Look, I'm not sure who you're upset with, but it's not me. You're spending a lot of effort to assume what I do and don't believe and support, and you're frankly doing a piss poor job of it. No aspect of what you've said since you first engaged with me has constituted a good faith argument, and I'm done engaging with it. Even if your complaints about western countries are accurate, all I said to start this was that invading a country, an act of war, is not an example of trying to avoid war, and all the rest of your assumptions about me are equal parts incorrect and insulting.
Look, I'm not sure who you're upset with, but it's not me
You are literally trying to justify the actions of the world's most prolific aggressor and claim that resistance to it is bad.
So yes, I am going to associate you with the world's most prolific aggressor until you stop supporting it.
You're spending a lot of effort to assume what I do and don't believe and support
You have literally come here to talk about how bad resistance to you is.
No aspect of what you've said since you first engaged with me has constituted a good faith argument
Well, that's obviously false at least on account of me pointing to the fact that you can't actually provide an alternative way to resist you, and your argument is reducible to 'resisting us is bad'.
Even if your complaints about western countries are accurate, all I said to start this was that invading a country, an act of war, is not an example of trying to avoid war
What you did is claim that giving NATO years to cease aggression wasn't an attempt at avoiding a war.
And all the rest of your assumptions about me are equal parts incorrect and insulting
You had every opportunity to prove me wrong by providing an alternative way to resist you. You took no opportunities to do so, even when prompted.
Saying that an armed invasion is an act of war and that acts of war are generally not good ways to avoid war is not claiming that resistance to aggression is bad. It is literally pointing out an act of aggression. According to the Budapest Memorandum, the deal for Ukraine giving up nukes was that Russia agrees to respect their sovereignty. And then Russia invaded Ukraine to annex territory. Twice now. I don't believe you're so stupid you can't grasp that, I think you're just that disingenuous.
I am not advocating that resistance to aggression is bad, and I think you know that.
Saying that an armed invasion is an act of war and that acts of war are generally not good ways to avoid war is not claiming that resistance to aggression is bad
So, was Russia giving NATO years to cease its aggression a bad way to avoid war or not?
According to the Budapest Memorandum
Imagine not seeing international law as a joke in the year 2024.
And then Russia invaded Ukraine to annex territory
And to defend against your aggression.
Notably, you are yet to provide any sort of alternative to resisting your aggression this way.
I am not advocating that resistance to aggression is bad, and I think you know that
Riiiiight. You just completely coincidentally claim that instances of resistance to your aggression are bad. The only time you find resistance to you acceptable is when it's impotent.
Riiiiight. You just completely coincidentally claim that instances of resistance to your aggression are bad. The only time you find resistance to you acceptable is when it’s impotent.
The topic at hand was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the context of attempting to avoid war. I made no direct comments about other topics, nor did I intend to imply anything beyond that. To quote the comment that sparked all of this:
it’s pretty clear that Russia tried very hard to prevent the situation in Ukraine from devolving into a war.
Russia is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of the facts that form the basis for the decision, if their true goal is to avoid war in a region, the best solution is to not militarily invade that region. That's it. That's my full claim. You can try to argue about whether or not Russia was justified to invade, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Russia wanting to not fight in a region they attacked after making a deal to not invade that region.
The topic at hand was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the context of attempting to avoid war
Cool. You are yet to present any sort of argument for how giving NATO years to stop aggression was a bad way to avoid war.
To quote the comment that sparked all of this: ...
Yeah. So, how was giving you years to stop your aggression a bad way to avoid war? How should have Russia approached this?
Russia is responsible for their own actions
And you should be held responsible for your actions. The rest of the world has every right to resist you. You have no ground to tell the world how to resist you.
if their true goal is to avoid war in a region, the best solution is to not militarily invade that region
Russia gave you years to stop aggression. You didn't.
That's it. That's my full claim
So, you decided to completely ignore what the person you were responding to was talking about, and you can't even provide a supposedly-better alternative way to respond to your aggression. Good to know.
You can try to argue about whether or not Russia was justified to invade, but that's not what I'm talking about
The person whom you were responding about said that Russia did try to avoid war, which is true. Russia did give you years to stop your aggression. You keep pretending as if that did not happen.
I'm talking about Russia wanting to not fight in a region they attacked after making a deal to not invade that region
You mean after NATO enacted a coup there and after NATO reneged on its promises to not do what it did, and after NATO tried to establish a military presence there to attack Russia?
Look, I'm not sure who you're upset with, but it's not me. You're spending a lot of effort to assume what I do and don't believe and support, and you're frankly doing a piss poor job of it. No aspect of what you've said since you first engaged with me has constituted a good faith argument, and I'm done engaging with it. Even if your complaints about western countries are accurate, all I said to start this was that invading a country, an act of war, is not an example of trying to avoid war, and all the rest of your assumptions about me are equal parts incorrect and insulting.
You are literally trying to justify the actions of the world's most prolific aggressor and claim that resistance to it is bad.
So yes, I am going to associate you with the world's most prolific aggressor until you stop supporting it.
You have literally come here to talk about how bad resistance to you is.
Well, that's obviously false at least on account of me pointing to the fact that you can't actually provide an alternative way to resist you, and your argument is reducible to 'resisting us is bad'.
What you did is claim that giving NATO years to cease aggression wasn't an attempt at avoiding a war.
You had every opportunity to prove me wrong by providing an alternative way to resist you. You took no opportunities to do so, even when prompted.
Saying that an armed invasion is an act of war and that acts of war are generally not good ways to avoid war is not claiming that resistance to aggression is bad. It is literally pointing out an act of aggression. According to the Budapest Memorandum, the deal for Ukraine giving up nukes was that Russia agrees to respect their sovereignty. And then Russia invaded Ukraine to annex territory. Twice now. I don't believe you're so stupid you can't grasp that, I think you're just that disingenuous.
I am not advocating that resistance to aggression is bad, and I think you know that.
So, was Russia giving NATO years to cease its aggression a bad way to avoid war or not?
Imagine not seeing international law as a joke in the year 2024.
And to defend against your aggression.
Notably, you are yet to provide any sort of alternative to resisting your aggression this way.
Riiiiight. You just completely coincidentally claim that instances of resistance to your aggression are bad. The only time you find resistance to you acceptable is when it's impotent.
The topic at hand was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the context of attempting to avoid war. I made no direct comments about other topics, nor did I intend to imply anything beyond that. To quote the comment that sparked all of this:
Russia is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of the facts that form the basis for the decision, if their true goal is to avoid war in a region, the best solution is to not militarily invade that region. That's it. That's my full claim. You can try to argue about whether or not Russia was justified to invade, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Russia wanting to not fight in a region they attacked after making a deal to not invade that region.
Cool. You are yet to present any sort of argument for how giving NATO years to stop aggression was a bad way to avoid war.
Yeah. So, how was giving you years to stop your aggression a bad way to avoid war? How should have Russia approached this?
And you should be held responsible for your actions. The rest of the world has every right to resist you. You have no ground to tell the world how to resist you.
Russia gave you years to stop aggression. You didn't.
So, you decided to completely ignore what the person you were responding to was talking about, and you can't even provide a supposedly-better alternative way to respond to your aggression. Good to know.
The person whom you were responding about said that Russia did try to avoid war, which is true. Russia did give you years to stop your aggression. You keep pretending as if that did not happen.
You mean after NATO enacted a coup there and after NATO reneged on its promises to not do what it did, and after NATO tried to establish a military presence there to attack Russia?
Removed by mod