Rendered at 23:33:28 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
tim333 5 hours ago [-]
You don't hear much of the Liberal international order these days (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order) but it seems a good idea to me. Rules to live peacefully and if one country starts invading the others should gang together to stop it. It's mostly kept peace since WW2 but is wobbling a bit now due Russia getting aggressive and relying a bit too much on the US which has issues too. Even so I'm not sure it's hopeless.
throw310822 17 hours ago [-]
> The four countries of the axis are united by their discontent with the US-led world security order. Russia resents Nato expansion and wants to see the alliance pushed back. Iran has attacked US military bases across the Middle East.
The countries are "discontent". Russia "resents". Iran has attacked US bases. This is the level of this article. Nowhere any mention of aggressive actions taken by the US.
sedan_baklazhan 17 hours ago [-]
Ah that treacherous Iran. It positioned itself nearby US bases and attacked them.
nmehner 16 hours ago [-]
It is always funny that long term strategy is seen as sleepwalking.
Fossil fuels are the war driver of the past and present. Just by owning a plot of land you become insanely rich. Other parts of the economy have an interest in peace, because war is bad for business. But income from fossil fuels is too high for this to matter.
With fossil fuels being phased out this will become less and less important. Many people understand it. But not some backwards grumpy old men like Putin, Trump and the Ajatollahs.
For the rest of the world the best course of action is to try to pacify the involved parties as much as possible. Trump will loose power. Putin will die while Russia will become irrelevant by destroying it's own economy for this pointless war. And the Ajatollahs probably also will loose power without oil income, Teheran running out of water and large swaths of land becoming uninhabitable.
There is just no active course of action to solve these crises. Just "sleepwalk" trying to minimize the impact of those conflicts, while waiting for the transition away from fossil fuels and preparing for the climate change impact.
The big cause of conflicts in the future will be climate change. Large areas becoming uninhabitable and millions of people migrating between countries. This is what we have to prepare for. Stepping into some old mens petty games is pointless and will only cause more pain.
tim333 6 hours ago [-]
There were a lot of wars before fossil fuels and I don't remember them being a big thing in ww1 and ww2.
metalman 13 hours ago [-]
no.WW3 cant happen yet.
Somebody forgot to formaly invite China, but China did say something about bieng busy building civilisational infrastucture and while they wont refuse a war, it's not there current priority.But ya, anyway, cant have ww3 without China.
gus_massa 4 hours ago [-]
They are neutral and selling drones to whoever wants them.
sedan_baklazhan 10 hours ago [-]
China isn't really needed - they haven't got enough nuclear weapons.
metalman 8 hours ago [-]
ooo boy, China has enough nukes to not get nuked, and an excess population of male military age people of around 25000000 as potential soldiers, if say they were offered
big signing bonuses and guaranteed positions for honorable service discharges, they can field an improbably large armed force, which means any war that happens without them is a massive victory for them.
It's also important to note that China demonstrated hypersonic interceptors 10 years ago, and just dont talk about it much now, but the recent demonstration of chinese weapons last year with India vs Pakistan has
forced certain re calculations.
A 'world' war without China, is WW2.1, not WWIII
ares623 17 hours ago [-]
This is just armchair posting, but there's just no other way "out".
Millions upon millions of disenfranchised young people with no where to go. Before 2019 those millions at least had the hope of moving to one of the still wealthier countries, which alleviated some of the pressure and anger back home. Now that pathway is increasingly more difficult and harder to justify, plus the people in the wealthier countries themselves are starting to feel the same anger and pressure, but have nowhere else to go.
All that pressure and anger will need to be directed somewhere, and I'm sure the leaders of such countries would prefer it goes outward than inward.
coffinbirth 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
csto12 16 hours ago [-]
Looks like there are still some Yandex server farms operational
coffinbirth 16 hours ago [-]
That propaganda hoax was already debunked[1], just ask your favorite LLM. See, YOU are a victim of russophobic propaganda and you appear to be unable to escape your Western Centric World View.
80% of the comments on your account are basically just regurgitating Russian propaganda verbatim.
coffinbirth 16 hours ago [-]
It's always 'Russian propaganda' and never 'US propaganda', isn't that interesting? The idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO was first formally formulated as an objective within the U.S. government in October 1994.
Already in 1993 did Russian President Boris Yeltsin argue that any expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact territory breached the "spirit" of oral assurances given during the 1990 German reunification talks.
In February 2008, during a joint press conference in Moscow, Vladimir Putin issued a direct military threat. He warned that if Ukraine joined NATO and hosted foreign military infrastructure, Russia could be forced to target its missile systems at Ukrainian territory.
These are historical FACTS, do you have any?
OKRainbowKid 16 hours ago [-]
And of course, your first reflex is deflecting to the US. If you check my account, I am quite critical of the US as well.
What I see in yours is basically you trying to justify that Putin just had no other option than to commit all these war crimes, kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians on both sides, and in general cause immeasurable unnecessary suffering.
There was simply no other way, these civilians had to be bombed.
coffinbirth 14 hours ago [-]
You can' really blame Putin for not trying to prevent an armed conflict (Minsk 1, Minsk 2, Instanbul talks) for many, many years. Internally, he is often heavily criticized for being 'too soft' when dealing with the Collective West. In fact, it was the US, EU and NATO that finally pushed the Zelensky regime into open warfare.
Let's be honest, there are war crimes committed on both sides on a daily bases (killing of ethnic Russians by Ukrainian troops in eastern Ukraine that are waiting for the Russian army, killing of POWs), I regularly watch them on Ukrainian and Russian Telegram channels. But your claim that Russia 'commit all these war crimes' is just not a serious argument. If you think it is, please provide a list of 'all these war crimes'.
throw310822 15 hours ago [-]
Can you provide some examples of US/ NATO propaganda? Just to understand if you have such a sharp eye for that kind, too.
OKRainbowKid 15 hours ago [-]
Why should I? I am not doubting their existence, and as a European I do not consider the US an ally.
Feel free to point it out yourself, if you see any in my comments.
throw310822 14 hours ago [-]
Yes, I saw one. You said "you're basically just regurgitating Russian propaganda verbatim". This- the idea that arguments that point out US and NATO responsibility in starting and fuelling this war are "Russian propaganda"- is itself US/ NATO propaganda.
Think about it for a second- we keep hearing that Russia is meddling with our public opinion through our social media while the fact is that our social media are owned by US companies that are deeply involved with the US government, military and intelligence; despite the fact that our countries and governments are almost entirely dependent from the US; that many of our media just copy and paste whatever the NyT or the WP write the day before. We are members of a military alliance headed by the US, ffs.
It's like the joke of the two fish asking each other "what is water?" You're swimming in it.
The countries are "discontent". Russia "resents". Iran has attacked US bases. This is the level of this article. Nowhere any mention of aggressive actions taken by the US.
Fossil fuels are the war driver of the past and present. Just by owning a plot of land you become insanely rich. Other parts of the economy have an interest in peace, because war is bad for business. But income from fossil fuels is too high for this to matter.
With fossil fuels being phased out this will become less and less important. Many people understand it. But not some backwards grumpy old men like Putin, Trump and the Ajatollahs.
For the rest of the world the best course of action is to try to pacify the involved parties as much as possible. Trump will loose power. Putin will die while Russia will become irrelevant by destroying it's own economy for this pointless war. And the Ajatollahs probably also will loose power without oil income, Teheran running out of water and large swaths of land becoming uninhabitable.
There is just no active course of action to solve these crises. Just "sleepwalk" trying to minimize the impact of those conflicts, while waiting for the transition away from fossil fuels and preparing for the climate change impact.
The big cause of conflicts in the future will be climate change. Large areas becoming uninhabitable and millions of people migrating between countries. This is what we have to prepare for. Stepping into some old mens petty games is pointless and will only cause more pain.
Millions upon millions of disenfranchised young people with no where to go. Before 2019 those millions at least had the hope of moving to one of the still wealthier countries, which alleviated some of the pressure and anger back home. Now that pathway is increasingly more difficult and harder to justify, plus the people in the wealthier countries themselves are starting to feel the same anger and pressure, but have nowhere else to go.
All that pressure and anger will need to be directed somewhere, and I'm sure the leaders of such countries would prefer it goes outward than inward.
[1]: https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/researchers-find-yandex-str...
Already in 1993 did Russian President Boris Yeltsin argue that any expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact territory breached the "spirit" of oral assurances given during the 1990 German reunification talks.
In February 2008, during a joint press conference in Moscow, Vladimir Putin issued a direct military threat. He warned that if Ukraine joined NATO and hosted foreign military infrastructure, Russia could be forced to target its missile systems at Ukrainian territory.
These are historical FACTS, do you have any?
What I see in yours is basically you trying to justify that Putin just had no other option than to commit all these war crimes, kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians on both sides, and in general cause immeasurable unnecessary suffering.
There was simply no other way, these civilians had to be bombed.
Let's be honest, there are war crimes committed on both sides on a daily bases (killing of ethnic Russians by Ukrainian troops in eastern Ukraine that are waiting for the Russian army, killing of POWs), I regularly watch them on Ukrainian and Russian Telegram channels. But your claim that Russia 'commit all these war crimes' is just not a serious argument. If you think it is, please provide a list of 'all these war crimes'.
Feel free to point it out yourself, if you see any in my comments.
Think about it for a second- we keep hearing that Russia is meddling with our public opinion through our social media while the fact is that our social media are owned by US companies that are deeply involved with the US government, military and intelligence; despite the fact that our countries and governments are almost entirely dependent from the US; that many of our media just copy and paste whatever the NyT or the WP write the day before. We are members of a military alliance headed by the US, ffs.
It's like the joke of the two fish asking each other "what is water?" You're swimming in it.