so according to your "logic", it would have been totally fine for a foreign country, let's say turkey, to send their troops into russia and murder countless russian civilians, destroy the entire region, in order to "liberate" their brothers in faith - and also add the "liberated" territories to their country, correct?

also, unlike donbas, chechnya was an ACTUAL uprising, not an astro-turfed one, by a party trying to create an excuse to invade the region.

do you genuinely not mind how your dumb talking points are getting destroyed by everyone all the time? is getting publicly humiliated a fetish of yours or something? i really don't get it...

pretty funny, but also informative video for the hardware nerds out there, with some interesting excursions into the mindset, mentality, and policy of the russian army:

i know exactly what NATO is, thats why i talked about things like bombing sarajevo into the shadow realm, which has been an official operation

so this totally and 100% peaceful alliance has attacked countries before ("intervention") AND in addition to that it tolerates individual members invading and warmongering others like putin

in other discussions people like you want others to distance themselves at every turn, but its okay that NATO looks the other way when their members go full putin mode

and dont give me "but....but (insert country) condemned (insert invasion)", i judge people by their actions

you mean actions like NOT PARTICIPATING? you act like there was anything more that could have been done, as if any force in the world could have prevented the blood-thirsty yanks from invading iraq, lol.

fact remains, iraq wasn't a NATO mission, not partly, not somewhat, not secretly, it simply wasn't. some NATO members participated, others did not. some non-NATO nations participated, most did not. NATO is not designed to tell its members what they can do and what they can't (again, you fundamentally don't understand what NATO actually is) - it's a military pact in order to deter attacks on its members, and that's what it does without fail. maybe you're confusing it with the UN?

Lol oh look another youtube pseudo intellectual with an animal avatar. Really shocking that you aren't more well informed with such good sources fenderp.

Bullshit. I've pointed out many times that you're dishonest, you're leaving out critical stuff like 2008 NATO open door policy regarding Ukraine / Georgia, Euromaidan and the consequent occupation of Crimea plus DPR / LPR uprisings.

Fact of the matter is that both the Chechens and ethnic Russians wanted autonomy for their own reasons and were prepared to fight for it and if you say Chechens good, DPR / LPR bad that's clearly politically motivated.

My points are not destroyed, on the contrary, I'm continuously slamming NATO drones like you and Meanwhile with factual posts backed by sources. Deal with it

if you could read, you'd be glad to learn that's NOT what i'm saying.

what i'm saying is that an astro-turfed domestic conflict is NOT a valid excuse for a foreign country to invade and murder countless civilians, and then conquer the area as a price.

your flawed analogy fired so badly, you completely malfunctioned again, lol. you really must have a fetish for getting humiliated, lol...

The way you frame it is very partial, but generally:

You are seeing it being played out, aren´t you? Both sides know what was/wasn´t acceptable for their/opposite side, and they wanted to fight it out.

These are calculated steps, things aren´t happening stochastically.

Ukranians wanted to join EU/Nato, even though they knew it was gonna end up in war. South wanted to join Russia, even though they knew it would lead to war. Etc, you can frame it however you want, but the pragmatism is there. There is also some speculation to pragmatism, which is the "Is it worth it" part? We will find out, if it is worth it for A, B or neither. Think iran/iraq war, both had intentions, and both lost horribly.

Whatever the result, this is a war driven by very deep political motives, and in that sense is justified both ways. Both sides so far have been fairly clean about it, ethically speaking, which is very commendable on both sides. If you want to argue or try to virtue signal, go ahead. I have zero respect for people with selective memory.

If you ask me, what I would´ve done as Ukranian:
Play both sides, get as much from EU and Russia as possible and keep that balance in check. Be on look for east/west politics, and see how world politics play out during these turbulent times and pick the winning side if there ever is one. (currently there is none, and world is going in a multipolar direction)

As Russian: (assumption that above scenario didn´t happen)
Scorch earth on Kiev from day 1, with a 1-3million man army. Destroy and take the country before the flow of US/Nato arms started, annex south and east. Leave west-ukraine as a failed state.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 23 2023 03:48pm

You try way too hard to win internet arguments for you to be this bad at them

in every other scenario, for example political parties, you wouldnt let this "did not participate" count

"so fender, i was a member of the NSDAP, but i didnt know about the camps and stuff and i never participated in certain....things, we cool now?"

you would never let that go so where is the excuse for partnering up with proven warmongers?

of course the status quo is a fact and that wont change, but you cant act morally superior and argue like this at the same time

countries like germany are complicit in US war crimes despite not directly sending troops to iraq (we did in afghanistan though to bomb a bit and replace the taliban with the taliban), our money and products help fuel the war machine, they use our soil for logistics and launch drone strikes from here

just accept that its ugly business out there and stop the moral debates, thats all