ghostwriter

Yeah, as if energy sources are fashion material and are being bought out of pure fun and leisure. Because countries can just allow themselves not to rely on energy.

Comment · 3 years ago

> Nope it’s ad hominem

Demonstrate exactly how it's ad hominem. I couldn't care less about you in the first place. You haven't refuted anything I said neither regarding the whataboutism, nor any other point I made regarding the conflict, so please do elaborate how exactly my points about your whining of whataboutism is ad hominem?

> you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.

Why would I discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own if your argument is wholly based on the idea of morailty and ethics of actions (the ones you call disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible) that are supposed to be applied equally to everyone? I want to see how you apply it universally across the board, and until that happens I call you a person with an agenda to propagandise.

But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s

Comment · 3 years ago

> You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right?

Do you realize that in other thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened after 2014? And in this thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened before 2014?

Comment · 3 years ago

> Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the Muj in Chechnya -- is equivalent to saying that Ukraine as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.

Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with Crimea and Donbass in 2014 -- is equivalent to saying that Russia as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.

Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the terrorists in Baghdad/Kabul -- is equivalent to saying that Iraq/Afghanistan as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.

In other words, the person registered "77 days ago" loses their entire awareness of role reversal in an attempt to fit reality into their botched worldview. It would be nice to hear, at least, what Ukraine did do to prosecute the so called fringe group that was threatening foreign relations of the entire state, but that would be too much for you to answer. Especially in the light of knowing that UNA-UNSO got integrated into the governing body of the country [1]. Let me guess: "they are still the minority". Great coping nonetheless.

[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/206070.html

Comment · 3 years ago

> So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery?

The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.

Comment · 3 years ago

> That's not a fact. [..] and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal.

You're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_anti-NATO_protests_in_Feo...

> 2003 was before 2008 [...] it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.

You're hilarious, on the one hand you don't like it when there's evidence of the subsequent alignment with the goal of joining NATO (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36034020), on the other hand you don't like the evidence of the prior alignment either. I'm not sure what you argumnt is unless it's "we decide at the spur of the moment and no one can hold us accountable for anything neither in the past nor in the future".

Comment · 3 years ago

> So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour

I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...

Comment · 3 years ago

Yeah, I've already heard that you don't believe in succesion of power in Ukraine and that it enables everyone in the government to act at a whim of the moment as long as it serves the current agenda. Turns out that strategy doesn't work in real life.

Comment · 3 years ago

In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.

Comment · 3 years ago

> Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason.

Your timeline is missing a few important points, let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003, when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq with their 5th and 6th mechanized brigades [1][2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...