klieg2323

Then what exactly do you call your comment I'm replying to?

It sounds like you watch too many action movies.

Seems exactly like an ad hominem attack. Something i only return in favor. You had absolutely nothing intelligent to say in response to me and it shows. Christ almighty, quit gaslighting everyone. We get it youre either a bot or working at a pentagon troll farm.

Or, you know, because it's free and they're running this service for you out of the goodness of their hearts?

I suppose it's easier to attack than to actually read and comprehend what someone says. I'm fully aware of who I'm talking to and what post were in. You're the guy I triggered by not wanting the us to escalate the situation into WW3 by committing troops.

The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.

I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they’re already struggling to capture former USSR nations.

And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity. You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say

Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

It's incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn't declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.

You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.

It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they're not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we've both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.

Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don't want to get anywhere close to that. While you seem to be yeehawing like Major Kong

So the only situation where a Russian bomb falls on my house is when it's an ICBM launched because the US escalated themselves into full on war over Ukraine.

You have stated multiple times in your comments that the US is trying to start a war. Several other people have called you out on this.

Literally where? I have only ever stated the fact that the US commiting troops on the ground would escalate the current conflict into WW3. I'm literally here arguing for peace and not to escalate to nuclear Armageddon. L

You on the other hand seem very much determined to see as much of the world burn as possible and it's sick. Learn some history and become aware of what would actually happen if your wet dreams come true

You know that the lemmygrad users could make an account on another instance like yours to interact with the wider fediverse

Maybe take some time to inspect the votes? They're not coming from lemmygrad. It's all public info

Gotcha, so you'd rather die than let Ukraine and Russia naturally resolve their conflict. I forgot how well Russia was doing in Ukraine right now

For real though, I get your argument is rooted in the "appeasement didn't work" aspect of WW2. It's important to note that Chamberlain's appeasement strategy was going on while Hitler was invading the sudatenland. Today we have a unified response from Europe to support Ukraine indirectly. Nobody is appeasing Russia like they were nazi Germany. Not to mention Russia literally has been exhausted by this. If they can't hold the border territory they're trying to keep, what makes you think they'd make a Nazi war path across Europe?

Literally wishing for the end of the world because two countries are fighting over a border territory is insane. Most world conflicts have been fought over territory. Yes it's similar to how WW2 started because it's literally how most wars start.

If you're suicidal like that, maybe go volunteer yourself for Ukraine instead of taking the rest of us down with you.

Wow that's so wrong it's funny.

.ml = Mali

The country of Mali allows free domain registration.

That's why it's used. Because it's free.

But by all means, keep buying into the tankie conspiracy instead of actually reading into things

So by your logic the US should directly commit troops and provoke a declaration of war from Russia? You do realize that would bring all of NATO (nuclear powerful) into a hot war with Russia (also nuclear powerful) over a few regions they can't seem to hold in Ukraine?

Sorry, that's crazy.

You're right, Ukraine is a sovereign nation. They have every right to defend themselves and I am in no way defending Russia's invasion. That being said, other sovereign nations should not be expected to put their people's lives on the line so Ukraine can win in their conflict with Russia.

Everyone seems so concerned with the appeasement aspect of trying to contain Hitler in WW2 they forget the lessons of WW1 bringing the world into a pointless bloody and destructive war through alliances after the assassination of an archduke.

Not to mention the situation today is vastly different than the eve of WW2. Literally the only similarity is a territorial conflict which is true of the majority of the worlds conflicts. Let's compare

While Germany was invading the sudatenland, Chamberlain persued a policy of appeasement, trying to befriend Hitler. During Russia's invasion of Ukraine there was almost universal opposition with countries lending indirect aid to Ukraine instead of just standing by.

Part of German expansion was the systematic stripping and denial of personhood and rights to anyone deemed undesirable creating a crisis where refugees could not leave without proper papers they could never get. Compared with today where Ukrainian refugees get to use the fast pass lane to enter the US through Mexico.

Most importantly, Germany never developed the nuke. They tried, but didn't get there before the end of the war. There was zero nuclear consideration to worry about. Compared to Russia today which is a nuclear powerhouse on par with the US.

History will only remember if we don't nuke ourselves out of existence because of this. Too many people alive today don't know the fear of mutually assured destruction. Never thought that old cold war vestage actually served a useful purpose in the minds of the people.

You have a completely different outlook then. I'm sorry, but we are not your protector. The US is on the other side of the world.

We are criticizing the US. Nobody is trying to say the US is worse than Russia here. We are meetelt pointing out the fact that escalating troops in Europe is a bad baby step towards all out war. If the us commits troops on the ground on the side of Ukraine, Russia will declare ware and nato article 5 will be invoked. All sides are nuclear poweres. First it might start with tactical nukes on your side of the world. Then it will escalate to ICBMs. It will end when there are no countries or borders and most of the world is dead and in ruin with Eastern Europe being ground zero. Idk why you would want to escalate the situation with US military involvement when it literally would make your part of the world a nuclear wasteland.

But hey, if not wanting to see the world get nuked makes me a Russian bot so be it. Better that than a pentagon warhawk trying to profit off this whole thing.

Nobody is blaming the US for starting this war. We are all literally saying that an escalation like committing troops would escalate quickly into nuclear war and we are criticizing the US for taking even baby steps in that direction.

Compare that with you trying to dive head first into a nuclear conflict we don't belong in. Which weapons manufacturer or military branch do you work for?