It means, at least in the golang world, that they keep a copy of your source for themselves and use it for builds. They don’t pull from the public repo every time they build their stuff, so malicious code could only get in with new versions, but they check for that.

Are they independent from the cancerous management though?

I mean the last bit is on track for a cult run by politically powerful quasi-billionaires.

Are we at the Japanese kids tv show stage already?

Why do you do the first, and why the second?

Bank spokesman says they are itching to be the sector to fire the most workers, poised to make the economy so much better.

Stated policy means stated policy, not “a bunch of bureaucrats were assigned the same book once.”

It’s the top bureaucrats of Russia, and they have been quacking in unison with the book ever since.

Why does some random Duma member’s offhand comments mean more than this?

Because they are a representative of the government of the country, and have influence over the shaping of the policy of the country. It doesn’t mean more, it is what you call a threat. You can say it’s an empty threat, but it’s still a threat nonetheless. The Russians are basically threatening us, then officially saying “don’t worry, we’re just lying!”, then expect us to believe the lie they say is a lie instead of the possible lie they say is not a lie.

If it is not a valid point to make from that Duma member, I’d expect him to get seriously reprimanded, impeached from the Duma and possibly put in jail for threatening the national security of Russia. It still happened and is happening regularly with Russian government officials, on Russian state television.

So your theory is that Russia intentionally shot down a civilian airliner, targeting the Netherlands specifically… why, exactly? Do you think they’re mustache-twirling villains who do evil stuff because evil is fun?

Not my theory, but the conclusion of the quite transparently evidenced investigation done by a multi-country team is that members of the Russian Armed Forces took a heavy anti-aircraft missile launcher owned by the Russian Armed Forces into the territory internationally recognized as belonging to the sovereign state of Ukraine. They used that launcher to engage what they thought was a medium weight military transport plane operated by the military of Ukraine, a country they were not at war with. Due to their own incompetence, what they engaged was a Malaysian heavy airline passenger transport with mostly Dutch passengers aboard.

Just to make it clear, they were so grossly incompetent that they saw a plane travelling above 36000 ft - way above it most likely - going 500 knots, and they identified it as a plane with a service ceiling of 24000 ft with a cruise speed of 240 knots. This is on top of the fact that they could have literally gone on Flightradar and saw an airliner scheduled to fly in that area at that time, and that the airliner was equipped with ADS-B-out systems which meant that they could have checked that it was an airliner with a gadget that a hobbyist can put together at home without giving their position away. The aircraft was literally screaming “I’m airliner registration 9M-MRD, at altitude xx, speed yy and position zz, here’s how to avoid me” on freely receivable radio.

So they wanted to kill some Ukrainian soldiers - unlawfully as they were not at war by the way - and they have managed to kill hundreds of Dutch civilians. And then they kept lying about it and accusing Ukraine of doing it. So no, it’s not because they think evil is fun, it’s because they are uncaring, cynical and incompetent people.

Ok, what proportional retaliation does the U.S. deserve for Iraq?

An unlimited defensive war from the government of Iraq, international condemnation, and possible military aid for the government of Iraq to fight against the US. I would support that. As well as dragging Bush and Blair in front of the ICC for it.

Look, I get that the world is not fair, and I don’t say I think it’s right that while Palestinian children are genocided by Israel, dickheads like Bibi, Bush, Kissinger, Putin and Dugin get to live a hatefully long and happy life. I am also not saying that there is a “good” side to the world and a “bad” side. There are plenty of bad people all over.

All I’m saying is that Russia is the imperialist invader in this instance, just as the US was in Iraq or Vietnam. To be honest, I see a ton of parallels with this war and Vietnam, with weapons used making large swathes of the country uninhabitable - agent orange and landmines - the massacres at My Lai and Bucha, even the aggressor supporting and subverting a small faction to give it legitimacy over the country’s democratic majority.

I can only hope the outcome would be similar as well, with the aggressor turning tail and going home in shame.

And all I’m saying is that there are more than two sides to this, and just as the US is not on the right side of history just because Stalin, Russia is not there either just because Kissinger.

Earlier in this conversation you said something was the “stated policy of Russia,”

Dugin’s book “The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia” has had a profound impact on Russian politics, shortly after its release the Duma had created a geopolitics committee staffed by Dugin’s adherents, it became a textbook for the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian military. So is Dugin’s book Russia’s official foreign policy? No. Does the book have a profound impact on Russian politics, and is it a guiding star for Russian ambitions?

Absolutely. If you ask Dugin, the only thing Putin is doing wrong is that he’s not doing it fast enough.

Dugin’s Russian faction is basically seeking the establishment of a new Russian Empire, and its methods - alliance with Iran, stoking ethnic tensions to encourage separatism in countries like Georgia, Azerbaijan or Ukraine and isolationism in the US or the UK are very visibly used by Russian foreign policy.

Russia officially says it’s not doing it, but Russia looks like Dugin, swims like Dugin and quacks like Dugin.

Show me a source.

For Russia threatening the Rotterdam Havens with nuclear strikes?

Here:

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-official-nato-target-nuclear-strike-netherlands-1908346

INB4 “well, it’s newsweek”, they are sourcing a Duma member on Russian state television.

And also:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67222213 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60547473

Presumably you’re referring to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That was not shot down by Russia, but by Ukranian separatists using a Russian-supplied weapon.

Ukrainian separatists in Russian “little green men” uniforms, coming from Russia, retreating back into Russia, with a launcher identified as belonging to the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, speaking with Moscow accents? After Russia claimed first that the plane they shot down was a Ukrainian An-26, then that they didn’t shoot down anything, it was a Ukrainian Su-25 with its short range infrared missiles? And after that, claimed it was actually a Ukrainian Buk? And now it’s “it wasn’t us, the Ukrainian Russian separatists are completely independent of us”? Is the Netherlands supposed to accept this fourth story after three proven lies and after independently confirming the responsibility of Russian citizens, and after Russia refused to be transparent during the investigation?

OK, so what military retaliation against the U.S. do you endorse?

Proportional retaliation for their aggressive actions. Right now, it’s mostly trade tariff back-and-forth over chicken and light trucks and stuff. The US has not been engaged in military action against European militaries since WWII. I would support diplomatic rebukes over the spy scandals of the last decade, though.

And I’m saying the same thing against Russia. Russian sponsored insurgents and Russian spies have attacked European civilians? Donating and selling weapons to this other neighbouring state which is fighting a defensive war against them is completely fair game.

Two days ago, a Duma member suggested nuking Rotterdam. The same thing happened months ago, and every few months in the past two years.

Russian soldiers also actually shot down an airliner full of Dutch people, and tried covering it up.

I didn’t say that I support US policy, and you keep trying to deflect by pointing to them saying they are worse. And they may be, but they aren’t currently threatening military action against the EU.

All I’m saying that sitting here in Rotterdam, if the Ukrainian bro asks if they can bomb the peeps who said they will nuke Rotterdam, I don’t see people here saying no. Nobody here wants to fight anyone, WWII still has some open scars here. But so does MH370.

The US might be a fucktard, but it’s not them threatening us militarily currently. And on changing the subject, why are we talking about the US again?

Finlandization comes from Dugin, and his book which has so far defined Russian foreign policy objectives. We can argue back and forth whether Putin and his government agrees with those goals, but support for right wing parties across Europe, dividing the US along racist lines, and supporting Brexit speaks to it being true.

The US is not an immediate military threat for Europe. Economic, ideological, maybe, but not military. Russia is. So US bad, yes, but Russia bad too, and Russia is here.

Almost as if homosexual people were just people.

Because Putin sent them there to conquer.

Not even just the 30s, they argue the same, and use the same tactics as the far right parties. I’m from a country where that shit was everywhere, the weirdest thing that only sticks out is that they repeat certain words in their arguments that have no clear definition, they won’t define either, and their objective is both to hollow that word out by diluting its meaning, and also weaponize it because you can’t easily argue against something with shifting definition.

Just look at how the US right wing uses “woke” and how these people use for example “escalation”. Russia shoots you, it’s explained away as “realpolitik”, and just how things are, but if you dare shoot back, or if you give money to their victims, or if you call out their genocide, that’s

ESCALATION

If you press them on the double standards, you get some genius answer back like “NATO is inherently escalatory”, with no further explanation on why banding together against an aggressor to preserve everyone’s peace is somehow “escalation” while publicly plotting attacks against all your European neighbours, or for example blowing up military bases as shown here is not done, if it’s done by Russia.

I’m not talking to them, I’m talking to you and people like you, because if this shit is pervasive without being challenged, people stop thinking critically and start mainlining the panels.

If I didn’t believe in the pervasiveness of human stupidity (and the GRU), I’d guess tankies are a right wing psyop from the CIA to discredit leftists by putting shit that fascists say in their mouth.

Revolution of Dignity

Russo-Ukrainian War

Denmark isn’t bombing foreign soil, Ukraine is bombing the country that invaded them. If giving equipment to Ukraine would be equal to joining the war, we’d be at war with China and Iran. We are not.

If Russia bombs Danish military targets, that is an unilateral attack from Russia towards Denmark, and if Denmark decides it wants to call NATO to war, either NATO goes to war, or they effectively dissolve. Which means that at the very least all countries that rely on NATO for their security - the Nordics and the Baltics for sure, Poland and most of Eastern Europe as well - have to go to war as if their own security is threatened, because it effectively is.

The only reason there is no war between NATO member states and Russia is NATO itself. If a NATO member gets attacked and NATO does not retaliate, NATO ceases to exist. If there is no NATO, there is no defence for the Baltics, no defence for Moldova, no defence for Poland, and no defence against the stated goal of Russia, the finlandization of the whole of Europe.

A policy of retaliation against warmongers is a policy of promoting peace.

But you don’t understand, if a Russian soldier shoots a NATO soldier, that’s realpolitik, if a NATO soldier shoots back it’s

ESCALATION

It’s not hawkish, it’s the opposite. If there is no retaliation, then that signals that NATO is a joke, and bombing member states is fair game. If we don’t shoot back, we lose our own protection, and we are much, much closer to war.

Nobody wants a precedent where NATO is called into question. Remember when there was a stray Russian missile that went into Poland, and immediately half of NATO leadership was there, and it was quickly swept under a rug? If Poland pulled the trigger there, NATO would have went to war.

The point is, Article 5 is not escalation, it’s the status quo. If someone gets attacked, we all retaliate. Fucking that up would actually be a massive escalation against peace in Europe.

I doubt Russia would escalate in that way. If it happens, I’d imagine a “tit for tat” thing happening, where the Nordic countries sink the Russian Baltic Fleet and say that they consider the matter resolved.