"In the 'battle for Ukraine,' the neocons were ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia's vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry."
You continue to contradict yourself. You said I haven’t given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things. Pick a lane. If you want me to magically distill decades of geopolitics for you into a single sentence that’s not going to happen. If you want to understand the subject you’re attempting to debate here then spend the time reading about it instead of arguing on the internet.
The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario. Then the west and Ukraine proceeded to ignore these agreements, and now neither the west nor Russia are willing to back down.
And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn’t actually solve anything and it’s not in any way productive. It’s just a way to make yourself feel righteous.
What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can’t come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that’s a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.
Hah full blown aggression, I hope you’re paid per ascii character.
Pick a lane.
I’ve told you my lane. My heels are in the sand, and I call out bullshit wherever I see it. You’re just so far on one side you can’t acknowledge that I’m on your side with some things.
You said I haven’t given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things.
I summarised this:
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
That was basically what your handful of links from Western scholars said.
In saying that, I was far more specific than you have been. If you wish to challenge me on any particular point, I welcome that, particularly as these are points you’re supposed to be presenting.
Please, give me a specific point to mull over. So far it’s been either generic or diverting.
The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario.
Yes, the Minsk agreements were created to avoid Russia invading more of Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the rest of the world wanted them to stop, now Russia is continuing their invasion.
Nevermind the fact that the agreement basically broke down completely in 2015, well before Russia mobilised in 2022.
And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn’t actually solve anything and it’s not in any way productive. It’s just a way to make yourself feel righteous.
You’re trying to make out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is some sort of forgone conclusion. It wasn’t. It was an active decision to invade and kill people.
What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can’t come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that’s a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.
And there we have it, full blown threats. If Russia can’t get its way, if Russia can’t claim the territory it wants, nukes will fly.
I am accutely aware of the threat of nukes, far more than you know. That won’t discourage me from calling out bullshit regardless.
It’s pretty clear that meaningful discussion is not possible here. I’ve explained my position to you repeatedly, and you just continue to regurgitate the same tropes you started with. Nobody is making any threats, I’ve simply explained to you where this all leads if neither side is willing to negotiate. You just keep using straw man arguments to misrepresent what I say. If you had even the most basic understanding of what the threat of a nuclear war means then you wouldn’t be writing the drivel that you are. Enjoy having the last word since you clearly need to.
You continue to contradict yourself. You said I haven’t given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things. Pick a lane. If you want me to magically distill decades of geopolitics for you into a single sentence that’s not going to happen. If you want to understand the subject you’re attempting to debate here then spend the time reading about it instead of arguing on the internet.
The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario. Then the west and Ukraine proceeded to ignore these agreements, and now neither the west nor Russia are willing to back down.
And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn’t actually solve anything and it’s not in any way productive. It’s just a way to make yourself feel righteous.
What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can’t come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that’s a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.
Hah full blown aggression, I hope you’re paid per ascii character.
I’ve told you my lane. My heels are in the sand, and I call out bullshit wherever I see it. You’re just so far on one side you can’t acknowledge that I’m on your side with some things.
I summarised this:
That was basically what your handful of links from Western scholars said.
In saying that, I was far more specific than you have been. If you wish to challenge me on any particular point, I welcome that, particularly as these are points you’re supposed to be presenting.
Please, give me a specific point to mull over. So far it’s been either generic or diverting.
Yes, the Minsk agreements were created to avoid Russia invading more of Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the rest of the world wanted them to stop, now Russia is continuing their invasion.
Nevermind the fact that the agreement basically broke down completely in 2015, well before Russia mobilised in 2022.
You’re trying to make out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is some sort of forgone conclusion. It wasn’t. It was an active decision to invade and kill people.
And there we have it, full blown threats. If Russia can’t get its way, if Russia can’t claim the territory it wants, nukes will fly.
I am accutely aware of the threat of nukes, far more than you know. That won’t discourage me from calling out bullshit regardless.
It’s pretty clear that meaningful discussion is not possible here. I’ve explained my position to you repeatedly, and you just continue to regurgitate the same tropes you started with. Nobody is making any threats, I’ve simply explained to you where this all leads if neither side is willing to negotiate. You just keep using straw man arguments to misrepresent what I say. If you had even the most basic understanding of what the threat of a nuclear war means then you wouldn’t be writing the drivel that you are. Enjoy having the last word since you clearly need to.