What expansion? The last two countries joined as result of Russian aggression. The ones before joined because they themselves had experienced that only the membership in a strong alliance can potentially safe them from annexation (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland [the last after a deal with literally Hitler]). And once again tell me, why would anyone be afraid of a defensive alliance growing when you don’t intend to invade said countries?
Don’t want to invade your neighbour? Then their NATo-membership is not a problem, hell how about trying to join yourselves?
Why would anyone be afraid of a defensive alliance growing?
Hypothetical question after which context is provided, “when you don’t want to invade them?” Asking a hypothetical question is not contradictory to doubting the expansion.
You went from implying no expansion has occurred, to implying such expansion is a good thing without any consequences, to finally preaching that all who hear your ‘wisdom’ should try joining NATO themselves.
Are these the differing stages of grief before acceptance of failure?
I was saying that there was no expansion before Russia declared war in violation of all international laws and treaties, and in violation of the treaty Russia signed that guarantees Ukrainian independence.
Afterwards NATO grew, whether you want to call to expansion which implies that it is the goal of NATO to grow and threaten its neighbours or you just call it grow which reflects the reality of countries voluntarily joining.
And my comparison was that you cannot threaten your neighbours with a potential war and then expect them to just await their fate without resistance. They have the right to join an alliance as has every sovereign state. They have the right to chose the political system they want as does every sovereign state.
But NO ONE has the right to change the outline of borders by means of war. The world has lost a few million people so that everyone should have learned that lesson. Russia was apparently on the toilet at the time
But NO ONE has the right to change the outline of borders by means of war. The world has lost a few million people so that everyone should have learned that lesson.
So it’s bad when Russia does it but the US is correct in backing Israel changing its borders through imperialism?
Like xor said, you seem to have quite the understanding of my views on topics I’ve not even discussed. Also whataboutism and gaslighting - have you perhaps run out of arguments? [Edit: after revisiting the thread, I’ve realised that you never even wrote an argument. Gaslighting and whataboutism is the only thing you do. And if you were to count them as arguments, you’re clearly argumenting in bad faith.]
Take a step back and ask yourselves in whose interest you’re argumenting. I myself am arguing in my own interest that is perhaps selfish. Yet based on that interest I believe it is correct to say Ukraine needs to not lose and better yet win. Otherwise Russia set the precedent that war is once again ultima ratio of diplomacy. Something the world more or less unitedly felt to be outdated. Yes, countries have used wars to push interests in other countries, mostly to change the leadership (most famously the USA and the USSR, but also China, France, the UK).
No major power tried to move borders prior to Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine.
As for Israel my interest lies in lasting peace and to ensure that there will always be a place where Jews are welcome. To that end the war needs to end now. Israel mustn’t further fan the flames. The surrounding countries must find a way to live in peace with Israel. Israel must revise their constitution to allow for actually equal rights of any non-Jewish people, ideally by forming a state union with Palestine with equal representation of the latter. And such a country should be formed in the same mindset as post-war Germany.
But saying all that, there’s a massive difference in complexity between the two. The Gaza war has a convoluted mess of history to it. Solving that is not only challenging but necessary to achieve even a semblance of peace that has any chance of lasting. The war in Ukraine is much simpler. There’s not even a remote semblance of justification to it. It is literally just: Russia must stop the war and attempt to reverse the damages caused as far as that is possible.
And out of interest for future World peace, the ones responsible need to face legal consequences by a tribunal that is impartial and non-partisan.
Otherwise Russia set the precedent that war is once again ultima ratio of diplomacy.
This statement betrays an ignorance of history including military efforts by western nations to create the state of Israel.
No major power tried to move borders prior to Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine.
You can still delete this blatant misinformation.
to ensure that there will always be a place where Jews are welcome
This place already exists in countless cities around the world outside of Israel. Many cities are home to both thousands of Jews and Muslims who get along fine in tightly packed urban environments.
The surrounding countries must find a way to live in peace with Israel.
Why falsely imply that Israelis have equal agency compared to the desperately poor they occupy?
The war in Ukraine is much simpler
You show no understanding of Slavic history, nor geopolitical balance including the significance of buffer states. Otherwise you would not boldly oversimplify an equally nuanced conflict.
Who is “you”? I didn’t make any such claim. I commented to the conversation that you had with someone else, because I really didn’t see any contradiction.
So I certainly didn’t imply any of that.
I fail to see how the other person implied it is a good thing. The other person implied it is inconsequential if you don’t intend to attack. That isn’t good. Whether or not, that statement is accurate, is a different discussion, then whether or not a person implied that it is good.
I don’t understand what failure you are talking about but clearly you aren’t mistaken in with whom you are talking. But given what you wrote and based on that your understanding of the situation, I don’t understand where you see grief in what you think, was written.
I mean, it is valid perspective. You can doubt the existence while welcoming the existence and encouraging it. E.g. i doubt that there is a god, but I think the existence of a god would be good and I would welcome someone to be that god.
Again, I don’t see them saying what you think they said but if they did, it would be a valid perspective.
NATO expansion has no consequences right?
ok tankie
Putin invading neutral countries proves that remaining neutral is stupid, and they should join NATO.
What expansion? The last two countries joined as result of Russian aggression. The ones before joined because they themselves had experienced that only the membership in a strong alliance can potentially safe them from annexation (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland [the last after a deal with literally Hitler]). And once again tell me, why would anyone be afraid of a defensive alliance growing when you don’t intend to invade said countries?
Don’t want to invade your neighbour? Then their NATo-membership is not a problem, hell how about trying to join yourselves?
You went full circle jerk implying no expansion exists, but then immediately contradicting yourself.
Where is the contradiction?
Doubting the expansion of NATO.
Hypothetical question after which context is provided, “when you don’t want to invade them?” Asking a hypothetical question is not contradictory to doubting the expansion.
I don’t understand why you quoted that.
You went from implying no expansion has occurred, to implying such expansion is a good thing without any consequences, to finally preaching that all who hear your ‘wisdom’ should try joining NATO themselves.
Are these the differing stages of grief before acceptance of failure?
I was saying that there was no expansion before Russia declared war in violation of all international laws and treaties, and in violation of the treaty Russia signed that guarantees Ukrainian independence.
Afterwards NATO grew, whether you want to call to expansion which implies that it is the goal of NATO to grow and threaten its neighbours or you just call it grow which reflects the reality of countries voluntarily joining.
And my comparison was that you cannot threaten your neighbours with a potential war and then expect them to just await their fate without resistance. They have the right to join an alliance as has every sovereign state. They have the right to chose the political system they want as does every sovereign state.
But NO ONE has the right to change the outline of borders by means of war. The world has lost a few million people so that everyone should have learned that lesson. Russia was apparently on the toilet at the time
So it’s bad when Russia does it but the US is correct in backing Israel changing its borders through imperialism?
No hypocrisy detected by you?
They never even mentioned Israel, you just decided that was their stance so you could call them a hypocrite
Like xor said, you seem to have quite the understanding of my views on topics I’ve not even discussed. Also whataboutism and gaslighting - have you perhaps run out of arguments? [Edit: after revisiting the thread, I’ve realised that you never even wrote an argument. Gaslighting and whataboutism is the only thing you do. And if you were to count them as arguments, you’re clearly argumenting in bad faith.]
Take a step back and ask yourselves in whose interest you’re argumenting. I myself am arguing in my own interest that is perhaps selfish. Yet based on that interest I believe it is correct to say Ukraine needs to not lose and better yet win. Otherwise Russia set the precedent that war is once again ultima ratio of diplomacy. Something the world more or less unitedly felt to be outdated. Yes, countries have used wars to push interests in other countries, mostly to change the leadership (most famously the USA and the USSR, but also China, France, the UK). No major power tried to move borders prior to Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine.
As for Israel my interest lies in lasting peace and to ensure that there will always be a place where Jews are welcome. To that end the war needs to end now. Israel mustn’t further fan the flames. The surrounding countries must find a way to live in peace with Israel. Israel must revise their constitution to allow for actually equal rights of any non-Jewish people, ideally by forming a state union with Palestine with equal representation of the latter. And such a country should be formed in the same mindset as post-war Germany.
But saying all that, there’s a massive difference in complexity between the two. The Gaza war has a convoluted mess of history to it. Solving that is not only challenging but necessary to achieve even a semblance of peace that has any chance of lasting. The war in Ukraine is much simpler. There’s not even a remote semblance of justification to it. It is literally just: Russia must stop the war and attempt to reverse the damages caused as far as that is possible.
And out of interest for future World peace, the ones responsible need to face legal consequences by a tribunal that is impartial and non-partisan.
This statement betrays an ignorance of history including military efforts by western nations to create the state of Israel.
You can still delete this blatant misinformation.
This place already exists in countless cities around the world outside of Israel. Many cities are home to both thousands of Jews and Muslims who get along fine in tightly packed urban environments.
Why falsely imply that Israelis have equal agency compared to the desperately poor they occupy?
You show no understanding of Slavic history, nor geopolitical balance including the significance of buffer states. Otherwise you would not boldly oversimplify an equally nuanced conflict.
Who is “you”? I didn’t make any such claim. I commented to the conversation that you had with someone else, because I really didn’t see any contradiction.
So I certainly didn’t imply any of that.
I fail to see how the other person implied it is a good thing. The other person implied it is inconsequential if you don’t intend to attack. That isn’t good. Whether or not, that statement is accurate, is a different discussion, then whether or not a person implied that it is good.
I don’t understand what failure you are talking about but clearly you aren’t mistaken in with whom you are talking. But given what you wrote and based on that your understanding of the situation, I don’t understand where you see grief in what you think, was written.
I mean, it is valid perspective. You can doubt the existence while welcoming the existence and encouraging it. E.g. i doubt that there is a god, but I think the existence of a god would be good and I would welcome someone to be that god.
Again, I don’t see them saying what you think they said but if they did, it would be a valid perspective.