[_kbh_]

> Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"?

NATO is more then capable of collapsing the entirety of Russia with conventional weapons but they won’t do that.

My guess is that you will see something like the entirety of the Black Sea fleet sunk or a bunch of air bases wiped off the face of the earth.

Or something like Russian positions in Ukraine being devastated by the west.

I don’t think you’ll see much of a strike against Russia proper unless the attack comes from there.

> It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly?

Russia cannot even protect its soldiers and fleet in Ukraine from the Ukrainian navy and airforce in what way will Russia protect themselves from the much more technologically advanced NATO?.

> It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year.

> Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?

The only thing that got us where we are now is the colonial expansionist goals of Russia.

If Russia wants to escalate to unprecedented levels that haven’t been scene for 70 years then they need to expect to have a retaliation against them.

[foverzar]

Ok, sorry I asked, should have expected such an ideologically exultant answer.

[_kbh_]

What’s your solution? Letting whoever has nukes rape, torture and genocide their way through whatever country they want?.

[foverzar]

Firstly I'd suggest you stop using big words you don't fully understand if you want to have a meaningful discourse.

Otherwise it just feels like you are using random words with negative connotations just to sound impressive.

Spoiler: you don't, you sound like Putin when he starts talking of genocide of Russians in Ukraine. Ridiculous at best, disrespectful to victims of real genocides in general.

[_kbh_]

> Firstly I'd suggest you stop using big words you don't fully understand if you want to have a meaningful discourse.

I’d suggest you look up the definition of genocide, because it’s not what you think it is. Thankfully the UN has entire page dedicated to this.

Here’s a link to the page. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

But for the sake of making this easy I’ll also quote it.

> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

> a. Killing members of the group;

> b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

> c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

> d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

> e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

We will focus on point e.

Below is an article where the Russian childrens ombudsman brags about how they have forcefully relocated children from Ukraine and changed their views.

https://news.yahoo.com/childrens-ombudsman-russian-federatio...

As for my claims of rape and torture, I’ll quote the UN OHCR report.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/09/update-chair-ind...

“The Commission has documented cases in which children have been raped, tortured, and unlawfully confined. Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons. The exposure to repeated explosions, crimes, forced displacement and separation from family members deeply affected their well-being and mental health.“.

> Otherwise it just feels like you are using random words with negative connotations just to sound impressive.

I’d suggest you educate yourself on the definitions you argue about, because it is clear you don’t know what they actually are.

> Spoiler: you don't, you sound like Putin when he starts talking of genocide of Russians in Ukraine. Ridiculous at best, disrespectful to victims of real genocides in general.

You sound like someone trying to excuse war crimes and genocide in Ukraine.

[foverzar]

> But for the sake of making this easy I’ll also quote it.

Uh-uh, you forgot to quote the most important part where the specific meaning of these points are explained. I.e.:

> Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals.

Good luck finding distinction between Ukrainians, Hungarians, Polish and Russians, each group represented in modern Ukraine.

> Below is an article where the Russian childrens ombudsman brags about how they have forcefully relocated children from Ukraine and changed their views. https://news.yahoo.com/childrens-ombudsman-russian-federatio...

Sure, better leave them to a random death in a warzone.

Thank you for being transparent about your values.

And just out of curiosity, do you label each child refugee evacuation programme (i.e. US moving children from Iraq and Afghanistan for adoption) as genocide, or are you just being an ideological hypocrite? ;)