[ghostwriter]

> So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour

I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...

[padjo]

I’m not downplaying, I disagree with characterising it as an armed coup but figured there’s no point in even talking to you about that.

So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…

[ghostwriter]

> So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery?

The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.