Ukraine will be able to use Danish and Dutch F-16s to strike into Russia, while Belgium is saying only for use in 1991-border Ukraine.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/Iv4Fu

  • maynarkh
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    Finlandization comes from Dugin, and his book which has so far defined Russian foreign policy objectives. We can argue back and forth whether Putin and his government agrees with those goals, but support for right wing parties across Europe, dividing the US along racist lines, and supporting Brexit speaks to it being true.

    The US is not an immediate military threat for Europe. Economic, ideological, maybe, but not military. Russia is. So US bad, yes, but Russia bad too, and Russia is here.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      So “Finalndization” (again, whatever you think that means) is not in fact “the stated goal of Russia.” You claim (without sourcing) it’s from a Russian academic and then acknowledge there’s room to speculate how much impact that academic’s work has on the Russian government.

      The US is not an immediate military threat for Europe.

      You’re changing the subject. I said:

      1. You do not apply your “retaliation against warmongers” logic against the most aggressive country on the planet. This is because you do not actually believe it; you’re just using it to justify fighting an enemy you already wanted to fight.
      2. Retaliation against the most aggressive country on the planet has not deterred it from further warmongering, so your logic is largely disproven, anyway.
      • maynarkh
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        All I’m saying that sitting here in Rotterdam, if the Ukrainian bro asks if they can bomb the peeps who said they will nuke Rotterdam, I don’t see people here saying no. Nobody here wants to fight anyone, WWII still has some open scars here. But so does MH370.

        The US might be a fucktard, but it’s not them threatening us militarily currently. And on changing the subject, why are we talking about the US again?

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          the peeps who said they will nuke Rotterdam

          Who is saying this? Russia sure isn’t. You keep making up threats.

          And on changing the subject, why are we talking about the US again?

          If you actually believe that aggressive, militaristic countries should face retaliation to get them to back down – if you actually hold that as a principle – you would apply it to all such countries, and the #1 example of that is the U.S.

          You don’t apply it to the U.S., which shows you don’t actually believe it. You only apply it to countries you’ve already deemed enemies.

          You keep saying Russia is your enemy because they’re threatening you, but all you’ve mentioned are invented threats, not anything Russia has actually said or did towards your country.

          • maynarkh
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            Two days ago, a Duma member suggested nuking Rotterdam. The same thing happened months ago, and every few months in the past two years.

            Russian soldiers also actually shot down an airliner full of Dutch people, and tried covering it up.

            I didn’t say that I support US policy, and you keep trying to deflect by pointing to them saying they are worse. And they may be, but they aren’t currently threatening military action against the EU.

            • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              Two days ago, a Duma member suggested nuking Rotterdam.

              Show me a source. Earlier in this conversation you said something was the “stated policy of Russia,” then when you went to find a source it turned out it was not.

              Russian soldiers also actually shot down an airliner

              Presumably you’re referring to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That was not shot down by Russia, but by Ukranian separatists using a Russian-supplied weapon. I’m not aware of any evidence that anyone intentionally targeted it, either, much less intentionally targeted it because it had Dutch citizens. Non-Russians mistaking an airliner for a military target is not the same as Russia targeting you.

              I didn’t say that I support US policy

              OK, so what military retaliation against the U.S. do you endorse? Do you apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, or not? That’s what I’m getting at – you do not apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, only countries you’ve already decided are Bad Countries. This isn’t deflecting, it’s showing that you are not being honest when you say “aggressive countries should see military retaliation.”

              • maynarkh
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                18 days ago

                Earlier in this conversation you said something was the “stated policy of Russia,”

                Dugin’s book “The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia” has had a profound impact on Russian politics, shortly after its release the Duma had created a geopolitics committee staffed by Dugin’s adherents, it became a textbook for the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian military. So is Dugin’s book Russia’s official foreign policy? No. Does the book have a profound impact on Russian politics, and is it a guiding star for Russian ambitions?

                Absolutely. If you ask Dugin, the only thing Putin is doing wrong is that he’s not doing it fast enough.

                Dugin’s Russian faction is basically seeking the establishment of a new Russian Empire, and its methods - alliance with Iran, stoking ethnic tensions to encourage separatism in countries like Georgia, Azerbaijan or Ukraine and isolationism in the US or the UK are very visibly used by Russian foreign policy.

                Russia officially says it’s not doing it, but Russia looks like Dugin, swims like Dugin and quacks like Dugin.

                Show me a source.

                For Russia threatening the Rotterdam Havens with nuclear strikes?

                Here:

                https://www.newsweek.com/russian-official-nato-target-nuclear-strike-netherlands-1908346

                INB4 “well, it’s newsweek”, they are sourcing a Duma member on Russian state television.

                And also:

                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67222213 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60547473

                Presumably you’re referring to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That was not shot down by Russia, but by Ukranian separatists using a Russian-supplied weapon.

                Ukrainian separatists in Russian “little green men” uniforms, coming from Russia, retreating back into Russia, with a launcher identified as belonging to the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, speaking with Moscow accents? After Russia claimed first that the plane they shot down was a Ukrainian An-26, then that they didn’t shoot down anything, it was a Ukrainian Su-25 with its short range infrared missiles? And after that, claimed it was actually a Ukrainian Buk? And now it’s “it wasn’t us, the Ukrainian Russian separatists are completely independent of us”? Is the Netherlands supposed to accept this fourth story after three proven lies and after independently confirming the responsibility of Russian citizens, and after Russia refused to be transparent during the investigation?

                OK, so what military retaliation against the U.S. do you endorse?

                Proportional retaliation for their aggressive actions. Right now, it’s mostly trade tariff back-and-forth over chicken and light trucks and stuff. The US has not been engaged in military action against European militaries since WWII. I would support diplomatic rebukes over the spy scandals of the last decade, though.

                And I’m saying the same thing against Russia. Russian sponsored insurgents and Russian spies have attacked European civilians? Donating and selling weapons to this other neighbouring state which is fighting a defensive war against them is completely fair game.

                • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  Stated policy means stated policy, not “a bunch of bureaucrats were assigned the same book once.”

                  they are sourcing a Duma member on Russian state television

                  Fair enough. It’s still a far cry from anyone in a position to actually use nukes saying anything like that, though. Here’s the stated policy of Russia on the topic:

                  Putin reiterated Russia’s formal position on the use of nuclear weapons in a statement to the Russian HRC on December 7 with no noteworthy changes. Putin claimed that the threat of nuclear war is growing, but that Russia will not be the first to employ nuclear weapons. Putin added, however, that if Russia is not the first to initiate the first use of nuclear weapons, it will also not be the second to do so, because the “possibility of using [a nuclear weapon] in the event of a nuclear strike on [Russian] territory are very limited.” Putin reiterated that Russian nuclear doctrine is premised on self-defense and stated that any Russian nuclear use would be retaliatory… Putin’s statements support ISW’s previous assessment that while Russian officials may engage in forms of nuclear saber-rattling as part of an information operation meant to undermine Western support for Ukraine, Russian officials have no intention of actually using them on the battlefield.

                  Why does some random Duma member’s offhand comments mean more than this?

                  Ukrainian separatists in Russian “little green men” uniforms

                  So your theory is that Russia intentionally shot down a civilian airliner, targeting the Netherlands specifically… why, exactly? Do you think they’re mustache-twirling villains who do evil stuff because evil is fun?

                  Proportional retaliation for their aggressive actions.

                  Ok, what proportional retaliation does the U.S. deserve for Iraq?

                  • maynarkh
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    18 days ago

                    Stated policy means stated policy, not “a bunch of bureaucrats were assigned the same book once.”

                    It’s the top bureaucrats of Russia, and they have been quacking in unison with the book ever since.

                    Why does some random Duma member’s offhand comments mean more than this?

                    Because they are a representative of the government of the country, and have influence over the shaping of the policy of the country. It doesn’t mean more, it is what you call a threat. You can say it’s an empty threat, but it’s still a threat nonetheless. The Russians are basically threatening us, then officially saying “don’t worry, we’re just lying!”, then expect us to believe the lie they say is a lie instead of the possible lie they say is not a lie.

                    If it is not a valid point to make from that Duma member, I’d expect him to get seriously reprimanded, impeached from the Duma and possibly put in jail for threatening the national security of Russia. It still happened and is happening regularly with Russian government officials, on Russian state television.

                    So your theory is that Russia intentionally shot down a civilian airliner, targeting the Netherlands specifically… why, exactly? Do you think they’re mustache-twirling villains who do evil stuff because evil is fun?

                    Not my theory, but the conclusion of the quite transparently evidenced investigation done by a multi-country team is that members of the Russian Armed Forces took a heavy anti-aircraft missile launcher owned by the Russian Armed Forces into the territory internationally recognized as belonging to the sovereign state of Ukraine. They used that launcher to engage what they thought was a medium weight military transport plane operated by the military of Ukraine, a country they were not at war with. Due to their own incompetence, what they engaged was a Malaysian heavy airline passenger transport with mostly Dutch passengers aboard.

                    Just to make it clear, they were so grossly incompetent that they saw a plane travelling above 36000 ft - way above it most likely - going 500 knots, and they identified it as a plane with a service ceiling of 24000 ft with a cruise speed of 240 knots. This is on top of the fact that they could have literally gone on Flightradar and saw an airliner scheduled to fly in that area at that time, and that the airliner was equipped with ADS-B-out systems which meant that they could have checked that it was an airliner with a gadget that a hobbyist can put together at home without giving their position away. The aircraft was literally screaming “I’m airliner registration 9M-MRD, at altitude xx, speed yy and position zz, here’s how to avoid me” on freely receivable radio.

                    So they wanted to kill some Ukrainian soldiers - unlawfully as they were not at war by the way - and they have managed to kill hundreds of Dutch civilians. And then they kept lying about it and accusing Ukraine of doing it. So no, it’s not because they think evil is fun, it’s because they are uncaring, cynical and incompetent people.

                    Ok, what proportional retaliation does the U.S. deserve for Iraq?

                    An unlimited defensive war from the government of Iraq, international condemnation, and possible military aid for the government of Iraq to fight against the US. I would support that. As well as dragging Bush and Blair in front of the ICC for it.

                    Look, I get that the world is not fair, and I don’t say I think it’s right that while Palestinian children are genocided by Israel, dickheads like Bibi, Bush, Kissinger, Putin and Dugin get to live a hatefully long and happy life. I am also not saying that there is a “good” side to the world and a “bad” side. There are plenty of bad people all over.

                    All I’m saying is that Russia is the imperialist invader in this instance, just as the US was in Iraq or Vietnam. To be honest, I see a ton of parallels with this war and Vietnam, with weapons used making large swathes of the country uninhabitable - agent orange and landmines - the massacres at My Lai and Bucha, even the aggressor supporting and subverting a small faction to give it legitimacy over the country’s democratic majority.

                    I can only hope the outcome would be similar as well, with the aggressor turning tail and going home in shame.

                    And all I’m saying is that there are more than two sides to this, and just as the US is not on the right side of history just because Stalin, Russia is not there either just because Kissinger.