Also maybe not do things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you're trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.

Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Get your own troops there and chill.

So, you agree with Russia's actions to get their own troops there, then.

Also maybe not so things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.

You mean the thing that NATO partially managed in the Korean peninsula? Honestly not sure what you are trying to refer to here.

Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.

Yeah, Russian troops do seem to have been needed.

[–] NewDark@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Who did the special military operation, Ukraine or Russia?

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?

Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).

[–] NewDark@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.

I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you're using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it's wrong.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.

You said here that the aggrieved state should put its own troops to where the most prolific invaders tries to amass their own:

Get your own troops there and chill.

Which is what Russia has been doing.

If you meant that they should place their troops somewhere else, then you should explain how that is supposed to stop the most prolific invader in the world from acting to harm said state.

Also, your suggestion evidently fails miserably in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you’re using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it’s wrong.

The war was started by NATO.
I am still waiting for a serious suggestion for what a state should do in the face of aggression from the most prolific invader in the world. Notably, not doing anything and just letting the most prolific invader in the world do whatever it wants is not a serious suggestion.

[–] NewDark@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 48 minutes ago)

Oh actually I have an answer. Russia should nuke the United States and Ukraine.

They are the most prolific invader and very dangerous. This is a serious suggestion.