Putin's Nuclear War Threat

@metal-brain said
@kevcvs57
Stop lying. You are the fascist.

If you say so Gauleiter Brain ✋🏼

@kevcvs57 said
Stances change you halfwitted numbskull geo politics is what it is, just like Russias stance on recognising Ukraines borders for giving up its nuclear weapons, remember that one?
You need to stop lying about Russias invasion being ANYTHING to do with Ukraine's non NATO membership unless your arguing that it is justifiable for Russia to renege on its agreements but everyone ...[text shortened]... ment?
I guess it must be the lawyer in you that can take this retarded stance with a straight face.

You need to stop lying by constantly claiming I said Russia's invasion was justified when I have repeatedly said the opposite.

But maybe for you a simple minded explanation like "Putin is a BAD man who wants to conquer Europe" is sufficient but I prefer to look at historical events with a bit more depth. It is stupidity to keep insisting that the threat of Ukrainian membership in NATO played no role in Russia's decision to invade just like it would be stupidity to say that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles played no role in Hitler's rise and eventually WWII. The prior event might not "justify" the latter but it is foolish to ignore its effect of those making decisions.

Ukrainian neutrality seems to have been just as much part of the "agreement" for its peaceful independence as it turning over nuclear weapons it didn't actually control or Russian recognition of prior internal USSR borders. Ukraine's reversal of that position plus internal political developments like the 2014 coup and increased repression of ethnic Russians in that country surely played a role in triggering the invasion. This truth exists whether you and others admit it or not.

@no1marauder said
You need to stop lying by constantly claiming I said Russia's invasion was justified when I have repeatedly said the opposite.

But maybe for you a simple minded explanation like "Putin is a BAD man who wants to conquer Europe" is sufficient but I prefer to look at historical events with a bit more depth. It is stupidity to keep insisting that the threat of Ukrainian me ...[text shortened]... played a role in triggering the invasion. This truth exists whether you and others admit it or not.

“ But maybe for you a simple minded explanation like "Putin is a BAD man who wants to conquer Europe" is sufficient but I prefer to look at historical events with a bit more depth. It is stupidity to keep insisting that the threat of Ukrainian membership in NATO played no role in Russia's decision to invade just like it would be stupidity to say that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles played no role in Hitler's rise and eventually WWII. The prior event might not "justify" the latter but it is foolish to ignore its effect of those making decisions.”

Ahh I see where your going wrong No1

Your putting the same emphasis on things that did not happen as those that actually did happen, interesting phenomenon. But it’s still a fact that Ukraine was about as likely to join nato as pigs appearing in the next airshow, it’s also absolutely true that yourself and Putin knew, and still know this.
So given that you are willing to lie in support of Putin’s non existent justification for invading his neighbour in an obvious war of expansion do you still think I’m lying about your support for Putin’s war because for this simpleton it’s pretty obvious whose side you’ve chosen.
Do you seriously think a sovereign state can be held to an agreement brokered for it by a powerful neighbour and there even more powerful one time adversary in perpetuity. Your saying that Ukraine must forever sit alone between what you freely admit are two potentially warring factions because that’s what the Kremlin and the White House decided thats where the Ukrainian people should be forever.
The grown ups know this started when the Ukrainian people expressed a preference for admission to the EU over Putin’s trading block but you can keep pretending otherwise if you think it makes your stance less Putinesque
I think I prefer my simpleton status to you and Putins god like delusional state.

@kevcvs57 said
“ But maybe for you a simple minded explanation like "Putin is a BAD man who wants to conquer Europe" is sufficient but I prefer to look at historical events with a bit more depth. It is stupidity to keep insisting that the threat of Ukrainian membership in NATO played no role in Russia's decision to invade just like it would be stupidity to say that the terms of the Treaty ...[text shortened]... less Putinesque
I think I prefer my simpleton status to you and Putins god like delusional state.

This is pointless; your willingness to lie about my positions remains intact. So this isn't a "debate" between two points of view - it's one person deliberately and persistently telling falsehoods.

@no1marauder said
This is pointless; your willingness to lie about my positions remains intact. So this isn't a "debate" between two points of view - it's one person deliberately and persistently telling falsehoods.

I couldn’t agree more No1

@vivify said
"The U.S. did it too" is not a defense.

Yes it is, especially when the USA says it after Russia says it.
They both stated the same policy. That is a good defense.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stunning-strategy-reversal-pentagon-will-no-longer-rule-out-use-nuclear-weapons-against-non

What Putin said was no different than what Liz Truss said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/putin-says-russia-will-never-be-wiped-geopolitical-map-west-plays-dirty-game-ukraine