What sort of a sick person would praise this https://asiatimes.com/2019/12/75-of-young-want-to-escape-south-korean-hell/

Can you be specific about the supposed bs I’ve posted and what makes it bs. For example, feel free to criticize this article on its own term.

Join an org like PSL.

You don’t have to take Putin’s word for it, the head of NATO has already admitted this publicly:

The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire?

That’s not what the war is about. https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war

However, if you don’t trust a renowned political scientist like Mearsheimer, RAND published a whole study titled “Extending Russia” that explains in detail why the US wanted to provoke a conflict in Ukraine https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition?

The war could’ve been over within a month, but the west sabotaged negotiations. Pretty clear who wants this war to keep going. The war could’ve been avoided entirely if the west didn’t insist on NATO expansion and didn’t overthrow the government in Ukraine.

There is no fundamental difference. International law states that countries are sovereign and cannot be invaded by other countries. Just because a bunch of bandits, who are currently involved in a literal genocide I might add, get together to do it in no way legitimizes it. The fact that you think might makes right is legitimate in one case and not the other shows that your position is hypocritical, and can be safely ignored.

This is akin to somebody living in 1930s Germany asking whether they should continue supporting the nazi party since they’re the only game in town.

Yeah, in this case I’m guessing they’d just use coded messages when communicating. Ultimately, that’s even more effective since those are indistinguishable from regular messages unless you know the special meaning of the words used. So, they’re even less likely to attract attention.

Anybody who understands how science works trust peer reviewed science. Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of peer review?

Right, I meant safer in terms of the device doing what you expect it to be doing. Also, pagers that support encryption are absolutely a thing.

Interestingly, given just how compromised smart phones are at this point, a pager has now become a far safer means of communication.