Hardly. You have to take both statements of Mustajärvi into account: it's obvious he shares my skepticism regarding what NATO is and what it stands for (see DSA's opinion on it), he simply acquiesced to what the clear majority was in the Finnish parliament and his party's coalition and attempted to attach some conditions to it.
But let's take this back to the start of this conversation: this whole non-commentariat (Evan included) immediately assumed the worst-faith interpretation of even the mildest of critiques. "No" votes were tantamount to "treason." Questioning this development, even to this mild extent, was immediately jumped on as "Russian propaganda". There was ZERO attempt to even determine where those No votes came from or what they were about. It speaks to a disturbing lack of curiosity about not only foreign politics, but to NATO's very nature.
A lack of curiosity defines the right. It shouldn't define this place.
Yeah, I've seen you do this kind of text-wall of nonsense before. You'll find that concerns about the nature of Russian diplomatic attitudes towards NATO countries are very different than demands of a "buffer zone" (a term I never used). But you have to conflate to two in order to create a strawman of the argument I'm making, which is about your attitudes towards any dissent. You illustrated it perfectly.
But to be extra fair, if ever there was a person worthy of despising...
Nah…on Virgin. He’s never met one before.
They banged heads several times in the last century, and as far as I know, Russia was always on the losing end.
I agree but wouldn't go that far. I doubt he's a complete anything.
Russia got a buffer zone from Finland but paid dearly.
Fuck yeah!
Worse! She is selling the spoiled remnants of that previous failure.
Hardly. You have to take both statements of Mustajärvi into account: it's obvious he shares my skepticism regarding what NATO is and what it stands for (see DSA's opinion on it), he simply acquiesced to what the clear majority was in the Finnish parliament and his party's coalition and attempted to attach some conditions to it.
But let's take this back to the start of this conversation: this whole non-commentariat (Evan included) immediately assumed the worst-faith interpretation of even the mildest of critiques. "No" votes were tantamount to "treason." Questioning this development, even to this mild extent, was immediately jumped on as "Russian propaganda". There was ZERO attempt to even determine where those No votes came from or what they were about. It speaks to a disturbing lack of curiosity about not only foreign politics, but to NATO's very nature.
A lack of curiosity defines the right. It shouldn't define this place.
Yeah, I've seen you do this kind of text-wall of nonsense before. You'll find that concerns about the nature of Russian diplomatic attitudes towards NATO countries are very different than demands of a "buffer zone" (a term I never used). But you have to conflate to two in order to create a strawman of the argument I'm making, which is about your attitudes towards any dissent. You illustrated it perfectly.
Boy Jr didn't think this up all by himself. They are both assets who say what they are told to say.
I laughed
Uh huh.
Let me cut down the words for you then. It won't fit in a bumper sticker, but you'll figure it out.
Russia is demanding other countries do what it wants or else.
Russia gets no say in what those countries get to do, even if a minority of useful idiots in those countries reword Russian talking points.
Is that simple enough for you?
It's not the text-wall, it's the nonsense. But again, you keep making my point for me.
He'd be better if he just left his lap-dancing to his sweetie.
Specially in floriduh.
It would be painful to watch, if he weren't such an exceptionally shitty excuse for a human being.