It's not about Russia. If you ignore someone's feelings or interests, you are responsible for consequences.
If they are unreasonable demands, I can ignore them. And if I then get attacked I have legal rights to defend myself. And the attacker is solely responsible for any consequences, not the defender.
They must ask nicely if they have no unreasonable requests.
When did Russia ask nicely?
They must ask nicely if they have no unreasonable requests.
When did Russia ask nicely?
Well, they actually asked to join NATO a few times. It also happens that a gun is needed to support nice words.
@what_game_is_this said in #32:
> If they are unreasonable demands, I can ignore them.
This is tricky because it may be reasonable and important for them.
> If they are unreasonable demands, I can ignore them.
This is tricky because it may be reasonable and important for them.
Putin is winning. Ukraine would have been dead long ago if USA /West didnt supply arms... About Putin's lifespan he sure can live upto 10 years more
#34
Oh no, I don't by that.
"Give me all your money"
Oh no, I don't by that.
"Give me all your money"
@what_game_is_this said in #22:
> If the nuclear scare would be real we would first se several nuclear tests. We are not close to those yet.
Not sure if this is exactly what you were talking about, but just recently there was a test:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13106419/British-nuclear-submarine-missile-misfire.html
> If the nuclear scare would be real we would first se several nuclear tests. We are not close to those yet.
Not sure if this is exactly what you were talking about, but just recently there was a test:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13106419/British-nuclear-submarine-missile-misfire.html
@Aluminium-27 said in #29:
> Then it's not Russia's responsibility if they are forced to start a war in response. Just like in chess, it's not that hard to put your opponent in a situation "capture or lose".
I'm sorry but if that is the same old argument being repeated by Mearsheimer et al. that NATO is responsible for the war, if you listen to the latest interview of Putin by Tucker Carlson, Tucker actually asks him multiple times is NATO the cause? Is NATO the cause?
Putin repeatedly states that it is more the case that Ukraine was simply always a part of Russia. That is why Putin goes on those long historical rants in his speeches where he says the collapse of the USSR was the worst thing to happen in history (worse than the holocaust), and that Ukraine should never have existed and was always considered part of Russia. This is not about NATO. Putin himself admits it. If Putin disagrees with you then your geopolitical analysis is wrong.
And second, if NATO were so threatening, you do realize Finland joined NATO in April 2023, after the war in Ukraine right? That is over half of Russia's border with Europe, in one single baltic country. Do you know what Putin said at a press conference on the subject? He said he doesn't care. They are not a threat to us. But that if they join they will move troops to the border as a precaution. That is a massive contradiction with the idea that Ukraine represents some unique security threat with NATO on the border. Ukraine wasn't even a part of NATO when Russia invaded, much less were there any plans to militarize.
And lastly, it is up to Ukraine to join whatever military alliance it wants. It was never up to Russia. If another country wants security guarantees, that's up to them. Russia can't legally tell Ukraine what pacts they can or cannot enter. It is just total nonsense. If you want to go back to 1950s outdated legal theory (something Mearsheimer specializes in) with spheres of influence, something rejected by the UN, then you can try to argue that Ukraine has no right to self-determination. The rest of us in the modern world disagree. That is the only problem here. Putin is stuck in cold war mentality and thinks he still owns Ukraine. But he doesn't and he has to get used to that.
> Then it's not Russia's responsibility if they are forced to start a war in response. Just like in chess, it's not that hard to put your opponent in a situation "capture or lose".
I'm sorry but if that is the same old argument being repeated by Mearsheimer et al. that NATO is responsible for the war, if you listen to the latest interview of Putin by Tucker Carlson, Tucker actually asks him multiple times is NATO the cause? Is NATO the cause?
Putin repeatedly states that it is more the case that Ukraine was simply always a part of Russia. That is why Putin goes on those long historical rants in his speeches where he says the collapse of the USSR was the worst thing to happen in history (worse than the holocaust), and that Ukraine should never have existed and was always considered part of Russia. This is not about NATO. Putin himself admits it. If Putin disagrees with you then your geopolitical analysis is wrong.
And second, if NATO were so threatening, you do realize Finland joined NATO in April 2023, after the war in Ukraine right? That is over half of Russia's border with Europe, in one single baltic country. Do you know what Putin said at a press conference on the subject? He said he doesn't care. They are not a threat to us. But that if they join they will move troops to the border as a precaution. That is a massive contradiction with the idea that Ukraine represents some unique security threat with NATO on the border. Ukraine wasn't even a part of NATO when Russia invaded, much less were there any plans to militarize.
And lastly, it is up to Ukraine to join whatever military alliance it wants. It was never up to Russia. If another country wants security guarantees, that's up to them. Russia can't legally tell Ukraine what pacts they can or cannot enter. It is just total nonsense. If you want to go back to 1950s outdated legal theory (something Mearsheimer specializes in) with spheres of influence, something rejected by the UN, then you can try to argue that Ukraine has no right to self-determination. The rest of us in the modern world disagree. That is the only problem here. Putin is stuck in cold war mentality and thinks he still owns Ukraine. But he doesn't and he has to get used to that.
@what_game_is_this said in #28:
> Russia have no right to decide the security arrangements of other countries.
Yeah, only US have that right.
US imposes sanctions on Turkey over Russia weapons
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55311099
Nord Stream 2: German FM 'displeased' at US sanctions threat
www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-germany-displeased-at-us-sanctions-threat/a-54517561
In case you missed the final season: it finally "exploded".
> Russia have no right to decide the security arrangements of other countries.
Yeah, only US have that right.
US imposes sanctions on Turkey over Russia weapons
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55311099
Nord Stream 2: German FM 'displeased' at US sanctions threat
www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-germany-displeased-at-us-sanctions-threat/a-54517561
In case you missed the final season: it finally "exploded".
Oh, the old:
Wrongs by X makes wrongs by Y right...
Wrongs by X makes wrongs by Y right...
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.