About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[whYNOT]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:39 AM, AlexL said:

2. How do those images confirm that Ukraine was attacked and is being destroyed precisely because of Ukraine’s stated intention to seek membership in NATO (and not for any other reason)?

No, the attack and destruction of Ukraine was not inherent in NATO expansion, it was a personal choice of Putin.

Forgotten and never known by uncritical partakers of western media, i.e useful idiots, the initial belligerence was all Kyiv - NATO's doing.

Causation ought to be an Objectivist's strength.

"Expansion", yes, by a NATO which clearly had and has designs on Russia, for which basing a permanent NATO military and placing nuclear weapons in the vicinity would play a part.  Expansion - of the Ukraine Armed Forces, with NATO help pre-2022, to be the next strongest in Europe after Russia. An Army designed (1-2-3) to immediately take out the Donbass ("ethnic cleansing" and de Russification by murdering and/or forcing the Ukrainian inhabitants nominated 'terrorists' to flee their homes and lands) - and win Crimea back to be a future, vital NATO base - and to fight against Russia when it indisputably intervened.

Note how often "NATO" uncoincidentally comes up.

But we must not analyze any further, Ukraine's innocent victimhood, the single objective of the psy-ops propaganda, mustn't be disturbed.

A "personal choice" which was forced upon Putin, a legal and moral pre-emptive assault in protection of his country and Donbass/Crimean residents from the genuine "initiators of force" who were ready to make their move.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:46 AM, Eiuol said:

It's not as if Russia is on another planet and there is utterly no impact on world affairs and spread of different ideologies. The fact that you say you support Russia in this conflict is enough evidence that you really do think Russia has some kind of impact, namely that America can be harmed by Russia. But then you would have to explain why supporting Russia's interests in the Ukraine is preferable to supporting America's interests. A general sense of American imperialism is not great, but on the other hand, how would Russia's success help you in any way? 

It seems like you support something like accelerationism, anything that would help hasten the collapse of America would be the best way to bring about the type of country you want to live in. I find that to be a very very bad method. If you don't support that, then how would Russia's succeeding in the Ukraine possibly bring you closer to a freer life for yourself? 

 

The motion internationally seems to be a departure from any single nation's hegemony and dominance towards self-determination and independence. Many a slip and all that, and not always for the best motives, but I generally approve. I liken to one's children leaving home, learning the hard way. For small and lesser countries' own good to become self-reliant and deal with their own problems - and most emphatically for the good of America. A new phase of independence - not isolationism - for the USA might be on the cards when/if this blows over and the public wake up to the enormity and dangers of US involvement/intercessions abroad. As a writer I linked commented, there are a series of endless "trip-wires" wherever you go in the world - I add - and one thing leads to another until things spiral out of control. The US "influence" could return to what it did best: influential ideas.

Edited February 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 1/31/2023 at 5:56 PM, AlexL said:

Between Occupation and Liberation: the small town of Maryinka, Donetsk Region, Ukraine

Note about the author (from Wikipedia) : Maxim Katz (1984) is a Russian political and public figure, co-founder of the Urban Projects Foundation, author of the YouTube channel of the same name... former deputy of the municipal assembly of a Moscow district (2012–2016). Left Russia in 2022, is broadcasting from Israel.

Good English subtitles

 

"And even if some people fear persecution by the Ukraine authorities, why can't we take them to Russia?" (Plenty of space there). 12m.

And other rationalizations.

"Take" them? Maybe he suffered in translation, I suppose he means remove them. Or let them run to Russia in fear of their lives. That would be the Final Solution to Ukraine's de-Russification program. Of course, many were given safe passage to Russia during hostilities, some millions from Donbass are seeing out the war inside Russia.

The regularly seen approach from Uke supporters is "territory" first--and then, maybe, human beings who live on it, own it and have always, or men who must be killed in droves to win it. Russians can be seen to value lives in general, somewhat more than land.

If the devastated scenes of Maryinka were actually committed by Russian forces mainly, one must wonder why Donetsk-Luhansk residents would vote overwhelmingly for Russian accession.  Probably because the incessant deliberate targeting of civilian inhabitants by HIMARS missiles has only worsened to date.

All a part of 'the Russians shell their own people' falsehood. Deflection, revisionism and projection by this shill for Ukraine. Love the way he cites "propaganda" while spouting his own.

Kyiv trying to clean up its act.  

Edited February 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Scholar, Glenn Diesen one of the most balanced, independent voices out there.

https://www.rt.com/russia/561135-russia-nato-ukraine-propaganda/

Edited February 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

46 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"... why can't we take them to Russia?"

means exactly this. There is no translation problem; as one can easily see, it is not a machine translation.

I provided all the information you would need in order to correctly understand who are the "we" in the phrase above. You even quoted that information !

But the larger problem is that you are blinded by an anti-Western, anti-American political philosophy [*] and read everything through its lenses. Then your falling for the Putinist propaganda is not a primary, but a consequence. Although... the fact that you don't understand that the government sources of countries engaged in an armed conflict should be ignored a priori indicates also a deeper deficiency.
--------
[*] my guess: Rothbartian Libertarianism

[Eiuol]

On 2/2/2023 at 9:33 PM, Grames said:

I wonder if the novel Atlas Shrugged was the first appearance of the notion of accelerationism?

I wouldn't call that accelerationism. Withdrawing from society of course will cause problems to that society, but the strikers in the book were not pushing the collapse to go further and faster. Accelerationism could maybe describe Francisco, since he bought San Sebastian mines and deliberately ruined them by doing even more of the collectivist nonsense all around him. Accelerationism I see more like a communist amplifying capitalism to the furthest degree, because they would predict that this would lead to a collapse of capitalism from itself, as Marx predicted. I'm saying that accelerationism is about amplifying.

On 2/2/2023 at 9:33 PM, Grames said:

No wider war, no hundreds of billions to Ukraine every year [...]

Okay, this is why not supporting Ukraine would have benefits. But you are also talking about supporting Russia, which is different than staying out of the conflict. What would be beneficial about Russia's success?

[whYNOT]

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

But the larger problem is that you are blinded by an anti-Western, anti-American political philosophy [*] and read everything through its lenses. Then your falling for the Putinist propaganda is not a primary, but a consequence. Although... the fact that you don't understand that the government sources of countries engaged in an armed conflict should be ignored a priori indicates also a deeper deficiency.
--------
[*] my guess: Rothbartian Libertarianism

To be pro-Western/American, borrowing Twain's phrase --yes, when they, the government, "deserves it".

A government is not to be obsequiously obeyed, "since they are ¬the Government¬, after all!".

An institution is only as "good" as the individuals charged, elected, appointed to running it, an objective good. ("Of objective value? For whom and for what purpose?").

The reputation of the USA doesn't absolve it from corrupt men and women with evil ambitions in power. Among all of them and their European counterparts I've been watching, Putin and Lavrov are emerging as the only sober adults, not disconnected from reality, in the room.

Every present western gvt. does not "deserve it". Their leaders reveal themselves to be morally bankrupt and cognitively deficient, and some, probable militant sociopaths. In covert conspiracy, they premeditated and deliberately prolong this war for material and geopolitical gains, have ducked using their certain influence to curtail it, and are now running about like headless chickens because it didn't turn out as expected, and all they have to offer is more of the same poison ... and hope *anything* turns up to save their embarrassment: Like a little nuke.

They have brought the world to the brink of holocaust - because they mustn't be seen to 'lose face'. Where did these second-hander bureaucrats and corporatists and media chiefs earn the right to tinker with the lives of Ukrainians  - or the present and future world population?

Just who do they think they are? Where did they find their authority?

What's occurring is the end game, anticipated by some clear thinkers then, which began 30 years ago with the assurance "Not one more inch eastwards", and every action after that has displayed utter contempt by the West for Russia and its concerns. The Western govt's deserve whatever they will get now - their people, even useful idiots, don't.

Many as you, are obedient to the State whatever it does. A reminder, "Statism is the cause of war - statism *needs* wars". You all give the state the sanction it needs.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[Boydstun]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:39 PM, AlexL said:

. . .

The attack and destruction of Ukraine was not inherent in NATO expansion, it was a personal choice of Putin.

Yes.

A "preemptive" strike, whether by Bush in Iraq or by Putin in Ukraine, is aggression. Bush and Putin were solely to blame in ultimate responsibility. (True, Saddam was a murderous dictator. Nevertheless Bush's "preemptive" invasion was an aggression, and should be forever condemned unequivocally.) Putin's continued war-making in Ukraine is continued human depravity, and does not merit a bit of sympathy from civilized peoples, who instead should rally for taking the tiger to dust.

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Putin and Lavrov are emerging as the only sober adults, not disconnected from reality, in the room.

I never read a phrase more disconnected from reality and immoral.

Edited February 4, 2023 by AlexL

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Putin's continued war-making in Ukraine is continued human depravity, and does not merit a bit of sympathy from civilized peoples, who instead should rally for taking the tiger to dust.

+1000

[AlexL]

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

the initial belligerence was all Kyiv - NATO's doing.

Causation ought to be an Objectivist's strength.

Yes, ought to be! It follows that you are as far from Objectivism as possible - in both epistemology and ethics.

[AlexL]

On 2/3/2023 at 11:45 PM, tadmjones said:

my view is [that] Putin invaded Ukraine to secure Crimea before he had to commit to total war by attacking a NATO member to secure Crimea.

To "secure Crimea" ? As if his desired ownership of Crimea is God-given and everybody has to submit !!!

Besides, you cannot really know that this was his reason, unless you read his mind. OTOH, the clues he generously shared since at least 2007 in his speeches and articles suggest a different, much more fundamental reason. It also explains all his actions during his reign. I wrote here about that a few months ago. Therefore your view needs to be substantiated, it is not the only possible and plausible one.

On 2/3/2023 at 11:45 PM, tadmjones said:

control of that region is important to strategic concerns of Russia.

Control of Crimea is also important to strategic concerns of Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, and possibly of others. What now?

On 2/3/2023 at 11:45 PM, tadmjones said:

Ukraine should have sold it to him.

😁Why not to Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine or(and?) Turkey? You operate on strange premises! Why not check them from time to time?😁

Besides, for Putin's "strategic concerns", possessing the entire Crimea is a burden, not an asset. If he wants to control the Black Sea he only needs the Sebastopol naval base, a minuscule part of Crimean Peninsula, without the burden of a 2.5 millions population he will have to provide with water and electricity - from outside Crimea!

 But did Putin make an offer to Ukraine for the peninsula, or for the Sebastopol naval base? I don't remember. Maybe this confirms that he had other, more grandiose ambitions?

But to control(?) the Black Sea if he so wishes, or to prevent others to "control" it, he needs neither Crimea, nor Sebastopol: Russia had already hundreds of kilometers of Black Sea coast and the construction of a new naval base would have been much simpler, much less troublesome  and much less expensive...

But he didn't... Again: maybe this confirms that he had other, more grandiose ambitions, and the invasion (for occupation or submission) of Ukraine was one of the stages...

Edited February 4, 2023 by AlexL

[Boydstun]

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

. . .

Putin and Lavrov are emerging as the only sober adults, not disconnected from reality, in the room.

. . .

Dishonesty is unfastening from full reality and precludes the possibility of genuinely protecting objective values. I've seen only one public figure in the US tell possibly as many big lies as Sergei Lavrov in his public career: our recent President, Donald Trump. The name Lavrov is rightly joined with the title Liar whenever he's at the mic for year after many year. Depend on it: what he says in any years to come, as in all his past, will be a tissue of lies upon lies.

Why the Kremlin Lies

Edited February 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

18 hours ago, AlexL said:

To "secure Crimea" ? As if his desired ownership of Crimea is God-given and everybody has to submit !!!

Besides, you cannot really know that this was his reason, unless you read his mind. OTOH, the clues he generously shared since at least 2007 in his speeches and articles suggest a different, much more fundamental reason. It also explains all his actions during his reign. I wrote here about that a few months ago. Therefore your view needs to be substantiated, it is not the only possible and plausible one.

Control of Crimea is also important to strategic concerns of Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, and possibly of others. What now?

😁Why not to Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine or(and?) Turkey? You operate on strange premises! Why not check them from time to time?😁

Besides, for Putin's "strategic concerns", possessing the entire Crimea is a burden, not an asset. If he wants to control the Black Sea he only needs the Sebastopol naval base, a minuscule part of Crimean Peninsula, without the burden of a 2.5 millions population he will have to provide with water and electricity - from outside Crimea!

 But did Putin make an offer to Ukraine for the peninsula, or for the Sebastopol naval base? I don't remember. Maybe this confirms that he had other, more grandiose ambitions?

But to control(?) the Black Sea if he so wishes, or to prevent others to "control" it, he needs neither Crimea, nor Sebastopol: Russia had already hundreds of kilometers of Black Sea coast and the construction of a new naval base would have been much simpler, much less troublesome  and much less expensive...

But he didn't... Again: maybe this confirms that he had other, more grandiose ambitions, and the invasion (for occupation or submission) of Ukraine was one of the stages...

My premise was/is the invasion , by the lying, dictatorial, murderous Putin in 2022 was his last ditch effort to gain and or keep control of the Crimean Peninsula without having to commit to total war.

Romainia, Bulgaria and Turkey are NATO countries, so you may have something there, they should have sold Crimean to Romania and Putin would most likely not have annexed it in 2014 , or if NATO had admitted Ukraine prior. Why didn't NATO incorporate Ukraine sooner? Or better yet , why did Khrushchev 'give' Crimea to Ukraine?

[whYNOT]

The latest (2019) and predictive film by Oliver Stone, some rehashed evidence, some new.

https://youtu.be/lRivDlc_hz4

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:32 PM, Boydstun said:

... a tissue of lies upon lies.

Why the Kremlin Lies

Excerpt:

"Russia refuses to accept a negotiated outcome that entails its retreat from the Donbas or Crimea. Moscow now insists that Ukraine accede to the suicidal Minsk II agreement that would effectively convert Ukraine into a confederation whose sovereignty could be punctured at any point by the Donbas, much as the confederacy attempted to destroy the Union in the American Civil War 150 years ago. Yet it remains the case that the real problem with the Misnk II accords is that Russia has never even bothered to hide its refusal to comply with it in any form. Thus its demands are without merit and a dodge to avoid compliance. At the heart of this crisis is the fact that Russia still cannot accept Ukraine’s de jure independence as a sovereign and separate state. In Moscow, power rests on the notion of an imperial state to whom all other members of the former Warsaw Pact must surrender part of their sovereignty".

I maintain "propaganda" on this article. A load of assertions creating a 'flipped narrative'. Perhaps and unsurprising not being mentioned much in the msm, but in the past year, ex-Ukraine President Poroshenko, the ex-Chancellor Merkel, and ex-President Hollande have each confirmed independently that their meetings at Minsk were never meant to bear fruit, "suicidal" for Ukraine - or life-saving for the Donbass.

They reiterated the same duplicitous purpose, Minsk in 2014/15 was "to buy time" to build the Ukraine Army for - obviously - wiping out the Donbass resistance - and its coming, anticipated encounter with the Russian Army.

As everyone should know, Zelensky was elected on the platform "peace in Donbass": he backed down to threats from his ultra-nationalists and continued the (civil) war with a vengeance. Not the only time, he again backed down to Johnson/Biden just before beginning negotiations with Russia in March that could have ended hostilities (by simply implementing "Minsk" and declaring Ukraine neutrality). He is a traitor to his country. He sacrificed his people to Western blandishments and promises of a glorious victory over Russia...

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 2/5/2023 at 8:04 PM, tadmjones said:

My premise was/is the invasion , by the lying, dictatorial, murderous Putin in 2022 was his last ditch effort to gain and or keep control of the Crimean Peninsula without having to commit to total war.

 

Appears Putin, when he saw cause, was just as expert as the West at the great game of "geopolitics". What's pertinent is the precise timing when he made his move on Crimea. Within one month of the Maidan coup, the illegal overthrow of a Russia-friendly president. Guess he read the writing on the wall for Crimea's future and the vulnerability of Sevastopol under the new regime. The sharing agreement would likely have been rescinded by Kyiv.

Why did Russia annex Crimea in 2014?

Russia and Ukraine had an agreement whereby they would share the military port at Sevastopol, where Russia’s Black Sea Fleet had been stationed since coming under Russian control. Pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych upon assuming office in 2010 extended the lease for Russian use of the port until 2042.

However, he fled Ukraine in February 2014 amid a large-scale protests, called Euromaidan. The protests were started by his refusal to sign an agreement for closer ties with the European Union.

Almost immediately problems began in Crimea. Within days strange bands of armed gunmen, called “little green men” began seizing government buildings in Crimea. They obviously looked like regular Russian military forces but according to Putin they were local members of "self-defence groups."

With very little notice, in March 2014 Crimeans held a referendum, which was boycotted by the opposition, that overwhelmingly voted for their region to become a part of Russia although there were no international observers to verify the result. The United Nations and most of the world sees Crimea's secession vote as illegitimate.

Shortly after the referendum Putin signed accession treaty making Crimea part of the Russian Federation once again. To punish Moscow, the US and European Union imposed economic sanctions on Russia but they had little effect on Putin’s posture toward returning Crimea to Ukraine.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwje7ffTzYH9AhWFiVwKHRMDBGsQFnoECEYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.as.com%2Fen%2F2022%2F02%2F27%2Flatest_news%2F1645973678_162970.html&usg=AOvVaw1Hk0_E2XuWRcpD227xLnAH

 

.

Edited February 6, 2023 by whYNOT

[Jon Letendre]

The sooner the Russians complete the encirclement of Bakhmut, liquidate all the fighters within and move on to eliminating Zelensky's Biden-blackmailing human sacrificing clown regime -- the better for Ukrainians, Russians and Americans.

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The latest (2019) and predictive film by Oliver Stone, some rehashed evidence, some new.

<link>

More precisely, some rehashed lies, some new ones. For example:

14:48 on April 25th 2019 the [parliament] of Ukraine adopted a law according to which the only language that can be used in all spheres of life in Ukraine is the Ukrainian language

In fact this law establishes the Ukrainian language as "the only State (official) language in Ukraine" (Art. 1.1). It means "its mandatory use throughout Ukraine in the exercise of powers by government authorities" (Art. 1.7)

Therefore, the film's (Oliver Stone's) claim that that law mandates the Ukrainian language to be used in all spheres of life is a lie.

(I don't think that to declare the Ukrainian language as the only State/official language in Ukraine is a good idea. As I wrote elsewhere, I expect this to be rescinded as a pre-condition to Ukraine's EU membership).

[whYNOT]

On 2/4/2023 at 10:02 PM, AlexL said:

I never read a phrase more disconnected from reality and immoral.

What could go wrong? So the collective west for years builds and supplies the Ukraine regime's military powers in order to beat (a legitimately defensive) Russia - a nuclear superpower, btw - and expects that Russia will just fade away at the first sign of resistance. But they haven't, instead are beating Ukraine at conventional warfare; so you send more armour and 'advisers' and consider sending F-16 fighters, next. What could possibly go wrong?

Barack Obama said it exactly in 2016: "Russia has escalatory dominance". I.e: In their particular location, they are more than able to meet and raise the stakes at anything thrown at them by foreign forces, and could probably defeat a Nato alliance Army. And then what? How does Nato respond to losing? Obama's caution forgotten by the tough-acting kids in charge of the kindergarten now. You may go to war with Russia if you wish, on the strength of 'noble principles', but do so at your country's, Ukraine's - and the global - peril. The absolute sacrifice, iow. Spare me a lecture on what is "immoral".

You demonstrate little conception of reality outside the MSM bubble, you think reality must conveniently conform to a priori, acontextual principles. 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

28 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

the collective west for years builds and supplies the Ukraine regime's military powers ... and expects that Russia will just fade away

"The collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military only after Putin's Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. Or you expect Ukraine to just fade away and waive even her right to ask for help when she is attacked (a right explicitly granted by art. 51 of the UN Charter to all UN members [#], btw) ?
-----
[#] thus not applicable to the help of Putin's Russia to LNR/DNR, in case you wonder.

[whYNOT]

30 minutes ago, AlexL said:

 only after Putin's Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. 

2014? "Attacked"? Ha, Russia would have rolled over Ukraine completely, by now. And as the "Russia imperialists" fantasize, have taken central Europe already.

Is this the revisionist nonsense you absorb?

Edited February 7, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

On 2/5/2023 at 7:04 PM, tadmjones said:

My premise was/is the invasion , by ... Putin in 2022 was his last ditch effort to gain and or keep control of the Crimean Peninsula without having to commit to total war.

You still didn't justify this premise - that keeping control of the Crimean Peninsula was his reason for the February 2022 attack

Neither did you justify your - implicit - premise that Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula.

[The only legitimate right the Russian Federation had in connection with the Crimean Peninsula is the lease it was granted by Ukraine until 2042 on a part of Sevastopol Naval Base - see 201.0 Kharkiv Pact. Russia unilaterally terminated the Pact in March 2014, after invading the entire Peninsula.]

[AlexL]

7 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

34 minutes ago, AlexL said:

 only after Putin's Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. 

2014? "Attacked"?

You can call however you want the Russia's 2014 actions in Ukraine (snatching Crimea and organizing and feeding with arms and personnel a separatism in Donbas).

The fact is that "the collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military only after Putin's Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. 

Instead of commenting on this, you moved the subject to the word "attack". What a jerk you are !

21 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Ha, Russia would have rolled over Ukraine completely, by now... Is this the revisionist nonsense you absorb?

Shortly after the February 2022 invasion you quasi-confessed that you knew nothing about what happened before. But now, after a year, during which I encouraged you to research specific details about the pre-2022 history (which you never did!), you still talk about that as "revisionist nonsense" ! Pathetic.

[whYNOT]

18 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

The fact is that "the collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military only after Putin's Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. 

 

Your problem is reversal of cause and effect.

The red line for Russia was identified by Putin to be Ukraine - right? Nato was expanding East, Russia in spite of the claimants of Empire, has not showed previous intent of expanding one inch West.

Therefore, it would be Ukraine, unhappily, which would be exploited - economically, politically and militarily - to get a reaction out of Putin.

The post Cold-War goal was always to split up Russia in some way. Important, its geopolitical position (completing China's encirclement), and of course, its wealth of natural resources, and simply because its seen as a growing economic powerhouse to the West, "a peer competitor", too independent and unsubmissive under Putin to be tolerated by the hegemon. 

"We" in Nato, cannot be seen in the public eye to provoke, let alone, cross borders and attack Russia-- we cannot legally and morally start hostilities --therefore must find a way for Russia to attack "us" on another territory. Enter, Ukraine, the wedge that's been hammered into Russia's chink to get the desired effect.

Things were buzzing along quite okay for independent Ukraine, little to none interference from Moscow, until the coup. After which, Putin must have known, is when Sevastopol would probably be lost to Russia, donated to Nato by the new regime.

Well-meaning, rational people don't press at others' physical or psychological vulnerabilities (once found out). They understand a human delicacy and give them space. A self-respecting person respects others' "red lines" - approve of them or not. Besides, one might receive an unpredictable reaction.

There are of course nasty little predators who try to find an other's weak spot or sensitivity or values-- and will constantly probe at them to capitalize upon for their cheap ambitions. That goes for nations' relations too.

Edited February 7, 2023 by whYNOT