this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
250 points (94.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, if I understand you correctly, Russia should also invade Latvia and Lithuania? By your logic it would be highly important to Russia since they would get a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they were historically part of the USSR.
The analogy to Anschluss Österreichs and Crimea is quite apt. The votings were manipulated - just look at the soldiers outside of voting stations on Crimea, who in their right mind wouldn't want to vote for selfpreservation?
The second analogy would be Sudetenland and Donetsk and Luhansk is as apt with the only distinction that there is a war now going on. The two republics that are only recognized by Russia and their "Motherland". While Hitler didn't have a Sudeten-Republik he wanted to get them back into the fold. So it is also quite apt.
Does Russia have parallels to Germany 1930s? Yes. And no. Why not? Time moved on, tactics evolved (just look at the two republics). Why yes? Some tactics stayed the same. And greed.
How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election? Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.
I don't think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.
Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let's move past that.
Are you serious ?
Which is the definition of rigged election.
Following your logic, they could also invade Turkey so they could access the Mediterranean Sea. Then they can also invade Alaska, after all having the control of the Bering sea is obviously important. Or US could invade Panama, for the Panama canal, or Spain can seize Gibraltar.
Yeah, like they said in 2014.
Come up with an argument that is not obviously a fallacy, and get back to me. And LOL at voter self interest being described as the definition of a rigged election.
The current US electoral system maybe ?
But at this point I am curios to know what you think is a rigged election, since obviously voting with foreign soldiers outside the polling station seems normal to you.
It's a tactic of fear. Invoke fear in civilians and you can get them to do what you need them to do. If there are soldiers with weapons in front of a voting place who quite clearly belongs to a specific party without so much as openly stating it, then people are going to vote for that party out of fear. That is what I called selfpreservation. They don't want to die.
If by any chance you wouldn't be swayed by such blatant show of force then I admire you. The majority of people are swayed. Especially when there are literally truckloads of soldiers all about the coutryside. And as you said: voting with the more powerful state. At that moment the Russians had their force in Crimea and the people chose selfpreservation. Was it the right choice? For Ukraine? No. For Russia? Yes, of course. That's why they showed force.
Then why do you follow that logic with Crimea but not the baltics?
Ah, now I understand. "We need a harbour that's ice free the whole year around." There are some holes in that logic:
a) Russia had/has a lease on the Sevastopol Navy Yard. That's where the Black Sea Fleet was/is anchored. b) Russia has Novorossiysk, a harbour that is ice free all year around and is one of their biggest - if not the biggest - trade harbours. They even have a Navy Yard there.
So why do they need Crimea? To get their stuff from Rostov at Don all the way to the Dardanelles? They already could do that since they had the other half of the strait of Kertch.
And the other question: Why do they need the control of the northern black sea?
Why would you think that? Spokespersons of the Kremlin are rattling their sabres for Svalsbard and they are painting themselves as an oppressed minority. Does that sound familiar? Yes, since Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk were the same.
Svalbard is protected by a treaty, but Ukraine also had a treaty with Russia about territorial integrity.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that were carved out of Georgia, an independent nation.
Transnistria is a region of Moldova, also an independent nation. Transnistria has requested the annexation into Russia. So the question is, do you recognize Transnistria as a sovereign state or is it a part of Moldova? If it is a part of Moldova it would be an invasion of Russia. Although since they already have troops there it is an ongoing occupation.
Since Russia is still engaged in occupation and invasion and is still rattling their sabres, can we really move past the threat of invasion?
The thing is, we don't know what they are planning. We don't know what they are aiming for. But we see that there are tactics in play they use quite often. For instance the tactic of propping up people that want their own state (see Luhansk, Donetsk). Then going in to help them.
Then there is the tactic of subtle influencing. The problem with this is that there are just clues but no real evidence. So it is really difficult to prove that Russia is behind such things like the Brexit for instance. But there is meddling with the elections of the United States.
But so much text for just saying that Russia might as well already have started the Third World War and all machinations are going to culminate in it. Does Putin want to do that? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows except him and perhaps a handfull of his confidants. So we as ordinary people will never truly know. The parallels to Hitler and the Second World War are there, some tactics stayed the same (fear, forceful annexation), tactics changed (propping up partisan governments). It's all a question of time, but I'm not confident enough to say that Russia won't be annexing anything else or will stop once Luhansk, Crimea, and Donetzk are independent and can be integrated into Russia. There are too many clues to the contrary.
I really don't know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle's port to get to Tacoma's (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It's a very important sea.
Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don't trust US cops to prevent violence.
It's not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939. If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren't obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of "global domination", Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.
France used a similar tactic as Russia in the 1770s, and in the long run it worked out tremendously for both France and USA (Less so for the french king at the time, Louis XVI. It was a big part of why he got guillotined). It's a great tactic, I'm certainly not going to criticize them for using it.
Geographycally the black sea is just a giant lake. It is a closed sea and you need to pass through Instanbul to exit from it and enter in another "closed" sea, the Sea of Marmara.
Moreover, if Russia just wanted to have access to the Black Sea ports (and Sea of Marmara and then the Mediterranean Sea) they could just have done like the Chinese that just bought the ports they want.
Listen, if there are soldiers of your own country at the polling places it is somewhat obvious, even in Italy we have soldiers (usually just a couple) outside to ensure law and order (not that it will happen something), the problem is when you are voting to accept the annexion to another country and the soldiers from said country are at the polling station.
WWII broke out exactly because Europe wanted to keep peace at any cost, failing to understand that Hitler never had the intention to stop. What happened in WWI were still a vivid memory here back at the time and I understand that people would have done anything to avoid all the horrors. True, the real reasons date back to the Treaty of Versailles and the 1929 Great Depression which set up the stage for someone like Hitler to raise.
Putin want the Great Russia back. But it is no more and he cannot accept it. And he can play the card of an outside enemy to hide the problems he has inside.
The black sea is vastly important strategically and economically. Which means it is entirely believable that Russia primarily wants control of it. I'm sure Putin believes the former USSR was all better off before dissolution, I can't blame him for trying to reunify. If Russia spends the next 30 years doing so, is that really a problem? It's certainly not anything close to Hitler or WW2.
Saying Russia can't have Crimea is, to me, trying to say they can't be a competitor for the position of Top Dog. Its delusional, they obviously are one, but America is trying too hard to neuter them so they have to deny it. America needs to let them be as powerful as they are, and stop trying to cheat rather than compete.
Economically sure, strategically maybe, it depends on a lot of other things.
The Black Sea has a single point of access which leads to a even smaller sea (Marmara, which is 1/5 the size of Lake Michigan). And the access is controlled by a NATO country (Turkey), pass through the city of Istanbul and is within the reach of Bulgaria, another NATO member. Even assuming Russia can somehow seize it, there is then the Dardanelli, which is within the reach of Greece (a NATO member). From here there is the Aegean Sea, which is under the reach of Greece. Not to mention that to even arrive to (or leave from) the Aegean Sea, a fleet neet to go through Gibraltar, go south of Italy and once out he need to sail in the Atlantic (NATO members on both sides) and then north, along a long list of NATO members.
Honestly, in a war if a fleet try to enter the Black Sea, it will just be a sitting duck, even assuming it even succeeds in doing so. Even the oil and gas are usefull only to be moved by road, there is no way that a ship could even exit the Black Sea. Nah, if Russia goes to war with NATO, the Black Sea is strategically useless.
Maybe, but it would be much more smart to do it economically.
Well, I'd agree if Russia tried to do it economically (like China is trying to do) but it is not that they can just invade every country they like to have.
So Russia can have Alaska ?
Nobody say that Russia cannot be a competitor for a position of Top Dog, it is the method they used that it not acceptable today.
So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly, but not okay for Russia to try to take control of an area openly? America declared their puppet the president of Venezuela (in spite of Maduro winning a legitimate election) like 5 years ago. You might say "but less blood shed!", but Pinochet sure as hell shed a lot of blood when the CIA installed him. And venezuala was economically ruined by the CIA in the 70s. So if we're looking at means, if I'm a civilian in Ukraine, I'd rather have our army fight Russias army openly, than have America take power via subterfuge and destroy us from the inside. The Russia style doesn't directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.
Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide. Or be supplying Gaza with the food Israel keeps out. Militarily, it's not about getting out of the black sea, it's about exerting your strength on the adjacent land.
Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.
Nobody said these are right, but we are not discussing that.
So you need even a geography book: between The Black sea and Israel there is Turkey. But still, in a war how do you plan to move a fleet out the black sea without loosing it ?
Still Turkey on the way, which is the adjacent land. Man, open Google Maps for once.
Aside Russia sold Alaska to US in 1867 for 7.2 million dollars. You don't even know your country history....
Oh huh, I was sure Israel and Palestine were next to turkey, lol.
That's my point though, you can't plan to move a ship out of the black sea. It's useful purely defensively.
I am aware Russia sold Alaska to us, but very few Russians ever lived there. It was never meaningfully russian.
My point about America doing coups, etc is that America is now acting like they're the heros fighting Russian evil, when it's literally just to have someone to sell weapons to. It's just another way the oligarchs are stealing our money from us.
Yes, and you were talking about the importance of the Black Sea for a sea invasion of Israel, so ? I only pointed out that to stage a sea invasion of Israel the Black Sea is useless.
How exactly ? You cannot move anything out but your enemy can move everything in and out. How do you think you can use it to defend yourself when the entry point and half the coast is under NATO control ? I mean, Russia is losing ships to a country that don't even had a Navy, what do you think will happen if NATO put a fleet in the Black Sea ? Or NATO decide that after all Sevastopol need to be leveled ?
Nobody here think America is the hero, but that Russia is the villain. And still, we are discussing about what Russia is doing, not what US did.
I was just using Israel as an example, I dont think Russia even would invade Israel right now if capable. Imagine if the eastern med was controlled by an enemy of Israel though. They could actually affect the genocide. That's why sea power is so vital.
There is no chance an invading army/navy could get through Constantinople without control of the black sea. It's the ultimate choke point. It forces any would be invader to come at Russia through turkey.
America is not the hero, and so the reason they are arming Ukraine is entirely out of self interest for their capitalists. America wants to prevent Russian southern stability, because if somebody is trying to come at Russia through Constantinople, it'll be America (or a hired warlord, more likely). Russia having useful ports hinders America's power to meaningfully sanction those they dislike. Cuba, for instance, can't trade with anyone in Europe, due to American sanctions. If Russia could trade with them more effectively, that weakens the American stranglehold. Right now the world needs a check on America a lot more than it does preventing Putin taking control black sea ports.
I see your idea but it is absolutely irrealistic.
Even assuming you take control of the Black Sea and Turkey (without the infamous article 5 trigger), to be able to control the easter med you need to be able to project power, which you cannot. It is not that difficult to stop a fleet just outside/inside the Marmar Sea and out of Gibaltar.
It is the same to try to get out the Black Sea. But so far if someone want to invade Russia from the Black Sea it could, because the only way for Russia to have help (I mean ships, not infantry) is from Gibraltar which is even more easy to close to them while the invader could do whatever he want.
Or maybe they understood, like Europe did even if too late, that Russia doing it this way is dangerous for everyone. I am not that naive to not understand that US do it for their own interest but on the other hand I'm not that stupid to not understand that if we let Russia (and a bunch of others) to continue to destabilize the situation it is bad for everyone.
It is not, but this is not the topic of our discussion. It is Russia and what they are doing. That the USA have their own problems is true, but not the topic.
I think you missed most of the news regarding the war in Ukraine. The Russian Army is targeting the infrastructure and civilians. So many rockets hit civilian houses in Kyiv and other cities. Schools, hospitals, you name it. Everything is fair game for the russian Artillery. Some observer even muse about that the Russian Army is targeting civilians deliberately as a tactic of terror to instill a war weariness and a longing for peace out of self preservation.
If they had control over the Black Sea they still couldn't threaten a sea invasion of Israel. You would have to have control over the Mediterranian.
But let's assume they had control over the Black Sea. Why would they try to stop Israel? At the moment the war in the Gaza Strip is not something they would like to be involved in since it is a distraction for the world and it is a good way to siphon off military goods from the USA.
Alaska would be a perfect starting point for conquering Canada and the USA, control of the Bering Sea, and the ressources hidden beneath the surface. But that's besides the point.
Crimea hadn't been part of the Soviet Union since 1954. Since then it's been part of Ukraine. So the question would be more along the lines: how long would it take for you to something not be a part of another country?
To illustrate my argument: Europe is a continent filled with a history of big empires that rose and fall. So if you go about 150 years into the past, middle europe was dominated by Germany (the Kaiserreich). Would you say that Germany has any claim to the now polish provinces that were german 80 years ago (Danzig, Pommern, Königsberg et. al.)? If we go further into the past, we have Sweden for most of the Baltic Sea. France would also be a strong contender looking at what Napoleon subjugated.
And so on and so on. You can't just go into the past and pick a date. The ramifications are too complex.
Crimea was in the USSR, no? So it's been 30 years since the area which is now Russia had control of Crimea. I have no idea how long ago is too long, but probably a human lifespan maximum is reasonable. Part of the calculus I'm using is literally just "can the country win a war for the area?". Which is why Alaska is not debatable. Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war? If they were to then try to take more land, that's when we put our foot down. Sure it's a bad precedent, but who says we have to follow precedent? It's really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.
If Alaska is a great starting point for invasion, then we definitely should not let them take Alaska.
Yes, you're right. I thought Ukraine was kinda independent since they had a seat in the UN, but I was wrong. So it's been roughly 30 years, yes.
And that is exactly what Gian and I are refering to. In the 1930s it was "If Germany gets Austria, it would be peace in our time." "If Germany gets Sudetenland, it would be peace in our time." But Hitler was never satisfied.
And here lies the problem. De facto they already had Crimea. There is no way around that they occupied it and no one lifted a finger. Now they want the Donbass Region with all the iron and coal. Luhansk and Donetsk.
So "If Russia gets Crimea, there will be peace in our time." doesn't ring quite so good now. "If Russia gets Donbass, there will be peace in our time" is the exact same mistake that was made 90 years ago. And those mistakes cost many lives.
No. The European Union also cares about Russia getting stronger. Well I for myself don't want an authoritarian governmant to just invade neighbours because they feel like it. The European Union tried to integrate Russia by trading with them, but we see that that didn't quite get the result that was hoped for.
I do get, what you're trying to say that China, Russia and the USA should be roughly equal, but the EU is missing and to be honest, two Superpowers being authoritarian is more frightening than anything else.
I don't really see a distinction between Crimea and Donbass/Donetsk. To me it's the same placeAnd supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right? So that essentially makes Russia equivalent to France in the American revolution.
It'd be great if no one ever invaded anywhere else, but it won't happen. Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let's just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether. Russia has a bigger army, we should just call the war and be done with it. There's no reason global politics have to adhere to precedent.
Man, study some of your country history, you will do yourself a favor.
What you are referring to is completely wrong. France intervened as US ally after the what will become US declared war against England. To compare to the actual situation, it would be that US are France, Ukraine is the rebel colonies and Russia is England.
Which is the exact mentality that provoked WWII.
Sometimes I think that what US needs is to have a real war fought on their home land, only this way you will understand how wrong is what you are saying. Not that I hope so, but it would be a learning lesson.
It don't work this way, sorry. And your assumption is completely wrong. Or are you trying to say that if North Korea declare war against US then US will lose ?
North Korea doesn't have a larger army than USA.
The regions at war have declared independence from Ukraine. It's the same situation as America was in, except that France wasn't trying to make the colonies become french. But they certainly expected a high level of control over them.
Comparing it to WW2 is insane, it's not remotely the same situation.
Wikipedia begs to differ. According to the list from the "International Institute for Strategic Studies" North Korea has a total (active, reserve and paramilitary) of a little less than 7.8 million people. US a little more than 2 million.
But ok, let's consider only the active military, so let's switch North Korea with China.
China have bigger army, so they can take the US, since in the case of a war, it is supposed that China will win.
Aside it seems a lot like the years before WWII...
Supposedly. One side says it were fair elections the other doubts that. So, who is right? The side that had soldiers at the voting booths, oppresses the people there, deports and kills the people living there, or the one to which the regions belong that wants to live in peace?
Since I made these points over and over again that the votings for independence are not fair and equal, that Russia is violating international law, and they are attacking an independent country, I will stop here since we're going round in circles.
I mean, I believe the side not allied with a country known to rig elections and openly spread propaganda about their victims. Recently the US president claimed to have personally seen videos of Hamas beheading babies, which never existed. Russia spreads propaganda internally too, but historically only about internal affairs, not shit like claiming Venezuelas election was rigged in order to install a puppet.
Obviously using larger army as a metric doesn't make sense in the long term. It only works in spots where you've already committed to a war.
Saying it wasn't a legit election because Russian soldiers were there is stupid. That can just as easily be used as proof that it was legitimate. I'm sure Britain looked like the peaceful side during the US revolution as well, does that make France the bad guys in that war?
Given that other people had seen them and people are now starting to speak about the horrors they witnessed (or have been subjected to), I would doubt it. But still, not the point.
Sure. Already asked: then what do you think is a rigged election ?
A rigged election is when you disregard the outcome of the votes. Such as venezualas in 2018 (attempted). All agreed that the votes said Maduro won, but America claimed it was rigged, and thus their puppet actually won. Or if the things trump supporters claimed were actually true, that's a rigged election.
Nobody has ever disseminated the videos Biden claimed to have seen, or verified any of the IDFs claims. Other people claimed to have seen them, and people have claimed anything they can think of about Hamas. None of it has been verified. Believing anything the IDF says at this point is essentially malicious incompetence, nobody who has done research on the topic would actually believe the BS being spewed. Biden is either an idiot for believing it, or lying. I lean towards idiot in this case.
Ok, that is one way that you can have a rigged election. Don't you really think this is the only way, right ? Or are the North Korea ones not rigged ?
Aside the fact that we have multiple journalists around the world that had seen the video.
Aside the fact that we have phone record of "eroic hamas warriors" telling his mom that "I killed 10 jews" and was played on the news. Aside the fact that we have photos of jews girl on the back of a van brutally beated (if not already dead) that were paraded, photos that were shown on the news.
Aside the fact that we have what the hostages said to have seen (or have suffered) what happened.
But hey, it is ok. After all if Hamas said that they don't kill innocent people, who we are to doubt it ?
One last point.
I get what kind of person you are, it is useless to have a discussion with you. Let's end here and now.
I'm sure that one or two, or hell, maybe 1-200, of the 1000-1500 people Hamas has killed, were not IDF. However, literally every Israeli over the age of 15 is IDF, so that is itself pretty suspect. And maybe 1 or 2 were done so as horrifically as the IDF claims. All groups have horrible people in them in small numbers. But that has never been shown to be true. You're simply taking people's word for it. Basically nothing the IDF has ever said has been independently verified, while most of what Hamas has claimed has been. So yes, I believe the group that doesn't lie, and not the one who does.
I don't know how NK rigs elections. How do we even know for sure they do? I mean I obviously don't believe American media about it. Does Chinese or Russian media say they do? Or Al Jazeera? But assuming they do actually do it, what was your point about rigged elections again?
And even if this is true, what's your point ? That it is right to kill them ?
Yes. Unluckily I am old enough to remember all the supposed good people of Gaza celebrating on the streets the Twin Towers attack. And in these good people there were also woman and children. But ok, this is not on Google, so it does not happened.
True, like you are taking the word of Hamas for it.
They are pretty open about their strategy: "kill their civilians, hide behind out civilians so that when the IDF hit one we can cry to ask the world to made IDF to respect the Geneva convention, because most people are too stupid to even understand that we are sistematically violating what we ask the IDF to respect".
So yes, they don't lie. They only don't say all the truth, omitting just the part that make them look bad.
The description of the North Korea elections comes from a NK official, so I suppose we can entrust it. Of course the person could have lied.
No nation would ever admit to rig the election, don't you think ?
No, I mean does Russia, China, or Al Jazeera say that NK rigs their own elections. Or any country/paper that doesn't stand to gain from lying about NK in the same direction as the US media stands to gain.
Yes, it is good to kill IDF soldiers. They are committing genocide. Hamas isn't hiding behind civilians, they ARE civilians, who have been radicalized by the genocide. Also it's literally impossible to position an army base somewhere in Gaza that is not next to civilian housing.
But to be clear, even if Hamas IS using human shields, it is still a crime against humanity to target that shield. Source on them systemically violating it though? I'm mostly interested to see if your source is blatant propaganda. Presumably "100 Gazans got in the way of our missiles last week, but they were actually all Hamas anyway due to living within a mile of a ~~hospital~~ "Military base" ".
IDF is the bad guys here, not sure how much clearer they have to make it. Even if they didn't have a history of never telling the truth, they wouldn't be trustworthy.
Man, how the North Korea elections are done come from a North Korean Officier, not a West jounalist, and then every country that don't rigs their own election said "well, maybe these elections are rigged, and if they are not rigged they are just a show" (then yes, the NK guy could have lied, but why ? )
If IDF is committing a genocide, it is the worst carried out genocide in the history of humankind. The Gaza population grow from a little less that 1 million people in the 1950's to the actual 5.5 millions.
Then why they always refuse any kind of solution ? A two state solution was offered multiple times. Beside, Israel left Gaza in 2005, on October the 7th Gaza was free from any IDF occupation for 18 years.
But let me educate you a little more, before you will say what I know you will say: historically speaking is the Gaza population that need to be thankfull to be able to stay there, not the Jews. In fact the Jews where there way earlier is a way or another. The name Palestine were given to this area when the Roman Empire annexed the territory in 63 BCE and after the revolts of 66/70 CE. And the name was given as a dispregiative against the Jews.
End of today story lesson.
That is not a justification. Maybe it could be a reason to look for a peacefull solution, if only Hamas would care for their civilians.
True, but it is also a crime to use human shields. So, eventually, we are even. But wait, there is more. The Geneva convention clearly state that if you violate any of its articles then you loose any right to be tratead as dictated by the Geneva convention
This war itself ? The fact that they don't even try to evacuate the civilians ? The interview where the Hamas leader esplicitally said that they are using their civilians as cannon fodder to make the pressuse against Israel from the world to increase ?
Photos of missile systems on the roof of hospitals.
Oh and just so you are aware, pretty much everything Israel has said in the last year has been found to be a lie, so you really can't be taking anything they say as a fact. It's probably more reliable to take it as a reverse fact, actually.
Okay let's get some facts down, because you are sorely lacking them.
Britain stole what is now Israel from Palestine in 1948. Palestine is older. There's a strong argument that all of Israel is still Palestine, seeing as Palestine never agreed to it.
For 30 years prior to 10/7, Israel carried out a siege of Gaza, for all intents and purposes. Gazans could not leave to receive life saving medical care without permission, they could not build water pipes without the IDF bombing them, they could not bring in food from outside because Israel was rationing the number of calories they allowed in, and they could not build hospitals featuring any level of technology because Israel prevented all tech from coming in (not just weapons, all technology more complex than a flip phone).
Genocide is an ongoing concept. The fact that Jews exist today is not evidence that the Holocaust didn't happen. If a group sees 5 million births every year, it is still genocide to kill 2 million of them per year.
It is frankly absurd that you think you know more about this than I do, while getting all of these basic facts wrong. You obviously haven't researched this at all, so why do you think you are some expert on it? I certainly didn't know the 3 facts I laid out above before doing any research, nobody does. So why are you convinced you just happen to possess correct knowledge of a highly complex situation innately? Nobody has ever been right about anything worth thinking about before researching anything on the subject, I promise it's not just you.
Yes, Palestine is older. What you fail to notice is that Palestine is younger than the first Jews in the region. As I alread said, Palestine was the name given to the region by the Roman Empire after they conquered the area and they defeated the Jews, and was a derogatory name.
Why would it matter if Jews lived there before Palestinians? They hadn't for hundreds of years prior to 1948. Hell, by that logic every person on earth has a claim to Africa, because all of our ancestors used to live there.
If the Black Sea is a great starting point for invasione, then we definitely should not let them take the Black Sea.
It's not though. It's strategic importance is purely defensive. It is useful for influencing places that border the black sea. It's completely irrelevant to an attack on anywhere else
Do you realize that "influencing places that border the Black Sea" means "influencing 3 NATO members and Ukraine" which basically are the 90% of the coast of the Black Sea. Invading one of the only two non NATO members facing the Black Sear does not seems a particular intellingent way to try to influence the others...
By influence, I meant militarily.
Then it is even dumber doing it this way.