I laugh how politicians come up with euphemisms. Now power and influence are called security. This applies to every country which is or wants to be an empire.
Russia has nuclear weapons. That was and will be a sufficient security guarantee.
deleted by creator
What Russian territories? The fake ones that they don’t even entirely occupy?
deleted by creator
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill.”
deleted by creator
I’m not wrong. Russia simply declared that a large part of Ukraine that has no legitimate claim over was now Russian. Doesn’t make it so.
deleted by creator
This implies nuclear war is an option on the table, definitely a bad call. Additionally, wouldn’t this mean the US has ample security? Based on their routine war crimes I’d think the opposite. Their weaponry does however ensure worldwide chaos, especially if a country wants to drop the dollar or has natural resources to exploit.
They’ve done it before.
This implies nuclear war is an option on the table
It is under certain conditions
Additionally, wouldn’t this mean the US has ample security?
Absolutely. No one would realistically think about an attack on American soil, just like with any other nuclear power.
Based on their routine war crimes I’d think the opposite.
How so? USA terrorising the rest of the world does not contradict my initial statement.
Absolutely. No one would realistically think about an attack on American soil, just like with any other nuclear power.
So thats it, got nukes and you’ll get space, otherwise bend over as the US is coming for all your shit? Maybe its the insane spending on weaponry which allows the US to run a muck overseas destroying any shred of security in other country’s.
How so? USA terrorising the rest of the world does not contradict my initial statement.
Your statement permits terrorism, weapons equaling security is just downstream lockheed martin & friends propaganda. Where as security by definition means being free from danger or threat. Russian and US both possessing nukes derails any global security and more so in those two country’s, no?
I did’t claim nuclear weapons being a solution for world peace. It is just that in the current state of the world, Russia would be the least to need “security guarantees” because no one would attack them anyway. You, however, make it appear I suggest to arm up anyone. But whatever, just keep twisting my words to fit your narrative ✌️
The article is about peace, granted world peace is a long way off but you eat an elephant one bite at a time, starting by ending current wars. Stating nukes equal security is what I don’t agree with at all and I was just trying to expand on your stance. All in all, it is not a logical approach at all to say if a country has nukes they can’t ask for some assurance they won’t be neede 🤷♂️
deleted by creator
Oh no, Ukraine attacked infrastructure outside of Russia that is being used to attack Ukraine. I mean, I guess that Putin’s pride is wounded a little.
deleted by creator
Nuclear weapons didn’t protect the USSR from Glasnost.
Was it a sufficient guarantee for the US when missiles came to Cuba?
