Is it possible that you have an anti-Russia bias?
Anti-Russia as a state? No, that I am not. I am firmly anti-invasion. If Denmark decided to invade Sweden tomorrow, I would just as vociferously argue against its blatant aggression as I do Russia's.
Russia's claims amount to little more than a rejection of self-determination for any state in its determined sphere of influence, which is a macrocosmic offer of, "marry me or I'll kill you". I wouldn't entertain such a person's fantasies in my real life and neither do I entertain them on a geopolitical scale.
If NATO hadn't pushed further and further (and went against what was agreed), we would have never had that issue in the first place, as Ukraine wouldn't have been turned into a pawn against Russia.
This issue has been known for decades. Biden mentioned it 20 years ago already - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNgCwoaT9u4
I can only highly recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 as well.
When more than 180,000 Russian troops massed at Ukraine's border a few weeks ago whose choice was it to invade? Putin made that choice.
Trotting out the much-worn Mearsheimer video (I didn't even need to click the link to know) is of little service as the fault of this invasion is not on NATO. I have already established that in my earlier comments. Mearsheimer has perhaps served as Russia's greatest propagandist to the armchair intelligentsia of those who subscribe to a decidedly red realpolitik.
Should you have arguments that don't lean on Mearsheimer or provably false promises against NATO expansion [1], I'd be happy to continue.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...
I am not sure how that disproves your bias, respectively what that is even supposed to mean. I am not aware of any travel restrictions, so there's no "escape".
I am also not quite sure why you are so dismissive of Mearsheimer. But again, there will be little point in continuing the discussion.
Continuing discussion with such people/russotrolls[0] is pointless, indeed. Too bad this site doesn't have a block user functionality.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Putins-Trolls-Frontlines-Russias-Info...
But I'm not glad you characterise me as a troll - its just not true. While I am not lining up to shout hate at "Russia" (as if all individuals who live in a place called 'Russia' line up behind Putin), I've no illusions that they are better than our Western governments - I'm sure they are as bad.
If you had dug a little deeper this would have become obvious to you.
If you were to try to characterise me as something, I'd thank you to get it right - I am anti-statist (aka anarchist). I see the state and any external governance as an immoral structure, with no legitimate authority over an individual. I will point you to this quote from Nietzsche to capture how I feel about all governance structures:
"A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people.""
But what of you? How easy is it for you to smear commentators of comments you don't like? Do you ever consider that your approach is outrageous and immoral? Is it ok to label someone as 'whatever-it-is-you-dont-like-today' and to be ignored rather than engage in a conversation?
Do you ever think that in calling for people to be de-platformed, you are in fact part of the problem?
My comment and especially that part was over the line -- I apologize.
This is absolutely correct
>I wouldn't entertain such a person's fantasies in my real life and neither do I entertain them on a geopolitical scale.
As in our personal lives, This is an example that law and society only exist only as long as they are more tolerable than the alternative.
Even for rational actors, at some point the cost of abiding the social contract is greater than the cost to break it, and becoming an outlaw.
What does this even mean these days?