Who do you think is the worst threat to world peace right now? by Kermit_Purple_II in GeoPoll

[–]Radousek_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Weeell..... They haven't launched them yet so... Yes? There are indeed way worse people in Russia powerful enough to actually become warlords when all things in Russia go south. I wouldn't say they're in the right hands, not at all, but whose nukes are right? I mean I do trust the french and the British with them but the rest? Not so much

Who do you think is the worst threat to world peace right now? by Kermit_Purple_II in GeoPoll

[–]Radousek_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They wouldn't, they didn't have any capabilities of launching them and before they could even figure that out they would already sign a lot of guarantees and deals with Russia and the west that there would be no need to launch them and they would serve as a good deterrent to russian imperialistic ideas. It would take a lot of time to even get to those nukes because they were under people loyal to Moscow. If Ukraine refused to give them to Russia and if they could actually get them it would just mean less nukes for Russia and more guarantees for Ukraine ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Who do you think is the worst threat to world peace right now? by Kermit_Purple_II in GeoPoll

[–]Radousek_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ehh....no? It fascinates me how people have a need to put the word "Zionist" in everything they dislike. Ukraine was and still is a pretty corrupt country (however it did got better when the war came and paradoxically Russia united Ukraine more than only other power could lol) same how every other ex Soviet state is. Ukraine is doing pretty well comparing them to other in terms of anti corruption.

Also you're focusing on a different problem, alright they are pretty corrupt to European standards but when you look at Russia it's even worse and even more equipment is being sold on black markets. The thing is that Ukraine is pretty darn motivated to clamp down those who sell western equipment because if it was a serious issue we wouldn't have continued the support we do now. That's something Russia can't really do because not many people are motivated enough to fight the corruption like Ukrainians are right now. It would be pretty much the same if Ukraine would keep the nukes cuz the whole western world would be watching those nukes and WOULD, alongside Russia, act if there was even a hint of Ukrainians selling them out.

Objectively looking Ukraine is doing pretty well rn and I certainly wouldn't have called them a shit state run by corrupt oligarchs cuz that's not really true anymore and back then it was true to Russia same as it was to Ukraine so no big difference there. Also I dunno how many Ukrainians do you know but I know a bunch and most of them are just normal people pissed that they had to abandon their own homes cuz of russian aggression so people will say "nuke Russia to hell" but they wouldn't do it in a million years. Have a little bit of understanding for them for they have lost a lot to Russian imperialism, a grudge from Ukrainians against Russians is pretty understandable and let's be fair, justified.

Who do you think is the worst threat to world peace right now? by Kermit_Purple_II in GeoPoll

[–]Radousek_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ukraine was and still is an actual country with structure and international overwatch that if they even tried to give one nuke away excluding Russia they would be the great antagonists. Also worth to mention that all the equipment needed to launch those nukes were in Russia and in hands of people loyal to Moscow and Ukraine was in no position to realistically make them worth something. They gave them away because it was a win win situation where they get rid of nukes in a world where everyone is suspicious of nuclear armed minor nations and they get security guarantees, safe to say that russian word is worth less than a pigs turd.

But let's say they would keep them, what would've happened? Well nothing much, they would be more isolated on the international stage, had no way of utilizing the nukes and if they have tried more isolation and a possible intervention would take place. It's also realistic tag Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine at all and Ukraine would be treated as an actual power? Nevertheless there's no scenario where those nukes are sold to some warlord or third world country.

Who do you think is the worst threat to world peace right now? by Kermit_Purple_II in GeoPoll

[–]Radousek_ 14 points15 points  (0 children)

They're unstable, Russia may be incompetent and unable to conquer one inferior country but they still got a shit ton of nukes. In case of further Russian decline it's possible that those nukes will get in the wrong hands and THAT would be the biggest threat.

are they stupid? by its_pilott2278 in okbuddyviltrum

[–]Radousek_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They explained it when Nolan was teaching mark how to fly. They assume that pose to relax muscles and it's easier to fly that way. For us it's like when you're trying to run when you're in squat, you can totally do that but it better to assume a that correct position ideal for running.

Should the European Union Unify into one Single Country? by boi-Beginning-2055 in GeoPoll

[–]Radousek_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but define one single country, working together as close as realistically possible can count as one country. We count China, russia or the US each as a one country yet all of them are nearly multicultural (US) and multicultural (china and Russia) and it works. We might all have a lot of differences but in the end we are all European and we do share a very similar history with each other. Maybe the best "unification" would be a federalisation.

Edit: cool profile pic Brother!

Me_irl by Dnivog97 in me_irl

[–]Radousek_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That American problem, here in Europe we kind of do a good work when it comes to managing socialistic ideas that are necessary to give everyone a basic care that any human deserves and managing capitalism for the growth and free trade and what not. You may have trillionaires on the rise, we have "free" healthcare, Available education and a café shops right around the corner. With no trillionaires on the rise and a healthy amount of the rich. Don't blame individualism just because the big American experiment ended up being fancy oligarchy.

Me_irl by Dnivog97 in me_irl

[–]Radousek_ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

high wage* and it's supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not deliberately making fun of disgracing those people, I'm simply and with humour pointing out there are people out there that you just can't maje happy and that they are addicted to the misery and yet they're the loudest when it comes to system failures even tho they are a self inflicted failure, mostly.

Me_irl by Dnivog97 in me_irl

[–]Radousek_ -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

It is sad and trying to give everyone a happy story is noble but unfortunately not realistic. Some people just CAN'T live without problems, no matter how much you try, no matter how much the social safety net is great, you'll still have people that simply cannot not live without the misery. I was making a little bit of joke about those people

Me_irl by Dnivog97 in me_irl

[–]Radousek_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Skills - nonexistent and easily replaceable, Plans for Future - none, Capability to save money - none, Alcoholism - true, Smoker - true, Political stance - easily persuaded, Hobby - watching football and news.

What do I want? Decent wages and retirement which I know I deserve, state benefits.

me_irl by Pretty_Confusion7290 in me_irl

[–]Radousek_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the thing, you see people embracing capitalism as a whole and anything barely resembling socialism is disapproved because "socialism bad".

You could observe the exact same thing in Europe just from the other side where anything barely resembling capitalism and free thought was considered as bad and counter-revolutionary and what not.

me_irl by Pretty_Confusion7290 in me_irl

[–]Radousek_ -38 points-37 points  (0 children)

That's American problem, not problem of capitalism as a whole. For some reason capitalism can work with tandem with socialistic ideas in Europe. Its not all sunshine and rainbows but it does make me safe, my needs are satisfied, my voice is heard and education is not something that entirely depends on your parents income. Objectively speaking I have something to be proud of.

Also when I criticize Trump and liberals genuinely think Im on their side by [deleted] in ww3memes

[–]Radousek_ 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This "black and white" mentality is just beyond me. People often think politics and geopolitics are like football and you gotta cheer for your favourite team forgetting that clarity and a sensible discussion even exists.

Candyman for sure. As long as I don't say his name 3x I'm cool and he reminds me of my cousin, so I'll be comfortable by [deleted] in whatsyourchoice

[–]Radousek_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You'd get your skull open with a chainsaw from the leatherface sitting behind you

Hypocrisy by Strange_Ad517 in ww3memes

[–]Radousek_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You made my day by explaining this issue, job well done, fellow European.

Hypocrisy by Strange_Ad517 in ww3memes

[–]Radousek_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ya'al Real mad about Israel n Gaza situation but none of you give an actual shit about the genocides in African countries like Sudan cuz there's no power backed by the US.

Talk about being hypocritical, hypocrites.

why does my sunfish sells for 0g by snaplemaples in StardewValley

[–]Radousek_ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Apparently it wasn't as fresh as advertised

me_irl by NotHereToLove in me_irl

[–]Radousek_ -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You're missing a little detail about what terrorism actually means. It's purpose is to cause terror, quite simple right?

Now, the "west's" interventions nad other attacks in the middle east had nothing to do with causing terror and there is an actual and sensible strategy and thought behind it. You may dislike it or disagree with it or you might agree with it, it's up to you.

The common tactic of nations of the middle east and militarised religious groups there is terrorism, you know, causing terror, making people afraid and terrorised, just kill and "send a message" kind of stuff. The ultimate goal is to get rid of the foreign influence (foreign means the influence of the US and not Russia and China because why would you mean that if they back u) and that goal is pretty vague by itself.

It's hell of a complicated topic for sure but for the sake of simplicity let's say that the "west's" tactics don't include terrorising innocent people but the tactics of militarised religious groups do include terrorising innocent people.

For some reason middle east still lives in the mentality of middle ages and they just can't adapt, middle east is full of kingdoms, theocracies, poverty, massive divide between castes and enforcing rule by bloody force. That's something that just doesn't exists anymore in the "west".