this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
65 points (84.9% liked)

World News

32288 readers
1172 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay I'm going to stop you there. Do a proper analysis. You seem to want me to think your whole argument for you rather than making yourself clear.

First, have the demands ever been made? You flip flop on that a lot.

Then, are the demands based in facts? You also seem to flip flop on whether that is true.

And only then can you tell me whether they are morally justifiable or not.

And after that tell me why or why not can NATO validate and concede on those demands, and whether they're partly to blame for this war.

Since those are the only ones you cited right now (because your memory is very wonky), focus on Azov and the two independent republics.

You have a whole week to write because I won't reply until next Saturday, since I'm no longer cooking. Don't get too lonely.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And back with the vagueness.

We already established demands. The last two comments we've explicitly discussed demands. But don't worry, I've got you. Here's the official draft that we first discussed. Bunch of legal jargon so I'll condense it to some key points. I'll also add the points you brought up afterwards (the nazis and DPR and LPR)

  • No NATO forces from NATO members before 28 May 1997 may be deployed into any NATO member state that joined after 27 May 1997 unless Russia allows it.
  • No deployment of intermediate- and short-range missiles that could reach into Russia.
  • No more NATO expansion, including Ukraine.
  • All NATO members cannot conduct any military activity in other countries in eastern Europe (including Ukraine), South Caucasus and Central Asia.
  • De-nazification of Ukraine
  • Recognition of DPR and LPR

Then, are the demands based in facts? You also seem to flip flop on whether that is true.

No idea where you get that considering I've pretty consistently said that they're unreasonable (with the exception of the nazi and DPR/LPR thing), which pretty much implies they're not based in facts.

And after that tell me why or why not can NATO validate and concede on those demands, and whether they’re partly to blame for this war.

Somehow I have to make your points? Whatever, lazyass.

No NATO forces from NATO members before 28 May 1997 may be deployed into any NATO member state that joined after 27 May 1997 unless Russia allows it.

NATO cannot segregate itself so obviously they can't comply with this.

No deployment of intermediate- and short-range missiles that could reach into Russia.

This one is the most reasonable one, but even that is not that clear cut. Some of those missiles are a part of the missile defense system that NATO won't remove so that's not a fulfillable demand. But NATO has given Russia a chance to come to an agreement here. Back in 2011 Biden visited Moscow to discuss a missile defense co-operation which Russia turned down. Similarly there was the IMF treaty (which also covers some of the missiles in question) that got scrapped under the pretense that Russia wasn't complying with the treaty. So one could make the argument that Russia themselves creates a situation where they could make such demands. Do you need sources for those or are you capable of googling those two things yourself? Eh fuck it, IMF wiki and missile defense co-operation that never got off the ground.

All NATO members cannot conduct any military activity in other countries in eastern Europe (including Ukraine), South Caucasus and Central Asia.

It's again one of those things that seems reasonable except for the fact that NATO countries that are in the EU literally cannot accept this. For instance Georgia is planning to join the EU. If Georgia joins the EU then they get protected by EDA which means it gets protected by the same countries that would here have to agree to never protect Georgia. It's an obvious conflict of interest for EU and thus by extension also for NATO.

De-nazification of Ukraine

Not sure what more NATO could do there. You don't seem to be aware that the US hasn't provided funds to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion since 2017. The biggest NATO member doesn't support the Nazi battalion. I really don't see what else NATO could do besides wag their finger at Ukraine who claims their battalion is not longer a nazi battalion. But I'll be happy to concede this point because I seriously doubt NATO doing something about the nazis would've deterred Russia. It didn't even make it into the first round of demands.

Recognition of DPR and LPR

I'll also concede this point mostly for the same reasons as the previous one. But also because Russia could've just walked into DPR and LPR like they did in Crimea and say "this is mine now". Nothing really happened over Crimea, nothing would've happened over those two regions either. The acknowledgement of those regions wouldn't have prevented the war, Russia wanted to take a bigger bite.

Since those are the only ones you cited right now (because your memory is very wonky), focus on Azov and the two independent republics.

How about no. Those two are the least relevant in the list of demands, they weren't even in first list of demands.

You have a whole week to write because I won’t reply until next Saturday, since I’m no longer cooking. Don’t get too lonely.

Don't worry. I'll pester you whenever you're online.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

!remindme ~~7 days~~ 1984 years

Edit: go away debate pervert