Does this address the point or does it only shy away from it?
It makes the point that NATO was not a threat to Russia.
Okay I'm going to try and explain this as simply as possible.
Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Everyone knows this. If any country invaded Russia's internationally recognized borders, they will get nuked and the rest of the world would be like, yeah what did you expect you invaded Russia, why where you so stupid?
The we can look at the NATO countries. Did we have any NATO member issuing threats to Russia or implying NATO needs to take military action against Russia in any shape or form?
Look at the NATO member states. The US was reducing its troop numbers in Europe. For the last decade or more its been shifting its focus to China and pivoting to the Asia Pacific theatre.
Germany, its military is considered something of a joke these days and was only too happy to buy Russia's cheap gas. It blocked Ukraine's membership into NATO to plicate Russia (as did France)
Italy also loved buying cheap Russian gas. (as did Austria but there not a NATO member)
UK, another country that let its military run down and London was completely awash with Oligarch money.
The NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states where in the event of a Russian attack where according to NATO's own estimates expected to do little more than hold the Russian's up for a day or so before Russia took control of those countries. So was that small token force a threat to Russia?
Where was the NATO threat to Russia coming from...care to explain.
We all know the real reason Russia hate's NATO and it's not coming from a fear that NATO is going to directly attack Russia. Russia or at least the Putin regime considers Eastern Europe it's sphere of influence and that its entitled be able to exert a great degree of influence over Eastern European states, and if they resist that influence then Russia should be able to use force of arms to exert its will. A country with NATO membership can no longer be coerced in this manner. That's why Putin who just before the war stated that the Russian's-Belorussian's-Ukrainian's are one in the same people and that Ukraine isn't a proper state and they should really be part of one state decided to act (as well as making claims to some of Romania's territory by the way). If Ukraine get's into NATO he can't touch them.
Obviously, you wouldn't address it because you can't. We were all complicit in the destruction of Libya and Iraq...and others before that.
500 thousand dead civilians is the first fact you cant get around or excuse and the second is that nobody went to prison for it. The biggest case of culpable homicide in my lifetim e and nobody did a single day's time for it.
Okay just leaving aside the point my country wasn't involve in either conflict and is not a NATO member. I'm not excusing those wars. Lets take the position that both where entirely unjustified and morally. Does that automatically mean NATO is wrong to help Ukraine?
Obviously talking about Russia's nukes and that NATO hasn't threatened them is a sensible thing to do if you'd like to keep believing that your purpose is higher.
Higher purpose what are you talking about? I'm just talking about the actual reality that NATO was never going to start a war with the country with the worlds biggest nuclear stockpile and a country that it was believed (falsely in the light of recent events) had a very capable conventional military.
Everybody breaks the law each time they speed. But some people murder people. There are levels to everything. So, who has invaded and meddled in more countries? NATO and its members or Russia, China, Saudi etc? Again, diminishing things to keep telling yourself that we are superior and better...our cause is more righteous
Again just for arguments sake we will take the position that many of NATO's military operations have been unjustified in the past. Does that automatically mean the Ukraine and NATO's aid to Ukraine isn't righteous in this conflict?
I never said that Russia are entitled to do what they are doing.
Well that's what your doing when you keep bringing up what absolutism's about Iraq and Libya.
I said that you are in no position to judge them because the team that you appear to think is so squeaky clean is very far from it.
No one is arguing that NATO is squeaky clean when it comes to previous conflict . We are just arguing Russia's justifications for this war are complete bullshit.
And this is why I tend not to respond to most of your comments, Stav. You've become one of those that continually uses silly tactics.
Silly tactics? Such as suggesting the American's could of stopped this war by giving Russian's VPN's...or incredible simplistic analogy implying Ukraine has a gun to it's head it better comply with Russia's demands. Tell me you didn't come back and respond to any of the posters who asked you where you're suspiciously Russian sounding causality figures came from?
My view, and it will always be my view, is that the leaders on both sides are responsible for this. But it's the masses that make it all possible because we get brainwashed into picking a side and then believing that our side's purpose is greater.
Well I guess you where always going to be predisposed to that world view, you view everything through the prism of conspiracies.
We gloss over the fact that there are actual people on the other end of our wars. People with their own lives and families. Let's take Iraq...of those 500 000 dead civilians, how many of their deaths could you watch before you reconsider your binary position on these things? I'm gonna bet that you won't make it past 10.
Who's glossing over anything? Considering in a previous post you said you don't really care about Ukrainian people, you're more concerned with the welfare of you're own family hence don't want a nuclear war, I some how think you're not genuine in your outrage for those killed in previous conflicts. Its more something you like to try to use to bash those your arguing against.
As long as either side is making war in and on other countries, then both sides will continue to do it. When one side stops, they now have the moral higher ground. It's kinda that easy.
Oh its that easy is it?. You're aware If Ukraine stops fighting, the country ceases to exist.
So, if you like, you can pretend that I'm telling you that the West is evil and you can continue to avoid the larger point that I'm making because I know that it's far more comfortable for you to do that.
Stop pretending you're anything other than contrarian at this point.