"Russia, Ukraine, and multiple international news agencies reported that Ukrainian drones targeted Moscow on or around May 18, 2026."
There are rarely pure first-order "facts" in the mathematical sense. There are evidence-backed claims with confidence levels. That does not make it "just a litmus test". It makes it a probabilistic factual claim with varying confidence levels - and this one happens to be verified and unambiguous.
It is a combination of moving fast and slow. A lot of Canadians now avoid purchasing products from the US were possible. Mean while their government while still dependent on the US is making the moves that will minimise their dependence on them over the coming decades.
I am seeing similar positions in other countries now.
Your first comment was subjective in general, and suspiciously pro-right anti-left - in my opinion.
You could have left it at that.
Instead you decided on an emotional outburst due to being downvoted by "idiots" - giving us all an absolute textbook example of "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
Counterpoint from my time in a brutal warzone, as a civilian.
Maybe if you voluntarily join the military of a country known for invasions and war, you're not that helpless to begin with. And, if you get sent to another country with the goal to kill soldiers and civilians, and you yourself get killed by a drone it’s not that chilling.
I'm not American and I was not thinking from the perspective of an American inclined to join the US military.
Moreover consider that the situation sucks both for the soldier being blown up and also for the one doing the blowing up. If I were to be a soldier, I would like the option of taking the enemy prisoner if I could, instead of having to needlessly turn them into minced meat. I think, it is a very human desire to make war, less cruel.
The positive aspect of drones is that maybe war will turn in a purely economic contest, drones against drones, until one side has exhausted their supply and are forced to declare defeat.
> I'm not American and I was not thinking from the perspective of an American inclined to join the US military.
I would have thought your first inclination would be to say you're not Russian and not thinking from the perspective of a Russian inclined to join in on the unjust invasion of Ukraine.
But you could also perhaps look at it from the perspective of someone who is a member of Hamas, bombing and attacking civilian targets, or the IRGC launching one of the hundreds to thousands of drone attacks unjustly.
> The positive aspect of drones is that maybe war will turn in a purely economic contest, drones against drones, until one side has exhausted their supply and are forced to declare defeat.
I think in an age of more deadly drone warfare and less human intervention you'll start to see more deaths and more destruction.
So what about when your warzone turns into a peace zone, civilians start to move back in, and autonomous drones left behind by militaries start to kill them?
There are still countries in the world that have landmines from previous wars, after all.
This is where just a refusal to participate comes in. I think I've posted this or other Tolstoy stuff on here before, but Tolstoy makes the best point about this:
> And to this question, for a person who understands the true meaning of military service and who wants to be moral, there is only one clear and incontrovertible answer: such a person must refuse to take part in military service no matter what consequences this refusal may have.
That's fine while we're talking about countries with all volunteer militaries, but that list does not include any of Russia, Ukraine, Iran, nor Israel.
Congress has merely secured the financial pool; the decision on whether and how the money will be spent ultimately lies with the Secretary of War (Defense).
This is such a cunningly disingenuous portrayal though when you're just leaving it at that, the US has provided billions in aid already and allocated hundreds of million more for this year. Yet the counter argument here is to just ignore all of that and pretend like they've gotten zero through omission of all the times they haven't, while relying on a totally uncited assertion that none of this year's allocation has been spent.
Sure but the question is are they helping the U.S. that helped them. It's pretty clear that the Trump administration is a completely different beast than typical US administration. Look at things like its pro offensive war stance (see unofficial name change of DoD) or that it does not support Ukraine (see lack of funding/intelligence since Trump). Maybe Ukraine will think it's supporting the Americans that helped them and hurting the Americans that are pro or compromised by Russia by withholding aid and letting Trump wallow in what he's reaped.
I'll add that trump has made clear that U.S. administrations are not beholden to previous international policy decisions and so unless congress reins in the executive or trustworthy actors hold the mantle again other nations should treat the US with short term policy decisions in mind and not rely on long term reciprocation.
"Russia, Ukraine, and multiple international news agencies reported that Ukrainian drones targeted Moscow on or around May 18, 2026."
There are rarely pure first-order "facts" in the mathematical sense. There are evidence-backed claims with confidence levels. That does not make it "just a litmus test". It makes it a probabilistic factual claim with varying confidence levels - and this one happens to be verified and unambiguous.