Here's some counter-whataboutism: what about the Korean and Vietnam wars (the Soviet Union even sent their own pilots with the jets), and countless other smaller conflicts in Africa? The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc were pumping weapons into those conflicts or have been invading themselves to support "their side". Same with Russia in Syria btw.
At least the free west is upfront and open about the weapon deliveries down to the last helmet:
The main reason that propaganda and dehumanization are such a typical part of war, is that it helps prevent people from considering the weight of their own actions, let alone the perspective of the enemy. What I described is not a whataboutism, it's a hypothetical illustrating exactly what's happening today, except flipping the roles of the participants. Yet of course it feels alien enough that you instinctively want to fight against it - I must be tricking you or engaging in some sort of deceptive rhetorical device. I am not.
Whataboutism is an old Soviet propaganda technique, but AFAIK they didn't come up with the term (they must have had an internal name for it of course, but somehow I doubt they called it whataboutism)
Can you try a better developed argument than the extremely lazy Reddit-level “whataboutism” one? And look up the history of that word. It’s a Soviet propaganda term and a logical fallacy.
> They made some platitudes about really feeling for the people of Iraq, and then started sending massive amounts of supplies, including long ranged weapons, tanks, depleted uranium munitions, countless rounds of cluster bombs (!).
Not sure what the (!) for the cluster bombs is about, both Ukraine and Russia never signed the cluster bomb ban, and both Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster bombs in both this conflict but also since 2014.
This isn't anything new, the only change is that they are now being provided by America, and the American ones appear to fail less.
> Not only were these weapons effective enough to manage to kill tens of thousands of Americans, but some were even being used to carry out irregular attacks in major American cities.
I'm not sure that the provided weapons are being used to carry out any 'irregular' attacks on Russian cities?.
But even if they were, did the Russians really think they could enter this war and bomb cities into dust and never get bombed themselves?.
> That people lack the empathy to see how dangerous the path we're treading is only because the media has spent years creating this absurd dichotomy in the world where the American cause of the week is just and right, whereas the enemy - pure evil. And so in this context people seem to rarely ask themselves whether what we're doing is right or wrong, because how can doing harm to pure evil ever be wrong?
I think its perfectly morally acceptable to arm a country trying to defend itself against an imperialist invader.
I don't think the path that is being tread is in any way shape or form dangerous, why would Russia losing this war be any different to the other wars that both Russia and the Soviet Union lost?.
It is a bit off-topic, but the Biden admin hasn't done anything like that indeed. In fact, nuclear exchange is self-destruction. No one is stupid enough to do that, even Trump wouldn't be. So parent's remark is off.
For chips to be blocked going to Germany doesn't thus require a nuclear exchange. You rather should think of smth like military aggression from China towards Taiwan.
Man, I wrote several replies to this comment but decided against them all. This is silly- the U.S. and China have been playing with balloons like this for years, that one was just really big
1. Nobody would launch nukes domestically, so moot point.
2. Using nukes internationally would be a faux-pas beyond fixing. Every modern, nuclear-equipped nation understands this.
3. The United States doesn't need nuclear weaponry to dispel invaders, or even to retaliate against foreign attacks. Their nuclear weapons exist to deter other nuclear superpowers from using their weapons for petty gain.
You're free to argue that DU rounds are effectively a poisonous weapon and should be banned on those grounds. I would agree. That doesn't change the fact that depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.
Right, the US would totally make nuclear threats against Mexico for shooting down a ballon. Not even Trump would be deranged enough for that (well on second thought, maybe he would but nobody would take him serious, just like Medvedev's daily nuclear threat).
The Mexico example was long range weapons. If Chinese missiles were hitting American cities from Mexico (outside of the localized fighting), do you believe that has the possibility to escalate?
Maybe, but I can give a much more concrete example: Russia has nukes on Europe's doorstep in Kaliningrad which can reach Berlin in a couple of minutes, do you hear anybody in Germany, Europe or NATO whine about "escalation"?
TL;DR: Russia has Iskander missiles stationed in their Kaliningrad exclave (former Koenigsberg if Kaliningrad doesn't ring a bell), Iskander missiles can carry nuclear warheads and have a range of 500 km which is just enough to reach Berlin. Now add two and two together. Why would Russia station nuclear capable missiles in the middle of Europe without the nuclear warheads nearby?
I don't understand your point. How does it relate to my analogy of a neighbor of America getting armed and trained by a sworn and bellicose enemy of America who states openly that it's goal is American regime change and geopolitical breakup. Under this scenario, I suspect the US would roll into Mexico and end that sooner than later under the Monroe Doctrine due to the real (or perceived) existential threat. At least, I would hope so - Mexico being in a military alliance with China (and it's 2000 or so mile border) would be not good.
Russia's stated goal (according to Dmitri Medvedev, former president and now "Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation") is also to "build a united Eurasia from Vladivostok to Lisbon", yet it is very unlikely that any European nation would preemptively invade Kaliningrad over those existential threats.
Also, Mexico entering a military alliance with China is extremely far fetched, how did you even arrive at that idea?
Thanks for your suggestion. There are a lot of things I don't know, but this subject is somewhat the exception to that. The US has made no nuclear threats, on the contrary, it has done everything to remind the Kremlin, which was and is threatening all kinds of countries with nuclear blackmail, that doing so is off limits.
I will assume you were unknowingly repeating Kremlin propaganda. Please don't.
