![carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]](https://lazysoci.al/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhexbear.net%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fa3395ee9-328f-4631-8363-3a1fd79cb6f2.jpeg&format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Just because you had luck doing something incredibly stupid doesn't mean it was a good decision
Happy Birthday 🎂🎈
Top 5 Countries That Produce the Most Semiconductors: Taiwan South Korea Japan United States China
China is listed as the largest and 5th largest in your source
China has ranked first in the share of published papers since 2017, the top 10% most-cited papers since 2018 and the top 1% since 2019.
Moving the goalposts as a coping mechanism
https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2023/article_0013.html
fuck interlectual property in general, so even if China did steal IP from other countries (it didn't), I'd respect them even more
Cope lib
China retains crown in scientific papers, widens lead over U.S. https://archive.md/BFUU0
Yeah but the protection of the Russian minority was a key mandate.
You want to talk about historical context yet fail to contextualize anything shown to you. Your "spurring debate" is actually just bad propaganda
If everyone was friendly, why did Ukraine not give Russia their soverign land?
Everyone was friendly right after the dissolution of the SU. With the prospect of NATO expansion and initially friendly Russia getting declined 3 times into the alliance they added 1 and 1 together.
The people of Ukraine voted for Zelensky fighting Russian influence for this exact reason.
Zelenski got voted for because he promised an end to the civil war in donbas https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955 https://www.france24.com/en/20190416-russian-speakers-ukraine-candidate-talking-language
a defensive pact
Like in Yugoslavia?
Sure but you're ignoring that the Soviet Union got dissolved and had a friendly western handpicked succesor at that point. So no more threat to UA, no? NATOs purpose was also a reaction to the creation of Soviet Russia, but what was it's purpose after the dissolution of the SU? Why join and expand NATO when everyones friendly now?
Yes and I asked you what changed and if you can contextualize. You yourself understand that historical context is important. After all ignoring historical context would rob this conflict of it's meaning, no? Or are you one of those rubes that believes Putin ordered an attack out of his own volition?
Under your own definition earlier propaganda would apply to individuals as well, not only states. Also I'd disagree that propaganda is one sided. Good propaganda encompasses and undermines other viewpoints.
As for spurring debate and maintaining an understanding for historical context. How do you contextualize among others things like this:
Biden predicting in 1997 what would happen if NATO expands https://www.c-span.org/video/?86974-1/nato-expansion If Biden knew that Russia wouldn't tolerate NATO expansion, why push for it anyway if war is on the table?
Putin being handselected by Clinton and Yeltsin https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-memos-offer-window-into-yeltsin-clinton-relationship/29462317.html How does he go from good guy to bad guy in such a short span of time? What changed?
The leaked nuland phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk38Jk_JL0g
Propaganda is rhetoric designed to produce support for or against particular decisions/actions.
Sounds kinda like kinda what you're trying to do here. Would you agree?
I intake media from all side
Russian propaganda
What do you understand as propaganda? And how do you designate what is and what isnt (If you do)
I mean yeah one has a bourgeois state (US) and the other an proletarian one (PRC) so technically you're right in that it's not really comparable.
Do you know what hegemony means? And do you think it's a coincidence that you hold the same belief as the US state department?
You sound so gullible to believe a nationalist government will give up it's territorial claims on their own Accord lol
Of course you believe in American exceptionalism