Massive Russian military buildup near Ukraine

Lafazar · Feb 19, 2022

Sibylus said:
Ukraine-Russia crisis: What to know as the tension grinds on

Spiking tensions in eastern Ukraine are heightening Western fears of a Russian invasion and a new war in Europe. U.S

apnews.com

Nothing in the moment-to-moment of what's going on in Donbas looks good, but it's the gradual closing off of avenues to continue talking that worries me most of all. Not just that there's not even a single warm body on a plane to Munich, but accusing Kyiv of destroying the Minsk agreement and genocide aren't accusations you can turn around on a dime. In terms of Russia's possible dimension of action, they're placing blocks behind their own feet. And that's dire.

So, without being able to commit myself to translation either (does Der Spiegel still maintain an English-language site for some of its stories?), but having heard the claims before, IIRC the breakdown is that this was never followed up by treaty but was a pledge made informally in the proverbial backroom, and a point of contention for misunderstanding, estrangement, and bad blood ever since.

Yes, this is an old claim that may actually be true. There probably have been verbal backroom promises by German politicians to not expand Nato into specific countries, which have since clearly been broken.

But since this promise was never put in writing in any of the accords and treaties it is hard to see why this should matter. Don't get me wrong: It's shitty if promises have been made that were not kept, but the people who made those promises were probably not in the position to unilaterally grant them in the first place and since none of those promises were actually put down in writing it's puzzling why anyone would expect them to be honored.

Bionicman · Feb 19, 2022

sangreal said:
I can't read it, but beyond being a favorite talking point for Russia who really cares? Any such pledge was to the USSR, which no longer exists and neither does the Warsaw Pact. Moreover, Russia breaks their own pledges all the time. How are they feeling about the Budapest Memorandum these days? The opportunity for a binding agreement would have been the 1997 pact between NATO and Russia. Absent that, times and circumstances change

Well for starters it has propaganda value to the Russian side, where it debunks the West's claim that no such pledge was ever made. Moreover I think it shows why the Russians have grievances when the security of Europe was restructured post USSR collapse they forgot about that pledge and went ahead regardless of Moscow's opinion or input, now people would retort who cares about Russia's input, well you can't ask the Russians to be a valuable and productive part of Europe and the international community and tell them to get bent at the same time.

Mentalist · Feb 19, 2022

The official Western position is as follows: they promised no NATO bases will be placed in East Germany after the reunification.

No one could make any promises about any other states, because The Warsaw Pact was still a thing.
How were NATO officials supposed to guess back then the Communist regimes would fold like a house of cards?

The neutral nations that were independent at the time were Austria, Finland, Sweden and Yugoslavia.

Except for the latter (which was a separate clusterfuck) none of the states that could have potentially joined NATO at that time, did so.

BringBackSonics · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
Has this been posted? Der Spiegel leaking a 1991 document about a NATO meeting in Bonn and making pledges not to induct Poland into NATO as well as not taking advantage of Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe and expanding Eastward.

The article is paywalled and my German is beginner level, can anyone with access post the document?

It was one paragraph comminque from one of the German negotiators about how Germany was not going to push for NATO across the river Elbe. That's it. Some are pointing this to be a smoking gun 🤷‍♂️. I'd like to see the rest of the transcripts instead of this just one piece (looks like it got pulled from a larger briefing). You have other senior level german aides that stated no such promise was given on camera

Exposure · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
Well for starters it has propaganda value to the Russian side, where it debunks the West's claim that no such pledge was ever made. Moreover I think it shows why the Russians have grievances when the security of Europe was restructured post USSR collapse they forgot about that pledge and went ahead regardless of Moscow's opinion or input, now people would retort who cares about Russia's input, well you can't ask the Russians to be a valuable and productive part of Europe and the international community and tell them to get bent at the same time.

I mean

not putting half of your military at another country's borders would probably lead to less countries telling them to get bent :v

(like this is the entire thing that gets me about this argument, even taking the hypothetical of it being true, it still leaves the problem of everything to do with Ukraine being what most humans would call a dick move, especially when NATO support in Ukraine only starting rising back up because of the recent actions!)

BringBackSonics · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
Has this been posted? Der Spiegel leaking a 1991 document about a NATO meeting in Bonn and making pledges not to induct Poland into NATO as well as not taking advantage of Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe and expanding Eastward.

The article is paywalled and my German is beginner level, can anyone with access post the document?

The professor also handed it off to der spiegel in 2019. It took them 3 years to publish it 🤷‍♂️.

Sign My Guestbook! · Feb 19, 2022

This shit is so fucking transparent.

Deleted member 3896 · Feb 19, 2022

Watching people try to rationalize Russia's actions here is fucking disgusting.

Sibylus · Feb 19, 2022

Lafazar said:
Yes, this is an old claim that may actually be true. There probably have been verbal backroom promises by German politicians to not expand Nato into specific countries, which have since clearly been broken.

But since this promise was never put in writing in any of the accords and treaties it is hard to see why this should matter. Don't get me wrong: It's shitty that promises have been made that were not kept, but the people who made those promises were probably not in the position to unilaterally grant them in the first place and since none of those promises were actually put down in writing it's puzzling why anyone would expect them to be honored.

In and of itself, not much. It's not what I reckon to be some irreparable breach upon which the entire negative relational spiral hinged, but one unresolved breach amid thousands going back decades that compounded upon themselves and have been duly instrumentalized. You can't call back all the mistakes, misunderstandings, breaches, or worse and undo them. An apology in this moment would amount to little, for instance, with Putin balancing the fates of Ukraine and Russia both on a knife's edge. If he were stand down at the eleventh hour and take a different course, de-escalation, rebuilding trust, detente, and eventual rapprochement would still be the trying work of long years. One can't even begin to guess how much wider that gulf will yawn if he commits as feared.

BringBackSonics · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman · Feb 19, 2022

Exposure said:
I mean

not putting half of your military at another country's borders would probably lead to less countries telling them to get bent :v

(like this is the entire thing that gets me about this argument, even taking the hypothetical of it being true, it still leaves the problem of everything to do with Ukraine being what most humans would call a dick move, especially when NATO support in Ukraine only starting rising back up because of the recent actions!)

But we're talking about events that have lead up to this, events that have lead to Russia and Putin to take more aggressive approaches to European security from 1991 till now, other than the Imperialistic aspirations fueled by nationalism and a resurgent military force.

BringBackSonics said:
The professor also handed it off to der spiegel in 2019. It took them 3 years to publish it 🤷‍♂️.

Yeah and Der Spiegel chose to publish it now, which is giving more credibility to Putin when he's vying for war.

Slatsunus · Feb 19, 2022

Man some of the recent posts in the Socialism OT about this are gonna go down as the worst aged posts in the history of the forum.

Lafazar · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
But we're talking about events that have lead up to this, events that have lead to Russia and Putin to take more aggressive approaches to European security from 1991 till now, other than the Imperialistic aspirations fueled by nationalism and a resurgent military force.

Yeah and Der Spiegel chose to publish it now, which is giving more credibility to Putin when he's vying for war.

Yes, it's a he said she said situation that does not change anything at this point. It's really baffling why Spiegel would publish this now.

Mentalist · Feb 19, 2022

Lafazar said:
Yes, it's a he said she said situation that does not change anything at this point. It's really baffling why Spiegel would publish this now.

Give fuel to the both-siders, probably

Milky Way · Feb 19, 2022

Slatsunus said:
Man some of the recent posts in the Socialism OT about this are gonna go down as the worst aged posts in the history of the forum.

So cringey

BringBackSonics · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
But we're talking about events that have lead up to this, events that have lead to Russia and Putin to take more aggressive approaches to European security from 1991 till now, other than the Imperialistic aspirations fueled by nationalism and a resurgent military force.

Yeah and Der Spiegel chose to publish it now, which is giving more credibility to Putin when he's vying for war.

Eh. That gives zero credibility to Putin. It's not like its an official agreement signed by all parties, it might have been a one meeting when that was the one of the options talked about.

BringBackSonics · Feb 19, 2022

Slatsunus said:
Man some of the recent posts in the Socialism OT about this are gonna go down as the worst aged posts in the history of the forum.

I bet..

TheHunter · Feb 19, 2022

I am unsure why a spoken "promise" made decades ago now gives justification to just completely ignore another country's democracy and sovereignty.

Maquiladora · Feb 19, 2022

Slightly risky but I don't think Russia will start the invasion today.

Bionicman · Feb 19, 2022

Maquiladora said:
Slightly risky but I don't think Russia will start the invasion today.

They're following a methodical process of gradually applying pressure to extract the concessions they want, invasion seems to be the absolute last step, massing of troops, false flags, evacuations and mobilization all done in broad daylight without the slightest hint of opsec or secrecy shows they want to apply as much psychological pressure as possible. If they can get what they want without a fight the better, but it's not happening and invasion looks inevitable.

El Bombastico · Feb 19, 2022

Slatsunus said:
Man some of the recent posts in the Socialism OT about this are gonna go down as the worst aged posts in the history of the forum.

...Some?

Slatsunus · Feb 19, 2022

El Bombastico said:
...Some?

Man there's being cynical about Democrats/America and then there's immediately believing Russia PR about them withdrawing crowing about how right they obviously were and no invasion will happen.

Its like if you wrote a strawman about Leftists being easily duped pawns of any Imperialist's not named America but its real.

Bionicman · Feb 19, 2022

Ukrainian soldier killed, probably from the mass shelling.

Stray shell landed inside Russia, could be another false flag, have to check Russian media.

EDIT: Russian MOD blames Ukraine for the shell.

Sibylus · Feb 19, 2022

Some got the petty antagonism bug bad tonight.

TheHunter said:
I am unsure why a spoken "promise" made decades ago now gives justification to just completely ignore another countries democracy and sovereignty.

I am unsure why that would offer justification also. Are we talking about some specific figure here, or is this another shadowbox? Whatever justification Putin might offer for a broader war would invariably fall short (short of a suicidal pre-emptive offensive from Ukraine, and I give them far more credit than that). With the fields on fire and the barn threatening to go up, it's of little consequence to diplomatic efforts of the pressing moment, clearing that air may be worth revisiting if/when the fires die out.

Bionicman said:
They're following a methodical process of gradually applying pressure to extract the concessions they want, invasion seems to be the absolute last step, massing of troops, false flags, evacuations and mobilization all done in broad daylight without the slightest hint of opsec or secrecy shows they want to apply as much psychological pressure as possible. If they can get what they want without a fight the better, but it's not happening and invasion looks inevitable.

The whole thing reeks of horrific, cynical miscalculation to me, and Russia's proverbially burning their ships behind them is strangling what hope I have left that the leadership would be satisfied with a renewed war that amounts to little more than air strikes and shelling all along the line of contact before drawing down. That would seem laughably ineffectual if the only thing in play were the security demands, now? I've already lost ample sleep over this.

sangreal · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
Well for starters it has propaganda value to the Russian side, where it debunks the West's claim that no such pledge was ever made. Moreover I think it shows why the Russians have grievances when the security of Europe was restructured post USSR collapse they forgot about that pledge and went ahead regardless of Moscow's opinion or input,

I don't think it really debunks anything, and only raises questions. The only real claim in the notes is that Jürgen Chrobog said "We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe (sic)". The other quotes, provided by RT at least, are just opinions about what should be done and the US offering a different, vague, view on the pledge saying "we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal" of Soviet troops. The thing about Chrobog's claim is that other than the word "expand" it actually aligns closely with NATO's official stance on the 2+4 negotiations which is that, in the context of reunification, they committed to not deploy troops beyond West Germany (the Elbe). It doesn't make sense to say NATO won't expand beyond the Elbe because that was the point of 2+4 -- expanding NATO to East Germany.

now people would retort who cares about Russia's input, well you can't ask the Russians to be a valuable and productive part of Europe and the international community and tell them to get bent at the same time.

That's the thing though... they were asked to be a valuable and productive part of European security and signed an agreement to that effect, which made it abundantly clear NATO intended to expand and affirmed the right for countries to "choose the means to ensure their own security." Russia even got a concession that new members would not host any nuclear capabilities. Russia still objected to expansion and said they'd pull-out if NATO moved into the Balitcs, but it was acceptance that NATO was not limited to the existing eastern border. This was basically the whole debate around the agreement and the point of it (https://apnews.com/article/27d15bb83be9590dadfa8872a6a4ffdd).

Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France

www.nato.int

So why should anyone still pretend that the hearsay about what was said in 1990 remains relevant? Just because Putin likes to repeat it constantly?

Xando · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
Has this been posted? Der Spiegel leaking a 1991 document about a NATO meeting in Bonn and making pledges not to induct Poland into NATO as well as not taking advantage of Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe and expanding Eastward.

The article is paywalled and my German is beginner level, can anyone with access post the document?

It's a about the 2+4 talks where the west said they don't expect NATO to enlarge east into poland. No officially binding commitment has been made. Just talk between the foreign ministry's.

During the same talk the russians pledged to become a model democracy.

Spiegel kinda reaching here tbh

Donos · Feb 19, 2022

Xando said:
It's a about the 2+4 talks where the west said they don't expect NATO to enlarge east into poland. No officially binding commitment has been made. Just talk between the foreign ministry's.

During the same talk the russians pledged to become a model democracy.

Wiki says they held their end:

The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Diversity of ideologies and religions is sanctioned, and a state or compulsory ideology may not be adopted.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

jem · Feb 19, 2022

Slatsunus said:
Man some of the recent posts in the Socialism OT about this are gonna go down as the worst aged posts in the history of the forum.

Well that's disappointing

Coyote Starrk · Feb 19, 2022

Messofanego said:
Follow this anti palestinian guy, you sure???

Yes that is obviously what I meant.

Come on now 🙄

BringBackSonics · Feb 19, 2022

Donos said:
Wiki says they held their end:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

😂😂

Coyote Starrk · Feb 19, 2022

Slatsunus said:
Man some of the recent posts in the Socialism OT about this are gonna go down as the worst aged posts in the history of the forum.

This post made me go look. Yeah there are some whoppers in there lol

Engell · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
Stray shell landed inside Russia, could be another false flag, have to check Russian media.

EDIT: Russian MOD blames Ukraine for the shell.

pretty sure ukraine shells don't reach that far... but again everyone knows this is just Russia shelling themselves(if it even happened) to make an excuse for invasion.

Thorn · Feb 19, 2022

Coyote Starrk said:
This post made me go look. Yeah there are some whoppers in there lol

Any examples for the lazy?

Ont · Feb 19, 2022

Slatsunus said:
Man some of the recent posts in the Socialism OT about this are gonna go down as the worst aged posts in the history of the forum.

This reminds of me Finlandization, i.e. the time period in Finnish history when it was not OK for media or politicians to criticise the Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan in 1980s or sent tanks to violently crush popular uprisings in the Soviet satellite states.

All those past statements sound ridiculous today.

You can find Putin fanboys from both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum. They are trying to justify or downplay Putin's horrible list of war crimes and constant attack on human rights.

TheRaidenPT · Feb 19, 2022

There's a lot of movement that hasn't been happening since 2014, mostly the artillery...

Russia seems to be on the move since yesterday in Belgorod

Bionicman · Feb 19, 2022

Engell said:
pretty sure ukraine shells don't reach that far... but again everyone knows this is just Russia shelling themselves(if it even happened) to make an excuse for invasion.

Two possibilities, either a false flag to justify an invasion for domestic audience, or what the tweet I posted is implying, a strategy of gradual pressure to force Kyiv into concessions.

The Russians know the West isn't buying the false flags but doing all these theatrics even tho the West called them is the Russians saying they're going through with this step by step until Kyiv conceeds or war starts.

Donos · Feb 19, 2022

With a Military superpower on your boarder, close to invading you, i really really doubt that anybody in their right mind would send some "fuck you" shells across the border...just poking the bear a bit.

BringBackSonics · Feb 19, 2022

Thorn said:
Any examples for the lazy?

Just some complaints about bans thst a couple of them got for pushing the Nazi thing

Sibylus · Feb 19, 2022

Bionicman said:
Two possibilities, either a false flag to justify an invasion for domestic audience, or what the tweet I posted is implying, a strategy of gradual pressure to force Kyiv into concessions.

The Russians know the West isn't buying the false flags but doing all these theatrics even tho the West called them is the Russians saying they're going through with this step by step.

Not sure I agree with the ruse interpretation there from Seddon. It's elaborate, but it's less ruse and just straight multiple-stage coercion. Stage 1 threatens open hostilities if they don't fold, but it's not a hollow threat, as attested by the degree of material commitment and international exposure this has already entailed. That the degree to which they would go is left to the imagination only serves to enhance that coercive power, because the prospective costs become so ambiguous as to range from considered to existential.

A false flag justification or gradual coercive pressure isn't the only danger here, unfortunately. Intentional provocation such as undeclared shelling or bombing of Ukrainian forces with the aim of inciting a potentially lethal response is something Ukraine is doubtless trying to avoid at all costs, because it would immediately boil over.

JonnyDBrit · Feb 19, 2022

Sibylus said:
Not sure I agree with the ruse interpretation there from Seddon. It's elaborate, but it's less ruse and just straight multiple-stage coercion. Stage 1 threatens open hostilities if they don't fold, but it's not a hollow threat, as attested by the degree of material commitment and international exposure this has already entailed. That the degree to which they would go is left to the imagination only serves to enhance that coercive power, because the prospective costs become so ambiguous as to range from considered to existential.

A false flag justification or gradual coercive pressure isn't the only danger here, unfortunately. Intentional provocation such as undeclared shelling or bombing of Ukrainian forces with the aim of inciting a potentially lethal response is something Ukraine is doubtless trying to avoid at all costs, because it would immediately boil over.

Especially because wider context like the sheer escalation in attacks across the current frontline, while something many of us here will notice and be concerned over, will pass a lot of people by. So if Ukrainian forces were to decide to fire back and kill someone accordingly, a lot of people could be convinced that they did so 'unprovoked', even if it's absolutely not the case

BlackLagoon · Feb 19, 2022

JonnyDBrit said:
Especially because wider context like the sheer escalation in attacks across the current frontline, while something many of us here will notice and be concerned over, will pass a lot of people by. So if Ukrainian forces were to decide to fire back and kill someone accordingly, a lot of people could be convinced that they did so 'unprovoked', even if it's absolutely not the case

Case in point - back in 08, I watched an early news report stated that Georgia had provoked Russia into attacking by shelling a separatist position that had Russian peacekeepers with them, and that stuck with me for years until I read up on the situation more recently.

eonden · Feb 19, 2022

The main problem of this being a ruse to push for Minsk / Minsk 2, is that the same thing that happened with those agreemetns will end up happening to the next one. The moment Russia puts the gun down, Ukraine (and Russia) will not fulfill their side of the deal because it is untennable. No Ukranian government will sign on having small puppet russian republics being able to dictate the foreign policy of Ukraine... because that would make them a russian aligned state despite the majority of the population not wanting that at all.
So to make future Minsk 3 a reality, they would need to keep this pressure for a very long period of time.

JonnyDBrit · Feb 19, 2022

BlackLagoon said:
Case in point - back in 08, I watched an early news report stated that Georgia had provoked Russia into attacking by shelling a separatist position that had Russian peacekeepers with them, and that stuck with me for years until I read up on the situation more recently.

Even now there's that shell which fell decidedly in Russia. It could a Ukrainian crew making possibly a really, really bad move, and in isolation it seems like the readymost answer. Only with the wider knowledge that yeah, yesterday saw a lot of shelling generally - the most for years - and that the map of control actually has Ukrainian forces between separatist positions and the Russian border, does an alternative become readily apparent.

Sibylus · Feb 19, 2022

JonnyDBrit said:
Especially because wider context like the sheer escalation in attacks across the current frontline, while something many of us here will notice and be concerned over, will pass a lot of people by. So if Ukrainian forces were to decide to fire back and kill someone accordingly, a lot of people could be convinced that they did so 'unprovoked', even if it's absolutely not the case

Or otherwise so confused and muddy that it could be years to definitively trace back who started what. There's every sober reason in the world not to shoot back, but cooler heads also have to prevail in such a moment even when ordnance is doing more than threatening, but killing. Can't fathom the borderline unnatural longsuffering that calls for.

Skyscourge · Feb 19, 2022

It really must be despairing, that in the face of an overwhelming force that can crush you on a whim, any attempt to defend yourself will be seen as proper justification for them to bring the hammer down on you. This military brinkmanship only serves to solidify the world's belief in military blocks and complexes, in further armament, posturing and nationalism. Putin has brought us on the brink of a second Cold War. Even if he decides to pull back from Ukraine, he has decidedly cast a shadow of increasing tension on the world. I don't see this momentum reversing until Russia is completely rid of Putin and his geopolitical ideology.

JonnyDBrit · Feb 19, 2022

Sibylus said:
Or otherwise so confused and muddy that it could be years to definitively trace back who started what. There's every sober reason in the world not to shoot back, but cooler heads also have to prevail in such a moment even when ordnance is doing more than threatening, but killing. Can't fathom the borderline unnatural longsuffering that calls for.

Especially after what is fast becoming eight years of this shit. Hell, it was noted earlier in this thread that soldiers in the ground probably won't have access to the level of information we do of the wider context/battlefield, to keep them immediately focused and to avoid mulling on information they 'don't need'. But a result of that could be to isolate and increase the apparent shock of what happens to them. Someone might choose to respond accordingly without it going all the way to the top.

Temascos · Feb 19, 2022

I hope Russia backs the hell off, but it doesn't seem likely at this point sadly. It's so baffling why Russia wants to get at Ukraine so bad, I know the reasoning in regards to natural resources and stuff but they have to know that a military occupation of the country will be a disaster for them in the long run, sanctions, guerilla warfare with a well trained and equipped military, and losing trust worldwide doesn't seem like it's "worth it", and that's not counting the human cost.

Slatsunus said:
Man there's being cynical about Democrats/America and then there's immediately believing Russia PR about them withdrawing crowing about how right they obviously were and no invasion will happen.

Its like if you wrote a strawman about Leftists being easily duped pawns of any Imperialist's not named America but its real.

Yeah, it's so disheartening for me as someone who's proudly left wing to see people carry water for Putin and his cronies, especially in communities I once was a part of (You might have seen my post in the thread expressing that frustration with other places), and then to see stuff like "See! The threat of invasion was just made up by the West!" and crap like that. Makes me wonder where my place is in online communities. You'd think trusting the guy who Trump idolises would be a good hint to do the opposite but apparently not.

Bionicman · Feb 19, 2022

Grom nuclear military exercises just started with Putin personally there, simulated nuclear attacks and a lot of ballistic missiles are going to be launched.

JonnyDBrit · Feb 19, 2022

Temascos said:
Yeah, it's so disheartening for me as someone who's proudly left wing to see people carry water for Putin and his cronies, especially in communities I once was a part of (You might have seen my post in the thread expressing that frustration with other places), and then to see stuff like "See! The threat of invasion was just made up by the West!" and crap like that. Makes me wonder where my place is in online communities. You'd think trusting the guy who Trump idolises would be a good hint to do the opposite but apparently not.

Ultimately the information that informs this (hopefully yet) potential conflict is vast, both to our advantage and disadvantage in comprehending it. It simultaneously makes it easier to find things over which to admittedly be justifiably concerned, easy to miss mitigating factors in those concerns, and encourages the formation of a 'core position' on which to filter all that information, or otherwise minimise complications from it, because good god is it a lot to handle otherwise.

Like, the ban hammer has been brought down fairly heavily for this thread, but I don't begrudge a lot of those who've been on the receiving end because... yeah, it's not hard to see how they could wind up with those views and positions of the matter, based on some of the information and views available. I don't think they're ultimately correct, but it's not as hard to grasp how they've gotten there as some other posters have argued

jem · Feb 19, 2022

JonnyDBrit said:
Ultimately the information that informs this (hopefully yet) potential conflict is vast, both to our advantage and disadvantage in comprehending it. It simultaneously makes it easier to find things over which to admittedly be justifiably concerned, easy to miss mitigating factors in those concerns, and encourages the formation of a 'core position' on which to filter all that information, or otherwise minimise complications from it, because good god is it a lot to handle otherwise.

Like, the ban hammer has been brought down fairly heavily for this thread, but I don't begrudge a lot of those who've been on the receiving end because... yeah, it's not hard to see how they could wind up with those views and positions of the matter, based on some of the information and views available. I don't think they're ultimately correct, but it's not as hard to grasp how they've gotten there as some other posters have argued

I feel like you need some seriously large blinders to reach the conclusions some of these people are making.

Massive Russian military buildup near Ukraine

User requested account closure

Bold Bur3n Wrangler

Prophet of Truth

Editor-in-Chief, Hyped Pixels

God and Anime

God and Anime

One Winged Slayer

God and Anime

God and Anime