European leaders travel to Kyiv

Post Reply New Topic

I'd only take it seriously if Moscow were surrounded and on the verge of falling.



Immigration is invasion. They won't have to invade the traditional way at this rate.

You know... just board a train to a city with high immigration rates (say, London or Vienna) and then board another train, to a city that has been invaded (why not Mariupol? Okay, trains don't reach there - but they still reach Kyiv).

It's just slower, less obvious and with fewer explosions. The end result is the same.

Violent death of thousands, devastation of infrastructure, shortages in medicine, fuel and food, destroyed homes, schools, hospitals and 15 years in jail if you talk about it on the "wrong" side of the border?

You're thinking about it the wrong way. What is the point of invasion?

If you expect "influencing another country" or something like this as an answer, then you could as well claim that getting a job is the same as brutally robbing your potential employer - because the end goal is that you get money from them.

It wasn't a trick question. Invasion is done to conquer or otherwise control a territory for any given purpose - plunder, prestige, security etc. The end result of a successful invasion is the invaded people lose control and are forced to do or be subject to something they did not want. In this case the objective is to control Ukraine to assuage a fear of Russia's - specifically to force Ukraine to distance itself from NATO and promise never to allow NATO or probably any foreign troops on their soil again.

Immigration has the exact same effect on a population subjected to it, especially if the immigrants are from cultures and people more distant from their own - they lose control, they have change forced upon them from the outside. How quickly that happens depends on who is coming and the level of immigration, and it's not just through the obvious in a democracy, where immigrants become voting blocks that politicians pander to in order to score points. Democracy or not, there is cultural, religious or ethnic friction, sometimes violent; parallel economies form, parallel societies, competition arises for the territory's natural and economic resources. It is solved in the end by either Balkanisation or genocidal wars - wars far worse than the one in Ukraine at the moment.

So, you find all the destruction insignificant? That's exactly what I said: it's like saying that getting a job and robbing the employer is the same. No, it's not.

And, by the way, no. Immigration typically results in cultural mixing and influence both directions (even more commonly, in multiple directions, as you rarely have a single source of immigrants).

You mean she's thinking of what separates immigration from an invasion. In this context the wrong way is synonymous for in a manner that doesn't support my conclusions.

What in my post prompted that?



Hehe. No. Though in your nice, safe, homogenous, somewhat racist little country and your nationalist anti-immigration government protecting you from diversity, it is probably easy for you to imagine such nonsense to be true. You derided my opinions for me not having lived in formerly Soviet territories in another thread, perhaps I should demand you go live in some formerly pleasant now-diversified Western s**tholes, perhaps one of England's northern towns. Peoples and cultures generally do not mix on anything other than a completely superficial level - they displace, they conquer, they excise one another, by hook or crook.



There is an obvious difference between someone entering another country riding in a bus or riding in a tank - a comparison so obvious it need not be made. It should have been plain that I was looking at a bigger canvass. If anything I was being polite and patient.

Then we are in agreement.

Ban the bastardo, permanently! <joke>