"stop attacking yourself with my army" is not exactly a philosophical slam dunk.

Indeed, and the same goes for Russia, my friend.

As far as I can tell, Russia is fully prepared for any possible consequences.

Ah, now I get it. So Russia is just liberating Ukraine from being used by West. How noble.

Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country should not have the freedom to make their own choice whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?

No - Russia is defending the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics where Ukrainian nationalists have killed over 14,000 men, women, and children over the past eight years by shelling civilian areas.

The agreed upon diplomatic solution was the Minsk agreements, which Ukraine completely disregarded.

edit: HN is preventing me from replying to any more posts for an unspecified amount of time. We love our liberal values, don't we folks?

Don't change the topic. You were the one claiming that requesting Ukraine stay neutral is not unreasonable (implying that it is fine to attack another country if they do not abide to the request).

Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?

I never said they shouldn’t have the freedom to choose. Never mind that they didn’t- the US literally just sponsored a color revolution there in 2014. But don’t expect Russia to not react if their security is threatened.

Pathetic. You implied it is not unreasonable to attack another country and require "neutrality", which by definition means you think you are entitled to deny another sovereign country their freedom to choose.

Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.

Where was Libya or Yugoslavia’s “freedom to choose” when NATO invaded? Russia has no reason to believe that NATO will behave peacefully as it expands ever eastward.

We are not talking about NATO. We are talking about your claim that other sovereign countries should not have the freedom to choose who they play chess with.

I mean, you have all the freedom to make yourself more lucrative voluntary chess playing companion than NATO, nobody is denying that. Instead you choose to be a failed developing totalitarian country bullying and attacking its neighbours and you wonder why they want to join NATO?

Where did I claim that? What does “freedom” mean to you? Freedom from consequences?

Ugh. One of the reasons the Minsk agreements failed is because Russia said it's not a related party and as such, it doesn't apply to them.

So it's Russia that completely disregarded Minsk II agreements.

So that’s why Ukraine couldn’t honor the ceasefire for eight years?

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Russia created a gray zone war in the first place. Support in that area for Russia was reduced from 54% to 14% over the following 8 years.

That's one of the reasons they invaded instead of continueing the gray zone conflict.

If you are suggesting that Ukraine is at fault, you are ignoring basic facts.

You don’t know what I’m talking about? The continual shelling of civilian areas in Donetsk and Lugansk by Ukraine for the past eight years.

Yeah, support for Russia in these areas is so low that they were celebrating in the streets when Russia announced their recognition and people fled into Russia when Ukraine escalated hostilities.