Suppose you sit down next to a hardened criminal. Tough guy, unstable, face tattoos, MS-13 photoshopped on his knuckles, the works. Not an ideal situation, not very stable.
In comes Uncle Sam, telling the criminal “hey, criminal! Realitätsverlust thinks your mother is a hooker, and says they will kill your first-born son” and so on and so forth. I would argue (and so would Biden, and so would Kennan, and so would other foreign policy experts) that the situation is now even less stable.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
That’s you not ‘just relaying the message’.
Plus, I think “defence” pact is a bit much given what NATO has done in Yugoslavia.
Suppose you sit down next to a hardened criminal. Tough guy, unstable, face tattoos, MS-13 photoshopped on his knuckles, the works. Not an ideal situation, not very stable.
In comes Uncle Sam, telling the criminal “hey, criminal! Realitätsverlust thinks your mother is a hooker, and says they will kill your first-born son” and so on and so forth. I would argue (and so would Biden, and so would Kennan, and so would other foreign policy experts) that the situation is now even less stable.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
“Proposing that a country join a defence pact only activated in case of an attack on the country is aggravating any potential aggressors”
Jesus Christ.
“Cartels murdering people in your town? Just don’t talk to the cops, that’s how you stay safe.”
Hey man, take it up with Biden, I’m just relaying the message. Plus, I think “defence” pact is a bit much given what NATO has done in Yugoslavia.
That’s you not ‘just relaying the message’.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Walk me through it. Explain to me why bombing Yugoslavia was ok.
Genocide is bad, even when done by Russian allies.
Radical, I know.