• RidderSport@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I was saying that there was no expansion before Russia declared war in violation of all international laws and treaties, and in violation of the treaty Russia signed that guarantees Ukrainian independence.

    Afterwards NATO grew, whether you want to call to expansion which implies that it is the goal of NATO to grow and threaten its neighbours or you just call it grow which reflects the reality of countries voluntarily joining.

    And my comparison was that you cannot threaten your neighbours with a potential war and then expect them to just await their fate without resistance. They have the right to join an alliance as has every sovereign state. They have the right to chose the political system they want as does every sovereign state.

    But NO ONE has the right to change the outline of borders by means of war. The world has lost a few million people so that everyone should have learned that lesson. Russia was apparently on the toilet at the time

    • Cleggory@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      But NO ONE has the right to change the outline of borders by means of war. The world has lost a few million people so that everyone should have learned that lesson.

      So it’s bad when Russia does it but the US is correct in backing Israel changing its borders through imperialism?

      No hypocrisy detected by you?

      • RidderSport@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Like xor said, you seem to have quite the understanding of my views on topics I’ve not even discussed. Also whataboutism and gaslighting - have you perhaps run out of arguments? [Edit: after revisiting the thread, I’ve realised that you never even wrote an argument. Gaslighting and whataboutism is the only thing you do. And if you were to count them as arguments, you’re clearly argumenting in bad faith.]

        Take a step back and ask yourselves in whose interest you’re argumenting. I myself am arguing in my own interest that is perhaps selfish. Yet based on that interest I believe it is correct to say Ukraine needs to not lose and better yet win. Otherwise Russia set the precedent that war is once again ultima ratio of diplomacy. Something the world more or less unitedly felt to be outdated. Yes, countries have used wars to push interests in other countries, mostly to change the leadership (most famously the USA and the USSR, but also China, France, the UK). No major power tried to move borders prior to Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine.

        As for Israel my interest lies in lasting peace and to ensure that there will always be a place where Jews are welcome. To that end the war needs to end now. Israel mustn’t further fan the flames. The surrounding countries must find a way to live in peace with Israel. Israel must revise their constitution to allow for actually equal rights of any non-Jewish people, ideally by forming a state union with Palestine with equal representation of the latter. And such a country should be formed in the same mindset as post-war Germany.

        But saying all that, there’s a massive difference in complexity between the two. The Gaza war has a convoluted mess of history to it. Solving that is not only challenging but necessary to achieve even a semblance of peace that has any chance of lasting. The war in Ukraine is much simpler. There’s not even a remote semblance of justification to it. It is literally just: Russia must stop the war and attempt to reverse the damages caused as far as that is possible.

        And out of interest for future World peace, the ones responsible need to face legal consequences by a tribunal that is impartial and non-partisan.

      • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        They never even mentioned Israel, you just decided that was their stance so you could call them a hypocrite