挂路灯人

Given her influence relating to Libya and Yugoslavia you might still be right

This is more what I was thinking of with putting her ahead but “super predator” is just fucked up.

Red Star OS

😱

That’s definitely an argument that could be made I simply think number 1 is too hotly contended for him to make the cut. Honestly I’d put Hillary “Super Predator” Clinton over Biden and she’s certainly not number 1.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch

I disagree. In large text calling civilians responsible for the war and then depicting them as combatants has very clear implications.

Russia is the only one firing rockets and drones at hospitals and schools

Not really true unfortunately, there’s the starobilsk dormitory and the Novoaidar district hospital strikes off the top of my head not to mind the shelling of civilians in the Donbas since 2014. It’s not really a one side or the other in this war when it comes to crimes (not that it has ever been such is the horror of war).

I think Biden is arguably the most destructive American politician in living memory.

There’s some really strong competition for that spot. Reagan, Kissinger, both Bushs’, Obama, and more

There’s certain implications to having the matryoshka doll labeled ordinary Russians holding a rifle wouldn’t you say?

One of the more interesting exercises in the building and burning of a strawman I’ve read in recent times that still managed to stumble upon some sparse valid points.

For the sake of your hypothetical if we say this article was instead about modern Russia leveraging ai for chemical research that had a clear through line to weaponization, I would call anyone who thought they weren’t exploring those avenues incredibly naive.

If I had said that about China, that would also be Chauvinist.

Would it not?

But these aren’t equivalent due to the vastly different histories of the 2 countries. Taking history into account isn’t chauvinism. Is it not perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the country that pardoned Unit731 and then used their knowledge to terrorise Vietnam and Korea with chemical and biological weapons (many that have lasting effects to this date), that employed biological terrorism on its own minority populations such as through the Tuskegee syphilis study or operation big buzz?

Not trusting a serial killer with a loaded shotgun isn’t chauvinism, it’s common sense.

Edit: Just to add that if America did not have the history it does it would be chauvinism however it does and as such it is only reasonable to be sceptical.

Is it chauvinism to judge a country on its long history of bio and chemical terrorism/warfare rather than taking them at their word that they’re not going to do it this time?