That would still be described as “did it because Kirk would deride a person he now liked” not “did it because he got converted into a liberal”. You’re not suddenly a liberal because you have a relationship with an LGBT person or figured out that they’re human. There’s little to no evidence to show he was invested in political ideologies.
“figuring out that Kirk is a POS” is clear
“converting into a liberal after crushing on a trans person”? is a massive stretch
As I said: I’m not in the business of comparing imperialists
That’s just shorthand for “I want to dodge any of the details/nuance because the facts are not on my side”.
You could accuse, but the evidence suggests you’d be wrong. Still waiting on that list of territories that NATO has annexed. For someone who’s so “concerned” about imperialism, you sure do carry a lot of water for what is likely the biggest offender of the past two decades.
I don’t care about your meaningless pontificating. You either dodge questions because you have no valid response or just shit out garbage with no substance.
You first vatnik
What? Is that absurd? You must’ve missed the tenet media story, among the pile of other ones.
I’m not in the business of comparing imperialists.
You’re gonna have to point out which territories NATO has annexed. What a load of nonsense.
The main enemy of every people is in their own country
Agreed, the ruzzian-funded puppets in their own country
bombed by Ukrainian forces since then.
Since russia invaded the country, yes. Who downed MH17? Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence? lol
That doesn’t make NATO the “good guys”.
You don’t have to be “good” to be incomparably better than ruzzia
Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan.
You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?
So if your justification is that “NATO wanted to stop a genocide”, then you’d have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.
Russia’s claims are weak. It’s quite obvious that they’ve recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they’ve done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your “little green men”, then use the fighting you started to claim the “genocide of russian-speakers” and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you’re not incredibly naive.
Any detail/specifics with these generic vapid assertions?
Russia claims that it’s stopping a genocide. Not claiming that they are correct.
It matters if one claim is true and the other isn’t though, kinda important. Also, russia is stealing territory and have constantly given different bs reasons for what they are doing. NATO saw a genocide, halted it and left. These are not comparable at all.
Only demonic fiction I see is the idea that Ruzzia can win this war.