Hurry the f*ck up.

Senate is maybe voting on it tonight, then House.

If Republicans didn't piss around with the "no aid to Ukraine unless it's tied to the border!" and then all of a sudden "actually, we don't want a border deal anymore!" then this aid package would have been approved a lot sooner so I'm still not giving them any credit, their politics has cost lives, better vote on that shit now and they can still hang their heads in shame.

I guess that explains things, kind of. Now that you mention it, I don't think heard much about opposition to supporting Ukraine in the UK.

Exactly. It's different when you actually have to consider the consequences right now, as opposed to deferring them until later. It's easy to say "yeah, I know the consequences" without really realizing the gravity of the situation and the consequences - and it's not limited just to this war, it applies to other decisions and assessments as well, but I digress.

I know we have a strong military here in Finland and the risk of Russia actually attempting anything stupid is fairly low, but it turns out that it doesn't necessarily take a lot to go through different scenarios anyway when the situation changes for the worse. Would I have to take up arms? Maybe, we have conscription here (quite popular, mind you, probably because it's been the only reliable way to deter a Russian attack). Would we get help/how much? Could I get bombed? Could I have to leave my home? Could I have to leave my country? Could I have to live under Russian occupation? What about my close ones? Who whould be next? You know, all the usual stuff... Except that no one should have to ever think about that, anywhere. I don't have trouble coping with the situation myself at the moment, but I'm sure some people have it worse even here. Must be much more uncomfortable in the Baltic countries, and I'm sure the Poles don't like the prospects of living next to the main part of Russia itself either. I guess that explains could explain why Germany has taken the situation as seriously as it has - not too many buffer countries between it and Russia, compared to some countries farther away from Russia.

But of course it's not just about me, or other people living close to Russia. If Russia feels confident with the result of the war, the next step they take could be to challenge NATO. It's not unfathomable to think that NATO could be divided in its response to certain kinds of aggressions, which in turn could lower trust in NATO's commitment to defending its members, and that could be a really slippery slope. We can't just trust that Russia will be content after swallowing up Ukraine, we have to be prepared for the worst as well (within reason of course, but the scenario I presented certainly seems to align with Russia's interests). As long as we're neighboured by trustworthy countries, we don't necessarily have to assume the worst, but Russia clearly is not at all trustworthy, so we can't leave any weaknesses for Russia to exploit. You don't just not use a seat belt just because it's going to be OK 99.9 % of the time without it, because the risk is still real, and preparing for it could save you. In this case, preparing also deters the worst from happening, so in a way, it's actually more powerful than a seat belt. And of course the further Russia is allowed to go, the costlier (probably in many ways) the involvement required from everyone will be.

But I guess everyone should just bend over if Russia comes with demands. I mean, it saves lives, right? Never mind the lowered quality of life, probably in a lot of areas, as long as no one (well, not too many people at least) has to die. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for that to save lives, who could possibly oppose that idea?

I think we should nuke London or can you say with 100% certainty that there is no Alien from Mars gaining information about humanity?

That pretty much your logic. We don't know for sure so that we can't argue in favour of London.

Naturally my comment bothered you, hence why it was designed to be that way. Whenever someone posts some highly questionable statements along with saying it will be their last post in the thread, you've got to know how you bring them back.

You are the kind of person who believes of themself that they are thinking critically by questioning the biggest news outlets, but that's not what thinking critically means. Thinking critically would make you question all sources for news instead of just the ones that don't align with your opinion. Because how else could you write about bio-labs and be serious about it, if not for being a victim of alternative news sources?

I strongly disagree. All the points have been addressed ad nauseum before, so why would doing the same thing again bring different results. There are times when you need to shoot the messenger; my post wasn't passive-aggressive either, it was just about as blunt and direct as it can get.

What we are dealing with here is someone who suffers from irrational fear. As in, an escalation of the war into a global conflict would mean that people he knows get sent to Ukraine to fight against Russia. I don't need to make guesses here, because that's what he has posted about in this thread a long time ago. His takes on COVID-19 were similarily outlandish. So what he wants to believe in is that the seemingly easiest solution will work and then he works backwards from the conclusion instead of considering the facts first and then forming a conclusion. Hence bio-labs.

My mother used to believe the Russian narrative to a significant extent too, thanks to her built-in bias against the USA. Eventually I called her stupid straight to the face, because I cannot treat hogwash in the same way as a differing point of view that is based on consideration of actual facts. Treating both the same would be disrespectful to people who do their research. Things have improved since then and now she understands that continued weapon deliveries to Ukraine do not escalate the conflict but rather do the opposite, with the Black Sea grain ships being the most obvious example. It used to be that Russia used hunger as a means of pressure, now there's no grain deal anymore, yet we hear nothing about a world hunger problem anymore. This didn't happen because of a diplomatic solution, but through a plain demonstration of force, the only language that Russia accepts.

So the moral of the story is that McFirefly is still getting the gentle treatment here.

Yeah, at this moment I think the odds of Russia starting shit with NATO are miniscule but I think it's too dangerous to discount the possibility entirely, I didn't think Russia would actually do a full scale invasion of Ukraine and yet here we are, I do however believe, if Russia is successful, that Moldova and Georgia will be next but Imo Georgia I think is at risk even if Russia loses.

All Russia needs to believe is that NATO wouldn't be united, that NATO would be scared, if they believe that NATO wouldn't come down on Russia with their full might then the odds of Russia trying shit in other eastern European countries increases. Like I've said, it's very dangerous to give a psychotic fascist like Putin even more confidence than he already has, overconfident in his own abilities and underestimating the Wests.

If Russia thinks that NATO wouldn't send boots on the ground in lets say, Latvia because they'd be too afraid to go to war with Russia, they'd be too afraid of nuclear war, then Russia may very well just do that, or they'd do the same shit they've done with Ukraine/Georgia/Moldova and send their little green men in, stir up trouble and then say they're "protecting" Russians.

And how much does Russia genuinely think it's actually fighting the full force of NATO right now in Ukraine? If they win in Ukraine, there's going to be a whole lot of Russians thinking that Russia already "beat" NATO. People like Putin, nothing is ever enough, they always want more, they're never satisfied. The only way to deter them is by totally putting them down on the battlefield.

It's not ensuring that Russia doesn't want to do something anymore, it's ensuring that it physically can't.

Hol up, let him cook.

How can Britain be sure that there's no human trafficking happening in these countries? I say it's time for Britain to restore its Empire!!!

And Mongolia can join us! How can they be sure there's no human trafficking in Russia?

Verrrry good point.

Ukraine tried diplomacy with the grain corridor, Erdogan is desperately trying to look like a peacekeeper between the two, Ukraine had a grain deal, Russia broke it multiple times, only through a show a force has Ukraine managed to restore their grain corridor to almost pre-war levels. Diplomacy didn't cause that, Storm Shadow/SCALP, Sea Drones, etc, caused that.

There's Putin's endorsement to attack any country which Emperor Trump doesn't deem to be paying enough.

Senator Defending Putin Sparks Furious Backlash

Senator Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, has received harsh criticism online for defending Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired an interview that he did with Putin earlier in the week on his website on Thursday evening. It was Putin's first interview with Western media since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Tuberville took to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday to share his thoughts about Carlson's sit-down with the Russian leader.

"Last night's @TuckerCarlson's interview with Putin shows that Russia is open to a peace agreement, while it is DC warmongers who want to prolong the war. That is why I'm voting to stop 60 BILLION MORE of our tax dollars to this conflict," the senator wrote.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/senator-defending-putin-sparks-furious-backlash/ar-BB1i5edA?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d61aed70eae84b35bc9691ca63616ef1&ei=104

Tuberville is a dumbass.