These were violent invasions of sovereign countries. Period. Thanks for confirming that you’re just a troll without any intellectual integrity.
that probably sounded really intelligent in your head too
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, just to name a few. How can anybody be such an utter ignoramus is truly astounding.
The fact that you don’t understand how utterly idiotic your statement is shows that no rational discussion with you will be possible.
The US doing a color revolution in Ukraine in 2014 was what started the civil war there last I checked. So, pretty clearly it was the west that violated the sovereignty of Ukraine by violently overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with literal fascists.
You are the one being intellectually dishonest in this thread.
It’s baffling how often we overlook the importance of negative freedoms, such as freedom from poverty and the fear of illness or a lack of financial security in old age. These are tangible, real-world freedoms that directly impact our quality of life. Meanwhile, we’re constantly told that the ability to express ourselves is the ultimate form of liberty. It’s time to reevaluate our priorities and recognize the true value of actual tangible freedoms.
The state of the rail system is a good proxy because it’s a huge infrastructure project that doesn’t generate any immediate profit. These types of projects are done primarily to provide social value, thus it’s an indication of a society that is willing to invest into improving the quality of life for the majority.
People aren’t moving to a country that’s difficult to move to. Amazing argument you’ve mustered there.
That’s because your argument is a straw man that ignores context and history. Now run along and do your trolling elsewhere.
I’ve literally refuted your argument by demonstrating that NATO expansion has been happening since the fall of USSR and that plenty of prominent people in the west have warned that it would culminate in a war. Nobody is moving any goal posts on you here. You’re the one who can’t refute basic facts of the situation, and having no integrity, you try to deflect from that. It’s both pathetic and transparent. Good job outing yourself as a troll. Bye.
seems like that’s a scenario that’s most likely to happen in burgerland actually
Subjugating the working class majority is literally the whole point of establishing a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
Sure, yet there’s no actual evidence that this science has been overturned by anyone. At best there’s a disagreement in the scientific community regarding what the worst case scenario would be.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
Pretty clear that a lot of people are trying to marginalize the threat of a nuclear conflict even in this very thread.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
Nope, I don’t think that at all. That’s just a straw man you’re building here.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with being aggressive and rude towards people spreading dangerous nonsense calling research they disagree with Russian misinformation. It’s interesting how you went after me and not the other poster.
What are you even talking about. This all started back in the 90s, and has been going on since. In fact, plenty of western experts have been warning about NATO expansion for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Anybody who pretends that this all started in 2014 is deeply intellectually dishonest.
I’m not twisting anything here. I’ve been very clear regarding the specific point I was making. The context of this whole thread is that the use of long range weapons do do deep strikes is the one clear red line that Russia articulated. The fact that you’re trying to twist this into something else shows that you’re the one being intellectually dishonest here. Bye.
I was very clearly replying to this statement claiming that Russia has supposedly outlines lots of previous red lines that have been broken.
Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
Are you just intentionally ignoring the context here?
No, I’m saying that we should seriously consider peer reviewed research on the likely effects of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, a bunch of idiots here are claiming that western peer reviewed research is Russian propaganda. The fact that you’re claiming that I’m the one pushing an agenda is fascinating.
Yes, all of those say that use of long range missiles within Russia would be the red line. And the reason it would be a red line is because this would be NATO personnel doing strikes directly into Russia.
Anybody who understands how science works trust peer reviewed science. Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of peer review?