@royalblue04 said in #34:
> There was simply no intention tp place military installaions in the Ukraine. For the next 2 decades it was rather sure that the Ukraine had no option to enter the NATO. That only now has schgnaged. If the Ukraine surive this as a state and would like to enter The NATO - how could that be refused?
> There were no agression from NATO against Russia, simply because of the fact that with an agression is nothing to win and anything to loose. It is for nny Nation - how mighty they ever get - impossible to wage war upon Russia cause of their nuclear weapons. And as a said - for what reason? There is nothing to win. Gas, oil and coal in the past was simple to get and much, much cheaper than with any agression against Russia.
> So this is evil andd mean prppaganda what you tell. And China refuses any intervention in the souverinty of any stae as far as i know. With good reason.
I am sorry, but I have to respectfully digress with your subjective statements. On the first point of Ukraine joining NATO, even if Ukraine doesn't join NATO, it still doesn't change the fact that Ukraine's increasingly close relations to the West will be a strategic disadvantage towards Russia. It is analogous to having a surreptitious henchman from your nemesis stationed right in front of your house. No one would want that, and this is the rationale behind the invasion I was trying to explain in #6. Also, your comment on gas, oil, and coal is a complete fallacy. From the start of diplomatic tensions with Russia gas and oil prices have started to rise and this trend is continuing even more steeply, with no sign of stopping. This can be shown in this BBC article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60502451. Lastly, in regards to your comment about how I am spreading "evil and mean" propaganda, I have to inform you that this is purely what I believe to be the truth, I am not influenced by any state propaganda of neither Russia nor China, in fact I am in the UK right now and watch BBC regularly. I have supported my beliefs with reasons and analogies, and I have never outwardly supported this invasion, nor have I just blindly stated premises without any substantiation. Furthermore, it is not my problem that China is abstaining from intervention, what am I supposed to do? Go up to Xi JingPing with a gun and force him to join the intervention? Absurd! I have to again reiterate that you clearly don't understand the situation from all perspectives. You may have understood the West's perspective but have you fully understood Russia's? I doubt it.
> There was simply no intention tp place military installaions in the Ukraine. For the next 2 decades it was rather sure that the Ukraine had no option to enter the NATO. That only now has schgnaged. If the Ukraine surive this as a state and would like to enter The NATO - how could that be refused?
> There were no agression from NATO against Russia, simply because of the fact that with an agression is nothing to win and anything to loose. It is for nny Nation - how mighty they ever get - impossible to wage war upon Russia cause of their nuclear weapons. And as a said - for what reason? There is nothing to win. Gas, oil and coal in the past was simple to get and much, much cheaper than with any agression against Russia.
> So this is evil andd mean prppaganda what you tell. And China refuses any intervention in the souverinty of any stae as far as i know. With good reason.
I am sorry, but I have to respectfully digress with your subjective statements. On the first point of Ukraine joining NATO, even if Ukraine doesn't join NATO, it still doesn't change the fact that Ukraine's increasingly close relations to the West will be a strategic disadvantage towards Russia. It is analogous to having a surreptitious henchman from your nemesis stationed right in front of your house. No one would want that, and this is the rationale behind the invasion I was trying to explain in #6. Also, your comment on gas, oil, and coal is a complete fallacy. From the start of diplomatic tensions with Russia gas and oil prices have started to rise and this trend is continuing even more steeply, with no sign of stopping. This can be shown in this BBC article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60502451. Lastly, in regards to your comment about how I am spreading "evil and mean" propaganda, I have to inform you that this is purely what I believe to be the truth, I am not influenced by any state propaganda of neither Russia nor China, in fact I am in the UK right now and watch BBC regularly. I have supported my beliefs with reasons and analogies, and I have never outwardly supported this invasion, nor have I just blindly stated premises without any substantiation. Furthermore, it is not my problem that China is abstaining from intervention, what am I supposed to do? Go up to Xi JingPing with a gun and force him to join the intervention? Absurd! I have to again reiterate that you clearly don't understand the situation from all perspectives. You may have understood the West's perspective but have you fully understood Russia's? I doubt it.