this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
999 points (97.3% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
4055 readers
76 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Damn I'm really excited for the mental gymnastics you'll need to explain this lmaoo.
So, it's not "destabilizing the region", it's making russia mad.
They have been at war for 3 years. Nothing about the situation is stable.
In fact, letting Ukraine join NATO would bring stability, since that would prevent Putin from invading again.
But Putin doesn't want that, because Putin wants to invade Ukraine even more.
A country that is threatening with the use of nuclear missiles is never a stable situation. I don't think that's a good argument to avoid protecting vulnerable states from those countries.
"Proposing that a country join a defence pact only activated in case of an attack on the country is aggravating any potential aggressors"
Jesus Christ.
"Cartels murdering people in your town? Just don't talk to the cops, that's how you stay safe."
That's you not 'just relaying the message'.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Genocide is bad, even when done by Russian allies.
Radical, I know.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I'm feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn't want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I'm pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
I don't know which mod removed the comment, but I'm not happy about it. You can't argue against those people if the mods remove their comments. I want to convince those people that they're wrong, not push them further into their delusion.
It was me.
You may want to humor them, but once a poster starts spreading misinformation, not just stupid conclusions from actual facts, I ban and remove their content. Wherever that kind of debate belongs, it ain't here.
The thing is, some of these people might have a few braincells and just fell for propaganda. Nothing too terrible about that - it would be more effective to have a conversation with them, show them the evidence that they are infact wrong and maybe pull them out of their delusion. By just banning them outright ... idk, it keeps the community clean, but they fall deeper into their delusion.
Fair to say that that discussion doesn't belong here tho, not arguing with that if that is the stance.