Nobilmantis

Don’t mind responding, I have blocked you.

Childish behavior. But I understand, it is hard to argue any further on something you have been told being your absolute truth, especially with someone who isn't a mere "putin-shill" making idiotic claims. But I don't care, I will still answer for those who read the thread, and possibly you when you matured from this behavior.

Please read this article (from Foreign Affairs, not Sputnik), especially the part where it goes:

Already on March 30, Johnson seemed disinclined toward diplomacy, stating that instead “we should continue to intensify sanctions with a rolling program until every single one of [Putin’s] troops is out of Ukraine.” On April 9, Johnson turned up in Kyiv —the first foreign leader to visit after the Russian withdrawal from the capital. He reportedly told Zelensky that he thought that “any deal with Putin was going to be pretty sordid.” Any deal, he recalled saying, “would be some victory for him: if you give him anything, he’ll just keep it, bank it, and then prepare for his next assault.” In the 2023 interview, Arakhamia ruffled some feathers by seeming to hold Johnson responsible for the outcome. “When we returned from Istanbul,” he said, “Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep fighting.” Since then, Putin has repeatedly used Arakhamia’s remarks to blame the West for the collapse of the talks and demonstrate Ukraine’s subordination to its supporters. Notwithstanding Putin’s manipulative spin, Arakhamia was pointing to a real problem: the communiqué described a multilateral framework that would require Western willingness to engage diplomatically with Russia and consider a genuine security guarantee for Ukraine. Neither was a priority for the United States and its allies at the time.

This basically answers to all your non-points backed by buzz-sentences that the mainstream western press printed in your brain. We had a choice, we chose to fight over peace (no, i stand corrected, our leaders did. The vast majority of people, maybe removing the UK and the baltics, would have and still would pick peace over a war at the expense of our economies and Ukranian people).

Ukraine wanted to cooperate more with the west

Ukraine had democratically elected a filo-russian president (the majority of ukranians voted for him), who had no interest in joining the EU. We helped overthrow that government because we did not like it. Also what "cooperation" are you talking about? Bringing our nuclear missiles under an anti-russian alliance is not really matter of economic cooperation.

Russia is attempting an outright genocide on Ukraine

I am glad to know genocide is a word that can be used so loosely when it comes to throwing it at what you perceive is your enemy. Putin did the same when addressing the repression of the donbas indipendence movements in eastern ukraine. You and him go hand in hand when it comes to using words properly.

favors Russia

"favors Russia" in what the actual fu**ing sense? Are the sorts of the war going to change based on my opinion on it? As I said before, you (not me) are indeed treating a war as a football game, and you get offended by whatever criticism towards "your team", no matter what. Your fanaticism obfuscates your view of the factual reality.

We are many here who actually care about the well being of the Ukrainians

I can't tell if you are saying this with a grin on your face, knowing that what you are saying is false, or if you are naive enough to believe that. I am sure you live in that part of the world that is using Ukrainians as war-meat, sending them more and more weapons while killing off any peace talk initiative. You cheer comfortably from far away their desperate attempt to regain international attention through a suicide invasion of a tiny strip of land (which won't provide them any additional negotial power), at the expense of their blood. "We" as third party countries at the start of the conflict had immense power over negotiations since we basically dictated Ukraine what to do (which is not surprising considering we put a TV actor/comedian as their president, after broadly supporting the overthrowing of their democratically elected government), and WE chose to NOT negotiate no matter what. It's unarguable that Russia has the ultimate fault on the war and in the end they should be held accountable for it, but this

care about the well being of the Ukrainians

is uttermost garbage. You made Ukraine support your personality and now can only mentally accept a total victory over Russia (which is in no way possible), and you are totally willing to sacrifice as many Ukrainians as it takes for this little inner victory of yours. This is sick.

the Ukrainians, who did everything they could to appease Putin

I'm not even going to go over this. You correctly stated that in a generic way, as you couldn't even tell what you meant with this sentence. So while I wait for you to make some light on this amazing no-point you think you made I will just tell you that I am sure the way russian-speaking minorities in the eastern part of the country were being treated appeased the russians very good.

Ukrainian press is as free as russian press, that's why the equivalence holds.

I didn't take any pro-Russia stance, but I doubt "supporting" Ukraine is just accepting everything it comes from their outlets.

We are not recruiting soldiers here on lemmy, and the ukranians in the front line do not hear nor care about your thoughts on their propaganda, so we have the possibility to be honest about both parties' biases, even coming from who we are "allied" with.

Our side of the internet is full of people treating this war like ultras in a football game.

Japan said its warplanes used flares

It's good etiquette to actually read something before commenting on it, no?

Thanks for this pearl

Never in its 50-plus years in existence has the regulator issued new rules for automakers requiring them to change their vehicle designs to better prevent pedestrian fatalities.

Found the problem

This what a calendar does to a mf

This is because a lot of well-built towns (or cities) have been bulldozed and rebuilt for cars instead of people. Or some built directly with only cars in mind (I wonder if car and oil companies had a role in this..., they did). This is why one of the key points (maybe the first step and the most important one) is to allow, invest in and develop better urban areas: allow two or more stories buildings, so not only areas are denser, thus it makes sense to serve them with transit, but also your doctor is allowed to have their office there; so your dentist; so are stores and pharmacies (that can only thrive in an environment where people live, not a suburban sprawl of cars and megastores). Cities built like this always have fast and efficient transit to the airports, to recreational areas (parks and your pond) and most likely to your parents.

Banning cars where you are FORCED to use a car to do anything doesn't make sense. Building fake "bike-lanes" that lead to nowhere in zero-density areas with no point of interest (a store, your doctor, a station...) also doesn't make sense.

What you can and should do is advocate for the abolishment of outdated zoning laws and the proposal of new transit projects. Change in those areas takes the most because it's like starting to cultivate strawberries on a desert.

This. It's a sensor, detecting only a specific air type. Not a camera, not a microphone. It doesn't have to do with privacy, this is not "scan and collect data about all to punish one" and cannot be turned into one.

I'll agree it's a fuc**ing dumb idea. Like utter useless garbage. Classic capitalistic "fix behavioral trash-consumption issue with overpriced fancy tech products that sound amazing in theory and are garbage in practice, without fighting the problem at the root". Screenshot comment said tax moeny but I'm willing to bet this is some kind of private school.

The PEGI16 when you were 12 was the most thrilling part