Diplomacy is not built on trust, it’s built on respect. The west made it clear that the only way to get respect is through force, and that’s what Russia is now using after decades of trying to use diplomacy and running into a wall. I did provide you solutions, as well as links to numerous experts explaining these solutions in details. The fact that you keep ignoring that tells me everything I need to know here.
And absolutely love how you’re now playing a victim here to avoid engaging in honest discussion. Thanks for the laugh bud. You’re a real class act.
Trust is irrelevant. As I’ve already explained, the only thing you can trust is that countries will act in their interest. Understanding what the interests of different countries are and trying to find ways to reconcile those with your own is the only way forward.
The west has a set of interests, and Russia has a set of interests. The solution is to make it less costly to meet respective interests through a peaceful resolution than a conflict. This requires both sides to give something up understanding that if they do not then they stand to lose more when conflict breaks out.
And the only thing I assume here based on our interactions is that you’re a troll who wastes other people’s time. I guess you’re playing to your strengths here.
Again, there is no such thing as trust in geopolitics. It’s about trying to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconciling that with your own.
Brute force is precisely how geopolitics works today and as I’ve already explained in this thread, this is precisely what the west uses to retain its position in the world.
And I love how you aren’t capable of even entertaining the idea that maybe the reason you’re getting downvoted is due to the quality of your comments. Love how you think that you’re being persecuted for your ideas instead. So brave.
Once you figure out how to create trust in geopolitics then you feel free to pick up your Nobel. The only lesson the west taught Russia is that military force is the only thing the west listens to.
Perhaps they will, but it’s pretty clear they’re going to get what they want through force since they couldn’t achieve it through diplomacy.
Condemning the invasion and being realistic about the reason for the invasion are two perfectly compatible positions to hold. If we want to avoid wars in the future, we have to understand underlying causes for wars instead of doing moralizing. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to bang together would understand this. In fact, here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
Many feel that it is wrong to bring up such matters, even a form of pro-Putin propaganda: we should, rather, focus laser-like on Russia’s ongoing crimes. Contrary to their beliefs, that stand does not help Ukrainians. It harms them. If we are barred, by dictate, from learning about ourselves, we will not be able to develop policies that will benefit others, Ukrainians among them. That seems elementary.
The tactic of dismissing people who want to have a meaningful discussion about the underlying reasons for the conflict is just further dishonesty on your part.
Diplomacy is not built on trust, it’s built on respect. The west made it clear that the only way to get respect is through force, and that’s what Russia is now using after decades of trying to use diplomacy and running into a wall. I did provide you solutions, as well as links to numerous experts explaining these solutions in details. The fact that you keep ignoring that tells me everything I need to know here.
And absolutely love how you’re now playing a victim here to avoid engaging in honest discussion. Thanks for the laugh bud. You’re a real class act.
deleted by creator
Trust is irrelevant. As I’ve already explained, the only thing you can trust is that countries will act in their interest. Understanding what the interests of different countries are and trying to find ways to reconcile those with your own is the only way forward.
The west has a set of interests, and Russia has a set of interests. The solution is to make it less costly to meet respective interests through a peaceful resolution than a conflict. This requires both sides to give something up understanding that if they do not then they stand to lose more when conflict breaks out.
And the only thing I assume here based on our interactions is that you’re a troll who wastes other people’s time. I guess you’re playing to your strengths here.
deleted by creator
Again, there is no such thing as trust in geopolitics. It’s about trying to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconciling that with your own.
Brute force is precisely how geopolitics works today and as I’ve already explained in this thread, this is precisely what the west uses to retain its position in the world.
And I love how you aren’t capable of even entertaining the idea that maybe the reason you’re getting downvoted is due to the quality of your comments. Love how you think that you’re being persecuted for your ideas instead. So brave.
deleted by creator
Once you figure out how to create trust in geopolitics then you feel free to pick up your Nobel. The only lesson the west taught Russia is that military force is the only thing the west listens to.
deleted by creator
Perhaps they will, but it’s pretty clear they’re going to get what they want through force since they couldn’t achieve it through diplomacy.
Condemning the invasion and being realistic about the reason for the invasion are two perfectly compatible positions to hold. If we want to avoid wars in the future, we have to understand underlying causes for wars instead of doing moralizing. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to bang together would understand this. In fact, here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
The tactic of dismissing people who want to have a meaningful discussion about the underlying reasons for the conflict is just further dishonesty on your part.