Because if you define specific and measurable goals within your term people might judge you for failing to meet them.

From a strategic perspective it’s a lot simpler to promise things far away because unless you are in power for the whole duration you can blame “the other side” for not being able to meet the goal when the deadline finally arrives.

That depends. Does your country of origin have an extradition agreement with the Philippines?

Oh no! Who could have predicted that there is a connection to Trump? /s

Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob du beabsichtigt hast den Beitrag in dieser Community zu teilen.

I’m not sure you intended to share the submission in this community.

Imagine:

• You sit on your couch.
• Rip & Tear starts playing.
• You notice a faint smell of smoke …

Is your problem with the news site or the article in particular? Because the only part of the article that I’d complain about is:

At the same time, the Romanian Armed Forces will not be able to sustain this level of expenditure in the long term if Russian drones continue to violate the country’s airspace as frequently.

What’s the source of this claim? The overall assessment seems OK to me. NATO forces are regularly using high cost ammunitions to shoot down cheap drones. In the long term that’s a problem.

I don’t have to provide the solution just because I voice a concern. Me dictating Ukraine how to fight their war wouldn’t be much more than the ramblings of an armchair general.

Haven’t prisoners had the “opportunity” to shorten their sentences by serving for a while now? Or was that specific to Wagner units?

Hello, my name is Hugh Jackman.

People saying “It’s war” and shrugging it off has lead to many war crimes in the past. The end doesn’t justify the means.

No, but they might lose international support if the impression arises that Ukraine is fighting not the Russian military but civilians.

You are missing my point. Fighting or war for that matter is not a binary state. It’s a process of escalating steps.

At the start of the invasion Russia thought they would simply roll down the road to Kyiv and crush the Ukrainian army on the way. This led to ridiculous situation such as that large tank column being shot to pieces and farmers capturing military equipment.

After that Russias tactic changed to i.e. targeting civilian infrastructure or war crimes like those in Bucha in an attempt to break the resolve of the Ukrainian citizens which obviously didn’t work so they escalated further.

I’d argue at the end of this ladder is a Russian nuclear attack. Do I think that’s likely? No, not at all because breaking the nuclear taboo the negative consequences far outweigh the possible gains.

My concern is that as Ukraine is climbing their own escalatory ladder this might lead to actions which start blurring the lines between fighting the Russian military and fighting civilians.

No, but I don’t I also don’t start shooting indiscriminately.

The relevance IMHO is that Wildberry is primarily a consumer focused company that turned towards logistic for the military. Targeting them is a step up from going after state owned companies that produce products or profit directly used by the military.

While this doesn’t cross a red line for me, it’s the trajectory this development could take.

So there can be no discurse about where the trend is going unless we already crossed the red line?

No, I don’t necessarily have to. I can try to calm them down or I can try to wrestle them to the ground. There are different options available before resorting to punching. Just because I could doesn’t automatically mean I should.

And that’s reason enough to simply go Wild West?

It’s very concerning to me that most arguments I read here boil down to “At least we are not as bad as Russia”. That’s a very slippery slope to head down.

AFAIK Wildberry provides the logistics to move stuff around. They are not a producer.

It’s a dangerous train of thought if not supporting someone unconditionally sounds like propaganda to you. You may kindly think about this as well.