NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is proposing to establish a fund of allied contributions worth $100 billion over five years for Ukraine as part of a package for alliance leaders to sign off when they gather in Washington in July.
I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.
You also seem to be against US involvement by virtue of it being a US involvement, even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor. What is wrong with that?
If I read this correctly, you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
The best defense was to negotiate with russia. The world is not perfect, in war there is almost never a good solution. Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.
even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor.
This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.
you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.
Considering how well Russia followed the Budapest memorandum, I don’t think this is the right course of action.
“Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.”
Any source or explanation as to why the route of aiding Ukraine leads to a higher risk of a nuclear war or WW3 would be appreciated.
“This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.”
A source or explanation is needed once again.
“Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.”
Wasn’t there a rule that countries need to resolve their conflicts before entering NATO? Russia had one: the Chechen wars. The first Chechen war started in 1994 [1]. Between German unification and the first Chechen war, a grand total of ZERO countries joined NATO [2]. This means that Russia was already fighting before NATO let in countries of the former eastern bloc. Not a good look for an aspiring member, is it?
“I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.”
Will you answer this question this time around? Or will you ignore it again?
You dont think a proxy war with the country with the most nuclear weapons risks anything?
You gotta stop an agressor at some point, Russia is most likely not going to stop at Ukraine if Putin gets away with it. Now the west has an opportunity to make Russia’s imperial ambitions more difficult without interfering directly. This, to me, is the least risky option.
As far as WW3, we are pushing together the Brics countries.
Gotta ask for a source or explanation again.
If the US had rejected Ukraines request to join NATO, this war would not be happening.
First of all, Ukraine wasn’t a part of NATO and considering that Russia already violated their territorial integrity before, Ukraine would have a hard time joining NATO.
Second of all, Ukrainian support for joining NATO was very low, until Russia annexed Crimea, after that happened Ukraine began actively trying to join NATO.[1] So Russia brought this onto themselves.
And how do you know how Russia would have acted, had things gone differently?
There is no answer, they cant defend themselves, they could never win. Giving them money and offering alliance has only made it worse.
By the sanctions we did in Russia, it has cause the foreign countries to start going off the petro dollar and they are able to group together under different currencies.
What you will find if you listen to anyone that knows the history of the region is that all along NATO and the US were directly involved in all of the countires that russia invaded. If NATO had not gotten involved, I dont believe russia would have invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, or invaded Ukraine. If we didnt stick our nose into every country around the world, the war would not be happening right now.
By the sanctions we did in Russia, it has cause the foreign countries to start going off the petro dollar and they are able to group together under different currencies.
The link to WW3 is missing. Since you were talking about BRICS here is something I’d like to add: India also takes part in a quadrilateral organisation with the US. [1] So could it just be that India is being neutral and playing both sides?
What you will find if you listen to anyone that knows the history of the region is that all along NATO and the US were directly involved in all of the countires that russia invaded.
Source please.
If we didnt stick our nose into every country around the world, the war would not be happening right now.
I don’t think either of us can truly know how Russia would have acted had thins gone differently. But if Soviet history is anything to go by, it is not good.
You gave no answer as to why Ukraine’s defense is futile.
I dont know what countries for certain but it would be something like- China, Russia, Iran, the rest of the muslim world, etc vs NATO, Israel, etc. We are directly pushing all of those countries together.
I dont know what countries for certain but it would be something like- China, Russia, Iran, the rest of the muslim world, etc vs NATO, Israel, etc. We are directly pushing all of those countries together.
Source please. Are they all willing to fight against the US in WW3? I can imagine Iran and their allies doing so, but the rest as well?
Ukraines defense is futile because they dont have enough population, and it is showing in the median soldier age being in the 40s.
A lot of factors play a role in Ukraines chances of victory, so you saying that Ukraine can’t win because population is really a weak argument. And history doesn’t allign woth this point either, take the first Chechen war, or the time that The USSR the US, invaded Afghanistan
I find it quite unteresting that you on the one hand argue that Ukraine has the right to defend themselves and shouldn’t surrender, and on the other hand that Ukraine is going to lose anyway. How does that work?
I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.
You also seem to be against US involvement by virtue of it being a US involvement, even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor. What is wrong with that?
If I read this correctly, you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
The best defense was to negotiate with russia. The world is not perfect, in war there is almost never a good solution. Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.
This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.
Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.
Considering how well Russia followed the Budapest memorandum, I don’t think this is the right course of action.
“Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.”
Any source or explanation as to why the route of aiding Ukraine leads to a higher risk of a nuclear war or WW3 would be appreciated.
“This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.”
A source or explanation is needed once again.
“Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.”
Wasn’t there a rule that countries need to resolve their conflicts before entering NATO? Russia had one: the Chechen wars. The first Chechen war started in 1994 [1]. Between German unification and the first Chechen war, a grand total of ZERO countries joined NATO [2]. This means that Russia was already fighting before NATO let in countries of the former eastern bloc. Not a good look for an aspiring member, is it?
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
“I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.”
Will you answer this question this time around? Or will you ignore it again?
You dont think a proxy war with the country with the most nuclear weapons risks anything? As far as WW3, we are pushing together the Brics countries.
If the US had rejected Ukraines request to join NATO, this war would not be happening.
There is no answer, they cant defend themselves, they could never win. Giving them money and offering alliance has only made it worse.
You gotta stop an agressor at some point, Russia is most likely not going to stop at Ukraine if Putin gets away with it. Now the west has an opportunity to make Russia’s imperial ambitions more difficult without interfering directly. This, to me, is the least risky option.
Gotta ask for a source or explanation again.
First of all, Ukraine wasn’t a part of NATO and considering that Russia already violated their territorial integrity before, Ukraine would have a hard time joining NATO.
Second of all, Ukrainian support for joining NATO was very low, until Russia annexed Crimea, after that happened Ukraine began actively trying to join NATO.[1] So Russia brought this onto themselves.
And how do you know how Russia would have acted, had things gone differently?
Source or explanation needed, again.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations
By the sanctions we did in Russia, it has cause the foreign countries to start going off the petro dollar and they are able to group together under different currencies.
What you will find if you listen to anyone that knows the history of the region is that all along NATO and the US were directly involved in all of the countires that russia invaded. If NATO had not gotten involved, I dont believe russia would have invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, or invaded Ukraine. If we didnt stick our nose into every country around the world, the war would not be happening right now.
The link to WW3 is missing. Since you were talking about BRICS here is something I’d like to add: India also takes part in a quadrilateral organisation with the US. [1] So could it just be that India is being neutral and playing both sides?
Source please.
I don’t think either of us can truly know how Russia would have acted had thins gone differently. But if Soviet history is anything to go by, it is not good.
You gave no answer as to why Ukraine’s defense is futile.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue
I dont know what countries for certain but it would be something like- China, Russia, Iran, the rest of the muslim world, etc vs NATO, Israel, etc. We are directly pushing all of those countries together.
Dave probably lists out the reasons for the Ukraine war. Scott Horton goes into excruciating detail on the causes of the Ukraine war and lots more.
Ukraines defense is futile because they dont have enough population, and it is showing in the median soldier age being in the 40s.
Source please. Are they all willing to fight against the US in WW3? I can imagine Iran and their allies doing so, but the rest as well?
A lot of factors play a role in Ukraines chances of victory, so you saying that Ukraine can’t win because population is really a weak argument. And history doesn’t allign woth this point either, take the first Chechen war, or the time that The USSR the US, invaded Afghanistan
I find it quite unteresting that you on the one hand argue that Ukraine has the right to defend themselves and shouldn’t surrender, and on the other hand that Ukraine is going to lose anyway. How does that work?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Dave probably lists out the reasons for the Ukraine war.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.