Meaning it should not be politically acceptable in peace times by the same conventions used to condemn unprovoked military operations. Unless dishonesty is involved, seems irrational to react differently to situations with similar results.

Thanks for your insight. But sometimes they even release documents that confirm the purpose of a measure is to cause harm. I struggle to rationalize this for countries not already in armed conflict.

Such measures in which you use economic weight to purposely cause harm to another nation should at least be recognized as an act of war, so that a response is warranted by international law, including by military means.

So when the usa runs out of weapons, even “defensive” ones, the world stage already shifts to an atmosphere of peace and cooperation. Thank you Xi for blocking those rare earth exports to the usa military industry. Worthy of an actual peace prize.

Would Iran collapse without Russia’s assistance? Can Ukraine afford to decline any form of help from NATO countries? These come to mind.

Waiting for iran to demand usa nuclear disarmament as precondition for talks, even for emotional damage.

I dont’t know what they can do to Ukraine that Russia hasn’t done already. Maybe target things Russia has been avoiding? Like decision making.

Damn, the feels. Max is a doomer with a gun.

Which is then used to justify its actions.
Reminds me a bit of the “war on terror”.

*aggressively doing nothing (stupid)*

Not unbiased, but well sourced.
Mostly describing life in feudal Tibet.
https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism
In short: like european middle ages.

You must think the Japanese nuked themselves too because of Pearl Harbor.

Trusted source vs Propaganda outlet
Media regulation vs State censorship
Rule of law vs Human rights violations

We should really document this language.

For anyone who is in possession of a machine gun, that country feels they have the right to kidnap you.

It was definitely not every man, woman and child of any specific nationality, however you dislike it.

How? Someone has been secretly planting animosity against an entire nationality of innocent people in mainstream culture.
That is bad enough before you realize it’s a military organization trying to make itself relevant again through renewed war.

because they fear Trump will leave Nato

which would be the best outcome for europe

Yes. In the end its the usa who unilaterally decides for everyone.

I think our perception of a country plays a huge role in whether confrontation happens or not, so some attention is not undeserved. I only asked because you chose to describe the country in this way, even though it was the party you were defending. So what was the purpose of it? Do you feel uncomfortable being associated with the iranian state outside of this very specific context of conflict?

I think your stance on the war is a reasonable one, but

despite the fact that their regime is brutal and oppressive

How did you come to this understanding regarding iran?