The invasion of Iraq started in the early 00s.
Ukraine had troops in Syria, helping DAESH at least in 2024.
NATO’s current invasion of Iran (which Ukraine participates in) started early this year.
If you actually opposed invasions, you would have called for Ukraine to be punished.
You don’t need to convinced me that Ukraine is not innocent in any capacity. Hell, you can even punish and deter in some capacities. You are not going to convince me those crimes amount to the need to have a full scale irridentist invasion that has killed so many people in both countries.
So, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Also, I can’t help but notice that you still use the “FULL SCALE INVASION” propaganda that the people that sold you on Iraq’s WMDs want you to regurgitate.
So, responding to NATO’s aggression is the same as NATO constantly invading everywhere?
Also, again, the “FULL SCALE INVASION” is very obvious pro-NATO propaganda.
Going to ask my question again, since I did not get an answer:
what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Also maybe not do things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.
So, you agree with Russia’s actions to get their own troops there, then.
Also maybe not so things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.
You mean the thing that NATO partially managed in the Korean peninsula? Honestly not sure what you are trying to refer to here.
So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?
Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).
The invasion of Iraq started in the early 00s.
Ukraine had troops in Syria, helping DAESH at least in 2024.
NATO’s current invasion of Iran (which Ukraine participates in) started early this year.
If you actually opposed invasions, you would have called for Ukraine to be punished.
TIL they had 6000 troops in the Iraq invasion.
You don’t need to convinced me that Ukraine is not innocent in any capacity. Hell, you can even punish and deter in some capacities. You are not going to convince me those crimes amount to the need to have a full scale irridentist invasion that has killed so many people in both countries.
So, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Also, I can’t help but notice that you still use the “FULL SCALE INVASION” propaganda that the people that sold you on Iraq’s WMDs want you to regurgitate.
The US and Ukraine are different countries?
Also is it not? Russia is doing America shit.
The latter is a de facto subject of the former.
So, responding to NATO’s aggression is the same as NATO constantly invading everywhere?
Also, again, the “FULL SCALE INVASION” is very obvious pro-NATO propaganda.
Going to ask my question again, since I did not get an answer:
what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?
Get your own troops there and chill.
Also maybe not do things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.
Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.
So, you agree with Russia’s actions to get their own troops there, then.
You mean the thing that NATO partially managed in the Korean peninsula? Honestly not sure what you are trying to refer to here.
Yeah, Russian troops do seem to have been needed.
Who did the special military operation, Ukraine or Russia?
So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?
Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).