> To show the world, that no country can win land with force and profit of it.
Unfortunately it is not going to happen. the strongest wins and people's morals are fickle too. if someone encroached on american territory they would be burned in every possible way and no one would even try to feel sorry for the attackers. but if it's a small country it's suddenly different.
Yes this two measures is quiet a mental stretch from what onelaccepts for the own country to what one accepts for other countries.
In my mind there is only one moral baseline. And this is the same if it is applied to an arab, asiatic, a european or american person. Since I beleave all humans have many things in common and very little differences where a violent conflict could be legitimate.
"Thus, as a result of shelling over the past 24 hours at least 6 people were killed and 36 others were wounded."
this is from yesterday's war bulletin. in one day 6 civilans dead. at the same time I've heard here many times arguments like - "Putin has its reason", "It's because of NATO expansions", "stop funding Ukraine". with effective propaganda, you can do anything with moral baseline
Yes this I also have heared. But I feel bad for people who beleave these arguments. I think who acts in a warcrime should not hope for support. And who defends has every legitimation to do this. I support Ukraine until they get back the last inch of their land.
That's really nice to hear
i would say who controls narrative wins. for example - remember that hype around biden allowing ukraine to strike inside russia. OMG, Joe Rogan says fuck Zelensky it is world war 3. what? why when russia strikes ukraine daily it is ok but in other direction it is suddenly WW3
I would argue that who is able to build his own arguments based on logic wins. Since a logic argument can be understood and reformed independently, where a misunderstanding can be debunked.
so why Peter gets his daily dose of hate just following pure logic ) it is depends how you define "win".
