So far they've taken the land they claimed they wanted before the war and have now dug in and are just defending the land theyve taken so how about that much.
How much aggression and brinksmanship should Natoma be allowed since we're doing hypotheticals?
But you're ignoring that Russia tried to take Kyiv and failed. This is not a hypothetical but pretty clearly more than just securing ethnically Russian lands and were instead trying to take all of Ukraine for the perceived threat of NATO. NATO hasn't militarily moved on Russian and had actually opening up economically (yes, through capitalism and exploitation but we can't expect a scorpion to not sting).
How much brinkmanship should be allowed by NATO? As long as they aren't directly invading other countries I'm willing to give them more leeway than Russian. Both suck.
Yea when you're doing an offensive you target command centers farther into the country doesn't mean they're trying to take the city.
Ukraine has struck Russian cities during their "counteroffensive" does that mean they're actually just using this a stepping stone to invade Russia.
How much brinkmanship should be allowed by NATO? As long as they aren't directly invading other countries I'm willing to give them more leeway than Russian. Both suck
Ok if your position is "as long as there aren't literally nato boots on the ground nothing they do is out of line" im going to completely disregard ypur opinion because tou just admitted your a hypocrite. So by your rules america was wrong to get upset about the ussr wanting to put nukes on cuba? Because apparently thats a-ok since there werent literally russian boots on americas mainland.
Seems like americas foreign policy would disagree with you there based on thebfactvwr almost started a wprld war over it.
So far they've taken the land they claimed they wanted before the war and have now dug in and are just defending the land theyve taken so how about that much.
How much aggression and brinksmanship should Natoma be allowed since we're doing hypotheticals?
But you're ignoring that Russia tried to take Kyiv and failed. This is not a hypothetical but pretty clearly more than just securing ethnically Russian lands and were instead trying to take all of Ukraine for the perceived threat of NATO. NATO hasn't militarily moved on Russian and had actually opening up economically (yes, through capitalism and exploitation but we can't expect a scorpion to not sting).
How much brinkmanship should be allowed by NATO? As long as they aren't directly invading other countries I'm willing to give them more leeway than Russian. Both suck.
Yea when you're doing an offensive you target command centers farther into the country doesn't mean they're trying to take the city.
Ukraine has struck Russian cities during their "counteroffensive" does that mean they're actually just using this a stepping stone to invade Russia.
Ok if your position is "as long as there aren't literally nato boots on the ground nothing they do is out of line" im going to completely disregard ypur opinion because tou just admitted your a hypocrite. So by your rules america was wrong to get upset about the ussr wanting to put nukes on cuba? Because apparently thats a-ok since there werent literally russian boots on americas mainland.
Seems like americas foreign policy would disagree with you there based on thebfactvwr almost started a wprld war over it.