Firstly, if you cannot suggest a serious alternative, you do not have an argument against the actions of such a state in this regard.
Secondly, the most prolific invader in the world attempting to attack a country is what starts a war, rather than the retaliation and preventative measures of the other state.
Thirdly, it is public knowledge that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, but miscalculated.
My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don’t invade other countries. Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic
My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don’t invade other countries.
That wouldn’t help the opposition to the most prolific invader in the world in any way, and it would allow the aggressor to do whatever they want for longer.
Your suggestion doesn’t even help in the best-case scenario where the aggressor loses, as the invaded state still has to go through a counter-offensive over all the same areas, except the aggressor now has more resources to fight with.
So, this is not a serious alternative.
Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic
This is an extremely silly comparison, considering that Pissrael is literally a genocidal settler-colony and is on the side of/is part of the most prolific invader in the world, and is not opposed to it in any way.
So, you think America is going to invade Russia, two nuclear armed nations? Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first? (maybe excluding invading Crimea). Why would Ukraine invade exactly?
Firstly, going to note that you still have not produced a serious alternative (your previous suggestion is simply to give more advantages to the most prolific invader in the world) and are still avoiding the question of how a state should approach described aggression.
So, you think America is going to invade Russia
NATO has already admitted to have started the war with Russia on purpose, and NATO has been striking Russian civilians, and has done a failed invasion in the Kursk oblast.
two nuclear armed nations?
So, if a state has nukes, you consider it okay for NATO to attack them?
Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first?
This is a bizarre question, considering that Ukraine isn’t the sole de facto part of NATO, and isn’t even sovereign. It is wholly subjugated by NATO since 2014, and does not make its own decisions.
Ukraine is also obviously not limited to the resources it would be limited to if it wasn’t a glorified NATO military base.
Why would Ukraine NATO invade exactly?
For the same reason NATO has been invading everywhere else, like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Palestine, Korea, etc. - colonial subjugation of the rest of the world.
Going to note again that you are still avoiding the question of what should be done against the empire’s aggression by the rest of the world.
Going to ask again - what should states do in such situations?
You understand the concept of mutually assured destruction right?
Which isn’t exactly a law of nature and doesn’t actually mean that NATO will definitely not attack you. Like we literally see it doing so against Russia. Hell, NATO did take hostile action against the USSR (and its allies like Cuba), a state that was much better-prepared than Russia.
Not sure why you are even bringing this up.
And what’s crazy about all those countries you’ve listed is none of them have nuclear arms.
The DPRK does have nukes, and NATO still carried out a small-scale attack against it recently.
Sure, having nukes makes NATO less capable of attacking head-on, but that is an irrelevant argument when we actually already have the knowledge that it has taken hostile action against a country, deliberately so.
You also seem to be overestimating the willingness of nuclear-armed states to use those weapons.
Firstly, if you cannot suggest a serious alternative, you do not have an argument against the actions of such a state in this regard.
Secondly, the most prolific invader in the world attempting to attack a country is what starts a war, rather than the retaliation and preventative measures of the other state.
Thirdly, it is public knowledge that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, but miscalculated.
My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don’t invade other countries. Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic
That wouldn’t help the opposition to the most prolific invader in the world in any way, and it would allow the aggressor to do whatever they want for longer.
Your suggestion doesn’t even help in the best-case scenario where the aggressor loses, as the invaded state still has to go through a counter-offensive over all the same areas, except the aggressor now has more resources to fight with.
So, this is not a serious alternative.
This is an extremely silly comparison, considering that Pissrael is literally a genocidal settler-colony and is on the side of/is part of the most prolific invader in the world, and is not opposed to it in any way.
So, you think America is going to invade Russia, two nuclear armed nations? Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first? (maybe excluding invading Crimea). Why would Ukraine invade exactly?
Firstly, going to note that you still have not produced a serious alternative (your previous suggestion is simply to give more advantages to the most prolific invader in the world) and are still avoiding the question of how a state should approach described aggression.
NATO has already admitted to have started the war with Russia on purpose, and NATO has been striking Russian civilians, and has done a failed invasion in the Kursk oblast.
So, if a state has nukes, you consider it okay for NATO to attack them?
This is a bizarre question, considering that Ukraine isn’t the sole de facto part of NATO, and isn’t even sovereign. It is wholly subjugated by NATO since 2014, and does not make its own decisions.
Ukraine is also obviously not limited to the resources it would be limited to if it wasn’t a glorified NATO military base.
For the same reason NATO has been invading everywhere else, like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Palestine, Korea, etc. - colonial subjugation of the rest of the world.
You understand the concept of mutually assured destruction right?
And what’s crazy about all those countries you’ve listed is none of them have nuclear arms.
Going to note again that you are still avoiding the question of what should be done against the empire’s aggression by the rest of the world.
Going to ask again - what should states do in such situations?
Which isn’t exactly a law of nature and doesn’t actually mean that NATO will definitely not attack you. Like we literally see it doing so against Russia. Hell, NATO did take hostile action against the USSR (and its allies like Cuba), a state that was much better-prepared than Russia.
Not sure why you are even bringing this up.
The DPRK does have nukes, and NATO still carried out a small-scale attack against it recently.
Sure, having nukes makes NATO less capable of attacking head-on, but that is an irrelevant argument when we actually already have the knowledge that it has taken hostile action against a country, deliberately so.
You also seem to be overestimating the willingness of nuclear-armed states to use those weapons.