How many nuclear-capable countries have been invaded since WW2?

If this war has thought us anything, it’s that you can do whatever you want, as long as you have nukes. I have a feeling that is a much more dangerous result, than what a minor escalation may cause.

If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you’re utterly delusional. M

I’m not, and nowhere did I claim that. I said they don’t support Russia. What kind of depressing world do you live in where you have to support either the West or Russia. Countries are free to do their own thing, and do not need to support either. To spell it out: A country can oppose Russia, while at the same time also not support the West.

The UN resolution clearly shows: The vssz majority of countries, including the global south, think what Russia is doing is wrong. Many of them continue to trade with Russia despite the attack on Ukraine, not because of it. It should come as no surprise that especially poorer coutries can not pick and choose who they trade with.

Ah, you define support as “not actively opposed”? That is an incredibly low bar.

Again, the UN vote clearly shows that the countries don’t support Russia or think what the country does is right.

The fact that poor countries arw in no position to sanction anyone does not mean they support Russia.

Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a “de facto” member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?

NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous “de facto” members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a “de facto” member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.

Your links actualy don’t show that the “vast majority” spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don’t. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.

There is no such thing as “de facto” NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html

Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.

that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.

Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?

Everything except building trust, it seems.

And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.

I’m sure the tens of thousand of dead russian troops and all those displaced russian families prefer that to just gaining trust with others, resulting in the end of support for Ukraine and a quick surrender. Apparently getting people killed is better than doing everything you can to end end the conflict.

Surprised pikachu What? Ukraine did not trust Russia to not attack them again, after being attacked by Russia?

Russia has a trust-problem. If they are serious about wanting peace they should work on it.

How is that the implication when there are lots of other explanations, one even given above?

If the target costs more than the missile (including the opportunity cost), and/or the target is a high priority for repairs, it makes sense to target it. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that.

No, by refusing to answer my question I mean refusing to answer my question. Is the quote in the source accurate or not? It is a yes/no question. You can answer it with “yes”, you can answer it with “no”, or you can even give some longer answer if you desire. But you have not answered it in any way.

Best of luck to you too, you need it.

On the contrary, I am trying to build some type of shared understanding, but you are very insistent on never saying if you actually agree with something or not, so I can never be truly sure what you believe, or are actually trying to say. You are also never trying to confirm if you have understood me correctly, suggesting you are the one not really interested in establishing a shared understanding about what we are talking about.

But since you refuse to answer my previous question, I assume you agree that the quotes are accurate. And since you don’t seem interested to further discuss the accuracy of the sources, and because 2/2 sources we looked at were accurate, we can lay the discussion about source accuracy asaide and agree that the sources contain accutate statements, corresponding to Russian state media statements.

Now, it seems the next dispute is what is actually meant by red lines, is that correct? Your thesis seems to be that Russia has not placed any red lines, except for before the invasion of Ukraine (which when crossed triggered the invasion) and now with the F-16s (which would be the only uncrossed one?). But then, what does the quote

Lastly, it warned that “red lines,” or limits, for both sides were now “a thing of the past,”

refer to? Which red lined on the Russian side? It can’t be anything pre-war since those were already broken, and it can’t be the fighter-related one since that one is supposedly still in existence?

No, because the sources do talk about red lines. The quotes even include those specific words.

Now that you realized the sources are actually OK you start redefining what red lines are, even going against what the Russian state itself considers, and even calls, red lines?

Again, please answer the question, are the quotes ftom the article accurate or not. It’s a yes or no question. Discussing is much easier if we can establish what is actually being disputed. We can move on the other questions later.

Don’t avoid the question. Is the source I linked to accurate, or not? You claimed you looked at many sources and that they contained lies about statements Russia never made, yet just by looking at the first two in order that does not seem to be the case.

So, are the quoted in the linked source accurate or not? If yes, let’s take a look at the next source, and then the next, etc. until we find one of the many you claim contains false information.

The discussion started off with fear of escalation. If Russia considers the west part of the war, and thst results in (checks notes) nothing at all, then it seems we are indeed fine, and no need to worry.

And it’s also good you admit that at least some of the sources are good. Shall we now together go through each red line in the Wikipedia article and repeat this excercise?

Let’s take the first source for the previoud broken red line (going in order so there is no cherry picking): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-44

The article contains the quote:

The embassy said it was now convinced that Germany and its closest allies were “not interested in a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis” but were “set up for its permanent escalation and unlimited pumping of the Kyiv regime with more and more deadly weapons.”

Lastly, it warned that “red lines,” or limits, for both sides were now “a thing of the past,” echoing similar comments from Russia’s Foreign Ministry earlier Wednesday as it reacted to the prospect of U.S. Abrams tanks being sent to Ukraine, claiming Washington “has unequivocally stated its desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.”

Is your claim that none of the sources given in the article, e.g. https://germany.mid.ru/ru/press-centre/news/kommentariy_posla_rossii_v_germanii_s_yu_nechaeva_o_reshenii_pravitelstva_frg_o_postavkakh_ukraine_t/ contain that information?

I open the very first source for the most recent red line in the wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-46

Whst does it say?

In a briefing on Thursday, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added that Russia “reserves the right to defend its territory”.

If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,” Zakharova said.

Is your claim that Zakharova said no such thing?

I’m not sure I follow? Are you saying your friend says I fuck goats, but in fact they do not? Would it not be quite simple to ask them, and dismiss them as a source since they themselves say they aren’t one?

Regardless, when given a source, one looks at the content, not who or what the source is (ad hominem). If there is no argument for rejecting the source based on the content, it should be accepted.

You still have not given a reasoning for rejecting the sources, and instead went on a tangent about my sexual exploits.

I still think you made a good analogy, and as I stated, one should look at what your friend had to say about the goats: if they deny having said anything related to my goats the situation is clear. If they claim it is true, I can check the veracity of their claim. What I don’t do is reject them without first hearing them or expect anyone else to just blindly reject them.