Re: European politics
Posted: 22 Jun 2022, 23:34
Maybe GS was right about you. Don't you ever get tired of these out of context, nitpicked, strawman arguments.
The most active Age of Empires III community: hosting seasonal tournaments, live streams, replays, expert strategy, and fan-made content.
https://eso-community.net/
Then why are your arguments 100% indistinguishable from Kremlin vatnik propaganda.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑23 Jun 2022, 19:55The thing is I have brought arguments to you from a neutral perspective
Not true, I countered them all. But you just move on without acknowledging you have no more counterarguments or just pretend nothing has been said.yet you couldn't counter one argument without your inherent bias against Russia.
Can you prove this statement? Because based on my last estimation, it's exactly the other way around. It's most of the developed world and the biggest economies that condemned Russia for its imperialist invasion of Ukraine. If you only just add the USA and the EU's economies you get over half of the globe's economic output. But if you start adding Japan, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan you get over 60% of the world's generated economic value.despite responses from countries representing ... 60%+ global economy,
Yeah I already covered that. I explained to you how you are mistaken to claim the Ukrainian people and identity did not exist before the 20th century, I wrote a chronology showing the main events that defined Ukraine as a separate medieval entity with its own rulers and language that split from Russian many centuries ago and how Russian rulers tried to suppress it. They've been through the same pattern of events we see now since medieval times. Russian invaders have kept trying to occupy lands around their turf and just kept expanding by oppressing neighbouring peoples.precedence and barrage of historical events
Where did Western countries occupy and annex foreign countries in the last century? Did the UK's or USA's territory increase through annexation somewhere in the last 100 years? They stopped doing that before the second WW, when Western colonial empires had already disappeared., despite every western country having done same thing when in place of Russia, you still refuse to accept the truth of the situation.
sounds familiar.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
I can only recommend making use of the pest list.harcha wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:23sounds familiar.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
Wtf are you talking about. Lithuania has no obligation to allow trains from another state to transit its territory. They can completely close their borders if they want to. A sovereign state can do that at any time for whatever reasons they deem necessary.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13Russia should definitely establish a land corridor to Kaliningrad though. Lithuania has done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
Yes, but this is not that. This is pure blackmail plain and simple. This is upending the status quo that has been in place for decades. This breaks the very nature of the contract that parties are obligated to follow. Does the treaty between Russia and Lithuania which allows Russia to transport goods to Kaliningrad explicitly allow Lithuania to break the deal at any given time without any notice? If not then it is breach of contract and under the circumstances could be constituted as an act of war.Dolan wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:48Wtf are you talking about. Lithuania has no obligation to allow trains from another state to transit its territory. They can completely close their borders if they want to. A sovereign state can do that at any time for whatever reasons they deem necessary.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13Russia should definitely establish a land corridor to Kaliningrad though. Lithuania has done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
What treaty, Russia broke the treaty it signed with Ukraine in 1997, by which it recognised Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine removing its nukes. If Russia breaks international treaties, why shouldn't Lithuania do it too.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 12:56Yes, but this is not that. This is pure blackmail plain and simple. This is upending the status quo that has been in place for decades. This breaks the very nature of the contract that parties are obligated to follow. Does the treaty between Russia and Lithuania which allows Russia to transport goods to Kaliningrad explicitly allow Lithuania to break the deal at any given time without any notice? If not then it is breach of contract and under the circumstances could be constituted as an act of war.Dolan wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:48Wtf are you talking about. Lithuania has no obligation to allow trains from another state to transit its territory. They can completely close their borders if they want to. A sovereign state can do that at any time for whatever reasons they deem necessary.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13Russia should definitely establish a land corridor to Kaliningrad though. Lithuania has done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
This is the very nature of how monopolistic companies work. They give you something, make you dependent on it, clear out the competition and then charge exorbitant amount to access the said product.
Lithuania is the company, land access to Kaliningrad is the product, sea routes were the competition and now coercion is the exorbitant price. Due to deal in place Russia never developed alternate routes and became dependent on Lithuania and now Lithuania is blackmailing.
Also I am 60% confident that under some international rules this would be illegal to do so. For ex India and China cannot block access or flow of goods through Nepal.
Yeah and we've been over the same argument multiple times. Russia claims Ukraine became an existential threat. Which is a ridiculous claim. Why did they ask Ukraine to remove their nukes in 1997? What was the purpose of that demand? To achieve what? Why would you ever ask another state to disarm itself and remove its nukes? To... remove a threat, right? And that's what Ukraine did. It removed its nukes. What did this achieve? Ukraine stopped being a threat, right? You can't threaten a nuclear power like Russia that keeps bragging about how they could wipe out London in just a few minutes with just conventional weapons. You can't threaten someone who has nukes with just a bunch of tanks and gun machines.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 09:59Treaties work both way. Ukraine became an existential threat to Russia. Russia warned of the consequences. Russia had armed forces for nearly a year on the border threatening war if situation is not improved. What did West do? Make it worse.
Now you may argue exactly opposite of this and that is your prerogative but I don't want to get into repeated discussions over same things specifically considering you can't objectively discuss due to your inherent bias against Russia.
In court of law I only have to prove I felt threatened enough to take action regardless of the actual threat. Russia felt threatened and regardless of everything else true or false that is justification enough. Western world have started wars for much much less. And no this is not about whataboutism it is about precedence set by western countries and the general trend of how countries react to threat.
There is this very well written line in Dr. Strange 2 which resonates here.
" You break the rules and become a hero. I do it, and I become the enemy. That doesn't seem fair. "
Britain was able to do that because it had gunpowder technology, a naval force and it mostly conquered areas inhabited by tribes that were fighting with sticks and arrows (with the exception of India, maybe). So they managed to build an empire by out-gunning the native tribes. Ukraine has nothing of the sort. They're not fighting tribes armed with sticks and stones, they're fighting the world's number one nuclear power. And the world's second conventional military force, according to global rankings of military strength. It's not just the nukes, it's also the number of tanks, artillery, armoured vehicles, active combat forces, missile systems and so on. In every measurable way, Russia's military and resources were way above Ukraine's. So how could Ukraine pose any direct threat to a much larger enemy. It couldn't. Show me the military expert who ever said with a straight face that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia due to its military. Nobody is that ridiculous to make such a claim. Except Russia because, as usual, they're making stuff up as they go.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 11:07Do you live on Earth? or did they not teach you history? Not even a century has passed since the end of British colonization, a small tiny island nation which defeated and controlled empires much larger than herself. Controlled 25% of Earths land at its peak. And you still think that smaller nations are not threat to bigger ones? Nuclear weapons are good as far as deterrence goes rest is just mutual destruction.
Why would France or the UK spend its nukes on a country that is not in NATO. Do you think a country can just launch nukes like that, based on some politician's whim? No, there's a law on how you're allowed to do that. And there's no law that would make it possible for the French president to spend their nukes on some country to which they have no security obligations whatsoever. Those things are expensive, you don't just launch them when your country is not in danger and neither is a state with which you are allied by law and treaty. It's nothing comparable to conventional weapons that you can sell, donate, lend. You can't do that with nukes, they're strictly for your own use, as a weapon of last resort.Any nuclear strike in Ukraine would affect rest of Europe at large and possibly nearby NATO lands. UK and France would likely retaliate with strikes of their own and so will US.
No, they gave them up to get recognition of their borders from Russia. They had just managed to free themselves from under the USSR's grip and they wanted security guarantees to make sure they can actually function as an independent state. It turned out to be a big mistake, in hindsight. This war wouldn't have taken place if they kept the nukes. Russia didn't respect the treaty anyway, they invaded Crimea in 2014, in flagrant breach of the 1997 treaty.Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for variety of reasons. They would have faced nonrecognition and sanctions from west. They did not have an active nuclear weapons program and would have made it very hard to 1) Get operational control of the weapons 2) Maintain the infrastructure and restock in future. The ICBMS placed in Ukraine were mainly targeted at US with minimum range of 5000 kms, even if they were operational they couldn't target the main industrial base of western Russia thus making them not much of a deterrent.