• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      0
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          0
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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

          Finland is only looking at its best intrests.

          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.

          Russia saying you cannot decide what to do. What would’ve your country done in that position?

          Would certainly not want my country to escalate tensions with a nuclear superpower, but I guess I’m not a genius like you.

          I’d like to repeat what I said before: “There’s enough examples that being neutral actually means being a target.”

          Yeah, lots of countries like Yugoslavia and Libya learned it the hard way.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              02 years ago

              The fact that you are incapable of even acknowledging the crimes of NATO tells me everything I need to know about you.

              What I said is pretty clear and doesn’t require verbal diarrhea to reinterpret. All you do here is keep moralizing, but you’re not addressing the root problem I’ve identified.

              The reality of the situation is that Russia will do what Russia thinks is best for it, and NATO will do what NATO thinks is best for its members. And if both sides continue thinking that escalating tensions is what best then we will all die, but idiots will die smugly because they will feel they had moral superiority.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  0
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  You refuse to acknowledge the fact that NATO is objectively responsible for far more horrific crimes than anything Russia has done. This is a well documented historical fact. If you can’t even bring yourself to admit this, that shows how utterly morally bankrupt you are.

                  I’m doing the opposite of moralizing here by pointing out that neither side has any high ground, and the only way forward is to de-escalate through diplomacy instead of moralizing and taking some imaginary moral high ground.

                  I’ve repeatedly explained how you de-escalate. Perhaps go back and read what I said until you’ve managed to comprehend it. There are many examples of this throughout history, but I guess being an utter ignoramus that you are, that will be news to you. I recommend reading up on the Cold War as a prime example where both sides managed to de-escalate and reduce their nuclear stock piles as well as avoid direct military conflict. You are a shockingly ignorant individual if you can’t even think of a single case of how two sides that dislike each other managed to avoid war through politics.

                  Of course I condemn atrocities that Russia committed as well as the invasion, why wouldn’t I?

                  Meanwhile, do you condemns atrocities that NATO committed in Yugoslavia, Libya, and other countries it destroyed? I think we both already know where you stand there though.

                  Finland was not a threat to Russia, and Russia was not threatening Finland in any way last I checked. However, now that Finland will join NATO it will turn itself into a threat to Russia because NATO will now be able to put nuclear missiles on Russian border that will be able to reach major Russian cities in minutes. This was precisely the concern Russia had in Ukraine where NATO nuclear missiles could hit Moscow within five minutes.

                  And last: if we both know the reasons for the war, why do you keep arguing?

                  I’m simply explaining to you what real world solutions are that don’t involve a nuclear holocaust. You’re the one arguing here and refusing to accept reality of the situation.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              02 years ago

              It’s becoming clear that you are incapable of having a rational discussion on the subject.