How many nuclear-capable countries have been invaded since WW2?

in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.

If this war has thought us anything, it’s that you can do whatever you want, as long as you have nukes. I have a feeling that is a much more dangerous result, than what a minor escalation may cause.

Why are you bringing up westeners at all, as if that somehow strengthens the point? It reveals your inner biases. “The opinions of the south is not enough, I have to bring in westeners to give my argument some weight”.

Sometimes peple reveal more than they intended when they write.

Their majority opinion aligns with Russia.

You keep repeating that, but the data does not support it.

What educated westerners think matches what people living outside the west think.

Wow, just wow. So we don’t actually need to ask e.g indiginous people of their opinions, it’s enough to ask “educated westeners”. Which century are we living in?

It’s pretty obvious from all the actions the global majority countries have taken that they do in fact support Russia

Is that why they keep codemning Russia in various UN resolutions? The numbers speak for themselves.

It does’t matter if educated westeners think Russia is right: that’s not what’s being discussed. Unless you think the opinions of white westeners like Chomsky override the actual position of poorer countries? “Oh, Chomsky agrees with Russia? Sorry Botswana, you have to also support Russia now, Chomsky said so. Better fire your UN ambassador, they forgot to ask Chomsky what he thought, before voting to condemn Russia”.

I haven’t heard anything so patronizing and colonoalistic in a long time.

If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you’re utterly delusional. M

I’m not, and nowhere did I claim that. I said they don’t support Russia. What kind of depressing world do you live in where you have to support either the West or Russia. Countries are free to do their own thing, and do not need to support either. To spell it out: A country can oppose Russia, while at the same time also not support the West.

The UN resolution clearly shows: The vssz majority of countries, including the global south, think what Russia is doing is wrong. Many of them continue to trade with Russia despite the attack on Ukraine, not because of it. It should come as no surprise that especially poorer coutries can not pick and choose who they trade with.

Ah, you define support as “not actively opposed”? That is an incredibly low bar.

Again, the UN vote clearly shows that the countries don’t support Russia or think what the country does is right.

The fact that poor countries arw in no position to sanction anyone does not mean they support Russia.

Your links actualy don’t show that the “vast majority” spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don’t. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html

Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.

that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.

Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?

Everything except building trust, it seems.

And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.

I’m sure the tens of thousand of dead russian troops and all those displaced russian families prefer that to just gaining trust with others, resulting in the end of support for Ukraine and a quick surrender. Apparently getting people killed is better than doing everything you can to end end the conflict.

Surprised pikachu What? Ukraine did not trust Russia to not attack them again, after being attacked by Russia?

Russia has a trust-problem. If they are serious about wanting peace they should work on it.

I’m pretty sure people in the affected areas would rather not be evacuated and have their lived destroyed, don’t you? Is Russia unable to accommodate that? Why?

Kusk? Did you already forget about Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and other “Russian” regions partially occupied by Ukrainian troops? This just underlines my point that certain areas seem to be more Russian than others, despite being part of the Russian Federation. It seems even Russia forgets they annexed the areas.

Last I checked, Russia evacuated the citizens living in these few villages, and now it’s become a cauldron for the AFU where they have thousands of troops stuck who can’t leave.

And why exactly did the Russian military allow this to happen? Considering the state of the Ukrainian military with outdated tech even some mininal protection should have sufficied? If I care about someone, I protect them so that nothing bad happens to them. I bust don’t ignore them, then go “oops” and do the very minimal amount of work, which would not even had been necessary had I done my job in the first place.

Ok, occupying small parts, if that makes you happier. Maybe so small that Russia does not care about it, nor the citizens living there.

But that can’t be the case, because Russia seems to put a lot of effort into cleaeing out e.g. Donbass, yet there Ukraine still is “occupying” large areas of it.

If Russia does not care, then stop fighting there. If Russia does care, then why do they have so much trouble with it, taking years and years to kick out “occupiers”. How can Russia tolerate such a situation? Or is it, maybe, the case that Russia can’t kick them out, despite the superior military? Which again goes back to my point about how impressivly bad Russia is performing, all things considered.

How can something that legally can not be called a “war” be called “war of attrition”? Does it make sense to use terminology related to wars to something that is not a war? The article specifically talks about “attritional wars”. Are you saying an “attritional war” does not need to be a war?

On the one hand, you seem to be very strict with the exact wording (taking offense at the joking use of “gulag”) , on the othet hand you seem to play it quite loose when it comes to other terms.

The Unrainian army is collapsing so bad they accidentally collapsed all the way into Kursk.

What does it say about the Russian army that a collapsing enemy is still occupying large parts of Russia? Or does the Russian army simply not care? Are certain parts of Russia more Russian than orhers?