noemon wrote:You are ranting incoherently again.
I did answer your flame-bait question which was not even a question but a claim you made:
You claimed that "the west does not need Crimea", prove your silly claim before you make any more nonsense.
Also, explain how the west needed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Kossovo, Afghanistan, Libya.
As for the rest of your explicit propaganda, it remains as laughable as it was days, weeks, and months ago.
Ukraine signed 3 times peace with Russia(twice in Minsk and once in Istanbul), 3 times warmongers like yourself forced your Ukrainian colony to do as you please.
Stop talking on the Ukrainian people's name. You have no right whatsoever.
You are not protecting anybody, and your stupid policies have already resulted to the destruction of Ukraine and thousands dead, for nothing.
You are ranting incoherently again.
No, you are blinded by propaganda or your own prejudices.
I did answer your flame-bait question which was not even a question but a claim you made:
You claimed that "the west does not need Crimea", prove your silly claim before you make any more nonsense.
How do I proove a negative besides the argument that I brought up already. We have tons of our own bases, 1 base less or more doesn't make a difference when you have many already. We control the Black Sea and we control the channels. You don't accept this argument for whatever reason. Beyond this argument you can't really proove a negative.
Also, explain how the west needed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Kossovo, Afghanistan, Libya.
As for the rest of your explicit propaganda, it remains as laughable as it was days, weeks, and months ago.
This is whataboutism and you are trying to pin every conflict that anyone might dislike saying that every conflict that NATO is involved in is bad. This is a non-sequitar basically. NATO wasn't even the main force in half of them. But lets ignore your whataboutism and non-sequitar to NATO so
Yugoslavia/Kosovo: NATO intervened after years of civil war and genocide. Europe usually doesn't like this kind of stuff happening in Europe itself. The intervention didn't solve all the issues in the regions but at least it stopped the conflicts and stopped the genocide/ethnic cleansing.
Iraq/Afghanistan: That was mostly the US and yes, this was done under wrong pretense obviously and as an angry response to 9/11. It did damage the international rules based order in the long term which we are still trying to recover from. But once again, this was mostly the US and there were demonstrations in Europe not to do it at the time.
Lybia: This was mostly French/German doing. Well mostly French but once again, they intervened to stop the murder and the civil war that was ongoing. Problem that there was no plan for afterwards and France/Germany thought that everything is going to sort out by itself which it didn't.
Now having discussed the whataboutism, here is the kicker. How is this relevant to Ukraine when NATO is not intervening and helping Ukraine fight a defensive war?
Ukraine signed 3 times peace with Russia(twice in Minsk and once in Istanbul), 3 times warmongers like yourself forced your Ukrainian colony to do as you please.
Stop talking on the Ukrainian people's name. You have no right whatsoever.
You are not protecting anybody, and your stupid policies have already resulted to the destruction of Ukraine and thousands dead, for nothing.
Yeah, Ukraine signed 3 times deals with Russia and Russia broke all of them. This is blatantly clear by now from Gas extortion to starting a full insurgency on the territory of Ukraine with RUSSIANs from RUSSIA and not local ones to stealing territory to starting a full scale massive invasion.
Ukranian people agree with me on mass while people like you would probably be imprisoned and deported from Ukraine for being a Russian colaborator if not worse....