Thumpalumpacus
Major
It's a yes-or-no question, either he can manage something that simple or he cannot. <shrug>
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
He won't and he spun the hell out of several points on their page (which let the air out of his narrative, btw).
Sorry I didn't notice that question of yours as suchI notice you didn't answer my question.
Didn't bother Clinton and NATO in regards to Serbia at all !!! an action that was never sanctioned or endorsed by the UNAs for NATO, we've been around this one before. NATO does not have any mandate to protect nations who are not signatories to the agreement. Yes, NATO could, in theory, act outside its borders but that requires a mandate from the UN,...which leads us back to my previous point.
Who cares about Putin's theoretical rants in 2015 ? but one (politicians) needs to make sure that he can't make them happen in e.g. February 2022It would also play right into Putin's narrative of NATO being an offensive threat to Russia.
Explain in clear and concise language, why NATO was involved in Serbia.Didn't bother Clinton and NATO in regards to Serbia at all !!! an action that was never sanctioned or endorsed by the UN
NATO’s bombing of Serbia: A tragedy in three acts
The 1999 bombing of Serbia has, to some extent, set in motion the current state of affairs between the US, NATO, and Russiawww.rt.com
Who cares about Putin's theoretical rants in 2015 ? but one (politicians) needs to make sure that he can't make them happen in e.g. February 2022
Didn't bother Clinton and NATO in regards to Serbia at all !!! an action that was never sanctioned or endorsed by the UN
NATO’s bombing of Serbia: A tragedy in three acts
The 1999 bombing of Serbia has, to some extent, set in motion the current state of affairs between the US, NATO, and Russiawww.rt.com
Who cares about Putin's theoretical rants in 2015 ? but one (politicians) needs to make sure that he can't make them happen in e.g. February 2022
Since you got your own opinions, read it up yourselfExplain in clear and concise language, why NATO was involved in Serbia.
We'll wait for your detailed explanation.
Bollocks! Politicians are paid to represent their constituents. They are far from all-knowing.
I know exactly why NATO was involved in the Serbia situation.Since you got your own opinions, read it up yourself
Sorry I didn't notice that question of yours as such
Off course any sovereign nation has the right to determine it's own foreign policy
Sorry I didn't notice that question of yours as such
Off course any sovereign nation has the right to determine it's own foreign policy - but that wasn't our topic
But you stating wrongly that there was no cooperation and interaction, but neutrality by Ukraine towards NATO before 2014 as being a "fact"
So if a sovereign nation has the right to decide its own foreign policy, and decides to engage with cooperative engagements with whom it desires on a peaceful basis, is that a justification for another nation to invade it?
And that is indeed our topic, because you are here trying to explain Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which devolves directly upon Ukraine's willingness to cooperate with NATO while spurning Russia. That is one of Putin's prime justification for his country's, ahem, not-an-invasion.
Further, I did not write that there was no cooperation nor interaction, simply that the nature of such interactions did not void Ukraine's neutrality.
Very well said. How is a nation supposed to remain neutral when, on the one hand, it sees an effective, defensive alliance based on rule of law and democratic values, while on the other it sees a dictatorship that's seeking to remove the nation's choice and freedom? I can't see any nation in the world viewing those polar opposites as somehow being of equivalent value and meriting the same response.
Good for you - then why ask silly questions?I know exactly why NATO was involved in the Serbia situation.
I never said or stated anything else that would refute those 3 issues.Congratulations.
You have just confirmed that Russia is in breach of all acceptable international standards by trying to force sovereign nations, (such as)
and therefore that all your crap is just that - crap. Solid brown coated foul smelling crap at that.
- Ukraine (Finland, Sweden etc) not to apply for membership of NATO, and
- NATO not to accept Ukraine (and any other country Putin wants to subjugate) as a member, and for
- Ukraine to be absorbed by Russia rather than remain a sovereign nation,
I never said that and you know that I do not think that way - so why bring up that statement?So if a sovereign nation has the right to decide its own foreign policy, and decides to engage with cooperative engagements with whom it desires on a peaceful basis, is that a justification for another nation to invade it?
No, that was NOT my topic, but for politicians to choose a smart option to prevent such a scenario - and if it does happens, to posses the realistic means to go in immediately and not to end up as now.And that is indeed our topic, because you are here trying to explain Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which devolves directly upon Ukraine's willingness to cooperate with NATO while spurning Russia. That is one of Putin's prime justifications for his country's, ahem, not-an-invasion.
No you did not - you stated: ....Russia invaded Ukraine before Ukraine abandoned neutrality. This is a fact.Further, I did not write that there was no cooperation nor interaction, simply that the nature of such interactions did not void Ukraine's neutrality.
Not what I read. The established media either ignored the stories or published along the lines of the cruiser Admiral Makarov has "reportedly" been sunk.
You won't get that level of fact checking and almost contrition from Twitter posters. You do you, I'm not a Mod here, but I would argue that proliferation of misinformation, including purported combat footage from Twitter does no one any good.
I suggest you stop caring if your questions are answered. We have a right to ask and in return everyone has a right to ignore the questions, and the reason they ignore cannot be assumed to be acceptance or rejection of the questioner's position on something. I looked back on my posts and don't think I've ever once circled back to demand a reply to my posts.I notice you didn't answer my question.
Since you got your own opinions, read it up yourself
Good for you - then why ask silly questions?