xor

Technically, Gilead is a breakaway state from the US ☝️🤓

Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag as an excuse to clamp down on political dissidence and consolidate his power. It’s still not clear whether it was intentionally caused by the Nazis or just a convenient opportunity for them.

As a more serious aside to the above, it is generally worth paying a bit of attention to which instance other users you interact with. There’s obviously no blanket statement you can make about the users of particular instances, but there are definitely certain instances that are more appealing to… certain groups of users.

lemmy.ml in particular has a bit of a reputation for having tankies on it, but there’s lots of very interesting and reasonable people there (or here, I suppose, given this is an ml community), also.

They’re both the respective heads of state, and they’re both not members of the legislative branches.

So yeah, in this context they are effectively the same.

I wasn’t claiming that he hasn’t been the president of France; I did, in fact, notice.

I said that’s not what the president of France does.

It’s like getting mad at the King of England for Canadian laws, that’s just not his responsibility, even if he is head of state.

There’s loads of issues with Macron, but I don’t see how he’s responsible for any of the above

The president doesn’t legislate, and he doesn’t command the police, he’s the executive head of state.

Actually, the Finns already spend 2.4% of their GDP on defense, making them one of the highest defense spenders in Europe (relative to GDP). And they’re famously very well prepared for wartime scenarios.

Turns out sharing a border with Russia makes military spending look very appealing.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by web tech? I don’t know much about how matrix works

Well yeah, there was a deal on nuclear disarmament until Trump tore it up. Not surprising they’re not interested in going through all that again just so he can back out of it for a second time as soon as he wants to look tough.

Jesus Christ man. All I said was “it’s possible there will be some form of peace treaty someday” and you’re acting like I shat in your cereal.

Stop being an arse.

Edit: and don’t call people mate before ranting at them. I’m not your friend.

66% of wars end in some form of compromise (source), and it’s highly unlikely there’s a scenario where Ukraine causes the total collapse of the Russian government, or that the fighting just naturally dies down.

It’s all well and good to say “no peace with the bad guys” but that’s a position you’re taking because you don’t want to negotiate with Russia, not because doing so necessarily achieves the best outcome for Ukraine. “They’re mean so I won’t do any form of diplomacy” is, frankly, dogshit statecraft.

If you want to actually understand how wars do, and specifically the Ukraine war could actually end, I strongly recommend reading that CSIS report I referenced.

Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn’t viable now.

All I’m arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with, really

Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I’m not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn’t give some portion of that money to Ukraine.

Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?

I feel like I’m being pretty clear that I don’t think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.

The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That’s not coming from a Trump-esque “peace now because I say so” angle, but from a “every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually” angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn’t just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.

That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that’s the case, you do need to consider that it is one.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don’t see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.

The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn’t now, and creating a peace treaty that’s self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn’t be, then it’s an option worth considering.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily the wrong choice to give the money to Ukraine, just pointing out that there is a tradeoff to be made.

I think their point is that at some point there will have to be some form of peace negotiations

If you get less value from using the money for weapons than for using it as leverage in negotiations, then it’s a bad trade-off

Make the mafia great again

This is a different scenario, though. The Hannibal directive is specifically targeting YOU, not the vehicle.

So your scenario should be more like:

You have armed militants who take you hostage, putting you in the front seat of the van

Would you rather they:

• do nothing now, and try to rescue you when safely possible
• shoot you in the head

The one who’s been convicted for assault, contempt of court, public disorder, using a fake passport and mortgage fraud? The very same

Jewish Chronicle is a British newspaper