Biden is a lame duck president with NO PUBLIC MANDATE and subterranean approval rating, he got ousted by his own party before the election for being mentally incapacitated, his defense against a Justice Department inquiry is he's too old and senile, his party just got BTFO in a national election. No NATO or NATO proxies have ever launched long range missiles into Russia in living memory. How is this guy 
fit for office
STOP EATING CRAYONS AND DO YOUR FUCKING JERB. "Senile old man sends young people to WW3 out of spite"
That has the same energy as "they shouldn't have voted for Trump".
Collective punishment is bad but if it's going to happen, it's better for it to not be unilateral. Plus, it's unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.
Your dipshittery here is going off the charts
Ukronazi regime in fact uses every weapon they can, even the scarce and expensive missiles for terror attacks on civilians, and every future weapon they will get will be also used in the same way. Plenty of examples here and here.
@infuziSporg@hexbear.net @TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net
Fyi you two have both reported each other recently. I don't have the energy to sift through your threads and come up with some judgement of who is right or wrong, but I welcome others to do so.
In the meantime, take the fact that both of you are reporting one another as a sign to disengage.
I’ll give you a hint, it’s the pro-imperialist ultra who is wrong and the anti-imperialist commie who is right
Yeah, agreed
Are you saying it would be better if multiple parties decided which groups should be collectively punished, or that it's better for Russian civilians to suffer collective punishment than for them not to because of collateral damage during the current war between Russia and Ukraine?
What would possibly make you feel this way?
I'm saying "Russia gets to strike Ukrainian targets but Ukraine doesn't get to strike Russian targets" is not only unfair but laughable. They're at war. They were escalated against first by a state actor.
Just because it's in alignment towards the wrong side of history doesn't mean we should revoke principles of international relations that deny special privileged status to any country.
There is ethically no further line being crossed by Ukraine in firing conventional missiles at Russia, when Russia has already fired hundreds of the same at Ukraine, regardless of whether or not the latter is construed as "defense". When the missiles are flying, the people launching them have no right to say "but we're off-limits".
Okay, yeah so you're saying that it's better if Ukrainian Nazis are able to target Russian civilians more easily.
That is an absolutely bad-faith argument.
In the post-2022 stage of the war, Ukraine are not the aggressors. A blanket categorization of Ukrainians as "nazis" is no better than a blanket categorization of Russians as "orcs". Sure, the state apparatus is vaguely aligned with NATO and the EU. That doesn't mean that Ukrainians aren't defending themselves now to some degree. The imposition of "we are invading and striking your country and you are not allowed to strike us back" is contradictory to the principles of multipolarity.
Afghanistan had the right to strike back at America. Iraq had the right to strike back at America. Ukraine has a qualified right to strike Russian military targets.
I don't think all Ukrainians are Nazis, but their government and military are Nazi aligned, have deliberately targeted civilians repeatedly and will absolutely use these missiles to continue doing that.
It's not better for them to be able to do so.
They also aren't "vaguely" NATO aligned, they're a NATO proxy.
There is a categorical and practical difference between trading or dispensing military aid versus having a military alliance with nukes involved. That difference is what has kept the war from spilling over for 2 years.
The "Nazis are the ones doing the aggression" line was fully accurate up until the country was attacked as a whole, instead of just the separatist-claimed areas. Instead of the Ukrainian far-right doing ethnic cleansing, it was everyone in Ukraine at war. And Russia was well aware of that: the entire SMO and its ramifications revolve around ducking under the bar that NATO was neither being attacked nor doing the attacking.
The Kursk incursion was not surprising, nor was it different in kind, nor was it a bridge too far, nor was it really consequential. Rocket strikes are the same way on all counts.
The proxy war is still fully a proxy war (much less direct than the Korean War was), and Ukraine still has no hope of winning.
What in the world is this pointless moralization of the conflict? The Russians have warned repeatedly that American weapons striking into Russia is a red line and they will retaliate, just like they warned that Ukraine joining nato is a red line and they retaliated for that.