Is Russian Invasion Justified?

a canadian

Posting a link with a working timestamp

youtube.com/watch?v=dAO5QY-Pwek&t=30205

Nick won when the Bay of Pigs invasion was mentioned. Steven didn't have a rebuttal, stumbled over his words and pivoted.

Destiny just came unprepared again.

Attached: 1624334049899.png (256x443, 103.28K)

a paleo conservative aka civnats + the judeo-critical stuff

anti white mexican supporting russia murdering white people

>I don't want groypers to get inundated with more spergery
So you want their movement to die out then?

>hohols
>white
Maybe if you are mixed yourself then can be viewed as white to you but any proper pure white can see shitskin and asian taint in them.

i'd like to see a nick v. martinez russia debate

None of Russia's so called "security interests" are legitimate. If anything Russia's invasion has made their security worse then ever. Destiny was right, the only interests the invasion served is Russia's aspirations for imperialism.

Why does Nick "Whiter than You" Fuentes make Any Forums seethe so much?
He has done more for white nationalism than any of you.
He is out organizing alternative political conferences while you guys just jack off to blacked porn and post "bait" all day. I don't get it. It almost feels like this is unironically a leftist board now lol.

Kek Any Forums boomers absolutely seething over Nick when he’s been nothing but atomic based for a year now after getting deplatformed everywhere

Attached: F2ABF0AA-1E63-40CF-85F0-7D084343A70C.jpg (968x1024, 119.49K)

This is a problem I notice with a lot of these talking-head people.

They are so used to filling up airtime, that they learn how to speak a lot of words, while saying very little. Nick, in his opening statement, basically dropped a clutter of loose facts about Nato and Russia. But he repeated himself a dozen times and didn't really present a coherent thesis.

I think that what he should have done was actually present a coherent argument. That would be this:

1) Nato was created to oppose Russia. This entire crisis was created by the West, not by Russia. We manufactured this whole crisis ourselves.
You can make that point in like, 2 sentences.

2) Cold War Theory
Expanding Nato towards Russia is the completion of the Cold War theory, which is about surrounding the enemy country with a wall of missiles, thus gaining "first strike potential" on that country. This is what we're doing to Russia. But this will inevitably lead to nuclear war. We just hope to be on the somewhat more-winninger side of that nuclear holocaust. The question is, do we really want to go through with that? Times have changed, executing this strategy from 50 years ago might no longer be the wisest course.

3) Why are we antagonizing Russia when we NEED Russia to surround China? How does pushing Russia and China together help us?

4) We should instead befriend the Russians however possible, and enlist their help to geopolitically surround China, which is the actual threat to american power in the world.

5) The only reason this ISN'T being done is because Russia opposes gay shit. Thus instead of being incorporated into the west and made wealthy, they are being treated as enemies to be destroyed.

I think that's a coherent thesis that's worth debating.

you could also make the point that at the time this strategy of isolating Russia was devised, China was assumed to be this left wing type nation that would assist in this endeavor. Those calculations have since changed. So now this whole idea that you can cut off Russia from all sides is a failure. Now that they have access to China, they are not going down so easily. This endeavor by the west is not going to work.

>We manufactured the whole crisis ourselves
Your first point is already wrong. Russia is solely responsible.

>11 hour stream
Yeah, fuck you.

Attached: confused_baby.png (295x225, 85.2K)

>waaah I can't figure out how timestamps work
ngmi