4 ms·

Don't change the topic. You were the one claiming that requesting Ukraine stay neutral is not unreasonable (implying that it is fine to attack another country i

Don't change the topic. You were the one claiming that requesting Ukraine stay neutral is not unreasonable (implying that it is fine to attack another country if they do not abide to the request). Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?

xtian 5y ago
I never said they shouldn’t have the freedom to choose. Never mind that they didn’t- the US literally just sponsored a color revolution there in 2014. But don’t expect Russia to not react if their security is threatened.
- beefield 5y ago
  Pathetic. You implied it is not unreasonable to attack another country and require "neutrality", which by definition means you think you are entitled to deny another sovereign country their freedom to choose. Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.
  - xtian 5y ago
    Where was Libya or Yugoslavia’s “freedom to choose” when NATO invaded? Russia has no reason to believe that NATO will behave peacefully as it expands ever eastward.
    - beefield 5y ago
      We are not talking about NATO. We are talking about your claim that other sovereign countries should not have the freedom to choose who they play chess with. I mean, you have all the freedom to make yourself more lucrative voluntary chess playing companion than NATO, nobody is denying that. Instead you choose to be a failed developing totalitarian country bullying and attacking its neighbours and you wonder why they want to join NATO?
      - xtian 5y ago
        Where did I claim that? What does “freedom” mean to you? Freedom from consequences?

xtian 5y ago

I never said they shouldn’t have the freedom to choose. Never mind that they didn’t- the US literally just sponsored a color revolution there in 2014. But don’t expect Russia to not react if their security is threatened.

beefield 5y ago
Pathetic. You implied it is not unreasonable to attack another country and require "neutrality", which by definition means you think you are entitled to deny another sovereign country their freedom to choose. Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.
- xtian 5y ago
  Where was Libya or Yugoslavia’s “freedom to choose” when NATO invaded? Russia has no reason to believe that NATO will behave peacefully as it expands ever eastward.
  - beefield 5y ago
    We are not talking about NATO. We are talking about your claim that other sovereign countries should not have the freedom to choose who they play chess with. I mean, you have all the freedom to make yourself more lucrative voluntary chess playing companion than NATO, nobody is denying that. Instead you choose to be a failed developing totalitarian country bullying and attacking its neighbours and you wonder why they want to join NATO?
    - xtian 5y ago
      Where did I claim that? What does “freedom” mean to you? Freedom from consequences?