The problem appears to be that you are applying your moral principles universally rather than selectively on the basis of if it advances the interests of countries you like or hinders the interests of the countries you don't.
Are Mexico, Canada, Cuba, Guatemala, and others set to station Russian or Chinese nuclear missiles? Because whether I approve or not, the United States would absolutely remove any government from power that was that close and did so, no question. So I would tend to advise against actually threatening the security of the United States in such a way.
The problem is that Silvanus is applying his moral principles stupidly. The United States doesn't have to deal with shit like the encroachment of NATO because there isn't any other military alliance as brazen about threatening the security of a nuclear power.
Putin is a conservative, right. If something doesnt go the conservatives way, they will claim it the end of the world and it threatens the very fabric of society.
Trump was telling Canada, Mexico, and Cuba not to be part of a hostile military alliance else he was going to invade? I honestly don't remember that. Are you sure?
He's got Belereus though.
I can't see Putin using nukes. He wants to annex (part of) Ukraine, so good luck doing that in an irradiated site.
No, you don't have to be Russian to correctly understand what NATO is and the crimes it has committed.
A fake journalist who blames the US, instead of Russia for Russian aggression.
Well, yes, those are big and nasty and they shouldn't be used against civilians, they aren't really worse than lots of small and nasty more traditional bombs that also shouldn't be used against civilians.
Neither are the tankie paid Russian shills whose information you keep putting on here.
sounds asinine and pointless
No, they just like Putin because he's a racist, bigoted, conservative white president who indiscriminately gets to throw his weight around, and that shit just gives them a huge boner.
