Nations can join whichever alliance they wish

Here, you claim that it was okay to join, for example, the German Axis.

What you’re describing here is a condemnation of Russian imperialism, not pushing for war.

Haha. “Us breaking these promises to Russia will cause Russia to go to war with us”, “if we didn’t make Ukraine join NATO, there wouldn’t be the war”. Really not pushing for war, yeah.

Also, cute how you talk about “Russian imperialism” while also supporting the gang of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan (and more). Going to remind you that NATO is the most prolific invader in the world and is the primary force for imperialism in the world.

Russia never applied for NATO membership, there was nothing to refuse.

Formally? Sure. But NATO did let Russian leadership know that that wouldn’t happen during talks.

Either way, Russia joining NATO would have been bad for the rest of the world due to what NATO is - an imperialist alliance that acts to colonially subjugate the Global South.

By the same logic, world war 2 could have been prevented by just giving the Nazis whatever they want.

Pfft. You are the one claiming that Russia should have given the nazis whatever they wanted instead of taking action against them. You are the one that says that, for example, joining the German Axis was not an act of aggression and that nobody should have taken action against that.

That’s not true.

Ukraine: bombs buses with children, school dormitories, nuclear power plants, brazenly does things like operation SpiderWeb which perfidiously use civilians to carry out military action
You: none of that happened.

NATO isn’t a belligerent in this war.

This is just laughable, especially considering the admittance that this war was completely preventable on NATO’s side.

Also, it’s weird how much you want to whitewash the most prolific invader in the world.

peace could be established tomorrow when they back out of their invasion.

NATO would keep up its aggression against Russia, so peace can’t be achieved that way (unless you think that the rest of the world being subjugated by NATO is “peace”).

Meanwhile, the European powers could have agree to peace at many points, including in March, 2022, and including before 2022, and including by not doing the coup in 2013-2014.

I hate USA’s world policing as well

Firstly, you still believe whatever it says about its enemies. If you were alive back then, you would have believed Nayirah’s testimony.
Secondly, calling colonialism “world policing” is incredibly disingenuous and whitewashy.

but this conflict would not exist, when Putler didn’t get love fantasies of Hitler

Incredibly weird to claim this, considering that you support governments that worship personal friends of Hitler’s, shutzstaffel troops, and other participants in the Holocaust and the Lebensraum.

Also, it’s very obvious that the conflict would not have happened without NATO pushing for it.

russia is the aggressor they didn’t had to invade.

You are yet to explain what Russia should have done.

(the krim in the first palce btw.)

So, you think that the people of Crimea do not deserve self-determination? Do consider that even NATO studies agree that they wanted to split from Ukraine and join Russia.

Maybe not invade a neighboring country yourself, and then keep investing material and manpower after the invasion has stalled for no discernible gain.

You said what they supposedly shouldn’t do (which would mean that Iran shouldn’t have struck NATO puppets in its vicinity that house NATO bases and equipment, by the way). You did not say what they should do.

Also the implication that Russia is supposedly not winning when it has been advancing is rather silly.

What the UN conclude was that while there are reeducation camps and systemic discrimination, there is not sufficient evidence to say its a genocide. Which is like “We can prove that A killed B, but we can’t prove that it’s murder”.

Haha. What you are saying is actually “I can’t prove that A killed B, but A definitely murdered B!”.
Do you even know what a genocide is?

Funnily enough, it’s only ever the deniers who bring up this guy.

So far, the only source the proponents bring.

That’s a quite deliberate misconstruction of the facts. Amnesty International initially promoted the story

“You are wrong to say that Amnesty promoted the atrocity propaganda. Amnesty did promote the atrocity propaganda…”

Also,

There’s no evidence of malpractice on their part.

Amnesty International promoted the story

Russia wouldn’t have been a target

“Just trust the most prolific invader in the world, which has been constantly invading and breaking promises, to not attack their enemy this particular time, even after admitting to pushing for war with said enemy”.

they possess too many nuclear weapons

Didn’t stop NATO from antagonising the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK.
Also, NATO has been literally targeting civilians in Russia, attacking nuclear power plants, and committing other war crimes, with no nuclear strikes so far.
Safe to say that you overestimate how much of a deterrence nuclear weapons are.

You’re being propagandized

This is said by a person that can only regurgitate propaganda of the most expensive propaganda machine in the world.

Weird how the people who just regurgitate what the most expensive propaganda machine in the world tells them, and who reliably believe things like Iraq having WMDs complain about “Russian propaganda”.

Also, it is such an amusing defensive reaction, as if calling something “Russian propaganda” makes things untrue.

Nazi worshippers and dehumanising others. What an iconic duo.

When asked questions that would lead to them admitting that their views are reprehensible, that is the only thing you can muster, it seems.

Eh lol maybe just end this stupid war!

It did try to negotiate peace, but the European powers that are the masters of Ukraine right now do not understand that language, it seems.

Where they are the unquestionable aggressor of…

So, you are saying that NATO pushing for war with Russia, carrying out a coup in Ukraine, breaking promises to not expand towards Russia, and generally being the most prolific invader in the world is not aggression? Haha.

So, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts amassing troops on that state’s borders (or otherwise in position, like in the case of Iran), especially after a coup against a neighbouring state?

Nobody is denying “NATO famine”

Famines, plural.
And yeah, considering how much you like to complain about the last famine not caused by WW2 in the territory of the USSR, but fail to bring up the famines that were happening previously in the same places, as well as the famines that happened in the 1990s, as well as famines that have been happening under NATO and pre-NATO empires, it’s pretty clear that you are just engaging in atrocity propaganda on behalf of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.

sure you are not a Russian bot for using the word NATO

Oh, cute. “You use the word ‘NATO’ to more correctly group the aggressors together, so I will claim you are an untermensch”.

But hey, sure. What word would be better in this context than “NATO”? Do you prefer “European powers”, or, maybe, “invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan”?

but shills such as yourself

I’m not the one spreading Nayirah’s testimony and other similar atrocity propaganda made by nazis.

do love to deny that famines didn’t happen or downplay the severity in communist states

Which famines do you think I denied? Which famines did I downplay the severity of?

Such at the fact that you mentioned “didn’t experience any famines until 1990s”. When did the Great Chinese Famine happen under Mao?

When did the Chinese famine happen in the USSR? When was Mao in the government of the USSR?

Also, were famines a repeated thing in the PRC after that, or was that a single disaster (which happened in a country that was recovering from colonialism by the European powers and Japan) that the PRC learned from and managed to deal with in the future?

How’s the view from St Petersburg Research, comrade?

How’s the view from Abu Ghraib’s chief torturer office?

No, they haven’t.

Haha. Decades of NATO higher-ups saying that expanding towards Russia will cause war with Russia, refusing Russia’s membership in NATO, and admitting that the war was preventable by Ukraine not pushing to join NATO is somehow indicative of not pushing for war with Russia.

Russia has nukes. Iran doesn’t.

And? Sure, that does make NATO more cautious, but NATO has still been targeting civilians, has been carrying out strikes at nuclear power plants, has been committing war crimes against Russia, all without Russia using nukes. Going to also remind you that NATO also pushed for war with the USSR when the USSR did also have nukes, and did attack the USSR in various ways.

They would be at peace,

Haha. You trust your empire that has been constantly invading everywhere, doing genocides, carrying out terror attacks (including via DAESH) to be at peace in this case? Why?

and the myth of their military might would still be unbroken.

Considering that Russia has been beating NATO in this conflict, it seems that the only myths that got broken were of NATO’s capabilities against near-peers.

Going to note that you failed to point to any NATO states that did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
We can already safely conclude that NATO is not a defensive alliance.

It has been the USA (& allies) invading, nobody denies that.

You did, and let me quote you again:

The USA doing invading with some allies is not the same as NATO doing it.

In case you want to pretend otherwise, NATO is the US and its allies/vassals.

For example the 2001 Afghanstan invasion was started by the USA, the UK, Australia and taleban

The Taliban invaded Afghanistan in 2001? This has to be a joke.

At that point it was not an NATO invasion

Yeah, it was. It was organised by the core of NATO, and it was perpetrated by NATO states and their puppets.

If you disagree, then tell us which states participated in it that were not de facto NATO states.

it was UN trying to help clean up the mess that was Afghanstan civil war

The UN is an organisation that is controlled by NATO. You are arguing that NATO giving itself green light to invade Afghanistan somehow proves that NATO did not invade Afghanistan.

Was it the entirety of NATO just randomly invading Afghanistan?

Nobody said that it was “random”. It was a deliberate move to resubjugate Afghanistan.
Why are you even trying to imply that somebody claimed that it was “random”?

Also no. In Iraq in 2003 USA plus the coalition of willing, was not the entitity of NATO either.

Ok. Which ones of those states were not de facto NATO states?

The genocide of Palestine has been going on practically from the beginning of Israel

Correct. A genocidal settler-colonial project planned by the NATO states and their zionist groups since before the formation of NATO.

the latest whole huge mess has not been a NATO operation either.

It’s the same polities that were behind things like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The usual claims, that every time any NATO countries get involved with some unlawful USA invasions, is just part of Russian propaganda tactics,

Haha. Seems like reality is just part of the “Russian propaganda” that lives in your head rent-free. Apparently, when something contradicts the notion of righteousness of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s just “Russian propaganda”, and for some reason can be assumed to be false or ignorable.
Notably, you never actually question actual NATO propaganda that is verifiably a thing.

trying to pretend its bordering countries joining NATO, because of the risk of Russian invasion

And yet, it’s NATO that is the most prolific invader in the world and pushed for war with Russia.
Also notably, none of Russia’s neighbours had issues with being invaded (no, Georgia attacking the peacekeepers and South Ossetians is not an act of Russian aggression), including the pre-coup Ukraine.

If you think that the states that join the gang of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan to plunder Africa and Asia is fine because of a hypothetical risk of invasion by Russia (contrary to the history of its actions) and, well, participating in those invasions and genocides is fine, but Russia defending itself against attacks by the entity that has always been invading and doing genocides throughout its existence and which has broken promises made to Russia about not expanding towards it is somehow bad, then what you want is for the rest of the world to just roll over and get enslaved by you.

is somehow NATO trying to attack Russia.

Attempting to become a part of the most prolific invader in the world that has a history of, well, doing invasions and genocides, as well as constantly breaking promises is, in fact, an act of aggression.

Going to also remind you that NATO has carried out war crimes against Russia, and has been targeting civilians and nuclear power plants. That is what you support, in addition to all of the other “defensive” NATO actions like invading Iraq.

Claiming all these wars are just “NATO invasions”

Cool. Which NATO states did not participate in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

in attempt of trying to justificate Russian invasions.

Ok. What are these “Russian invasions”, plural?

The whole reason countries like the Baltics - and now Sweden and Finland - have joined NATO

You mean the states that worship WW2 nazis and have participated in invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as other ones), and have been beneficiaries of colonial subjugation of the Global South? Those states?

is because Russia invades its neighbors the moment it wants, like it has done in Ukraine.

And when else did Russia invade its neighbours “the moment it wanted”? I can name a lot of cases when NATO invaded whenever it wanted.
Also, it is really silly how you just sweep under the rug why Russia “wanted” to attack Ukraine in the first place.

Removed by mod

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is bad, for example.

What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world (i.e. NATO) starts amassing troops and weapons on its borders (or otherwise in position to attack, like with Iran), especially after a coup against a neighbouring state?

The Genocide against the Uyghurs

The one that hasn’t been substantiated, one which the NATO-dominated UN concluded to there being no evidence for, one which your masters have long since stopped pretending to believe to have happened?

And no, Adrian Zenz’ word is not proof.

(https://xinjiang.amnesty.org/).

Oh, hey, it’s the same people that sold you on Nayirah’s testimony. Do you believe that one, as well, since Amnesty said it was true?

The Confederacy was fighting against the United States. Under tankie logic, that must mean that they’re virtuous and attempting to build communism

Lol.
What we think is that slavery and colonialism is bad, and that, if forced to pick a side, it’s the side whose interests align more with those of the workers of the world.
Also, rather funny to pretend that even the basic uncompromising “anti-US” stance would lead to siding with the US but with more slavery.

Tankie is a general term for someone who thinks there is a clear justification to use force or the threat of force to impose a socialist system on a state.

By this “definition” every non-reformist socialist is a “tankie”.

Funny how you claimed to be a socialist previously, but now you imply that basically all socialists are bad.

The term originates with people who supported the USSR “Sending in the tanks” to annex other countries and crush dissent from people in their sphere.

Firstly, which countries did the USSR annex when the “tankie” pejorative was coined? Any annexations after that?
Secondly, the “dissent” in question were NATO-backed nazis. Please tell us why you think that forcing capitalism on a country is good in your eyes, and should not be opposed.

What actions do you even disagree with here?

They’re terrified of them, because in their heads the most terrifying thing in the world is a leftist that is willing to fight back, and they don’t recognize anything that doesn’t kill someone as “fighting.”

This is extremely funny, considering that your position seems to be “the rest of the world should be subjugated by NATO, and everybody else is bad to take forceful action against that”, which is very much not “leftist”.

“Dictatorship” is just a word for “a state that my empire told me to hate”.
“Anti-authoritarianism” is almost always just support for colonial subjugation of the world by NATO.

What is an “unwanted famine”? Nobody wanted a famine.

The British Empire has caused at least two deliberate famines that I can recall off the top of my head - the one in Ireland, and the one in India.

The fact that they targeted more than one ethnic group

If you were honest, you wouldn’t be claiming that any group was “targeted”, considering that there was no intent to cause a famine.

Explain it like my own family didn’t lose people in holodomor and many other acts of cruelty

Firstly, your relatives dying to an event does not magically confer you with knowledge about that event. Also, if that was an actual argument, you are welcome to explain similar things to people who have lost family due to the Lebensraum and the Holocaust, to invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., to the genocide of Palestine, to the ongoing famines caused by your empire, as well as to things like kidnapping children by the governments of Canada, Australia, the US, etc., and so on.
Secondly, if you have actual evidence for the famine being “an act of cruelty”, i.e. being intentional, then you can present that evidence to the historians that study the famine for a living, as they have a very different view of the event.
Thirdly, claiming that you are “honest” but invoking the word “holodomor” and trying to claim that the famine of 1932 was a genocide is a bit amusing.

Seriously. Was Holodomor a deliberate genocide? This is the hill you’re going to die on?

Genocides are by definition deliberate.
If you agree that it was not a deliberate action, but an unwanted disaster, then you won’t find an argument against that.

Going to note, though, that you seem to be more critical of that than of, for example, what the genocidaires of Palestine have been doing, including the famines they actually caused deliberately.

Much like the Irish Famine was only a tragic genocide because the British overlords wouldn’t put up with reducing their own take.

The Irish Famine was a deliberate action, which is indicated in part by the fact that the rest of the empire did not experience issues with food. There is also the fact that the government literally blocked relief for the famine.

The fact that you imply that these two events are both “tragic genocides” betrays both your lack of understanding of what genocides are and of what those events entailed.

I’m a leftist, but I’m an honest one.

Why call the famine of 1932 a genocide, then, when you agree that it does not fit the definition, and when you know that it wasn’t a repeat event (like what was happening in the Russian Empire, or what NATO has been doing in the world)?

Be actually honest and do some self-reflection on what you believe about your empire’s enemies simply because your empire told you to believe that.

Also, I’d like to know what you think of Canada - a state involved in NATO’s invasions like the ones of Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocide of Palestine, the kidnapping of Actual American children, etc. - as well as what you think of the OUN - an organisation worshipped by the post-coup Ukrainian state that was trying to do a genocide in Ukraine before WW2 and allied with nazi Germany during WW2?

Going to note that you very much do not seem to be nearly as critical of NATO’s famines, including one NATO has caused outside of its core territory, and including the famines the empire actually engineered (which I don’t see how one can argue to not be genocides).

The collectivisation which removed experienced farmers to work on lands

In what way were the experienced farmers removed from farm work via the collectivisation? Going to also note that, outside of WW2, people didn’t experience any famines until 1990s.
Also, in what way would this make the famine a genocide as you claim?

along with Lysenko’s deliberate ignoring of established agricultural science in exchange to his whatever supposedly science he conjured up with, led to the worst famine since the Irish Famine

What does Lysenko have to do with the famine of 1932?

Why can’t you explain what you think Russia should have done in response to NATO’s actions?