• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1510 months ago

    Finland is correct. Though I have no idea what sort of situation those other people assumed to warrant such a claim.

    • @Ross_audio
      link
      810 months ago

      There is the danger of manufacturing consent.

      https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/remember-maine-1898

      Raising tensions then using an incident to light the touch paper.

      Russian’s at the border is one thing.

      But the most likely “attack” on the US is going to be much smaller.

      Note the Houthis attacking merchant ships. Under a US flag.

      There are 2 options

      1. retaliate.

      or

      1. tell the ships to go round and use sanctions and other non violent diplomatic tools to resolve the situation.

      Option 1 is an escalation.

      Option 2 is not.

      The US military is is an odd position. I’d defend Ukraine from Russia. I’d defend Palestine from Israel. I’d defend Israel from Palestine.

      I wouldn’t support an aggressor.

      There is a moral obligation to support violence in that it must be a necessary defence.

      Joining the US military we’ve grown up seeing the US as an aggressor continuously. Supporting aggressors, not sanctioning them.

      Then with Ukraine there is reluctance to help a defender.

      A country that invaded nations at the drop of a hat 20 years ago has a recruitment problem. No surprises there.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        610 months ago

        If Russian troops are crossing the border then it’s Russians who have manufactured the consent for violent action to drive them the fuck away.

        • @Ross_audio
          link
          310 months ago

          I agree, but if that’s the way the US, or any other NATO country, gets attacked I’ll be surprised.

          This is not the war that is proposed, it’s a series of proxy wars. Just like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the decades long conflict with Palestine.

          Ask if you’ll defend yourself, you’ll say yes.

          Ask if you’ll defend others, the answer is usually “it depends”.

          Ask if you’ll go fight in a proxy war which protects largely corporate interests, you’ll say no.

          Joining the American military is saying yes to all 3. That’s the recruitment issue going on there.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            610 months ago

            Well the whole point of NATO is that hopefully Russia wouldn’t dare. Let’s hope they’ll not as fucking dumb and insane as they at times seem. But in any case, it was just a hypothetical. If Russia attacks here, I’d definitely fight in the WW3.

            • @Ross_audio
              link
              010 months ago

              If there ever is a WW3 that can’t be dealt with diplomatically, MAD is the result.

              Not worth fighting, better to run and hide as the missiles fly.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                410 months ago

                Not necessarily. It could be like chemical weapons and WW2. Everyone had them nobody wanted to start using them. But in any case, I just offered a scenario where I’d be fighting. It’s not necessarily the most likely one.

    • @AngryCommieKender
      link
      110 months ago

      If Russia attacks the US, our government would try to use that as a recruitment tool, and would probably succeed.

      Meanwhile the majority of us would be cheering on the Alaskan citizens that are armed for wildlife that would stop a T-70 in its tracks, to say nothing of the poor Russian conscripts.