Once you figure out how to create trust in geopolitics then you feel free to pick up your Nobel. The only lesson the west taught Russia is that military force is the only thing the west listens to.
Perhaps they will, but it’s pretty clear they’re going to get what they want through force since they couldn’t achieve it through diplomacy.
Condemning the invasion and being realistic about the reason for the invasion are two perfectly compatible positions to hold. If we want to avoid wars in the future, we have to understand underlying causes for wars instead of doing moralizing. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to bang together would understand this. In fact, here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
Many feel that it is wrong to bring up such matters, even a form of pro-Putin propaganda: we should, rather, focus laser-like on Russia’s ongoing crimes. Contrary to their beliefs, that stand does not help Ukrainians. It harms them. If we are barred, by dictate, from learning about ourselves, we will not be able to develop policies that will benefit others, Ukrainians among them. That seems elementary.
The tactic of dismissing people who want to have a meaningful discussion about the underlying reasons for the conflict is just further dishonesty on your part.
Russia follows Clausewitz philosophy where military force is seen as an extension of diplomacy.
You can spin things any way you like, but once you’re done with sophistry then you have to go back to what I said in my comment above. You have to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconcile them with your own. If both sides are able to do that then direct conflict can be avoided.
Meanwhile, NATO is objectively responsible for far greater atrocities than anything Russia has done. This is an objective fact. There is no moralizing necessary here. NATO behaves in exactly the way that you denounce and the reason it does that is because it can get away with it. NATO follows might makes right philosophy of geopolitics.
And you’re right that these discussions are getting us nowhere, you you keep on believing whatever fantasies you like, just don’t be surprised when your country burns down because your leaders chose to keep escalating tensions instead of finding common ground.
Your opinion isn’t really relevant I’m afraid. Either you accept reality for what it is or you deal with the consequences.
In the meanwhile, where are the reports of NATO bombing civilian hospitals and schools, raping children, killing civilians without any reason, and preventing humanitarian help? What is a far greater atrocity towards civilians than that? Where are the facts your information is based on?
You’re such an utter ignoramus. Serbia literally has monuments left as a reminder of NATO bombing their cities relentlessly for over a month.
Here’s a list of NATO war crimes and bombings for you since you’re evidently incapable of doing a simple google search before saying something profoundly stupid
deleted by creator
Once you figure out how to create trust in geopolitics then you feel free to pick up your Nobel. The only lesson the west taught Russia is that military force is the only thing the west listens to.
deleted by creator
Perhaps they will, but it’s pretty clear they’re going to get what they want through force since they couldn’t achieve it through diplomacy.
Condemning the invasion and being realistic about the reason for the invasion are two perfectly compatible positions to hold. If we want to avoid wars in the future, we have to understand underlying causes for wars instead of doing moralizing. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to bang together would understand this. In fact, here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
The tactic of dismissing people who want to have a meaningful discussion about the underlying reasons for the conflict is just further dishonesty on your part.
deleted by creator
Russia follows Clausewitz philosophy where military force is seen as an extension of diplomacy.
You can spin things any way you like, but once you’re done with sophistry then you have to go back to what I said in my comment above. You have to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconcile them with your own. If both sides are able to do that then direct conflict can be avoided.
Meanwhile, NATO is objectively responsible for far greater atrocities than anything Russia has done. This is an objective fact. There is no moralizing necessary here. NATO behaves in exactly the way that you denounce and the reason it does that is because it can get away with it. NATO follows might makes right philosophy of geopolitics.
And you’re right that these discussions are getting us nowhere, you you keep on believing whatever fantasies you like, just don’t be surprised when your country burns down because your leaders chose to keep escalating tensions instead of finding common ground.
deleted by creator
Your opinion isn’t really relevant I’m afraid. Either you accept reality for what it is or you deal with the consequences.
You’re such an utter ignoramus. Serbia literally has monuments left as a reminder of NATO bombing their cities relentlessly for over a month.
Here’s a list of NATO war crimes and bombings for you since you’re evidently incapable of doing a simple google search before saying something profoundly stupid
It’s creating a situation where it’s more likely to be involved in Russia. If you think that’s in Finland’s interest then sure.
Would certainly not want my country to escalate tensions with a nuclear superpower, but I guess I’m not a genius like you.
Yeah, lots of countries like Yugoslavia and Libya learned it the hard way.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator