The invasion of Iraq started in the early 00s.
Ukraine had troops in Syria, helping DAESH at least in 2024.
NATO’s current invasion of Iran (which Ukraine participates in) started early this year.
If you actually opposed invasions, you would have called for Ukraine to be punished.
You don’t need to convinced me that Ukraine is not innocent in any capacity. Hell, you can even punish and deter in some capacities. You are not going to convince me those crimes amount to the need to have a full scale irridentist invasion that has killed so many people in both countries.
So, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Also, I can’t help but notice that you still use the “FULL SCALE INVASION” propaganda that the people that sold you on Iraq’s WMDs want you to regurgitate.
So, responding to NATO’s aggression is the same as NATO constantly invading everywhere?
Also, again, the “FULL SCALE INVASION” is very obvious pro-NATO propaganda.
Going to ask my question again, since I did not get an answer:
what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Also maybe not do things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.
I wish I knew as little as you about world events. Iran had a fatwa against nuclear weapons the idea of them trying to make them was as true as Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
That part is entirely true!
However, as you are certainly aware, given your immense knowledge about world events, many country leaders have previously said one thing and done a different thing. From the publicly available data I can gather, Iran was not complying with international agreements they had ratified regarding enrichment limits up to about 2015. Given the publicly available information, I am willing to believe that Iran actually did not further their nuclear weapons program under JCPOA between 2015 and 2018. I don’t believe there is much doubt that they have since picked their nuclear weapons program back up; at the very least after the US re-introduced sanctions.
On a side note tying this back to the original discussion: Ukraine did have nuclear weapons and gave them up only under broad guarantees of continued independence… so… yeah.
After they invaded many other nations beforehand?
Ukraine has also invaded Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and you are perfectly fine with that.
??? When?
The invasion of Iraq started in the early 00s.
Ukraine had troops in Syria, helping DAESH at least in 2024.
NATO’s current invasion of Iran (which Ukraine participates in) started early this year.
If you actually opposed invasions, you would have called for Ukraine to be punished.
TIL they had 6000 troops in the Iraq invasion.
You don’t need to convinced me that Ukraine is not innocent in any capacity. Hell, you can even punish and deter in some capacities. You are not going to convince me those crimes amount to the need to have a full scale irridentist invasion that has killed so many people in both countries.
So, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Also, I can’t help but notice that you still use the “FULL SCALE INVASION” propaganda that the people that sold you on Iraq’s WMDs want you to regurgitate.
The US and Ukraine are different countries?
Also is it not? Russia is doing America shit.
The latter is a de facto subject of the former.
So, responding to NATO’s aggression is the same as NATO constantly invading everywhere?
Also, again, the “FULL SCALE INVASION” is very obvious pro-NATO propaganda.
Going to ask my question again, since I did not get an answer:
what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Get your own troops there and chill.
Also maybe not do things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.
Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.
Good, so we agree that simply being invaded does not suddenly put a government on the right side of history.
There’s a bit of a difference between a punch to the face and a punch to the face in return. Or are we going to pretend these are the same thing?
We’re not talking about a bar fight dude, we’re talking about eight years of ethnic cleansing and the threat of being nuked within minutes.
I hear the best way to prevent being nuked is turning a cold war into a hot war.
The best way to avoid being nuked is to ensure those interested in nuking you don’t have first strike capabilities no matter the cost.
I did not expect to find a supporter of the US bombing of Iran in this discussion.
I wish I knew as little as you about world events. Iran had a fatwa against nuclear weapons the idea of them trying to make them was as true as Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
That part is entirely true! However, as you are certainly aware, given your immense knowledge about world events, many country leaders have previously said one thing and done a different thing. From the publicly available data I can gather, Iran was not complying with international agreements they had ratified regarding enrichment limits up to about 2015. Given the publicly available information, I am willing to believe that Iran actually did not further their nuclear weapons program under JCPOA between 2015 and 2018. I don’t believe there is much doubt that they have since picked their nuclear weapons program back up; at the very least after the US re-introduced sanctions.
On a side note tying this back to the original discussion: Ukraine did have nuclear weapons and gave them up only under broad guarantees of continued independence… so… yeah.