Library Socialist
it means exactly what I thought it does
Oh, OK. What is the replicable pattern of “defense” that is Ukraine, then?
You seem to mean strategy. Ukraine is not the center of European defense strategy, but at least that word isn’t just nonsense.
to explain your argument like an adult
Yes, this does feel like I’m talking to a 3 year old
And against big threats you prepare countermeasures, such as not letting them swallow up your neighbors.
Ummmm isn’t that the exact logic Russia is using to justify their aggression against Ukraine?
Yeah. And how exactly was Nazi Germany stopped, again? That’s the point you seem to be skipping over with your false equivalencies here.
Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries
Blow up their pipelines, seize funds, and the like too?
cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
But hey, maybe we just have different ideas about what proper international relations look like. I’m sure that, considering you’re claiming Russia has attacked Europe, you’re now en route to fight in Ukraine, right?
Ukraine is neither the center geographically nor strategically of any defense of the EU.
being at the center of a paradigm
Yeah, once again, you don’t know what that word means. I suggest you look it up.
Yeah, I’m middle-aged. You’re on quite a roll here.
Just don’t use words you don’t understand, it’s a bad look.
It doesn’t confuse me. It doesn’t mean what you think it does, as Ukraine is not a template.
the obvious being you guys don’t know what paradigm means, or that you have no reason to claim Ukraine is central to European defense against Russia?
that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well
Which power was that?
and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
and constant rhetoric against them
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
Defense of what? Using words you don’t understand doesn’t change the fact you haven’t defined what you’re trying to say.
Which is basically a tautology that just sees fighting Russia as a good thing on its own, but without any reason given.
So again, sit down and actually think about what you’re trying to say. You’ll come off far less stupid.
Why is Russia the “EU’s biggest land threat”?
That’s exactly the point. Allying with Ukraine is the main thing that drives that.
Yeah, this is the same stupidity as when ‘tankies’ claim socdems are CIA.
Even the use of the term just shows the person using it isn’t bothering with actually thinking, they just want to mark a border of themselves as the only true leftist, and everyone else as to the right.
It’s nonsense and smells of terminal online nonsense that produces no form of actual change.
Sit down and actually think about your statements.
with Ukraine at it’s core
Ummmmm one of the main targets of COINTELPRO was the CP USA and their support of the USSR, even in Hungary and Prague.
Which is where the term “tankie” literally comes from.
You seem to be arguing against your own post.
So Europe is supposed to support Ukraine against . . . Europe?
“Europe” is not a signatory to the Budapest memorandum. Neither is NATO, nor the EU. So how this applies to “Europe”, which is what the conversation you’re responding to is about, is a mystery at best.
The UK and US are signatories. NATO is not. Considering that NATO willfully violated the UN Charter (which the Budapest memorandum rests upon) by bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as later actions, it’s a pretty selective to claim that that is applicable.
How’s that working out for you?
Removed by mod
Ok, so what literal invasion are you talking about?
Wait, so the workers would control the things that let us produce value?
Sounds familiar somehow . . . .
And again, that is meaningless unless you’re claiming you will replicate Ukraine’s defense in other places.
Nor is Ukraine “foundational”, unless you think that all of Europe is a former part of the USSR that was also the center of WWII against the Russian state of the time. If you’d like to suggest some other country that fits that “paradigm”, I’m all ears.
Ukraine isn’t foundational - it’s a proxy war now abandoned by the US that too much of Europe has decided to let anchor it.