370

submitted 4 months ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] bigFab@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Ofc there are situations that require military defense expenses. Once said that, using the military expenses to cross all the red lines drawn in the aftermath of WW2 is not to prevent a foreign invasion, but to instigate the chapter 3.

Do you think Russia will patiently wait until every country bordering it is pointing missiles at it? Then you understand nothing about big-scale military conflicts.

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 months ago

By "crossing the red lines" do you mean ex-Eastern block countries joining NATO? Those countries joined out of their own free will BECAUSE they feared Russia might want to attack them. And, oh surprise, Russia did attack the one country not sucking up to them that didn't join NATO. Why should Russia's security be sacred above that of all its neighbours?

If by red lines you don't mean that, then they've clearly not been crossed. Russia and US or EU troops have not directly fought each other, and no country has used nuclear weapons so far.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

"Patiently wait" is a funny way to spell "invade and systematically undermine."

No reason every country around them has missiles - right? No history of getting rolled, by them. Not like there's an alliance specifically dedicated to stopping them from gobbling up nearby territory whenever they feel like it.