Vladimir Putin and Russia

[scoobos 297]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

this

No. 

Forgive the writing things as "fact" it's as much opinion as everyone else, it's just my style I suppose.

I think you're being drawn into it by our own media propoganda. We ARE escalating it now, for our own domestic political reasons. Tories don't give a fuck about oppression or illegal occupation or we wouldnt support Isreal, Saudi etc. We've gone from one oppressive country to another for our Oil.

I mean is anyone talking about the "Brave Mariupol (sp?) defenders" in truth, you know that the Azov regiment are actually nazis and have lynced people publically Taliban style?

Don't get me wrong, I support the world supporting Ukraine and Russia is the agressor, but aggression is not the answer - showing them our power by completely blocking them is the answer.

World lessons are here - the world is almost going down the road of the Treaty of Versailles and it doesn't work - creating hyperinflation raises support for the war, it doesn't dent it.

Giving them assistance with Weapons etc is one thing, but making declarations of wanting to attack russian soil is completely different and we are then putting ourselves in the position of proving Putin's paranoia correct, that we were just looking for an excuse. - They are NOT a NATO country - so as sad as it seems - do you get as upset about the Yemen? Do you feel a need to do anything there? Why not? Because its not close to home. We do nothing because we profit from it , is the brutal truth - just the same as our government saying how much they care - to make money and protect their own power.

Ukraine can deal with this and keep their honor, there is absolutely fuck all need for the fuckwits in power now to start pretending that they can plan anything . They have fucked up everything they have touched in the last 3 years, whats going to be different now?

Nuclear war is suicide, its mutually assured destruction - there is no deterrent needed other than that.

The world has the worst leaders at the worst possible time, and I personally put a lot of blame on the Internet.

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by scoobos

[Rayvin 5151]

I don't believe the Tories do particularly care about the people of Ukraine, but I do. I also care about Western civilisation and consider where we have come to as, while very flawed, the best of all other current alternatives - and that it is therefore worth protecting. We're all taken in by propaganda whether Russian or Western (as far as this conflict goes), it will be inevitable. I am however comfortable that my position here aligns with what I believe to be right.

 

There are more nazis in the UK and Russia than there are in Ukraine, I'm not remotely interested in the war being justified by the existence of Azov. Women are being mass raped and war crimes are abundant. Azov are a footnote compared to this.

 

We have showed our power by blocking them, and they have continued. They are now making inroads into Moldova and threatening to expand the conflict. We are not forcing them to do this, they are doing it because they are imperialists. Which Western leader has claimed we want to attack Russian soil, incidentally? Crimea isn't Russia soil by any international, legal metric. It's a spoil of war.

 

Yes I get upset about Yemen - although the last time I raised this, Renton I believe made some really good points on what that was a very different situation, and why it was doing a disservice to all involved to compare the two. Yemen does sound more complicated with two side competing over a single territory. Not one side valiantly trying to defend itself against an aggressor to which it has done no harm. Civilians die of course, and this is as reprehensible in Ukraine as it is in Yemen - but they are different situations.

 

I don't disagree with you about the government's motives, although I suspect even in the jaded and morally collapsed Tory party, there are some who believe that Western civilisation and its values are worth defending. Even if they don't realise the harm that they themselves do to it. Again though, I'm not 'agreeing with the government'. I want us to go in and stop the guy, and I did pretty much immediately because he is an unmitigated cunt who cares nothing for the lives of even his own soldiers, when compared to the prospect of a grand legacy that he could leave behind. If the US was less wedded to war this still would have happened, because Putin is still an autocratic fascist. Maybe it would have happened sooner, frankly.

 

Ukraine can't deal with this. They are going to lose, and the stated intention of the exercise is for the entire country to be assimilated into Russia, for the Ukrainian culture to be annihilated, and for those who defended themselves to be punished. Russia has decreed this, and so shall it be.

 

Nuclear war is suicide but we will only get to that stage by the actions of one deranged lunatic, and it isn't on us if that happens. It's on him. We need to start pointing the finger squarely where the blame is. No western leader is going to launch a first strike nuclear attack on Russia. NATO is not going to countenance a military invasion of Russia. Thus the only way we get nuclear war, is if the 70 year old with the 14 year old's brain currently running Russia, decides that he's being humiliated. If it comes to that, so be it, but it's not on us. We can't just bend over every time a crackpot state like Russia starts throwing threats around otherwise they will simply keep taking, punishing, lying and persecuting.

[spongebob toonpants 3902]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

'. I want us to go in and stop the guy, 

I want to know what you think this looks like or how it's achieved, because I can't see anyway it can happen without millions of people dying

[scoobos 297]

If you think Yemen is more complicated you're just hoodwinked I'm afraid. It's total aggression.

I have to question this though:

"There are more nazis in the UK and Russia than there are in Ukraine, I'm not remotely interested in the war being justified by the existence of Azov. Women are being mass raped and war crimes are abundant. Azov are a footnote compared to this."

Azov Battalion - Wikipedia  _ they were "secret police" before the military arm and some are wanted for genocide and murder.

How can you be selective like that? Azov are guilty of rape and war crimes BEFORE the invasion - now our media is saying there are no Nazis and they are bravely defending - I find that very upsetting how we can turn a blind eye to one side . Again, this is not justifying an invasion, more rallying against wartime propoganda of "Black and White" thinking.

Esclating war is not an answer to avoid death - it will create more death. I'll get bloody conscripted too and trust me, you dont want 44 year old me defending us.

I think you simplify it if you think that it is not even slightly understandable that Russia and it's allies believe  NATO to be aggressive or expanding in a provocative way. We've been putting "defensive" weapons in firing distance of Moscow for the last decade, you know? It's been used as an arm of US policy for too long - but Europe and its members are partly to blame here, by not funding it fairly.

 

The clue should be in the name "North Atlantic Treaty" not eastern europe. The Russians are dangerous but so are the Americans. Proxy wars have created the taliban, Al'Q, Hamas, so much.

Give peace a chance. Defensive only is the way to win this. the UK has fuck all right to be talking about "not resting until we take Crimea back" - there is no WE - Its Ukraine vs Russia and it needs to stay that way.

[scoobos 297]

Just now, spongebob toonpants said:

I want to know what you think this looks like or how it's achieved, because I can't see anyway it can happen without millions of people dying

There's the award for saying in 1 sentence what I can't get out in 3 paragraphs!

[Rayvin 5151]

Just now, spongebob toonpants said:

I want to know what you think this looks like or how it's achieved, because I can't see anyway it can happen without millions of people dying

 

Fine, but you do me the same courtesy of setting out what you think we should do if Putin says he will only agree to peace if he gets to absorb Ukraine into Russia, and lays out plans to re-establish the Soviet era Russian empire borders. Two separate points there. Ukraine on its own, and then everything else.

 

For my answer - I don't think he'll nuke us. I've said it many times but hell, I'll say it again. I think he's a bully, but he's not stupid enough to start a nuclear war that can only possibly guarantee the annihilation of his country no matter who else he takes down in the process if we aren't actually invading it. He's not going to go nuclear if we throw him out of a country that he has invaded.

 

People will die in the process, but probably fewer than if we just let him proceed with his raping and pillaging.

[scoobos 297]

Saying he wont nuke us , is more confident than I am. Never underestimate a madman, especially one who appears to be ill / deranged. The Chinese had it's citizens literally eating people with alternative political views, The Kyhmer Rouge / Pol Pot killed millions of their own, etc etc..

 

I think to answer the question posed, If he did take Ukraine then we do nothing - and we escalate our defenses on the NATO borders - as international law allows. They couldn't join NATO  for a number of reasons that suddenly are all forgotten now .

No one is saying do nothing at all - we are arming Ukraine to the teeth and they are repelling the invasion, that is enough, if they lose then we need to re-evaluate, absorb the refugees (now theres something that the UK CAN DO and isnt - 2000 people in so far, 25,000 visas issued but with no way in..)

Here's what got me so upset today:

BBC Headlines:

Kremlin "Europe Arming Ukraine is reducing their security".
UK Response "Push Russia out of the WHOLE of Ukraine" - Truss, "Our nuclear submarines are mobilised and ready" <paraphrased, cos I cant find the quote, but its in a previous post> Ben Wallace
US Response "We are not attacking Russia we are aiding Ukraine's defense".

Now I for one am much more comfortable with the US Response - the UK one is the same as everything these utter utter fucktards have done - its strong words with no fucking plan behind them, that risk UK citizens lives.

 

If we want to "save the world" and stop raping and pillaging we have to take a very long hard look at our foreign policy - we have appeased things as bad as Russia, we really have. We use child labour for our goods, we buy oil from countries with appalling histories and we arm aggressors all around the world, without blinking an eye. 

Now that's depressing I know - and again, I have to re-iterate my belief that arming Ukraine is the answer , helping them defend - but its probably as far as we can justifiably go.

If you want to stop Rape, pillage, torture and illegal occupation , then we have to be honest and admit that a good 20-30% of our arms sales and training need to stop.

 

Escalating a war will create a meat grinder , of human lives, ww2 style - all this talk of "modern warfare" seems to be bollox, no one has managed a decent victory with conventional weapons , except arguably us in Iraq but we bombed the absolute shit out of the capital city for 3 nights straight, spending billions on long range cruise missiles and bunker busters - murdering children through shockwaves in incubators in hospitals etc. Just cos we aren't shown it, doesn't mean that we somehow fight "cleaner" wars.  We invented the word "Collateral Damage" during that war.

Edited April 28, 2022 by scoobos

[Rayvin 5151]

20 minutes ago, scoobos said:

If you think Yemen is more complicated you're just hoodwinked I'm afraid. It's total aggression.

I have to question this though:

"There are more nazis in the UK and Russia than there are in Ukraine, I'm not remotely interested in the war being justified by the existence of Azov. Women are being mass raped and war crimes are abundant. Azov are a footnote compared to this."

Azov Battalion - Wikipedia  _ they were "secret police" before the military arm and some are wanted for genocide and murder.

How can you be selective like that? Azov are guilty of rape and war crimes BEFORE the invasion - now our media is saying there are no Nazis and they are bravely defending - I find that very upsetting how we can turn a blind eye to one side . Again, this is not justifying an invasion, more rallying against wartime propoganda of "Black and White" thinking.

Esclating war is not an answer to avoid death - it will create more death. I'll get bloody conscripted too and trust me, you dont want 44 year old me defending us.

I think you simplify it if you think that it is not even slightly understandable that Russia and it's allies believe  NATO to be aggressive or expanding in a provocative way. We've been putting "defensive" weapons in firing distance of Moscow for the last decade, you know? It's been used as an arm of US policy for too long - but Europe and its members are partly to blame here, by not funding it fairly.

 

The clue should be in the name "North Atlantic Treaty" not eastern europe. The Russians are dangerous but so are the Americans. Proxy wars have created the taliban, Al'Q, Hamas, so much.

Give peace a chance. Defensive only is the way to win this. the UK has fuck all right to be talking about "not resting until we take Crimea back" - there is no WE - Its Ukraine vs Russia and it needs to stay that way.

 

Yes, a lot of your opinions of me appear to be that I'm a naive idiot that just dives blindly into any particular opinion depending on what is put in front of me. You're welcome to that opinion but I don't sit here in awe at your reasonings either. We fundamentally disagree about some core points in here and that's fine, but I continue to believe that opposing imperialist warmongering has to be a consistent act, and that means whether or not it's the US.

 

On the Azov point - It's not selective, it's a matter of degrees. I've looked into Azov and found that yes, they're nazis, but there are 900 of them according to the very link you just provided. 100,000 rapists and murderers are now rampaging across Ukraine thanks to Putin. It's a matter of degrees. It's also clear that the relevance of Azov in this at all is only to provide a flimsy justification for the notion that Russia is somehow doing this to defeat Nazis. Do you believe that's even remotely on their list of genuine issues?

 

NATO is clearly never going to attack Russia. Putin knows it, NATO knows it, the fact that we haven't used this clear cut excuse to immediately attack Russia proves it. What they are afraid of, if anything, is Western systems and processes eliminating their mafia state control setup. The wider battle here is democracy (such as it is) and authoritarianism. We are losing.

[scoobos 297]

Ah dont think that mate, its just debate. honest.

[spongebob toonpants 3902]

13 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Fine, but you do me the same courtesy of setting out what you think we should do if Putin says he will only agree to peace if he gets to absorb Ukraine into Russia, and lays out plans to re-establish the Soviet era Russian empire borders. Two separate points there. Ukraine on its own, and then everything else.

 

For my answer - I don't think he'll nuke us. I've said it many times but hell, I'll say it again. I think he's a bully, but he's not stupid enough to start a nuclear war that can only possibly guarantee the annihilation of his country no matter who else he takes down in the process if we aren't actually invading it. He's not going to go nuclear if we throw him out of a country that he has invaded.

 

People will die in the process, but probably fewer than if we just let him proceed with his raping and pillaging.

I would point you back to the Guardian article you quoted. You have to somehow get to a negotiated settlement. 

I don't understand how you can think Putin is an insane psychopath bully obsessed with the Russian Empire, and be so confident he won't go nuclear if the west attack him

[scoobos 297]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

NATO is clearly never going to attack Russia. 

It depends what you mean by attack.

Lets say that someone backed Ireland and built a treaty organisation that had EIRE as a member - and then put missile launchers within striking distance of the UK on their ground. 

What did the US do, when the Soviets did that in Cuba? 

Also " opposing imperialist warmongering" - seriously, then we have to oppose our own actions in modern times. The USA is the biggest warmonger in the world and have killed more civilians in proxy "anti anti-capitalist" wars since WW2 .
 

[Rayvin 5151]

1 minute ago, scoobos said:

Ah dont think that mate, its just debate. honest.

 

It's the repeated suggestions that I'm being somehow "hoodwinked" into a blood frenzy by a government that I consistently hate and oppose in almost all things that makes me think this. I am not. I believe what I'm saying, and I would have believed it if the UK was cowering in the corner (as we more or less are) telling everyone that Putin wasn't such a bad guy and that he's just misunderstood (disclaimer, I'm not attributing that view to you, it's just an example of an opposing government line).

 

I don't want the war and death that will follow if we send troops in. I lament the deaths of Russian soldiers as much as Ukrainian civilians. But you cannot do nothing when faced with unchecked aggression.

[scoobos 297]

I said if you believe Yemen is "complicated" because there are more than 2 sides - shows that maybe you've been hoodwinked. For example, there are more than 2 sides in this war in Ukraine right now - the seperatists, the loyalists / ukranians and russia.

 

We are arming them in a "non specific country" way (or we were until Truss starting being a twat" - as the rest of the world saying "no" - we are not doing nothing as you suggest. We are actually doing more than I thought we would.

 

and I would have believed it if the UK was cowering in the corner (as we more or less are) telling everyone that Putin wasn't such a bad guy and that he's just misunderstood (disclaimer, I'm not attributing that view to you, it's just an example of an opposing government line).

Who's saying that? Which opposiing government is saying that. I think what Im saying is dont , for fucks sake start saying we've mobilised nuclear submarines ready to strike. Thats nuclear escalation and WE are doing it - just the UK.

Edited April 28, 2022 by scoobos

[Rayvin 5151]

Just now, scoobos said:

It depends what you mean by attack.

Lets say that someone backed Ireland and built a treaty organisation that had EIRE as a member - and then put missile launchers within striking distance of the UK on their ground. 

What did the US do, when the Soviets did that in Cuba? 

Also " opposing imperialist warmongering" - seriously, then we have to oppose our own actions in modern times. The USA is the biggest warmonger in the world and have killed more civilians in proxy "anti anti-capitalist" wars since WW2 .
 

 

I do oppose our own actions. Check out the terrorism thread - doesn't get posted in much these days but I was in there for a very long time railing against our various interventions. As such, again, my position here is consistent.

 

The fact that the US did kick off over the Cuban missile crisis doesn't mean that they should have. Although back at that point I could see for either side how this would have been a more significant issue. Back then we had two world superpowers, now we have one. Russia is not an equal to America and it never will be again. That doesn't mean it should be treated disrespectfully, but it does mean that it has to accept the US international order, and that if various Eastern European countries are afraid of being invaded by it, and ask to join NATO, that it just has to accept this and work on improving its relationships with these countries through softer means. This is just realism - or it should have been.

 

I'd be fine with Ireland having missile launchers because they're a democracy and a mature, civilised nation.

[spongebob toonpants 3902]

Again I'm not trying to justify Putins position here but you can understand why he might have some paranoia about NATO intentions

 

 

[ewerk 30167]

Just now, spongebob toonpants said:

Again I'm not trying to justify Putins position here but you can understand why he might have some paranoia about NATO intentions

 

Meanwhile he's proving exactly why those countries were right to have joined NATO.

[scoobos 297]

A bit off topic, but seriously Rayvin - don't build a picture of me being a cunt to you or thinking bad - it is genuinely just debate on my side and I like to think I'm really moderate (I'm a hippy etc) - as I said before "Forgive the writing things as "fact" it's as much opinion as everyone else, it's just my style I suppose" 

I advocate mutal respect and love , I know thats a soft thing to say - but no one gains anything by getting all red faced and raging at each other. I'm no where close to that - and don't want my own posts to trigger anyone else to think that.

I am debating, in my view , and you are as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

[Rayvin 5151]

7 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

I would point you back to the Guardian article you quoted. You have to somehow get to a negotiated settlement. 

I don't understand how you can think Putin is an insane psychopath bully obsessed with the Russian Empire, and be so confident he won't go nuclear if the west attack him

 

What I agreed with, in that article, was that the slow burn approach we're taking is not a good outcome. But I also don't think a negotiated settlement that isn't Russia fucking off with nothing is an outcome that can afford to stand. The only message that ceding ground to him gives is that anyone can get away with anything if they threaten to throw nukes around. China and Russia will both start taking left and right. What do we do then?

 

"Insane" was an exaggeration on my side, admittedly. Everything else stands though. And maybe I'm wrong, but ultimately it's a risk worth taking in my view. Russia has apparently been telling people that 'we all die someday' to calm its citizens down at the prospect of nuclear war. Odd to say it but I agree with them. We all die someday, and if that's what it takes to resist their imperialism then so be it. We can't just live in fear of the consequences of doing the right thing.

 

It's just my view though.

[Rayvin 5151]

1 minute ago, scoobos said:

A bit off topic, but seriously Rayvin - don't build a picture of me being a cunt to you or thinking bad - it is genuinely just debate on my side and I like to think I'm really moderate (I'm a hippy etc) - as I said before "Forgive the writing things as "fact" it's as much opinion as everyone else, it's just my style I suppose" 

I advocate mutal respect and love , I know thats a soft thing to say - but no one gains anything by getting all red faced and raging at each other. I'm no where close to that - and don't want my own posts to trigger anyone else to think that.

I am debating, in my view , and you are as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

 

I'm not, don't worry - I do think you think I'm naive but be assured that this is a common view on here anyway.  I don't think you're raging either. I'm not myself. We're fine.

[scoobos 297]

Just now, ewerk said:

 

Meanwhile he's proving exactly why those countries were right to have joined NATO.

That's interesting though isnt it. I'm not sure we can know either way. Is this happening BECAUSE of nato over expansion, or not? 

If we had kept to the North Atlantic , then I'd agree - but we've definitely expanded into territories that were contested after WW2.

I'm NOT an expert (as you know) but I do remember in my History A Level learning that a lot of the USSR vs USA problems were caused by Russia effectively (in their view) winning the war, raising the flag over the Reichstag and losing millions of lives doing so - only to have the USA get the pick of deciding where Russia could occupy and where it couldnt. I think it became a pride thing, with either side slinging awful (but TRUE) shit at each other. Such as USA appeasment, the GM Motor Nazi war machine and IBM holocaust enabler - and then the USSR's appeasment, arms deals and sabotage.

[spongebob toonpants 3902]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Meanwhile he's proving exactly why those countries were right to have joined NATO.

I don't disagree 

[Rayvin 5151]

Russia of course itself asked about joining NATO, and was told that it would have to apply the same as everyone else - which would have entailed becoming a true democracy. Putin said he wouldn't stand in line like a minor country, and here we are. So if NATO was such a great threat to Russia, why try to join it? And if the issue wasn't fear of western systems of governance and power distribution, why later resist when they were insisted upon?

[scoobos 297]

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

What I agreed with, in that article, was that the slow burn approach we're taking is not a good outcome. But I also don't think a negotiated settlement that isn't Russia fucking off with nothing is an outcome that can afford to stand. The only message that ceding ground to him gives is that anyone can get away with anything if they threaten to throw nukes around. China and Russia will both start taking left and right. What do we do then?

 

"Insane" was an exaggeration on my side, admittedly. Everything else stands though. And maybe I'm wrong, but ultimately it's a risk worth taking in my view. Russia has apparently been telling people that 'we all die someday' to calm its citizens down at the prospect of nuclear war. Odd to say it but I agree with them. We all die someday, and if that's what it takes to resist their imperialism then so be it. We can't just live in fear of the consequences of doing the right thing.

 

It's just my view though.

I don't think there's a war that's ended without a diplomatic agreement, other than perhaps Iraq? (sorry for keeping on using that example).

Personally, I'd love us to get on the negotiating table and call Putin's bluff with this:

Leave Ukraine - Ceasefire (remain Crimea).
For the "disputed" areas that you are saying have been victims of genocide : Let a United Nations negotiation team, including as many capitalist as non capitalist countries members - hold monitored and independently verified elections and let the citizens choose their nationality. If the majority win - then the territory can be Russian/ Ukranian - if it loses then let the seperatists retreat to Russia.

Sounds fair and doesnt give him a leg to stand on.

Ukraine will want retribution tho, and I'm not sure what the heck we could do with that - the Russians have caused billions of damage. I fear we're going to have a middle east situation on our doorstep.

 

Or, we carry on as is, which is what I personally think is the accepted tactic - because Russia cannot win, if they were going to , they had to murder civilians with a shock and awe bombing campaign for 5 days straight , like we did in Iraq. The sad thing is, they resorted to dumb bombs and indescriminate artillery just 2 or 3 weeks later when they realised they weren't able to meet their targets. You cannot roll tanks and planes in , when they've got their defenses up. BIG mistake - they could have cruise missiled every single AA Battery they had.

My main concern, as a hippy twat - is the immense loss of life and suffering that is, for now invisible, byt the fact that this war has probably already reduced our outstanding carbon budget by a year already - making hte IPCC report not "in the future" at all anymore.

Edited April 28, 2022 by scoobos

[Rayvin 5151]

2 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I don't think there's a war that's ended without a diplomatic agreement, other than perhaps Iraq? (sorry for keeping on using that example).

Personally, I'd love us to get on the negotiating table and call Putin's bluff with this:

Leave Ukraine - Ceasefire (remain Crimea).
For the "disputed" areas that you are saying have been victims of genocide : Let a United Nations negotiation team, including as many capitalist as non capitalist countries members - hold monitoired and independently verified elections and let the citizens choose their nationality. If the majority win - then the territory can be Russian/ Ukranian - if it loses then let the seperatists retreat to Russia.

Sounds fair and doesnt give him a leg to stand on.

Ukraine will want retribution tho, and I'm not sure what the heck we could do with that - the Russians have caused billions of damage. I fear we're going to have a middle east situation on our doorstep.

My main concern, as a hippy twat - is the immense loss of life and suffering that is, for now invisible, byt the fact that this war has probably already reduced our outstanding carbon budget by a year already - making hte IPCC report not "in the future" at all anymore.

 

I saw Biden is trying to pass a motion to recover damages to spend on Ukraine from oligarch frozen assets, maybe we can use that as a symbolic gesture if nothing else.

 

What happens if Putin says no to your framework there though - he turns around and says 'when we started this I was taking it upon myself to clear up the Ukrainian question for generations of Russians to come. Ukraine is Russian. We will only accept an end to hostilities if the whole country is absorbed back into the Russian empire'.

 

That's what their stated objective was at the start, so that's why I keep bringing it up. I don't think he needs a leg to stand on other than 'might makes right'.

 

To be clear though, if that could be achieved then fine. Doubtful though.

[scoobos 297]

I think that the only way the war will end, is by a diplomatic agreement ratified and accepted by the United Nations.
OR
A coup against Putin - but I doubt that is possible in Russia.

OR
Putin dies , russia retreats and starts working with us again - I think (seriously hope) this is a distinct possibility.

But anyway, lot of posts today forward and back ... In 1 paragraph I'm just sharing my belief that escalating or "doing something" is in no ones interest, no matter what we think our perceived cause is. We need to stop burning non essential fossil fuels NOW or we are all fucked. Collapse of ecosystems that support modern human life are a bigger threat than nuclear warfare to me - because , the "climate change" nukes are already in flight.

One good thing that could come out of this and the pandemic is learning how to team up globally to shared goals. I've still hope.

Edited April 28, 2022 by scoobos