ukrainian side.

Change to Nuclear weapons doctrine tries to stop opening of 2nd war front against Russia. The most likely location would be border between Belorussia and Poland.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

That's my understanding as well, and hence why Putin explicitly mentioned an attack on Belarus in his statement.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Rattle that sabre harder.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I wonder which country will be next to carry out a nuclear strike, Russia or Israel.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I wonder which country has actually used nuclear weapons?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ask Japanese that.

They know they got nuked, but don’t know who did it.

Absurd, but that’s the reality.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

I'm awake way too late. Please tell me this is sarcasm, because I can't begin to fathom that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A tenuous argument could be made that Israel and the US are the same country. Is that what you are getting at?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I'm saying neither Russia nor Iran have ever used nuclear weapons, although the point you raised is valid. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›