This generation is rightfully feeling like they're getting a sore deal.
So it could be:
- the native young population who are now flocking in the AfD
- the people fighting the AfD in the street
- the second generation immigrants born there
- the very recent immigrants
- a mix of all
Because the alchemy of creating a working army and "esprit de corps" is much harder than in a corporation. You cannot just take a modern managerial approach to creating an army.
A mix of all will end up obviously in a disaster but selecting on any group will end up in a civil war or coup.
Many IT projects for freelancers in Germany are Bundeswehr/NATO related because they're among the few who hire people right now because of the economic situation.
Once we reach the point where people have to decide if they enlist in order to to keep on feeding their families, that'll sort itself out.
Why would an army that directly mirrors the civil society be a bad thing?
We have been told in most stories that this is a time when people come together and stand up but this is really propaganda.
The reality is most people go a little bit crazy and paranoid in these situation. Understandably.
For example, friendly fires have always been very much under reported. Can you imagine what it lead too when an army is already a bit suspicious of each other?
The result has been fairly inconclusive. What happen is that people generally keep their views about in-groups and out-groups, but then add exception for the person they get exposed to. A good experience/friendship do not translate to a change in definitions for the in-group, nor does it change existing negative generalizations of the out-group.
What has shown to be effective is demonstration of shared values by the out-group, while at the same time avoiding display of different values. When people share the same values, and more importantly, do not display a difference in values, then the in-group can be expanded.
If I remember right, the book Behave by Robert Sapolsky goes through this.
History is full of counter-examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892...
A battle between humanity and a virus deeply deeply divided our society. If I remember correctly Germany or Austria were ready to put non vaccinated people in jails.
About every lines of division deepens.
I think you are arguing in bad faith. Otherwise you would have recognized Covid isolation has been the opposite of contact interventions. Oh and of course this:
> If I remember correctly Germany or Austria were ready to put non vaccinated people in jails.
You remember wrong, non vaccinated people actually got publicly sodomized by general Drosten himself before euthanization. The former now has been ruled unconstitutional, but failing to get every new vaccine within 3 months is still punishable by death. Life in Germany is unbearable, please stay away!
Here is the explanation from a big law firm https://www.fwp.at/en/news/blog/austrias-covid-vaccine-manda...
(not the news)
Lol wtf, got any source for that except "IIRC"?
"I even heard they wanted to reintroduce the death penalty, just for the unvaccinated!" (see how easy it is to invent and spread lies?)
Citation needed! I'm from Germany and followed the COVID rules real close. Please do not talk shit.
> In Austria, people are to be obliged to be vaccinated against the Coronavirus from 1 February 2022. This measure includes a mandatory booster vaccination for people who have already been vaccinated. Compulsory vaccination is nothing new in Austria, as the Federal Act on Smallpox Vaccination of 30 June 1948 was accompanied by a measure that sanctioned non-compliance with vaccination with an administrative fine. Administrative penalties are also foreseen with regard to the Corona-Vaccination obligation 2022. Fines of up to EUR 3.600,-- are foreseen for vaccination refusers and up to EUR 1.450,-- for people who do not attend a booster vaccination. Furthermore, vaccination refusers face prison sentences of up to four weeks if they do not comply with the new Federal Law.
Yet. And no it is not prison. Is forced labour and death so that some assholes make more profit.
Did you notice that every "patriot" who says "we will defend our country" never goes on the front line ? The same with their children.
> Did you notice that every "patriot" who says "we will defend our country" never goes on the front line ? The same with their children.
Germany hasn't had a purely professional army for the longest time. Most men in Germany already served in the military, got basic training, or did alternative service (e.g. worked in a hospital). Mandatory military service is constitutionally set up to draw across the population, regardless of social or economic status. Again, we're not talking about who has to die when Russia invades, but who has to get basic military training...
The current law from Friday states:
- every young adult get information material about the Musterung
- everyone is free to go there and free to go to do the basic training
- just in case we will have to few volunteers then the state can at first force everyone to go to the evaluation as it was before - if we will have to few recruits then next step is a loot box system
- then and only then the state can force you. But this has also limits as we are still in Germany
Yes it was a shitty move by Merz to not involve the actual effected generation but I would have expected a far much worst law then this.
Also, the AfD folks would be rather fighting for Russia, the leftist activists will conscientiously object, and recent immigrants are not allowed to serve. Very weird to mention "second gen immigrants", as if ethnostate-ish racial tension is a wider issue in Germany and they are not normal citizens. I see no difference to children of Turkish migrants serving in the past. Do you realize Germany had mandatory military service before?
> A mix of all will end up obviously in a disaster but selecting on any group will end up in a civil war or coup.
Obviously! Jeez...
Btw. historically, after WWII, one of the reasons to have mandatory military service for every man was specifically to get a diverse army, as a cross-section of society, instead of clusters of certain dispositions, so the Bundeswehr exactly won't become an ideological, political force. Conscientious objection is a legal right for every soldier, at any moment, because of it. The constitution also prevents any sort of "group selection". A homogenized army is much more dangerous to the democratic order, than a diverse one. People thought of this before...
This is what I was suspecting a bit.
But how did they get there? didn't the people from the former German Democratic Republic (where AfD is very strong and a lot of recruits are) broke the wall to liberate themselves from Russia and the USSR?
What happened in the last decade that they would now swing back to Russia?
It's not that complicated really, the eastern parts of Germany are on average poorer, older and less educated than the western parts, well paid jobs are rare, unemployment is higher (although tbf I'm unfair here towards the old generation, since those are not the typical AfD voters - it's rather the young people who tend to vote on the extreme ends of the political spectrum). Most of the smart young people move to where the grass is greener, those who stay are often bitter and disillusioned.
Carve out a similar demographic slice in western Germany, and you'll get similar high support for the AfD.
...basically the same reason why MAGA is bigger in the rural areas of the US than in the big cities.
In short: Propaganda. Germany is a major target of Russian influence. The AfD itself is heavily funded by Russia. There is no "old love" situation, Russia isn't representing socialist ideals or anything. (Russia wasn't loved back then either, btw.) Quite frankly, AfD followers often are just misled and detached from reason (e.g. objectively voting against their own interests). If you talk to them they often entertain some really fucking wild ideas and conspiratorial thinking. Of all parties in Germany, AfD has probably the most successful social media campaign, especially on TikTok. Mind you, the AfD's "not our problem"/"do nothing" position is aiding Russia in Ukraine. It's easy to put a nationalist/antisemitic spin on it.
Now, the leftist party is another story. There you find a completely misguided "old love" base, which is dogmatically "pacifist" and anti-NATO. They really should check the values Russia represents these days...
Former East Germany is lit up in red, similar to how you could see the old borders on night satellite photos from the color temperature of the outdoor lights in West and East Germany, which was most easily noticed in Berlin (article has a picture from 2012): https://kottke.org/19/11/the-berlin-wall-of-light
The outdoor lights will eventually all be LED, which will erase the old border from the night skies.
I don't think that the social situation is as bad as you describe. I just think that people generally don't feel keen to put their life on the line for Germany.
Ever since I moved here, the law made it very clear that this was a transactional relationship. That cuts both ways.
I uphold German values in my everyday behaviour. Killing for Germany was never on the table.
I find this point of view to be profoundly sad and I hope it’s not shared by the majority of immigrants to germany
Yes this what I am sincerely wondering: which group (however you want to define it) of relatively young people, do they believe they can leverage "to put their life on the line for Germany"?
When what people get (using their labor to subsidize politicians & boomers via taxes & rent) is the same thing they can get in effectively any country or even under the invader's rule, the incentives to fight said invader become quite scarce.
This isn't even specific to Germany; a lot of people are fleeing conscription on both sides of the current conflict for the same reason - they just don't get enough benefit to make it worth putting their life on the line.
First world problems...
You will always be able to object military service, it's not difficult at all and absolutely won't be any time soon. I have a hard time imagining you to be forced to do alternative service. In case of actual war, when mobilization becomes a reality, well... your origin country will likely be involved too.
Elbows up!
https://www.bundeswehrkarriere.de/downloads/mannschaften/936
tl;dr: Okay but it's not golden by any means.
At least, the current government tried relaxing the debt brake a little and investing but I fear it's too little, too late. Germany is hooked to competitiveness shortcuts at the expense of their neighbors. The cure would be harsh. Add the quasi-religious adherence to a completely broken economic model turned into an absurd moral system and I personally have very little hope to ever see the situation improves. Then again, I have too moderate my cynicism. I thought for a long time that the eurozone creation, a currency union without transfers, was so stupid it would never be toppled as the worst political decision but then Germany passed the Schuldenbremse. They might manage to outdo themselves once again.
I'm convinced the status quo will prevail. The German public will prefer slow death to any kind of transfers and common investments. They have already blocked the interesting parts of the Draghi plan. Japanification here we come. Let's enjoy becoming Disneyland while we slowly lose any kind of international relevance. I mean at least there most likely will be catering to the elderly and maybe crafting luxury goods as an alternative to tourism. At least, our brightest should be able to leave to places where innovation still happen. Such an exciting future Karlsruhe is leading us to.
I'm just sad my country is tied to the sinking ship.
Aging population and no growth to pay for it (while growing bureaucracy).
Again, this is a very rational response and I applaud the German government for being realistic.
Our only hope is European Federalization, at the very least militarily. I believe we can do it. We must. We have no other choice.
As far as evidence, "generally waves hands around." See the Trump/Putin surrender proposal. Also, see: https://www.france24.com/en/video/20251206-us-threatens-with...
Just that threat of weakness from the US side is the end of traditional NATO.
US forces were what kept us together militarily. We MUST find the new path quickly.
I post this with a tears dropping from my eyes, genuinely.
No matter who is reelected in the USA in the future, the US-led post-war rules based order is over. Something new must take its place. It best be Democracy. We took it for granted all this time. This could its last chance.
Here is some interesting reading:
> The West’s Last Chance
> How to Build a New Global Order Before It’s Too Late
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/wests-last-chan...
- Alexander Stubb, President of Finland
Meanwhile, the richest boy in the world:
> The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people
Yes but remember that was the point.
The career and trained militaries were spending most of their time schooling young people and were not focusing on capabilities. This is why most countries put an end on that nonsense.
So right now you can be sure an enormous amount of personnel in the German army switched focused on running this new "Voluntary service". A voluntary service which will produce at best 1% of workable soldiers.
This makes no sense.
The german constitution restricts drafting to men[0] and would have to be changed before such a law could even be considered.
Before you ask, yes, the constitution also says that men and women need to be treated equally[1]
Just to add, the current government does not have the necessary majority to make such a change. Therefore making a law which includes drafting women is legally impossible without opposition collaboration.
Is there anything in the constitution that forbids the government from requiring citizens to perform some kind of service to the government?
> Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, has voted to introduce voluntary military service...
> The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.
> The government says military service will be voluntary for as long as possible, but from July 2027, all 18-year-old men will have to take a medical exam to assess their fitness for possible military service.
> a form of compulsory military service could be considered by the Bundestag.
Well, that escalated quickly. There's nothing here that could be really described as "voluntary".
Military service was never abolished in Germany. It was only suspended in 2011 (and lots of people were celebrating even this small improvement).
In other words, it's functionally the same as Selective Service forms in the US.
Two, Germany, like most countries and frankly human populations, has a male surplus in its fighting-age population [1]. This is why, historically, large socities tended to wage war with men first. (Even those that e.g. held elite units in reserve, which undermines the usual biological argument.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#/media...
...why would you populate your army solely with the surplus? The point is you have a buffer that you can burn without immediately impacting your demographics for the long term.
> that is not the reason why men and not women go to war
It's a serious theory [1]. (It's more correct to say the surplus and it share a common cause.)
[1] https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_931
Made for a good story, reality is a bit more complex methinks. There's after all a lot of money to be made with war.
The "male surplus fighting-age population" in Germany will flee to the next European host or back to the MENA country they fled from if conscription begins.
this is what "patriarchy" actually looks like but you sure won't see anybody on the left complain about that....
Attacking people just because they are cis- and AMAB (assigned male as birth) isn't bad. Its your actions that determine good or bad.
And, throwing men into a potential meat grinder of war is unethical. Frankly, it should all be actual volunteer, and not this doublespeak shit of voluntarily required.
Theres also this now public problem. Do trans-women count as men or women? And do trans-men count as men or women? The best answer is "volunteer". But governments are weird, especially the conservative/fascist adjacent ones.
Which makes sense otherwise a lot of males would be able to opt out by claiming that they are women in their minds or souls or in enactment of gendered stereotypes or whatever it could possibly mean to identify as the opposite sex.
Men are the ones used as cannon fodder mostly because from a reproductive point of view they are more disposable. They also tend to be physically stronger so are more suited to many combat roles that require raw strength.
just no. Maybe next election when the AFD wins which also happens to be against this.
> Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal Fresse halten.
- Konrad Adenauer (1969)
that's the same "voluntary" they use for Chat Control, by the way.
Giving up the nukes allowed Ukraine to attract foreign aid and build an economy for 20 years before invasions began. Who knows what would have happened if they kept nukes and didn't get necessary aid and couldn't build their economy or maintain the weapons.
All sorts of questions to ask. Yes, if our timeline was otherwise unchanged, but the nukes were kept and maintained, it seems unlikely that invasion in 2014 would have happened... But it's a big change to the timeline to keep the weapons, and there's too many unknowns to predict the resulting changes. I do strongly suspect few countries will accept similar assurances in the future, unless under duress, but then Ukraine wasn't exactly free from duress at the time either.
Given how insistent the international community was on making sure those nukes were disposed of, and how economically devastated post Soviet countries were, I don’t think Ukraine stood any chance of having a nuclear deterrent.
I'm broadly sympathetic to the argument that the multipolar world we're in now makes a good case for nuclear weapons adoption. But Germany probably isn't the one Europe wants to arm itself. And even if it did, their Greens wouldn't allow it.
So does Montana. That doesn’t give Helena any sovereignty points.
Build nukes and plenty gigantic bunkers for the population, nothing else. And then follow the doctrine of immediate nuclear escalation upon any territorial infraction. Plane got off course in bad weather? Grab your Sauerkraut and bye bye Moscow.
It's an admirable attitude, but its popularity contributed to the outbreak of WWII.
Usually HN is very wary of the consequences of the state collecting data about its citizens and restricting freedoms in small steps. Is it not the case now?
But let's call it what it is: compulsed military service is slavery for the elite.
The guaranteed next step is to offer the volunteers a long term paid contract at the end of their term. This would probably be well above what they would be paid elsewhere (young men with no university degree, desperate enough to volunteer in the first place).
Run the scheme for a few years, and you will have a large number of, young, high-school-level educated people that are financially dependent on the army. Thus, a militarized society.
What could possibly go wrong?
On top of that there is a large dislike in the society against military system. To break that you won't just need "a few years", but likely ~2 generations of compulsory military service for both men and women (e.g. how Isreal does it), that forces a personal connection with the military for everyone.
And even with the new voluntary service the armed forces will be much smaller than the army of just West-Germany alone during the cold war (which was about 0.5 million).
It's time to wake up to the fact that the Cold War actually never ended.
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Thailand each have active conscription [1]. The slippery slop you describe is far from inevitable.
Also, if you have decades of mandatory conscription then there is no slope to slip. Germany on the other hand is now on a slope, since they regress from a fully professional army back to conscription. How much down they will slip, remains to be seen.
Active != mandatory.
> Mandatory conscription (which I have personally served) is for a fixed term, so your livelihood is not tied to the army paying your salary
You're seriously arguing that countries with mandatory conscription are less militarised than those with active (but not mandatory) conscription?
I don't know how the Selective Service requirement in the US works, so I can't answer this question.
> Or is it “easy” for the German government to establish a draft?
Such a (temporary) suspension can hypothetically terminated at any time by the government. The question is basically how the population will react. I guess if the suspension of the general conscription would be terminated by the government, there would be really furious public rallies (and I am rather certain that my boss would immediately attempt to approve a vacation request if I wanted to attend such a rally in Berlin if it happened during the work week - just as an "innocent" kind of support for this cause from behind the lines :-) ) because multiple generations got really radicalized against compulsory military service (I wrote about this topic at https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46177817 ).
This is why the German government currently attempts to approach the whole topic of quitting the suspension of compulsory military service so indirectly.
Hint:some of these events involved spheres of influence and control over resources in eastern europe!
EDIT: If you understand German, here is a song from 1972 about these brutal cross-examinations:
> Franz Josef Degenhardt - Befragung eines Kriegsdienstverweigerers
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDTtMTcj8X0
Additionally, the participation of Germany in the first aggressive wars in Yugoslavia in 1999 and then in Afghanistan from 2001 on (before citizens were told that the Bundeswehr is only a defense army, and would never participate in an aggressive war) lead to a radicalization of another generation against the Bundeswehr - and yes, this generation eagerly listened to the above-mentioned horror stories of the older generations. It is even rumored that this next generation's radicalization against the Bundeswehr indirectly lead to the suspension of the compulsory military service in Germany in 2011.
But I think you should legally be able to answer if you can think of anything between 1914 and 1945 that is taught to Germans in schools that might cause younger Germans to feel some aversion towards preparing to fight a land war against russia in eastern ukraine? Anything that maybe resulted in the premature deaths of millions of young german men, initially volunteers who were solicited at the secondary school level?
Massive political differences and ultimate outcomes aside for each conflict, Germany becoming increasingly militarized has a poor track record when it comes to not getting extremely large numbers of teenage german boys killed in eastern Ukraine.
Tbf, at least in West Germany people had a choice. In East Germany you ended up as 'Bausoldat': https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bausoldat, and you could forget about any 'carreer opportunities' for the rest of your life.
And as former East German who then went the 'Kriegsdienstverweigerer' path in unified Germany during the 90's I cannot complain about any discrimination or incorrect behaviour, all communication was perfectly correct and respectful and I didn't even have to show up anywhere in person (in hindsight it was a silly decision - but in the 90s it really looked for a little while like the Cold War might be over and armies would no longer be needed in Europe).
In the 90s, the situation was already very different - doing alternative national service (Zivildienst) instead of compulsory military service got a lot easier (possible exception of which I heard: you were very athletic - it was rumored that then they still made it much more inconvenient to refuse to do military service).
For good reasons, my references were from older generations - the trauma that they had to endure if they wanted do alternative national service (Zivildienst) instead of compulsory military service exactly did lead to the situation that it got much easier in the 90s to do alternative national service instead.
Not so long ago we were told a serious army has now to be a professional and highly trained army. Everything else was useless.
But they seem to plan to just draft young people and fight some sort WWI a bit like the nightmare in Ukraine.
But today Western Europe countries are not Ukraine. If they would engage in a war they would collapse into total chaos very quickly. Those are old, very divided and absolutely not resilient societies.
Just cutting the electricity for a week would collapse the cities. Starting with people putting the buildings on fire because they do not know how dangerous candles are.
"Training" young people for 6 months wouldn't change that.
This is a bit like what happened in WWII when Germany attacked country like Belgium or France. They went right through it because there were a dissymmetry between the German who had it really tough for 20 years and the Belgian or Frenchman at the time.
But the current head of NATO is a former HR at Unilever, so I guess he knows better.
If anything military service should have been kept everywhere in europe. Not for war, but for national cohesion, for some people it was the only time they'd get out of their little social bubble and stereotypes.
Also the Bundestag agreed in advance to activate conscription if not enough volunteers can be found (which, given the results in France, seems about as certain as the sun rising tomorrow)
In fact filling out the questionnaire at all seems risky.
One could say the "hacker ethics", love of freedom, tinkering goes beyond time, but this falls apart at any topic beyond that.
We should probably avoid posting shallow dismissals and remember that a good critical comment teaches us something.
Additionally, as your comment leaves readers wondering which parts of the divided comment section you deem "worthy of HN" and which you do not, I cannot help but think of this ambivalence as a method to spark reactions. Another word for this method would be "to bait", I think.
This is highly misandrist. I can’t believe that we are in 2025 and a - so called - democratic government is still denying women the opportunity to potentially go and die miserably in the front lines on equal footing with men.
We can surely do better. Women and girls deserve more.
Surely that’s the most noble of causes.
Is the idea that it’s better for your livelihood to just start learning how speak Russian now?
Looking at the parts of Eastern Ukraine that were under Russian occupation since 2014 and are now almost devoid of male population, that's what happens if you're not willing to fight in your own (European) army: sooner or later you end up fighting in the Russian one.
In other words we need a nuclear umbrella. Now that America is no longer our friend we need to build our own. It has worked very well to keep us safe since the 50s. And I don't think the French + English ones are sufficient deterrence anymore.
So please have some grace if today's kids have looked back at our miserable history and have decided that they'd rather not die for a country that doesn't seem to give a shit about them.
The only fairly recent war that the west was involved in that was slightly justified was the first gulf war. But even that wasn't really any of America's business. It wasn't that they actually cared about the Kuwaiti people. Just the oil.
Deaths and destruction in wars against significantly weaker countries are never for nothing, as certain well-connected people always get filthy rich, regardless of the end result. The ones who make the decisions, they always get their share, whether through the war hardware industry, mercenary business, the reconstruction industry, the resource exploitation industry, or something else. The wider population might end up worse off and poorer, but who has ever asked them about anything when there is so much money to be made by their ''democratic representatives'' if they play along?
The Venezuelan escalation happened after the Alaska Summit, and God knows what tradeoffs were made there verbally and with full deniability.
A strong army is only good if you have a strong, independent foreign policy. German chancellors used to be able to contradict the U.S., but that is no longer a given.
I don't think you'll find much sympathy for that class among the people this reform is targeting.
This all happened multiple times, and the only reason you can chuckle is ignorance.
Russia is threatening to fight Europe as of yesterday, continue to increase weapon production and militarisation. It is obvious that it just cannot stop as its economy and social order is switching more and more to the war-time. China backs russia up and officially declaring that it cannot allow Russia to lose.
The alliance which was created specifically to stop this scenario is now being neutralised by US withdrawing from it.
And you still call it "Russia/Putin nonsense". Do you live somewhere where you feel isolated from all of this?
Please tell me so I can go there as well. Because at the place where I live - Russians drones are flying over important infrastructure mapping it out without government/military being able to stop it. Russians propaganda fills social media, and politicians are corrupted by russia without hiding it too much.
I live in Germany so I'm fucked either way. I'm also aware of NATO expansion until a point where Russia couldn't ignore it anymore. You think Russia will attack Europe, I think the West is keen on fighting a war against Russia. I don't subscribe to any of the narratives you presented, especially since I think it obvious that its the West that finds itself having to wage a war because their currencies, social order and demographics needing a reset. NATO being a defensive alliance is a joke.
Since we're unlikely to come closer to an understanding I'll refrain from going further.
Sometimes it's just easier to agree to disagree.
May we all live through this somehow.
And the way it was keen on fighting a war is (check notes) _increase economic ties to the point that the whole of Germany's economic growth was dependent on Russian' gas_? Or to reduce military spending year over the year? Or to stop conscription in all countries?
It is completely a wild take for me to hear that the west was keen to fight a war with nuclear power by the means of reducing its fighting abilities to almost zero while the other side militarises? Am I having some crazy dream?
Honest question: why don't you emigrate to Russia since you seem to admire it so much? They are specifically looking for people who 'share Russian values', and Germany is on the 'white list' - so acquiring citizenship should be really easy and you don't need to live in a country you apparently seem to hate.
Here's how it works:
https://mid.ru/upload/medialibrary/aef/94mfg4ehws6kav1nk8bts...
This is the Russian way of putting it. Guess what, NATO doesn't "expand". Each and every NATO member had to apply for membership themselves, after a national decision to do so. Any guesses why all Russian neighbours want to be NATO members?
Are you?
Tell us — for how long has NATO been on russia's border?
> You think Russia will attack Europe
No, we have observed that russia has already attacked Europe.
that was a thing in East Germany not that long ago
Assuming you survive the initial wave of plunder, rape and murder of course.
Obviously, either path is undesirable. It would be nice if we could use some of those "undermining and overthrowing regimes we don't like" expertise on actual threats instead of countries that just want to nationalize their resources.
Honorable mention to Britain in America and Germany in France, where guerilla/resistance forces were instrumental in the eventual allied victories, even though the invaders were eventually toppled by outside armies.
I dunno, maybe Berliners would prefer becoming Ukrainian War-era Kyiv instead of WWII-era Paris after all.
Russians should only be treated with a very long stick.
Guerilla warfare is not winning, it is making things a huge mess.
Each to their own.
That said, it is still insultingly wrong to blame even America and the USSR together for starting 'all wars on the planet' since WWII.
To quote the great historians Chris Hughes and Roland Orzabal: "everybody wants to rule the world"
That said, for the first half of my life, much of Europe was under a literal occupation by Russia.
As a reminder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
