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).
Get your own troops there and chill.
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.
Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.
Yeah, Russian troops do seem to have been needed.
The US and Ukraine are different countries?
The latter is a de facto subject of the former.
Also is it not? Russia is doing America shit.
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?
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.
Israel and Russia collaborated and had good relation by your logic Russia is also part of Nato
What invasions did Russia and NATO collaborate on?
Russia with trading with israel
Hahaha.
Okay, by your logic, Russia trading with NATO makes it an ally of NATO (including Ukraine).
Also, now you have zero excuse to ignore Russia helping the Palestinian resistance, at least by tying up NATO’s resources in Ukraine, and by previously helping Syria against your invasion.
is generating money for israel
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how money works if you think that financially sovereign states can run out of money.
The actual support in the form of military equipment and military backing has always been provided by (the rest of) NATO (including by Ukraine), and Pissrael is quite literally controlled by the leadership of NATO. Whatever the latter says, Pissrael does.
Russia backstabbed too much people , when it’s veto is important they do not use it. They did not vote against trump “surrender” plan , they did not vote against the nato intervention in Libya
Yeah, those are bad, because Russia did not oppose NATO in those cases.
In 2006, Israeli troops found evidence of Russian made Kornet-E and Metis-M anti-tank systems in Hezbollah’s possession in southern Lebanon. In 2007, in response to accusations that it was supplying terrorist groups with weapons, Russia said it was conducting inspections of Syrian weapons storage facilities to prevent the weapons from reaching unintended customers.
Just proves my point that Russia was helping the resistance against Pissrael. Also, going to note that, since your conquest of Syria via the ISIL proxy, that support became harder to maintain.
because Russia consider Ukrainians Russians they do not plan to exterminate Ukrainians but to erase Ukraine cultural specificities
Let’s assume that’s true. That means that what you said previously about this being relevant was a lie.
Also, I would like to mention that people like you do like to invoke the word “whataboutism” in cases that are actually relevant.
I do not excuse Ukraine invasion of Iraq . I do not shy away to condemn ukraine for supporting israel and the war on Iran.
Ok. What punishment should Ukraine face? Note that, considering that those events were much worse than even what the most pro-NATO people claim about Russia’s supposed aggression (actually a response to NATO’s actions), the punishment should also be worse than what you prescribe for Russia.
You know that Israel, Russian and the usa are bullshitting when they keep switching the excuse. Decide yourself you invaded Ukraine because of nato, because it host nazis or because you believe ukraine is a fake state and should be russian
Oh, I do not trust what the Russian government says, and I have criticism of it. What I say is not based on me supposedly believing the claims of the Russian government.
Again, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world (which Egypt is not) starts amassing weapons and troops on that state’s border?
You are still avoiding answering the question. Should we conclude that you do agree with Russia’s actions but do not like that they go against the interests of your empire?
the most prolific invader in the world is the terrorist state of Israel
Pissrael is de facto a part of NATO, and is controlled from Washington. So, in addition to Pissrael’s Lebensraum, NATO is responsible for things like the invasions of Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and many, many other places (at least some of them - multiple times since 1950).
which also have good relation with Russia.
And yet, Russia does have friendly relations with the Palestinian resistance, and NATO does not.
It is relevant to say that both used the same excuse to invade .
It’s not.
You were asked a question about what a state should do when militarily threatened by the most prolific invader in the world, and, for some reason, brought up Egypt of all polities.
We all know that both consider the people they occupy fake and claim that the perspective identity of Palestinians and Ukrainians do not existing
Except, there has been 0 evidence of contemporary Russia conducting a genocide (either in this case, or before), unlike what NATO has been doing.
Again, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world (which Egypt is not) starts amassing weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Also, it is quite silly how you excuse Ukraine’s invasions of Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
Egypt was never attempting to attack Israel
And it was never trying to help NATO amass their troops to attack Pissrael.
So, in short, you brought up a completely irrelevant event and keep refusing to answer the original question.
having a base doesn’t mean there will be an eminent attack.
Ah yes, the most prolific invader in the world, while being known for attacking after amassing troops for such attacks, is apparently not likely to do so in this particular case is what you are saying.
I believe in economical and diplomatic preasure until there is a real eminent threat
What “economical” and “diplomatic” pressure was Russia able to put on NATO without crippling itself?
Again, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world (which Egypt is not) starts amassing weapons and troops on that state’s border?
When was Egypt both a part of NATO (the most prolific invader in the world), and also attempting to attack Pissrael on its behalf?
I am going to ask again - what should a state do in such a situation?
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.
Ukraine has also invaded Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and you are perfectly fine with that.
To say this meme is shit-tier is generous.
The meme is in the right, which disqualifies it from this description.
What do you actually disagree with in this case?
What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts amassing weapons and troops on its border?
The people who are pro-minority-rights, and also anti-capitalists are not liberals
Let’s get this straight: because communists use the term “libera” l correctly and offend the sensibilities of those for whom the word means “somebody who doesn’t hate minorities”, communists are somehow as bad as fascists?
Чего же, в таком случае, не хватало РСФСР?
Whataboutism.
Seriously claiming that other people engage in “whataboutism” is just an admittance of one’s own hypocrisy.
The undeniable fact is that Russia invaded Ukraine
After NATO self-admittedly kept pushing for war with Russia with Ukraine as its proxy.
That makes Russia the aggressor and Ukraine the victim in that conflict.
Attempting to join the most prolific invader in the world is an act of aggression, and so is pushing for war with Russia. I wouldn’t say that responding to those makes a state the aggressor, but the people of Ukraine (excluding its leadership) are some of the victims.
The thing is, Russia is exactly the polar opposite of “supporting bourgois states that fight against imperialism” or being “under imperialist aggression.” Those statements describe states like Ukraine
You think that a state that has invaded Iraq, Syria, Iran, and other places, and has been trying to formally join the gang of other invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan as ‘fighting against imperialism’. You are silly.
Also, what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world - NATO - starts amassing troops near that state’s borders, especially after conducting a coup d’etat against a neighbouring state?
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.