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.
So, you agree with Russia’s actions to get their own troops there, then.
Also maybe not so 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.
You mean the thing that NATO partially managed in the Korean peninsula? Honestly not sure what you are trying to refer to here.
So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?
Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).
Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.
I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you’re using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it’s wrong.
Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.
You said here that the aggrieved state should put its own troops to where the most prolific invaders tries to amass their own:
Get your own troops there and chill.
Which is what Russia has been doing.
If you meant that they should place their troops somewhere else, then you should explain how that is supposed to stop the most prolific invader in the world from acting to harm said state.
Also, your suggestion evidently fails miserably in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you’re using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it’s wrong.
The war was started by NATO.
I am still waiting for a serious suggestion for what a state should do in the face of aggression from the most prolific invader in the world. Notably, not doing anything and just letting the most prolific invader in the world do whatever it wants is not a serious suggestion.
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.
So, you agree with Russia’s actions to get their own troops there, then.
You mean the thing that NATO partially managed in the Korean peninsula? Honestly not sure what you are trying to refer to here.
Yeah, Russian troops do seem to have been needed.
Who did the special military operation, Ukraine or Russia?
So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?
Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).
Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.
I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you’re using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it’s wrong.
You said here that the aggrieved state should put its own troops to where the most prolific invaders tries to amass their own:
Which is what Russia has been doing.
If you meant that they should place their troops somewhere else, then you should explain how that is supposed to stop the most prolific invader in the world from acting to harm said state.
Also, your suggestion evidently fails miserably in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
The war was started by NATO.
I am still waiting for a serious suggestion for what a state should do in the face of aggression from the most prolific invader in the world. Notably, not doing anything and just letting the most prolific invader in the world do whatever it wants is not a serious suggestion.
Oh actually I have an answer. Russia should nuke the United States and Ukraine.
They are the most prolific invader and very dangerous. This is a serious suggestion.