What your describing would be nations having the right to choose what security framework they see is best for them. Which they all have. Morocco could form an alliance with China. But they choose not to.

Then you don't apply the same choice to Ukraine.

That's hypocrisy.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 27 2024 04:46pm

Canada is a NATO member, so they can't just form a military alliance with NATO's adversaries.
Mexico is economically dependent on the US; the US could ruin them if they wanted to. (At a great cost to themselves, but still.)

The crux for why Russia lost its influence over Ukraine is that they can offer them neither affluence nor an attractive societal model. That's why they had to resort to naked violence for their attempts at keeping UKR in their sphere of influence.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 27 2024 05:04pm

This point has already been discussed at length and refutes your argument. no country near the united states is allowed to choose what security framework they want, more over, no country within the united states sphere of influence is allowed to either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 27 2024 05:19pm

If nato was out of shells, why would the germans (maybe) send an unbelievable amount of 10k?
I'm sure this amount is more than the Russians can produce!

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/27/7448460/

This post was edited by zorzin on Mar 27 2024 05:36pm

Its a moot point. Are you insinuating Canada or Mexico would choose a military alliance with anyone other than the worlds largest economy and strongest military?

Aren't you a supporter of offensive realism?

Also Russia =/= the US. In military terms, economic terms, in any terms. The only equivalence is in nuclear stockpiles.

its not a moot point.

do you not remember this: One of the most senior US officials in the Pacific has refused to rule out military action against Solomon Islands if it were to allow China to establish a military base there, saying that the security deal between the countries presented “potential regional security implications” for the US and other allies.

Firstly, I will reiterate. Russia is not the US; Your comparing apples to oranges.
Unless you want to convince otherwise.

Secondly, do you remember this one?
Sweden and Finland join NATO.

Why can't you admit NATO was never and has never been the issue?

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 27 2024 05:52pm

your deflecting, you said this: "What your describing would be nations having the right to choose what security framework they see is best for them. Which they all have. Morocco could form an alliance with China. But they choose not to."



I responded by saying they cant, I gave an example (solomon island) and referred you to the monroe doctrine. you then ignored all that and said i was a hypocrite. The fact that Russia is weaker then the US does not merely supports my position, it weakens your argument. Sweden and Finland could join nato because (a) the US wills it, (b) it alligns with their current position and (c) Russia was not going to go invade Finland (Finland is strong). What all of that eludes to is that you are the hypocrite, not me. The strong can tell the weak what to do and the weak dont have a say against the strong. its as simple as that. its geopolitical power. Sure, Russia is not happy with Finland but its not Ukraine and Russia is not braindead (invading Finland would be braindead stupid on Russia's part).

The US is the strongest country on the planet, it dictates. thats why the UN is a lame duck, thats why the Ukraine war and the israeli conflict continues, because the US wills it and the weak cant do anything to stop it. Thats the harsh reality. If Nato was not the issue the US could simply say Ukraine will not join Nato and the war would would be over tomorrow.

Why dont you simple make a list of your positions and we will agree not to talk about those points with you (again). This discussion has been had multiple times, we dont have to do the same broken record again and again. Better to simply look forward to the future and make guesses then to look back through some lens that ignores key facts. Your view on history and events is just different, not completely wrong, just different. The US had the opportunity before this war started to state to Russia the Ukraine would not join Nato. They didnt, Therefore the arguement that its not about Nato cannot be disproved. Yes, we already had the conversation "but Putin said" and we already responded to that. There are so many video's on the issue and you have been in this topic for well over a year so you have seen and contributed to the arguments and counter arguments, watched the same video's etc.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 27 2024 06:16pm

the takes by the ukraine npcs are just absolutely wild

literally history rewritten and everything flipped around

the power of media brainwashing is terrifying

That reads like an absolute trainwreck. There's also a quote function you don't have to screenshot a quote.

Your position as I understand it, is that NATO expansion is the justification for Putins invasion of Ukraine.

I do not believe that NATO expansion was the reason, certainly not in terms of an actual threat to Russian security.
Even if I did believe it was the reason I would not agree it was a justified reason to invade Ukraine.
As proven by your own admission that Finland is strong, they have entered NATO and Russia has had barely a reaction.

Help me to steelman your position here.
Let's assume I agreed that NATO expansion was the reason Putin chose to invade Ukraine, but ultimately not invade Finland; For doing the exact thing that you allege is the reason Putin has invaded Ukraine. Joining NATO. NATO expansion.
Let's ommit that glaring discrepancy.

Why is NATO expansion a justified reason to invade Ukraine?
Tangibly, literally, how and why is it?

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 27 2024 06:22pm