| crissindahouse said: What I still wonder is, why is Ukraine potentially attacking Russian ground with Western weapons after Russia started a war the start of a Third World War (which many politicians in the West think as well) but Russia attacking Ukraine with weapons from Iran and North Korea isn't. I mean, maybe you should tell Russia as well that they can only attack Ukraine with Russian weapons then or otherwise the usage of rockets like from North Korea is exactly the same? Sure, as crazy as Russian politicians are it wouldn't be a good idea to attack Russian ground with Taurus or other systems but if such an involvement of other countries is the start of WW3 then tell Russia they started it already... |
This is the same game that takes place in the USA's inner politics with the general conflict between democrats and republicans, in the Ukraine war the West assumes the democrats' general position while Russia assumes the republicans' general position.
Said game is the fear of being hypocritical of one's own values on the West's side, because somehow getting accused of hypocrisy by a side (Russia) who breaks all rules and shows no common decency is much worse than ignoring their words and doing the right thing. So Russia, just like the republicans, keeps using the West's valuable high road against itself. "Oh no, you can't do that. It would go against your values." While on the other side, Russia doesn't give the slightest damn regarding hypocrisy or accountability in general, again, just like the republicans. It's a game that works only in a single direction.
The sad thing is the West's values are full of double standards anyway, such as the EU's desired appearance to be a welcoming place while in the shadows they don't mind that refugees drown in the Mediterranian Sea. The EU doesn't issue deliberate orders to sink the refugees' boats, but they are content to allow boats to sink which they already know of that they are in serious danger of sinking. Basically, if you are an EU citizen with the ability to think critically, you are aware that the EU's precious values are commonly fake.
The reality is that World War III cannot possibly start until the West commits soldiers to the frontline, so in other words, the only sort of equipment that can be off limits are ABC weapons. Taurus and other long range missiles hitting Russian ground won't be a problem. But NATO jets being flown by NATO pilots to give Ukraine air support above Ukraine and/or the Black Sea, that would be crossing the line. On the other hand, F-16s in the hands of Ukrainian pilots would be fine, because it would just be another type of Western equipment provided to Ukraine, like so many before. At first Russia will threaten escalation, then when things move towards being greenlit for Ukraine, Russia says that Ukraine can't win the war anyway because these new weapons will be ineffective.
"Wir wollen keine Kampfjetdebatte, jetzt da die Panzerfrage geklärt ist." - Lars Klingbeil
I truly wonder who was shocked when the public discourse immediately moved on to F-16s, because it was so absolutely predictable after we had already moved through the same cycle about five times before.
"Die Deutschen denken, dass sie die größten und tollsten sind. Aber in Wahrheit sind sie auch nur ein bisschen andere Österreicher und mindestens genau so deppert." - Two lost World Wars speak volumes.
Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.
