Because Russia keeps invading Europe trying to expand its empire.
This is elementary school stuff.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ne-2024-12-18/
European nations are discussing sending troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire or peace deal, as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has made clear he will not put American boots on the ground to guarantee security, officials and diplomats say.
The talks, driven by French President Emmanuel Macron, are at an early stage...
"in the event of"
Oh.
Ukraine!
Igor Kirillov was a military target for Ukraine. This doesn't look like a military target. Looks like terrorism and doesn't really achieve anything positive for Ukraine.
Do terrorist attacks by the Russians achieve anything positive for Russia?
No, they don't. They are a mistake too.
And as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right.
How many terrorist attacks do you estimate Russia has made on Ukraine during the SMO?
Too many. Terrorism should be condemned in all forms and no matter who it comes from. Surely, you can agree with that.
Hm, well why has Russia launched so many terrorist attacks during the SMO?
Hmm? You're not sure if terrorism should be condemned in all forms and from whoever it comes from? Really?
Don't build a straw man.
I asked this question: Why has Russia launched so many terrorist attacks during the SMO?
Ask Russia. I don't speak for Russia. I'm simply condemning terrorism. Not sure why you're having a hard time doing it.
Straw man.
You never asked me to do or say anything about terrorism. If you want to know something from me, ask in a straightforward manner as I have asked you.
I'd appreciate your refraining from such hamfisted fallacies. It's difficult enough to take you seriously in the first place.
I make a simple point about terrorism and you immediately go into your long-winded "whataboutism".
What about Russia's terrorist attacks? How many attacks has Russia made? Why is Russia attacking?
I condemn these kinds of attacks whether they come from Russia or Ukraine. You don't. You have to be explicitly asked to?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...to-a-nightmareWith Assad’s fall, Putin’s dream of world domination is turning into a nightmare
As Bashar al-Assad fell, Russian nationalist military bloggers turned on the Kremlin. “Ten years of our presence,” fumed the “Two Majors” Telegram channel to its more than one million subscribers, “dead Russian soldiers, billions of spent roubles and thousands of tonnes of ammunition, they must be compensated somehow.” Some didn’t shy away from lambasting Vladimir Putin. “The adventure in Syria, initiated by Putin personally, seems to be coming to an end. And it ends ignominiously, like all other ‘geopolitical’ endeavours of the Kremlin strategist.” These weren’t isolated incidents. Filter Labs, a data analytics company I collaborate with, saw social media sentiment on Syria dip steeply as Assad fell.
It was in stark contrast to Putin’s silly claim at his annual news conference last week that Russia had suffered no defeat in Syria. Unlike social media, legacy media tried to walk the Kremlin line, but even here there were splits. “You can bluff on the international arena for a while – but make sure you don’t fall for your own deceptions”, ran an op-ed in the broadsheet Kommersant, penned by a retired colonel close to the military leadership. He then used Syria as an example of how “in today’s world, victory is only possible in a quick and fleeting war. If you effectively win in a matter of days and weeks, but cannot quickly consolidate your success in military and political terms, you will eventually lose no matter what you do.” Though the piece didn’t mention Ukraine, Vasily Gatov, a media analyst at the University of Southern California, told me he thought it was a message from the general staff to the Kremlin: be realistic about what we can achieve in Ukraine, too.
Assad’s fall is not just a blow to Russia’s interests in the Middle East but to the essence of Putin’s power, which has always been about perception management. His early spin doctor Gleb Pavlovsky once explained to me how, when the Kremlin was weak domestically in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Russian leaders learned to dominate TV to create ersatz grandeur. The Kremlin couldn’t really control the regional governors at that point, but it could give the sense that the president ruled everything by being omnipresent in the media. Since then, Putin has taken perception management to the international stage, trying to tell a story that he is leading a new generation of authoritarian regimes destined to inherit the earth. But that image suddenly looks shaky. Now is the time to apply more pressure before he can patch things up and project his superpower movie once again.
...
My question was why Russia has made so many terrorists attacks if they, as you claim, work against their interests.
I accept your answer saying you have no idea what point you're trying to make, because it doesn't make any sense in light of the sheer volume of terror attacks by Russia.
Whatever it takes, little v.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote