I am not moving the goalposts, I am trying to put things into context rather then nitpicking every single sentence and strawmaning every argument. I speak in general terms, as I am not a robot. Everything I say is in a general political context.

Doesn’t look like it.

Reason stated for post removal was that it wasn’t recent. It has nothing to do with the headline. We can additionally make excuses all we want, but the post was valid and now, after publicly complaining, it was restored.

It was an article about how we got into this problem in the first place and therefor how we need to go about fixing it. You can’t fix problems by only listing the media narrative that currently suits them without looking for the context in the bigger picture and dealing with the cause instead of the symptom.

Most of the new articles do exactly the opposite, they get us into making the problem worse by voting for the party that got him elected, the same problematic person they are running against in the first place. Just so they can do what they are doing now and have been doing since then, pretend that they are better alternative, while still supporting him because they need him to scare the voters into voting for them.

Thanks for restoring it. I think it is important for c/politics to allow older articles that are still relevant, since often media only tries to push the narrative it is currently benefiting from. This allows for people to have a bigger picture and see the causes of the problem we are in today and therefor how to change it.

politics isnt a news channel

You shouldn’t have political goals when moderating just to support certain politician. That is a conflict of interest and abusing the mod power to further a goal of your political candidate.

You can’t seriously compare Russia and NATO by military power. They are competent to keep small regions under control, but they don’t have even a small portion of the world wide power that NATO has.

It’s not a buzzword just because you want to keep it a secret.

You clearly see this as a game. You know exactly what I said and you are running away from it, just to have some kind of play of semantics like that somehow communicates some greater point. I really have no idea what is the point of this comment of yours.

Organization can’t be better then it’s members that are controlling it.

Well if you claim that you are attacked by “Terrorism” and you declare war on it, you can make any invasion a defensive action. That is my point, in theory it is defensive, but they can twist it any way they want to make it offensive. Also if you go around the World claiming you are there to stop a genocide (ironically while funding a genocide yourself) just so you can send your army there, than you have no reason for CIA not to just finance some genocidal maniacs on one side to justify you going in there to “save” them (like Israel funded Hamas, and HIlary funded Trump). This is not even legally clean, just ignoring the laws when they don’t suit your interests.

CCP is better than the US. You’re implying you’re a TikTok user Not even close. Never used TikTok in my life, I have no reason to believe CCP is any better then US either. I don’t think you should assume that when someone is critisizing one group is automatically support another, this is exactly what everyone in power is using as propaganda to discredit any critique of them.

They are not forced legally but practically indirectly. It is as voluntary as someone agreeing to landlords terms or those of your employer. Legally speaking, yes no one is forcing you, practically speaking you don’t really have a choice and such a system was created on purpose so you can’t have a choice. Once you start depending on US for their support in your defense, you need to scratch their back in doing an invasion or two so they keep supplying your weapons.

Then anyone can be a neighbor.

When you debate grammar it shows you have no good arguments. I don’t always spell things correctly, because I am more focused on making sense, then appearance. If you understand what I mean, that is good enough for me. I understand that Russia and NATO are both problems and I understand that NATO is obviously far more powerful and bigger. I also understand what NATO claims to be, but I also see their presence in places where legally shouldn’t be. Take Kosovo for example, by the UN it is not recognized as independent, legally it is part of Serbia and Serbia does not support NATO troops there. Legally speaking, that is an invasion. Practically NATO countries invade many Middle Eastern countries as well, they wear NATO hats when they speak of peace, but often (but not always) remove that hat when they invade other countries. You can either accept that both NATO and countries that invade Middle East are the same countries run by the same people with same interests and same goals, making it the same thing. Or you can pretend that only what is legally defined as separate is important, but then accept that legally NATO also sometimes invades countries and were never invaded themselves, making them more offensive then defensive. You can’t have it both ways.

Defense alliance that invades countries in middle east.

NATO is heavily influenced by US. When they ask other countries to join, they wear a NATO hat, when they invade other countries they where their counturies independent hats that just so happens to be in NATO.

I didn’t dismiss any victims. I can critique Israel’s genocide of Palestinians without being anti-semetic. I can critisize Russian genocide and rape of Ukranians without being racist towards Russians. People are not the armies that claim that fight for their interests.

I never said we should let Russia annex anything, you are assuming that because I am against NATO expansion that I am pro Russia.