LeoDalPozzo

Beside yours being a wrong premise, you are still wrong: the nazis literally started the war the way you described it. They sent German infiltrators dressed as polish soldiers to attack a radio station. They then claimed Poland attacked first, so they declared war to them and that's when the invasion started (Gleiwitz incident). Maybe before calling people dishonest fools you should have a minimal idea of what you are talking about.

Yeah right, calling your points childish was such a terrible offense in an adult conversation that you are forced to stop the conversation. I'm sure that's the reason ;)

I’m not accusing you of being an apologist for Russian war crimes even though I could characterize you that way

Why? Because i criticise Ukraine i am necessarely on Russia's side? I literally said in the comment before that nothing excuses Russia from attacking civilian structures, as much as i think Russia's governemnt is a criminal for invading Ukraine and causing death and destruction. Is after saying this my opinion still going to be discarded because comes by a putinist in your mind?

I don’t think it’s fair to take the reasoning of my position and say it’s something a “nazi would be proud of”. A Nazi would not be putting this level of thought into the morality of war crimes, and you know this.

I understand i sound harsh, but i think it's very important ot be clear here: your line of thinking is exactly what allowed the holocaust and other war crimes and crimes agaisnt humanity to happen. if you really think nazis didn't evaluate their morality in doing what they did, i strongly suggest you to take a deeper look at conflicts and not banalise them as "the good guys with their beautiful morality" "and the bad guys which clearly are the bad guys because they don't haver any morality". This is not how conflicts, the world or human beings work. Conflicts have always a cause and who starts them always thinks they are doing for a just cause.

I think the world isn’t black and white in morality, and I think it’s naive to act as though it is. Immoral actions are sometimes warranted, I think. Do you agree with that principle at all? If not, we just have different moral views.

I do agree absolutely there is no black and white, but i'm the one who you accused of being a "russian apologist" becuase i criticise Ukraine's behaviour in this war. Isn't that a black and white kind of thinking? It's important to not circumstanciate principles, but adopt them widely. Otherwise they are just a gimmick to push somebody's point.

You can’t, in my view, tell victims of war crimes that they can’t respond in any meaningful way when you aren’t willing to enforce the law against the perpetrator. Another context that’s important. You can only morally tell people to let rule of law work when rule of law is being enforced; you can’t tell them to rely on a justice system that is non existent.

We are not discussing about responding in a "meaningful way", here we are talking about allowing attacks against civilian and civilian infrastructure as a response. Your line of thinking could be used the same way by Al-Qaida ("The americans killed us for decades and nobody cared, so we had to attack them with terrorism because it's the only efficient way to hit them"), ISIS/Daesh ("Our people have been subject of a western crusade, we answer back with our own"), Hamas and any other reprehensible group that uses terrorism as a form of attack because they feel they have no other way to hit their enemy. Do you see how dangerous is that way of thinking and in what terrible spiral sends people?

It's really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.

Jesus christ this kind of thought is how genocides happen. You are literally saying if nobody can force me to have a moral, then i'm justified to behave as inhumane as my enemy. This is a line of thinking that a nazi gerarc woukd be proud of. Stay human people, we are getting very close to a world of barbarism.

Yeah creating a climate of terror in Russia will definitely benefit Putin...

Hey thanks for reaching out. I had a personal lemmy instance few years ago, but then life changed and i abandoned it. This thing of communities defederating each others for ridiculus reasons it's really embarassing and annoying, i think i'll go back to make my own instance because being able to see only part of the conversation is absurd.

Early on I tried to warn you, that you will not get any kind of open or constructive discussion in this community

I was aware of this :) my point was not to try to convince the person i'm interact with, but to show the people that are reading that there is a good and a bad way to study and analyze conflicts. Hopefully some reader got something out of it. I expect and don't mind the downvotes.

Thanks for the links and for the suggestions, they are appreciated. I'll take a look later today. Have a great day and thanks for caring

Technically a "casualty" should be a soldier that is not able to go back to combat, so shouldn't include light injures. It's still an impressive number if we consider there are no boots on the ground.

This comment shows your real colours and how actually shallow you are. You don't have anything to back up your claims, you say at the same time that the drones are russian jammed and that they are a deliberate attack to test defenses. You don't realise that a lot of people having a feeling doesn't transform that feeling on a fact. Especially if that feeling is carefully crafted by a gigantic media machine. Easier for you to call me Tankie, Russia-friendly, even nazi even if the only thing to back this up is that i disagree with your "analysis". You are just the result of a sick society where people are tought that ther opinion always matters even when based on other people's opinion only and when confronted can only shut the door and close themselves in their own bubble. That's ok, i hope you people will not drag us all to doom thanks to your armchair analysis based on a youtube video.

There is a difference between foreign politics and using Cambridge Analytica style tactics on the population of a neighboring country. If you are so aware about propaganda, you should also see the difference in scale here.

You are using one of the biggest AMERICAN scandal to say that Russia is doing the same. Do you see the issue here?

Electronic warfare can make drones go off course

Yes, that's exactly my point. the drones that we are being told are just a signal of an impending military attack from Russia, most of the times are just jammed Ukrainians drones

Regarding the Missile Strike: Would that AMRAAM have been fired if Russia hadn’t sent 20 Drones into Polish airspace via Belarus? 1,2,3 drones can be a mistake or caused by jamming, 20 are a planned operation.

Again you are just parroting a viewpoint that it's just an opinion and pure speculation. No fact proves that it was a deliberate attack.

They are already saying they are fighting NATO!

NATO countries are providing to Ukraine weapons, ammunitions, intelligence, specialised troops (for the pointing system of some air defence systems), fundings, GPS and target data. Doesn't seem so crazy for me that they are saying they are fightning NATO. Equipare that to the possibility of Russia actively attacking a NATO country is a choice based on your feelings, not really a fact.

The economic ties were used to make us addicted to russian oil and gas; it nearly worked.

So they wanted to make addicted to their gas and oil so they could declare war to us later and stop that commerce entirely? i don't see the logic

I say that the economic ties that Russia prepared (UNDER PUTINS WATCH) were nothing else than an attempt to make sure Europe stays silent when Russia uses their military to expand once again.

So Russia has built strong economic ties with the EU so that when Russia would attack the EU (so basically NATO), the EU will stay silent and let them do? This is literally nonsense.

You may try again, but this time try to be less pro-russia in your arguments, because there isn’t any difference between someone who is pro-russia and a fucking nazi to me, and i do not converse with nazis, i punch them.

I engaged in this conversation because i assumed an open mindset and an academic approach towards the issue. You ask for sources but the only one you provide is a youtube video and based on the flimsiness of your claims, that's probably the maximum extent at which you "study" conflicts. Then you end the speech with a pathetic tirade over nazis to show how though you are and obviously hinting at the fact that, at one point you had to say it, i'm pro-russia in your mind. I really try to have a discussion that doesn't end in a toddler-level conversation or people just choosing a faction like if it was a footbal team, but if this is the level of the conversation i don't see benefits in continuing it.