marxismtomorrow

We're not losing robots though. that's the thing. This isn't drone on drone warfare. This is drone on civilian and soldier warfare.

And that's the exclusive future for this technology.

That's what we decided was better than simply stopping all wars by enabling nuclear proliferation.

Again liberal, I haven't once done so. I know reading is hard, otherwise you'd be a communist, but do try to read things instead of instinctively shut your brain down every time someone questions your chosen propaganda.

Just because someone doesn't think the guy that took military control of his country, killed elections, had dozens of parliamentary members arrested, and has been kidnapping young men off the streets to fight in one of the least popular wars in that country's history is a good guy fighting a good fight doesn't mean they think the equally as fascist Putin is a good guy.

The world isn't black and white, no matter how much you liberals would love that to be true.

All Fascism is bad. Not just the ones your state told you to hate.

And that is?

Not Russian, The opposite of fascist hence why I'm against Ukraine and Russia.

But nice try liberal. Maybe the fediverse isn't right for you, since you align with u/spez 100% and should be on reddit.

So you don't remember the massive drone strike controversies or why the majority of the Iraqi and Afghanistan population will never, at any point in their lives, for the next several generations, be able to go outside without PTSD induced fear?

Or why drone operators commit suicide at significantly higher rates than other military vets?

they don't kill indiscriminately

Except when they do. Both Ukraine and Russia have posted HD drone video showing internationally recognized war crimes targeting civilians and unarmed surrendered soldiers, as well as medical transports and civilian infrastructure and buildings.

The Guided Weapon fallacy is well documented at this point, drones are an extension of this, the drones mentioned in the article which have even fewer safeguards and fewer human steps make this much worse.

and the environment angle really? Yes. The environmental cost of war must be a factor. It does not matter if you win if you can't live there, and its getting bad enough international investors are pulling out of their planned post-war investments in Ukrainian farmland.

To the rest of your nonsense, no. This isn't a life or death war. The Ukrainian people that were created 30 years ago will not disappear if they lose. Hell Russia doesn't even want Ukraine according to Ukraine or Russian negotiations.

This is literally a local territory dispute that has cost more lives than could be saved if Ukraine or Russia won today.

We have a good 100 years left on this planet, at most, before climate change forces around 80% of us to die. Why waste this destroying what little land might be livable during that time... over 3 territories that don't objectively matter to Ukraine?

Weird how militarized nationalism still has any fans or supporters, but you do you I guess. I hope you're glad your guy is in office.

Go back to reddit or 4chan.

Diplomacy and asymmetric warfare. If you are actually being invaded and your response is to destroy your own environment while implementing weapons that indiscriminately kill, you don't care about the people you're protecting and you have no concern of the world after the war.

Yes. I would look up the history of colour revolutions, the arab spring, and the CIA's and Mossad's extensive, ridiculously long involvement in generating these 'protests' as NED-Backed organizations call them. I would provide links but anytime I do they're called propaganda so I encourage you to find your own sources since all of this is declassified; and don't let 'declassified' fool you into 'they stopped doing it.'

The primary modus operandi is to find anyone in a country that opposes the current status quo and start feeding them propaganda, weapons, and money. Usually directly via agents already in place in that country. They then take the most disenfranchised people to start direct actions, with usually two prongs. 'peaceful' protests, i.e. a stripped down version of the extremist ideology they have started to foment that is more palatable to the general public with far less expansive goals, think the modern white-washed version of MLK's ideology compared to Malcom X's.

The playbook is then to radicalize larger and larger portions of the mediocre population into the militant population; so that when violence is triggered (usually by getting the radicalized population to instigate violence as we saw in Tienanmen Square) to provoke a response.

If the government does not respond with force, the movement grows more bold until it does, or until all foreign assets are arrested (why hong kong did not turn into a Tienanmen).

If the government does respond with force, this is greatly exaggerated internationally via NED-backed propaganda organizations, all of which either don't care to investigate the actual cause, or are explicitly directed to ignore the actual cause: violence from extremists against the general public and/or government.

If this all sounds vaguely like what the US government says Al Qaeda does................................................ I'll let you draw your own conclusions with the hint that projection is the most common form of fascist propaganda.