This shows how utterly absurd it is to argue on behalf of Putin's view on this topic, instead of the view that states can be free to chart their own paths.
And parallel to the military fights, here is the civilian peaceful resistance.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Ukraine is fighting back and they’re not getting nuked. No one wants to see war, but it’s a better alternative than Putin controlling every country that isn’t part of NATO on the back of a threat.I have zero time for Biden, but I’m getting sick and tired of this constant “we must do more” line that gets thrown at him.
What exactly Do people want him and NATO to do? WW3 will likely end with nuclear strikes across the globe. WW3 will affect hundreds of millions of people.
A NATO intervention at this stage is likely to end the world as we know it. Why can’t people grasp this fact?
Why would Ukraine be nuked? The risk of a nuclear strike is mentioned in the context of a war with a country that is going to hurt Russia itself, not in the context of Russia struggling in Ukraine.Ukraine is fighting back and they’re not getting nuked. No one wants to see war, but it’s a better alternative than Putin controlling every country that isn’t part of NATO on the back of a threat.
If Russia does use a tactical nuclear weapon, I would think they’d lose the support of China, which would be devastating.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You’ll end the world for that but not for Ukraine?Because Poland are a NATO country and bombing them would be an act of war against the whole of NATO.
I thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.
How many times does this conversation need to be had in this thread?You’ll end the world for that but not for Ukraine?
Just a reminder - Russia is bombing Ukraine here. Ukraine is Yemen or VI thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.
And yea, if only Vietnam had chosen to side with capitalism then they wouldn't have been bombed the sh*t out of for trying to choose a communist.
Or even Yemen should just bring back the Saudi lacky they had so they don't get bombed the sh*t out of by US/UK supplied bombs.
Everyone plays war games when someone goes against them. Russia are doing the same. They are absolutely aholes in this that deserve all kinds of hell, but NATO has a role to play in this as well.
And at some point certain historically larger nations have to accept things have changed, particularly if their economic strength is no longer sufficient to back up their geopolitical ambitions. Russia is behaving, and demanding a level of respect, like its the Soviet Union at its height. In reality, this is more like Britain and France at Suez (without the military competence).It's only a solid point if you ignore geopolitics and the fact that historically the largest nations have areas of influences where other large nations don't really step.
Of coruse and that's why Russia are seen negatively.And at some point certain historically larger nations have to accept things have changed, particularly if their economic strength is no longer sufficient to back up their geopolitical ambitions. Russia is behaving, and demanding a level of respect, like its the Soviet Union at its height. In reality, this is more like Britain and France at Suez (without the military competence).
There's an argument to be made that we are already at war with Russia and the continued use of Article 5 as a hypothetical red line, only incentivizes Putin to double down on carnage inside Ukraine, as long as he doesn't attack NATO territory. This is in my view a shortcoming of Article 5 in that it can be used by an enemy force to prevent NATO from doing anything while WMDs are used against civilians. That wasn't its intent and so NATO powers need to take a look at ways to do more.You’ll end the world for that but not for Ukraine?
Well of course Ukraine isn’t being nuked. Russia isn’t threatened by Ukraine is it?Ukraine is fighting back and they’re not getting nuked. No one wants to see war, but it’s a better alternative than Putin controlling every country that isn’t part of NATO on the back of a threat.
If Russia does use a tactical nuclear weapon, I would think they’d lose the support of China, which would be devastating.
Are they not just citing article 5 because they don't want to engage? I don't think article 5 would be in the conversation if they wanted to attack.There's an argument to be made that we are already at war with Russia and the continued use of Article 5 as a hypothetical red line, only incentivizes Putin to double down on carnage inside Ukraine, as long as he doesn't attack NATO territory. This is in my view a shortcoming of Article 5 in that it can be used by an enemy force to prevent NATO from doing anything while WMDs are used against civilians. That wasn't its intent and so NATO powers need to take a look at ways to do more.
Yes, but he's saying it's unreasonable to fight for Ukraine because it might end the world, but he very quickly is willing to end the world for NATO. I don't think that's reasonable.How many times does this conversation need to be had in this thread?
Article 5 of NATO is not hard to understand.
I thought the whole reason Russia is invading is because Ukraine is a threat.Well of course Ukraine isn’t being nuked. Russia isn’t threatened by Ukraine is it?
Russia would be threatened by NATO though. There’s a difference
Why you acting the goat?I thought the whole reason Russia is invading is because Ukraine is a threat.
Let's have Australia join the fight then, they're no threat and have no nukes.
I see your logic, but there has to be line, even one that seems arbitrary.Yes, but he's saying it's unreasonable to fight for Ukraine because it might end the world, but he very quickly is willing to end the world for NATO. I don't think that's reasonable.
Why you acting the goat?
I'd agree. I honestly don't think the current group of NATO leaders (Biden, Bojo, Macron, Scholz, Trudeau) are have the fortitude or political courage to come to grips with the idea of going to war, and are using article 5 as a way to limit their involvement in Ukraine, while making it appear like they are leaning forward on the matter.Are they not just citing article 5 because they don't want to engage? I don't think article 5 would be in the conversation if they wanted to attack.
Gotta be a line somewhere.Yes, but he's saying it's unreasonable to fight for Ukraine because it might end the world, but he very quickly is willing to end the world for NATO. I don't think that's reasonable.
What would you like NATO to do?I'd agree. I honestly don't think the current group of NATO leaders (Biden, Bojo, Macron, Scholz, Trudeau) are have the fortitude or political courage to come to grips with the idea of going to war, and are using article 5 as a way to limit their involvement in Ukraine, while making it appear like they are leaning forward on the matter.
Jeez, yeah, when you list them in that context...I'd agree. I honestly don't think the current group of NATO leaders (Biden, Bojo, Macron, Scholz, Trudeau) are have the fortitude or political courage to come to grips with the idea of going to war, and are using article 5 as a way to limit their involvement in Ukraine, while making it appear like they are leaning forward on the matter.
It's not as if the last great war happened that easily. People are taking it a bit too lightly, it's easy to take decisions when you can't actually take them yourself. Also the reality is that we won't even know when the war already started, our first clue will be tomahawks flying on Russian positions and hundreds of fighterjets locking western Europe.Jeez, yeah, when you list them in that context...
Lean forward more. Even if they don't want a NFZ, they can still give the Ukrainians more arms beyond manpads and guns. Give them jets and more sophisticated SAM launchers that can shoot down Russian planes (and by planes, I mean ones that fly at higher altitudes out of reach of manpads). If the Ukrainians don't know how to use some of the equipment, allow outsiders not employed by NATO to participate. Launch PsyOp campaigns inside Russia to destablize Putin among his public, create strategic diversions for Putin by moving troops into parts of eastern Europe, near Kaliningrad, and the Baltics. Be proactive and set the agenda, instead of being reactive and allowing Putin to do it.What would you like NATO to do?
If Russia attacked Estonia for example I honestly couldn't see macron scholz or Trudeau committing troops and going to fightI'd agree. I honestly don't think the current group of NATO leaders (Biden, Bojo, Macron, Scholz, Trudeau) are have the fortitude or political courage to come to grips with the idea of going to war, and are using article 5 as a way to limit their involvement in Ukraine, while making it appear like they are leaning forward on the matter.
That's not a good example. France already has troops committed in Estonia and is in charge of its air space.If Russia attacked Estonia for example I honestly couldn't see macron scholz or Trudeau committing troops and going to fight
Biden... Honestly not sure if he would but I suspect domestic politics would factor at least as heavily in the decision as honouring the article 5 commitments
Boris ... I think he would (if America did) but mainly to live out some elaborate Churchillian cos play rather than any sense of honour.
Looking at that lot possibly putin read the room pretty well
I hope at least for some living in the west, seeing this conflict gives them the ability to see past events from a different less biased lens. It's clear some in here are in denial and shout "whataboutism" when it makes them uncomfortable, but I'm sure some see the parallels from Russia:I thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.
And yea, if only Vietnam had chosen to side with capitalism then they wouldn't have been bombed the sh*t out of for trying to choose a communist.
Or even Yemen should just bring back the Saudi lacky they had so they don't get bombed the sh*t out of by US/UK supplied bombs.
Everyone plays war games when someone goes against them. Russia are doing the same. They are absolutely aholes in this that deserve all kinds of hell, but NATO has a role to play in this as well.
A couple of posts isn't a big deal. If it results in a total derailment, the convo will be moved next door.I thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.
And yea, if only Vietnam had chosen to side with capitalism then they wouldn't have been bombed the sh*t out of for trying to choose a communist.
Or even Yemen should just bring back the Saudi lacky they had so they don't get bombed the sh*t out of by US/UK supplied bombs.
Everyone plays war games when someone goes against them. Russia are doing the same. They are absolutely aholes in this that deserve all kinds of hell, but NATO has a role to play in this as well.
I'd agree with those suggestions though I can understand if leaders are hesitant to implement them. Russia might raise the stakes even more if we do those things?Lean forward more. Even if they don't want a NFZ, they can still give the Ukrainians more arms beyond manpads and guns. Give them jets and more sophisticated SAM launchers that can shoot down Russian planes (and by planes, I mean ones that fly at higher altitudes out of reach of manpads). If the Ukrainians don't know how to use some of the equipment, allow outsiders not employed by NATO to participate. Launch PsyOp campaigns inside Russia to destablize Putin among his public, create strategic diversions for Putin by moving troops into parts of eastern Europe, near Kaliningrad, and the Baltics. Be proactive and set the agenda, instead of being reactive and allowing Putin to it do it.
i don’t want the world to end for anything mate.You’ll end the world for that but not for Ukraine?
Im a bit confused. At what point has NATO threatened Russia?I thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.
And yea, if only Vietnam had chosen to side with capitalism then they wouldn't have been bombed the sh*t out of for trying to choose a communist.
Or even Yemen should just bring back the Saudi lacky they had so they don't get bombed the sh*t out of by US/UK supplied bombs.
Everyone plays war games when someone goes against them. Russia are doing the same. They are absolutely aholes in this that deserve all kinds of hell, but NATO has a role to play in this as well.
Oh I fully respect any endeavour not to have a world war but that lot are pretty much an awful bunch taken as a whole.It's not as if the last great war happened that easily. People are taking it a bit too lightly, it's easy to take decisions when you can't actually take them yourself. Also the reality is that we won't even know when the war already started, our first clue will be tomahawks flying on Russian positions and hundreds of fighterjets locking western Europe.
Thing with Estonia (and rest of the Baltics) is that you have NATO bases filled with US, UK and EU soldiers and gear there on permanent basis. Less than 200 miles from the border with Russia. They wouldn't need to make a decision to bring the troops here, they are already here. They would have to remove the troops during an attack on Estonia to avoid direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Not sure if they'd do that either, NATO would probably break down in that case.If Russia attacked Estonia for example I honestly couldn't see macron scholz or Trudeau committing troops and going to fight
Biden... Honestly not sure if he would but I suspect domestic politics would factor at least as heavily in the decision as honouring the article 5 commitments
Boris ... I think he would (if America did) but mainly to live out some elaborate Churchillian cos play rather than any sense of honour.
Looking at that lot possibly putin read the room pretty well
Compared to what?Oh I fully respect any endeavour not to have a world war but that lot are pretty much an awful bunch taken as a whole.
