those examples don't answer my question. they just illustrate how you have repeatedly tried to blame others (ukraine / "the west" / NATO / EU) at least partially for this war, but never answered the question what made it INEVITABLE. do you simply not know what the word means? because even if i accepted all your shitty bothsidesisms and excuses, it STILL does not follow that russia had no other option but to invade.

so please, try to stay on topic and answer my simple question: what exactly made it impossible for russia to not invade ukraine, to not start a war?

The West's refusal not to deny Ukraine membership into Nato.

Romania had several hundreds of thousands Ukrainians helped to transit and we have 100+ (probably 200) thousands staying.

Romania is doing way beyond its capabilities and way beyond countries like france are doing.

france can only support blacks browns and muzzlimzz.

Aljazeera reports that 2.6M Ukrainians have fled with an expectation of 4M if the war continues. I would say both numbers are conservative.

according to our head of state (ireland) 5500~ Ukrainians have arrived in Ireland so far.
according to google, french interior minister 2 days ago said 7251~ Ukrainians have arrived in France so far.
according to rueters, over 100K Ukrainians have arrived in Germany so far.
according to 1 news site over 1000 Ukrainians refugees have arrived in Spain so far.
i cant find a number for england but i did see something about 43000 people in the UK signed up to house Ukrainians.

The closer to Ukraine the more refugees (basic's).

providing 3 different sources, note that they were probably all done at different times and i expect that regardless there will always be discrepancies for stuff like this.

this is from abcnews (american news channel as i understand it), take it with a pinch of salt but looks reasonable ~



this is from aljazeera (Qutar)



this is from axious (India?)



This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 15 2022 10:27am

Western hubris. Agreed to halt NATO expansion and didn't. Adding Ukraine to NATO is an explicit provocation. There is no reason to add it other than imperial expansionism.

that is NOT something that makes war "inevitable". it's something that makes pootin unhappy, but by that moronic logic, every country would have a reason to start a war: the US was unhappy with france refusing to join their bullshit iraq war. china was unhappy with US tariffs. why was war not "inevitable" in those cases?

you're not making a rational argument, you're looking at the result and try to justify it retroactively by suggesting the aggressor had no other choice, when clearly he did. your "argument" is completely absurd.



maybe stop talking about things you clearly don't understand. first of all, nato doesn't expand actively. countries can apply for membership, but they have to meet certain criteria first. nato is also not a state, it's a defensive pact, a military alliance of sovereign nations. maybe you just don't know what the term "empire" means, but the idea that including new members to nato is "imperial expansionism" is absurd. are you just listing all the political / historical terms you know, hoping that maybe one hits the mark? because that swing was an embarrassing miss, lol.

Poland: 1 and a half million refugees.

Everywhere else: Not even remotely close to that number.

Is poland offering free beer or something? These numbers are massively skewed.

Also russia accepting ukranian refugees at all? Like through thier goverment? Or are they hiding out? Bunch of red flags on that one.

more news around the world:

(Aljazeera) China says it does not want to be impacted by Russia sanctions (read: go ahead and sanction us, we dare you).
(Canada) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses (Canadian) Parliament as Russian forces edge toward Kyiv (he has addressed several governments)
(Australia) Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was doomed to fail before it began. Military experts say huge mistakes were made during what has become a “debacle” for Vladimir Putin

The Australian article goes on to say ~

Retired US army General Ben Hodges told MSNBC that Mr Putin has just 10 days left to overcome Ukraine’s defences before he will have to order a retreat. “They don’t have the time, they don’t have the manpower, and I don’t think they have the ammunition,” he said. “So, in about 10 days, in my assessment – and this is assuming that we, the West, not only continue but accelerate the delivery of the capabilities Ukrainians need to destroy Russian long-range artillery and rocket launchers and missile sites – assuming we do that, then I think within the next 10 days, Russia is going to culminate. “That means they won’t be able to continue the attack. So it’s kind of a race, actually. If we give the Ukrainians enough, where they can outlast Russia until Russia culminates, then in my assessment, unless something dramatically different happens, it’s about 10 days.”

watch this space 10 days i guess.


This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 15 2022 10:54am

False
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=92674850&f=119

On the other hand it's true that US ultimate goal is not to bring peace, but more likely to maintain Chaos (and supremacy). Which is becoming harder and harder.
This is Why EU incrasing defense budgets is very good news.

---------

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/15/heres-a-list-of-russias-upcoming-debt-payments.html

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Mar 15 2022 11:17am

This isn't a sports game. You expect a major historical empire to play nice and die slowly?
Ironically, the same analogy can be used on the US empire's fading power Are they or should they also play by the "rules" and slowly lose their position of global dominance to China?