The fact that you are incapable of even acknowledging the crimes of NATO tells me everything I need to know about you.
What I said is pretty clear and doesn’t require verbal diarrhea to reinterpret. All you do here is keep moralizing, but you’re not addressing the root problem I’ve identified.
The reality of the situation is that Russia will do what Russia thinks is best for it, and NATO will do what NATO thinks is best for its members. And if both sides continue thinking that escalating tensions is what best then we will all die, but idiots will die smugly because they will feel they had moral superiority.
You refuse to acknowledge the fact that NATO is objectively responsible for far more horrific crimes than anything Russia has done. This is a well documented historical fact. If you can’t even bring yourself to admit this, that shows how utterly morally bankrupt you are.
I’m doing the opposite of moralizing here by pointing out that neither side has any high ground, and the only way forward is to de-escalate through diplomacy instead of moralizing and taking some imaginary moral high ground.
I’ve repeatedly explained how you de-escalate. Perhaps go back and read what I said until you’ve managed to comprehend it. There are many examples of this throughout history, but I guess being an utter ignoramus that you are, that will be news to you. I recommend reading up on the Cold War as a prime example where both sides managed to de-escalate and reduce their nuclear stock piles as well as avoid direct military conflict. You are a shockingly ignorant individual if you can’t even think of a single case of how two sides that dislike each other managed to avoid war through politics.
Of course I condemn atrocities that Russia committed as well as the invasion, why wouldn’t I?
Meanwhile, do you condemns atrocities that NATO committed in Yugoslavia, Libya, and other countries it destroyed? I think we both already know where you stand there though.
Finland was not a threat to Russia, and Russia was not threatening Finland in any way last I checked. However, now that Finland will join NATO it will turn itself into a threat to Russia because NATO will now be able to put nuclear missiles on Russian border that will be able to reach major Russian cities in minutes. This was precisely the concern Russia had in Ukraine where NATO nuclear missiles could hit Moscow within five minutes.
And last: if we both know the reasons for the war, why do you keep arguing?
I’m simply explaining to you what real world solutions are that don’t involve a nuclear holocaust. You’re the one arguing here and refusing to accept reality of the situation.
Russia tried to make peace with NATO for 30 years since the collapse of USSR, and even asked to join NATO at one point. Throughout this whole time the west continued to escalate tensions with Russia and expanded NATO dramatically despite original assurances that it wouldn’t. Now you’re telling me that it’s a fault of Russia’s politics that they’ve reacted to this?
Your options how to de-escalate includes “bending the knee” which we discussed before. That only works in fantasies.
My options of how to de-escalate includes being realistic about Russia’s economic and military capability. You are the one who are talking about fantasies. So far, you have yet to explain what you’re proposing here aside from a nuclear holocaust.
The thing is that NATO has destroyed numerous countries over the years and has always taken a hostile stance towards Russia. It’s not surprising to anyone who has even a handful of functioning brain cells why Russia would perceive NATO as a threat.
NATO is literally an aggressive military alliance that HAS invaded multiple countries in the past 30 years. If you’re going to lie at least lie about something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds. It’s strange that you would choose such an obvious thing to lie about.
If you don’t understand that a nuclear holocaust is a very likely outcome then you’re far dumber than I’ve thought.
Your opinions about de-escalation works in Russia’s favor, not Finland’s. And actually that tells everything about the rest of your opinions.
Utterly bizarre statement given that Russia never threatened Finland in any way until it decided to join NATO. Furthermore, it’s not clear what benefit Finland gets from being part of NATO since it’s pretty clear that NATO would support Finland in case of a war. Once you read the article 5, you’ll realize that the level of support that Ukraine received is above and beyond what it requires.
All Finland has done is to increase the possibility of being involved in a conflict with a nuclear superpower. Some real galaxy brain logic here.
Your fundamental mistake is in asserting that NATO provides some added protection. There is no real basis for this fact. Ukraine had a military that’s far greater than any NATO military aside from US. Their military is also the only European military with any combat experience from 8 years of civil war.
If Russia is able to defeat this army then there is little chance that the rest of NATO would fare any better. While US has a large and capable military, it’s not committed to the European theater.
If Finland and Sweden were looking at their best interests then they would remain neutral.
The fact that you are incapable of even acknowledging the crimes of NATO tells me everything I need to know about you.
What I said is pretty clear and doesn’t require verbal diarrhea to reinterpret. All you do here is keep moralizing, but you’re not addressing the root problem I’ve identified.
The reality of the situation is that Russia will do what Russia thinks is best for it, and NATO will do what NATO thinks is best for its members. And if both sides continue thinking that escalating tensions is what best then we will all die, but idiots will die smugly because they will feel they had moral superiority.
deleted by creator
You refuse to acknowledge the fact that NATO is objectively responsible for far more horrific crimes than anything Russia has done. This is a well documented historical fact. If you can’t even bring yourself to admit this, that shows how utterly morally bankrupt you are.
I’m doing the opposite of moralizing here by pointing out that neither side has any high ground, and the only way forward is to de-escalate through diplomacy instead of moralizing and taking some imaginary moral high ground.
I’ve repeatedly explained how you de-escalate. Perhaps go back and read what I said until you’ve managed to comprehend it. There are many examples of this throughout history, but I guess being an utter ignoramus that you are, that will be news to you. I recommend reading up on the Cold War as a prime example where both sides managed to de-escalate and reduce their nuclear stock piles as well as avoid direct military conflict. You are a shockingly ignorant individual if you can’t even think of a single case of how two sides that dislike each other managed to avoid war through politics.
Of course I condemn atrocities that Russia committed as well as the invasion, why wouldn’t I?
Meanwhile, do you condemns atrocities that NATO committed in Yugoslavia, Libya, and other countries it destroyed? I think we both already know where you stand there though.
Finland was not a threat to Russia, and Russia was not threatening Finland in any way last I checked. However, now that Finland will join NATO it will turn itself into a threat to Russia because NATO will now be able to put nuclear missiles on Russian border that will be able to reach major Russian cities in minutes. This was precisely the concern Russia had in Ukraine where NATO nuclear missiles could hit Moscow within five minutes.
I’m simply explaining to you what real world solutions are that don’t involve a nuclear holocaust. You’re the one arguing here and refusing to accept reality of the situation.
deleted by creator
Russia tried to make peace with NATO for 30 years since the collapse of USSR, and even asked to join NATO at one point. Throughout this whole time the west continued to escalate tensions with Russia and expanded NATO dramatically despite original assurances that it wouldn’t. Now you’re telling me that it’s a fault of Russia’s politics that they’ve reacted to this?
My options of how to de-escalate includes being realistic about Russia’s economic and military capability. You are the one who are talking about fantasies. So far, you have yet to explain what you’re proposing here aside from a nuclear holocaust.
The thing is that NATO has destroyed numerous countries over the years and has always taken a hostile stance towards Russia. It’s not surprising to anyone who has even a handful of functioning brain cells why Russia would perceive NATO as a threat.
NATO is literally an aggressive military alliance that HAS invaded multiple countries in the past 30 years. If you’re going to lie at least lie about something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds. It’s strange that you would choose such an obvious thing to lie about.
If you don’t understand that a nuclear holocaust is a very likely outcome then you’re far dumber than I’ve thought.
deleted by creator
Utterly bizarre statement given that Russia never threatened Finland in any way until it decided to join NATO. Furthermore, it’s not clear what benefit Finland gets from being part of NATO since it’s pretty clear that NATO would support Finland in case of a war. Once you read the article 5, you’ll realize that the level of support that Ukraine received is above and beyond what it requires.
All Finland has done is to increase the possibility of being involved in a conflict with a nuclear superpower. Some real galaxy brain logic here.
deleted by creator
Your fundamental mistake is in asserting that NATO provides some added protection. There is no real basis for this fact. Ukraine had a military that’s far greater than any NATO military aside from US. Their military is also the only European military with any combat experience from 8 years of civil war.
If Russia is able to defeat this army then there is little chance that the rest of NATO would fare any better. While US has a large and capable military, it’s not committed to the European theater.
If Finland and Sweden were looking at their best interests then they would remain neutral.