3 ms·
'National security' as a political question has at some point been taken over by emotional lunatics. I don't know what to say really.
by rightbyte 2y ago
'National security' as a political question has at some point been taken over by emotional lunatics. I don't know what to say really.
- talldayo 2y agoWith fairness to these "emotional lunatics", their assumption that Russia would be too afraid to attack NATO territories has thus far been proven right.
- rightbyte 2y agoAs long as we are able to quibble about on the internets, ye, we haven't come to lobbing those around yet. Correct. Always a correct argument if it makes ot to the servers. At this point it hasn't happened...
- mopsi 2y agoSounds very emotional.
- rightbyte 2y agoI see the irony, yes.
- talldayo 2y agoUnfortunately for Russia, the "Final Warning" strategy has since been translated into English and is therefore ineffective against modern NATO regiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning America doesn't negotiate with terrorism, only strategic arms reduction. Russia cannot desire for nuclear war because it cannot be used as a bartering tool; ICBMs are merely an expensive pen for signing their own death warrant.
- rcxdude 2y agoThe US's national security interests in supporting Ukraine are pretty blindingly obvious. Turning isolationist and emboldening Russia helps no-one but Russia.