Multiple reasons can be achieved if the area is destabilize. The best way to do that by having an outpost there. Keep in mind The base mainly in Syria but they claim the attack was on a tower in Jordan where the Jordinian officials claim it was in Syria.
By having a base there they can support local tribs to fight the Syrian Government, allowing Israel to take the golan highest and expanding on that front.
They can support the kurds to control oil rich regions in exchange for oil.
They can play victim if they want to have a war again in the middle east in case of economic needs.
Finally it is a step forward to the great kingdom of Israel that people pretend it is not a plan.
Considering the war in ukr rn exists bc nobody helped ukr the first time, I think we should give the right message to Putin so that it doesn't start another war
Do you realize that if the west had not intervened, the war would be over, Ukraine would have more territory, and tens to hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive?
Sure, but I we can look at the actual facts and see that giving Ukraine money has harmed them in the long run and they are about to lose so why have them waste more lives instead of negotiate?
Lying is like breathing to them. I'm not surprised at all. And after watching it go on for approximately my whole life, I'm not surprised their voters believe them, either.
Russia isnt doing a genocide, they're just Fighting a war over land. You can tell by the fact that Putin speaks about Crimeans as if they're equivalent to Russians, while Israel has made it clear they consider all Palestinians to be animals.
Which is usually fine, but not for a thing we vowed “never again” for.
The Gaza genocide is exactly what they vowed "never again" for. Meir Kahane meant the Jews would resort to the most vicious methods to avoid being victimised again. It's was always a pro-ethnic violence slogan.
Even more technically, the line between dialect and language is a blurry one, decided in part by the speakers' intent and identity. British English, American English, Canadian English, Australian English, and Indian English are dialects, but Scots is its own language? Danish, Swedish, and Norweigan are separate languages, but Française French and Québécois French are dialects?
English speakers tend to have a very binary view of language vs. dialect, because English exists in this weird linguistic zone where its closest living relatives are all.. slightly different English. Sure, it can be a bit difficult to grok some terms from across the pond, but with a short list of vocab words you can generally understand other Englishes just fine, whereas you'll understand other languages pretty much not at all. There's not really any mutually-intelligible other languages that English speakers can more-or-less communicate with. At best, you can pick out a handful of similarities in germanic/scandi languages because of shared heritage.
That's not the case, globally. The Scandinavians (sans Finland) can all talk to each other, (the old running joke of <x language> sounds like <y language> drunk and/or with a potato in their mouth) but they're "different languages". Germans and the Dutch can generally understand each other, maybe not at full speaking speed, but at very least reading. A lot of African languages are essentially a spectrum of regional variants on each other, and so speakers of one will be able to make themselves understood to varying degrees to speakers of another depending on how far diverged they are; the same is largely true for the Middle East. But then we say Portugal and Brazil both speak Portugese; Spain and Mexico both speak Spanish. Even though there's quite the adjustment period for a person from one visiting the other.
There's no objective standard of what's "dialect" and what's "different language", but a large deciding factor is clearly national identity; people from different countries usually speak different languages (again, English is rather an outlier). The language spoken in Ukraine is not identical to standard Russian. They're at least as different from each other as some separate languages. So if Ukranians say they speak the Ukrainian language, not Ukrainian Russian, that's their call.
By what definition? Is it really mutual intelligible? I speak neither but from what I know, the pronunciation differs hugely and the vocabulary since Russian is influenced by Old Church Slavonic while Ukrainian has many loan words from Polish (which more often than not originate in Germanic languages).
Also: Someone smart once that a language is a dialect with a navi and an army and Ukraine has both, even though Putin would wish they didn't
If Russia plans to genocide Ukraine they would have the war with more force similar to what Israel doing in gaza. In 2 years the death toll in Ukraine vs Russia has been exceeded im 2 months by Israel.
If Russia goal is a genocide then they need to re-evaluate their approach because they are not doing right.
They definitely comitted war crimes but intent of genocide has not been clear compare to what Israel is doing.
You can support Ukraine position but I don't think calling Russia attack as genocidal is accurate.
What Russians are doing might or might not be genocide in the strictest sense. But it definitely is cultural genocide, since their goal is to wipe out the Ukrainian identity, language and culture. Russianization is what Russia has always done to other peoples they have subjugated over the centuries.
Whatever Putin says should obviously be considered of high information value because it bears so much honesty, integrity and insight. Thank you for reminding us all!
