chrysler

That's where you go wrong - you see the nuclear bombing of Japan as an isolated event. Place it into the context of several hundred thousand people dying every month as it was at the time, and it will look different.

  - Option 1: Drop nuclear bombs on Japan, kill 200 000 people, end the war right there.
  - Option 2: Continue as is and let 400 000 people die every month.

Which option do you prefer?

There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?

>> I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever.

NATO is not a threat to Russia by any objective measure. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO countries in Europe were unilaterally diarming themselves. Just compare the size and composition of UK, French or (West-)German military in 1980s and 2010s - reduction in everything by a factor of 5-10x with a continuing downward trend. This is why NATO is struggling to support Ukraine, former powerhouses like Germany have very little left to share. Over the past two years, Russia has lost 20 TIMES more (visually confirmed) tanks than the whole German army fields. And yet we're somehow supposed to believe that such tiny force could pose a credible threat against Russia.

A person with "cognitive empathy" might actually feel that the truth is exactly the opposite: NATO became so weak over time that Russia stopped fearing it, and became increasingly brazen in pursuing its imperialist goals.

We have by far the most destructive war in Europe since the WWII, whole cities wiped from the earth, civilians executed in mass graves, daily terror attacks on cities where millions live - and to this day NATO's response is what exactly? Sending obsolete tanks and wasting months discussing whether Ukraine deserves modern air defense systems to stop terror raids against civilians? Is this the power you consider an existential threat to Russia? Who's the victim of propaganda here, really?

Funny that you accuse him of "not studying Duma policies". Unlike in the west, Russian parliament has as much power as Reichstag had in Nazi Germany. It yields no actual power. They are button-pushers who do as they are told, or get replaced.

>> Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. ~98% Nearly a decade ago now. This is ancient history. Crimea is not in the Ukraine.

Crimea is Ukraine. Nobody recognizes the sham referendum held under foreign military occupation. With 100 votes against 11, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared it illegitimate.

>> Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.

There is no practical difference between the two. All Soviet "republics" were run by Politburo in Moscow, the same way all orders in Nazi Germany came from Berlin, bypassing whatever formal structures existed. Both loved to micromanage. Whenever a local puppet didn't dance as Moscow expected, he was replaced. Leaders of "republics" couldn't even select deputies (second secretaries); they were assigned directly from Moscow to keep a close eye on formal heads of "republics".

If you want to play games, then sure, we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either. It was run by an Austrian painter who illegitimately seized power, and in its heyday, most people in the vast Nazi empire were not even ethnic Germans, so Germans had nothing to do with it all, naturally.

>> That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.

I have no colonial past.

>> It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).

Indeed, all was fine and dandy until Putin needed justifications for the invasion. Then it was suddenly discovered that a Soviet leader illegitimately "gifted" Crimea away. What's next, some error in the sale of Alaska too maybe? Can we please have it back, our emperor was too fond of America when he signed it?

>> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east.

It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion - but never brought up when Eastern Europe actually joined NATO two decades ago. On top of that, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have explicitly denied this hoax, the only one claiming this was a street thug in St Petersburg at the time.

This talking point is irrelevant anyway, as NATO did not place any permanent ground forces in Eastern Europe until the invasion of Ukraine. And whatever was left in Western Europe after the Cold War saw a reduction by an order of a magnitude, skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia.

Doesn't make any practical difference. Soviet "republics" were as independent as Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Internal borders were freely redrawn and native populations resettled to satisfy Soviet colonial policies. If you want to start settling old scores and reversing "historical injustices", you can demonstrate good faith by giving Estonia back the 5% of its territory that is still occupied by Russia. Not to mention China's grievances about "humiliations" and "injustices" regarding the Russian Far East.

In a totalitarian one-party state without a separation of powers, that's a distinction without a difference.

>> Without Western help this would have happened within weeks or months and would have spared so many.

Genocide won't spare anyone.