Might be a bit late for your liking, but starting from 1965, you can also find the radio top 40 hits for every week: https://www.top40.nl/top40/1965/week-1
I understand where you're coming from and, if that works for you, great (it works for me too).
I also think, we live in a society where labels have power and meaning. Being able to identify with stuff like girl power, because you are a girl or no shave november if you're a man can be a part of your identity and help place yourself in our society. Of course, you could try to participate in these initiatives without belonging to that label (or gender) but, for many people, the label makes it easier.
In the case of transgender, I think many transgender people make it a point of saying they are of their chosen gender. The label becomes relevant however, when we're talking about trans rights or discrimination, or when you are looking for people who share your challenges as a transgender. I'm ignoring here, the fact that transphobes assign a lot of importance to the "transsexual" label, they tend to disagree with your premise that gender is a social construct.
What do you mean "peace treaty"? Saying, "please abandon the allies that are afraid of us invading them or we're going to invade others before they can ask for help" is not a peace treaty.
It's not that we don't see the one sentence you insist is deliberately being ignored. We know that's the reason Putin gave for his war in Ukraine, I said so in my original comment. Stoltenberg knows that's the reason Putin gave, and he says so in his speech, which you quote. There's no secret treaty being hidden from NATO'member citizens, it is simply not in our interest to make it easier for Russia to attack our members...
I don't know if you're just a Russian troll but if you honestly think this blatand land-grab is justified, but going on Lemmy to lie about an article with a click-bait title that we can all read says nothing new is not going to be enough to sway support or erode western democracy.
The article doesn't say NATO intentionally provoked Russia. The article says NATO didn't give Russia exactly what it wanted and so Russia went to war. There is a difference between acknowledging that Putin has a narrative for why he invaded another souvereign country and saying you are the reason Russia invaded said country.
Literally nowhere in these remarks does it say "expansion" or "expansionism"...
pindapinda
joined 1 year ago
Good one!