Originally posted by eco1
View Post
If ***** has a problem with NATO troops in NATO countries near his border, maybe he should address that issue, rather than invading non-NATO Ukraine which has no NATO troops and attacking its civilian population with tanks, missiles and artillery.
I can see how Russia could view the growth of NATO as a threat, even a provocation, but only theoretically, considering the baltic states have been a member of NATO for coming on for twenty years, during which time they have shown no agression to *****. ***** meanwhile, has occupied Chechnya, occupied Crimea, placed troops permanently in Syria, indiscriminately used chemical weapons in other sovereign states, such as in the UK and Germany against civilians, and now invaded Ukraine and recklessly shelled the largest nuclear power station in Europe, and threatened countries that are nothing to do with NATO, such as Finland and Sweden, putting everyone on a nuclear alert by issuing a warning that he has put his nuclear deterrent on the highest level.
There are a lot of people making odd excuses for *****, who is behaving like the worst kind of tyrant.
He is killing civilians. The West is trying its best to pressure him in ways that don't kill people. And a lot of folks are pushing back, saying, hey, don't be mean to the Russian athletes.
From where I sit, these measures are the barest minimum considering what ***** is doing.
Comment