4 ms·

I don't mean to attack you, but the thought occurred to me because you're not rigorously engaging those who disagree with you. Multiple people are giving you de

I don't mean to attack you, but the thought occurred to me because you're not rigorously engaging those who disagree with you. Multiple people are giving you detailed responses that are well-grounded in history and geographical realities, and you're just coming back with "far-fetched," "self-contradictory," and other content-free dodges. I'd be more convinced of your sincerity if you actually took the time to rebut others in detail. Edit: dogma1138's post in particular deserved a much better response than you gave. S/he's telling you of a dynamic that's been driving national strategies for literally thousands of years -- access to ports -- and you're acting like it just doesn't matter anymore. Why?

eveningcoffee 9y ago
There are signals that you are right but if he is to be believed then more likely he is just influenced by the Russian cultural space.
aquadrop 9y ago
> and you're just coming back with "far-fetched," "self-contradictory," and other content-free dodges Those things were in the same one comment, and if you look at others, you can see that I actually take the time to rebut in details. And dogma1138's comment is just really far-fetched. It starts with saying that Russia is land-locked country... Port of Murmansk is Ice free and gives easy access to the Atlantic. Also Russia has fleet of atomic ice-breakers and north passage is not a problem. And if you think back, during WW2 there was no need in attacking Sweden for any passages etc... And even with all that, dogma1138 comment is only applicable in the even of large scale NATO-Russia war, do you think it's possible? It's suicide for Russia if only regular weapons are used and suicide for the whole world if nukes are used, so I don't see it happening.