The only people framing the geopolitical relationship with the EUas part of this so called chess match is you.

You never did present that evidence I asked for by the way. So we are done here.

Because India needs oil. A lot of it and for cheap. India is also buying US weapons and phasing out Russian ones.

It’s almost like India is a country with its own interests and doesn’t treat the world as one giant chess match between Russia and the US.

You know. Like Latin America.

Where’s indias aid to Russia?

And it’s politics. The power of words is immense.

So find a single quote of the Latin American countires opposing the text as written had a thing to do with nato. You can’t.

You do realize the majority of these exact same states (including India, who you listed as supporting the war. What?) have already condemned the war at the UN. So no, it’s not as simple as pro us and anti us. Countires do indeed have interests beyond america or Russia and indeed do have bilateral concerns.

Just because you can’t see the world through anything but the US lense doesn’t mean the rest of the world can’t. And just because you think Latin America should have every action they take be shaped by their relationship with the u tied states doesn’t mean they think that.

So unless you can actually put up some evidence rather than your wild conjecture I’m afraid I’m done here.

I’ve never seen such a desperate attempt to twist a really bad take into viability before.

No it is not the same as expensive brand of phone you buy.

And if that what it was supposed to be then it’s even dumber than I thought. Participation in the political brand would be voting. Which young people mostly don’t do. Hence the thread.

In real life young people are not buying the brands of politics they don’t like. They are the exact opposite of the the person complaining about apple from their iPhone while wearing their AirPods.

So it still doesn’t apply.

Also go back, and reread it again. Said it doesn’t require an iPhone. Not that it doesn’t require phones.

You definitely are since the US only pays about 16% of NATOS budget. Which is a smaller percentage than what the US pays to the UN peace keeping forces.

You……do know that NATOs budget is not the same things as NATO combined military spending right?

And also irrelevant since the EU is not NATO. They share members they do not have identical membership.

Purchasing the iPhone was a choice though. It tools more energy effort and money to do than to not do. So again, not comparable to the country you are born in.

What happened to forced participation you harped on earlier.

Sure you can buy it and complain but a valid question remains “Well why’d you buy it”. And instead of answering this question and trying (and failing) to hide behind the lie that you were Forced to.

A very quick pivot from your previous argument or forced participation.

I hope the young folks do devolope mutual aid networks and arm themselves. Since that’s….you know actually doing something about a scenario they didn’t choose.

Whereas the most effective action about apple policies is buying a different brand.

My god you can’t even understand the point I’m making is the examples where terrible not that the point was wrong.

Yeah but no one’s forced into owning an iPhone, let alone AirPods.

The only one forced is the serf.

Hence the meme fails to say anything. Willful participation(buying apple products) is not the same as forced participation. Nothing is stopping you from buying a third party headphones. Modern life might demand cell phone access, but it doesn’t demand an apple product. Let alone an apple accessory for that apple Product.

The level the meme wants to operate at (deep unavoidable participation in unfair systems) falls apart because it only provided one actual example of that. Hell at least use something like nestle which is so ubiquitous you can actually consume it without being aware. But no one is accidentally buying AirPods. No one is forced to buy AirPods. Apple phones still connect to any Bluetooth headphone.

It’s yet another example of some one mocking faux deep thought while engaging in it.

Worked out so well in getting us a conservative dominated SC and has had consequences that will last a generation but sure, why not do it again

Yes, because the suffering of a serf with literally no option, and the observation of a consumer on a new and unrefined product is the same as someone buying the most trendy brand consumer product with variable alternatives….

And yet is much more directly impacted by, and involved in, the situation in Ukraine and you know, it was a direct exchange between those two parties and referencing those two parties and not the US.

You’ve got a bad case of American on the brain. You hate the topic but can’t change the subject.

Big powers like the entire EU? You know. Who the article was about.

Which doesn’t make make them the center of latin American reasoning. Geopolitics is more complicated than that. NOr is their anything in the article to imply anything of the sort.

Case and point. EU nations (aka Not the US) asking for support for an eu nation (which did not have anything to do with US coups in Latin America) is to you about the US.

You can’t even imagine Latin American countires having issues with Europeans treatment of them, like the article states. The response text but up colonial reparations.

The US is not the center of the world. Countries have motivations that don’t factor the US.

For someone who doesn’t like the US they have gotten deep in your head.

From an article that neither mentions the US or does the joint statement by the Latin Americans countries mention the US.

So yeah, maybe go back and read the article. Bringing the US up is conjecture unsubstantiated by the article. And weren’t you big on o Lu focusing on the article just a few comments ago?

I get you struggle not to tie everything back in the United States but American exceptionalism is a fairly toxic idea.

Which brings up the US how? Hmmmm……

Might wanna reread what I’ve said and what I’ve adressed since you know, I was responding to a comment on the article, not the article itself and this conversation has little to do with the article at all, mostly due to people like you making it about the US.

You know, the article about EU nations asking for support for a European nation from Latin American countries……

Revisionist history from talks about construction in 2020.

When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014.

Whose history again?

I’d love to see you quote me on when I ever said the US acted righteously. What I did say was that bad behavior by the IS is not grounds to justify bad behavior from Russia.

And again, the comment that started this chain was definitly trying to do that.

The rest is just white noise to try and expand the argument out of its scope.

Also known as arguing in bad faith.

Irrelevant. That countries do things forcibly doesn’t mean I have to tolerate bad actions or should be quit about when they do bad or ignore bad arguments that try and justify the bad actions.

But I’m glad we now agree the invasion had nothing to do with a nato base.

2020

So after Russia invaded? Did you forget Crimea?

Not to mention Sweden of all places can’t even get into NATO. You think an Ukraine that was partially occupied was getting in? You think the Russian government doesn’t know that?

Are you ignoring NATO membership for Ukraine was already torpedoed by France and Germany who are only changing their mind now because Russia decided to try and take the whole country? So no NATO has not “consistently postured” any such thing. It was explicitly decided at The 2008 summit to not offer them (or Georgia) membership. The US cannot unilaterally add anyone to NATO. Nor does the general-security of NATO get to decide that. No action plan or invitation was offered. The words have about as much weight as countries claiming they will stop global warming. Without concrete action, meaningless.

I’m not sure when you are citing the Monroe doctrine like that established some kind of precedent when Russia has been invading and neighbors before the United States was even a country.

I don’t care who Latin American decides to back. That’s their sovereign right. You know, that thing that’s being violated by Russia. I never said anything about it.

What I adressed was a comment playing apologetics for Russia with inconsistent application of its standards.

So don’t try and hide behind the some “might makes right””geopolitics” BS now.

After all, if our standards and morals don’t apply to the conversation since these are globe coinquering monsters who will do whatever they can get away then why are you still making excuses for Russia and blaming it in NATO.

Because you have an agenda.