Coming from a country bordering Russia and having had to deal with their bullshit for my entire life, the most frustrating thing about Russian bullshit is that if they could just be normal, they could be an actually wealthy and significant European country in a few decades. But no, they have always had this HUGE inferiority complex, which means that they need to continuously prove that they’re great, powerful and important. And the only way they know how to prove their greatness and importance is to flex their “power” on their neighbors, including by militarily expanding their borders, while most of their “peer” countries (most importantly pretty much all of Europe) have moved on from this sort of view of being “powerful” after WW2 by the latest.

Sure then, if you want to call it that. But did it work? Were countries not invaded by the US thanks to Swedish appeasement?

What I’m saying is, if China and Russia truly cared about what the US is doing, they could choose to sanction the US and the West just like the West is doing to Russia right now. Like you say, China throwing their weight in would certainly have an influence.

Sure they would, but not as much as Russia doing the same but much closer to Sweden.

Maybe they should stop being such goody-two-shoes then if they want to have an influence in the world.

Wars “breaking out” like it isn’t Russia invading everybody else lmao

Now you lost me, surely Hitler was being appeased by the Allies allowing him to do things they would’ve preferred him not to do?

Ah yes, Russia and China, so well known for following international law to the letter.

It’s not appeasement if the party being “appeased” is not opposed to you to begin with.

Because the US geopolitical goals and actions, while often reprehensible, generally speaking aren’t against Swedish interests, whereas Russia is a much more direct threat to Sweden.

Why does China keep appeasing the US by not sending weapons to support Russia?

Can you explain why Russia and China haven’t sanctioned the US if they are so opposed to what the US is doing?

Also funny how this “appeasement never works” fanaticism never applies to NATO and it’s members

Yeah, funny how Russia, China and friends haven’t sanctioned the US and other countries. They have the full right to do that instead of continuing to appease them.

Russia can’t conquer even a quarter of Ukraine, and they still invaded Ukraine. Sweden and Finland know that Russia can’t conquer them, and that knowledge has made them stay neutral in the past. But Russia has just shown with Ukraine that they might try anyway just because, and it’s a huge pain in the ass for Ukraine and for everybody else in Europe too. So it’s only natural that Sweden and Finland would like to avoid even being tried to be conquered by Russia.

And like we can see, the Russian invasion of Ukraine also impacts France, the UK, and Canada. It’s not that these countries have decided to brainlessly follow the US. They want to support other countries who are at more risk of being invaded by Russia because countries being invaded by Russia is a huge pain in the ass for everybody in the region, not just the country being invaded. So their foreign policy goals simply happen to line up with the US goals.

Ah yes the US foreign policy of “not being invaded by Russia”

I’ve always felt that biological warfare is a really stupid idea for everyone involved. Like, stuff like nuclear and chemical weapons is not nice, but the effects are relatively localized. With biological warfare though, there is no way to absolutely contain the pathogen and to prevent its spread in your own population.

No

Sometimes, initialism or alphabetism is used to refer to acronyms formed from the string of initials which are usually pronounced as individual letters

It’s a very deliberate phrasing, since not everyone agrees that initialisms are not acronyms.

Personally I think that “ackhually that’s an initialism not an acronym 🤓” is exactly the kind of ultimately irrelevant distinction that internet know-it-alls love to know and point out. I know because I used to be like that too when I was younger.

But often those distinctions are not universally acknowledged or useful in all contexts. Like how strawberries are not scientifically berries, but we still often group them as berries.

Nitpicking word definitions is pointless when the distinction being pointed out is not relevant for the conversation.

Initialisms are a type of acronym. All initialisms are acronyms but not all acronyms are initialisms.

Sometimes, initialism or alphabetism is used to refer to acronyms formed from the string of initials which are usually pronounced as individual letters

Japan has various earthquake notification systems. Tweets are just one more way to get the information to the people on a platform they use.