My guy, you should stop feeding the troll. I can keep coming up with bullshit indefinitely. The intent of my original facetious reply was to point out how ridiculous it is to react to a clearly ridiculous and unrealistic suggestion as if it was the most seriously considered expression of an actual policy suggestion ever. But it turns out some people just can’t not take every single thing that is said with the utmost seriousness.

Of course a nuked country will be a nuked country. That’s beside the point, moving the goalposts.

That’s the point

No, they can return after the country has been glassed.

Yes, but in reality nobody is going to nuke anybody, and certainly not because a random internet user vents their frustration at the situation with a clearly metaphorical and exaggerated request. Your reply was an overly literal reading of the comment, like replying to “go fuck yourself” with “…you realize that’s not possible, right?”

I simply replied to your literal interpretation with a literal interpretation of my own.

Sure you can, move the civilians out first.

They didn’t say anything about civilians

Coming from a country bordering Russia and having had to deal with their bullshit for my entire life, the most frustrating thing about Russian bullshit is that if they could just be normal, they could be an actually wealthy and significant European country in a few decades. But no, they have always had this HUGE inferiority complex, which means that they need to continuously prove that they’re great, powerful and important. And the only way they know how to prove their greatness and importance is to flex their “power” on their neighbors, including by militarily expanding their borders, while most of their “peer” countries (most importantly pretty much all of Europe) have moved on from this sort of view of being “powerful” after WW2 by the latest.

Nothing says “we’re on path towards inevitable victory” (as Russian shills like to claim) like nuclear saber rattling.

I wish Russians thought like you do.

In my language, the word for coal refers to both types, but you can specify “wood coal” or “rock coal” if necessary.

People also often feed bread to birds, but bread is harmful to birds because it doesn’t provide the nutrients they need while filling them up so that they don’t go find more nutritious foods.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/game

They are arguing in bad faith and they know it. The peace-absolutism is in a long tradition of pro-Soviet propaganda, where the only obstacle to eternal world peace was countries (particularly those opposing the Soviet Union) having any military at all. (Soviet Union was of course allowed to have a strong military to “protect” itself from Western, particularly US, “aggression”).

All of the calls for “peace” and “diplomacy” now are exactly the same: calls to stop actively resisting Russian aggression, and in the longer term to destroy your capability of being able to resist in the first place. And, if possible, to simply roll over to all Russian demands because you aren’t being “diplomatic” otherwise.

War, in this propagandistic view, is only caused by the country being invaded defending itself; after all, if they simply allowed Russia to take over, there would be no war. In the best case, the situation would have been solved through “diplomacy”, i.e. simply agreeing to all Russian demands. That way war would have been avoided, right?

And because no sensible person wants war, the leaders saying “no” to Russian demands (and who therefore must not want diplomacy, right?) must want war either because they’re corrupt and want to profit off of the war, because they’re “russophobic” “nazis” who “unreasonably” hate Russia, or because they’re being used as pawns by someone else, most likely the US. Because no one wants war, and therefore should be willing to conduct diplomacy over any questions (i.e. roll over to Russian demands) if they were not being manipulated in some way. And that is why poor Russia is “forced” to invade countries because of the US and the West, because being US pawns they are not willing to be diplomatic (i.e. agree to all Russian demands).

Anyone in the West supporting the invaded country is therefore a “warmongerer” if they do not support “diplomacy” (= letting Russia have whatever they want). Because there would be no war if Russia could just do whatever they want with no resistance.

No EU leader wants to have any piece of that shithole of a country.

This is called the etymological fallacy

War is insane, so it is unfortunate that Russia has unleashed it again. But fortunately we are working on helping Ukraine stop Russia from killing more people and bringing more destruction to Ukraine.

Edit: I love how pro-Russian shills are downvoting me without being able to give a single real reason why one should blame this war on anyone else but Russia.

If the West wants war so bad, why are Western countries dithering so hard about giving equipment to Ukraine? Shouldn’t that be profitable for them? Shouldn’t the US congress approve the aid to Ukraine in a heartbeat if all they want is to enrich themselves if war is so profitable?

Why is it okay for Russia to profit from war, but not for people trying to stop Russia from expanding their war profiteering? Does every European country need to become a target for Russian war profiteering?

Who was it that attacked Ukraine? Regardless of any past ambitions, even if the west “wants war”, would there be any war in Europe at the present moment if Russia had not invaded Ukraine?

Yes, we know that Russia invaded Ukraine because of a mentally ill game by a dude greedy for wealth and power. And now we unfortunately are put in the position of having to stop his quest for wealth and power lest it consume the whole of Europe. Or do you think that the guy hungry for wealth and power will stop pursuing those things because of diplomacy?

It’s difficult to be diplomatic when the other guy is actively attacking you.

Particularly as Russian diplomacy tends to be, “do what we say and we might not hurt you more for the time being”.