That’s a rather silly claim, considering that plenty of people’s lives did get worse after the undemocratic dismantlement of the USSR (which most of these supposed USSR-haters voted against), and the rest are now beneficiaries of things like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s not really surprising that people who join gangs of robbers, murderers and torturers hate not being beneficiaries of such and will claim that they were oppressed even when their living standards were demonstrably some of the best in the world.

Also, you do understand that the USSR was one of the most significant forces behind the decolonization of Africa and Asia, and that it helped liberation movements there, right? And you do understand what that means with regards to what sort of people would hate it, don’t you?

Really not sure what you could disagree with in my comment in good faith.

Considering that those governments are now puppet governments of the US, it does seem fair to talk about occupation, given that you consider the USSR’s liberation of that part of Europe from the original nazis to be ‘occupation’.

Also, if you want to talk about how people ‘democratically’ chose to join the most prolific invader in the world (, you do have to admit that they should bear responsibility for invasions of Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places.

Is Ukraine invading russia? It is not. Is Ukraine commiting genocide? It is not.

It has invaded Iraq, Syria, and Iran at the very least, which helps the Pissraeli genocide of Palestine. It has also attempted to formally join the most prolific invader in the world, as well as to help NATO attack Russia.

Ukraine accepting peace to russias terms is no peace at all.

Of course a person like you, who supports the most prolific invader in the world isn’t going to support peace on terms not dictated by the most prolific invader in the world.
This just shows that you lied that Ukraine has no choice, and now you are trying to lie as if those peace terms were somehow bad.

The world already accepted giving Putin crimea.

Amusing how you don’t respect the wishes of the people of Crimea, even when NATO’s own studies concur that that is what they wanted.

But Putin wants more.

Everybody wants more. But, if course, you aren’t talking literally and actually mean some of your racist fantasies about your enemies being as bad as you.

If you give Putin more of Ukraine in exchange for peace, he will soon want even more and start another war.

You are just describing NATO’s behaviour, but imply that the rest of the world does not have a right to defend itself against you.

Your empire pushed for war with Russia. You don’t get to complain about being beaten.

Now, answer the question:
What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world - NATO - starts amassing weapons and troops on that state’s borders?

Ah, I misread what you meant, in that case.

Liquid assets

Incorrect. Most of Eurasia is fine with Russia, including most of its neighbours.

You must be thinking of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan as not trusting Russia.

Also, it is telling that you recognise that the vast majority of the countries that share planet with said invaders do not trust them. Must have something to do with the constant invasions and other atrocities.

You are either claiming that the USSR’s liberation of Europe both was and wasn’t occupation, or you are claiming that the USSR preventing fascists from coming into power on those countries was ‘occupation’, while the US putting fascists into power there and also doing things like what has been done to Greece and Ukraine is somehow not such.

Then you are contradicting yourself.

Do you think we support either part of the USian uniparty in general?

If you want to claim that the USSR liberating Europe from the original nazis and stopping the Lebensraum and the Holocaust was “occupation”, you have to also concede that those parts of Europe are currently occupied by NATO.

Nobody can trust Russia.

You are implying that somebody can trust the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, most of the world very much does seem to be able to trust Russia just fine.

The elephant in the room are the military expenses to protect against Russia.

Probably shouldn’t have been invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, and shouldn’t have been pushing for war with Russia all these decades, then.

So, what you are saying is that it is not possible, under capitalism, to provide a solution for the problem that planned economy solves, and that, under capitalism, people will necessarily be tortured by being denied basic necessities like that. If so, I would argue that you are, indeed, correct.

People who say what you say have fundamental misunderstandings about how governments work and about how private companies (“businesses”) work.

It does seem acceptable to you, given your support for Ukraine invading Iraq, Iran, Syria, and attempting to formally join the gang of invaders of Iraq, Afghanistan and basically the rest of the world.

What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world - NATO - starts amassing weapons and troops on that state’s borders?

Also, it is rich to call Russia “aggressive” when NATO was self-admittedly pushing for war with Russia.
It is similarly silly to claim that Ukraine is fighting for survival, considering that Ukraine could have just accepted peace with Russia during negotiations at many points, including in March 2022.

Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.

You said here that the aggrieved state should put its own troops to where the most prolific invaders tries to amass their own:

Get your own troops there and chill.

Which is what Russia has been doing.

If you meant that they should place their troops somewhere else, then you should explain how that is supposed to stop the most prolific invader in the world from acting to harm said state.

Also, your suggestion evidently fails miserably in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you’re using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it’s wrong.

The war was started by NATO.
I am still waiting for a serious suggestion for what a state should do in the face of aggression from the most prolific invader in the world. Notably, not doing anything and just letting the most prolific invader in the world do whatever it wants is not a serious suggestion.

So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?

Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).

Get your own troops there and chill.

So, you agree with Russia’s actions to get their own troops there, then.

Also maybe not so things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.

You mean the thing that NATO partially managed in the Korean peninsula? Honestly not sure what you are trying to refer to here.

Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.

Yeah, Russian troops do seem to have been needed.

The US and Ukraine are different countries?

The latter is a de facto subject of the former.

Also is it not? Russia is doing America shit.

So, responding to NATO’s aggression is the same as NATO constantly invading everywhere?
Also, again, the “FULL SCALE INVASION” is very obvious pro-NATO propaganda.

Going to ask my question again, since I did not get an answer:
what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?