Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord-Jaffa said:
People in this thread would have us all conscripted and in the trenches dying if they could
Click to expand...

Hilarious nonsense.

Lord-Jaffa said:
The sooner the war ends the better for everyone.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Now ask yourself why Putin refuses to end it.

Lord-Jaffa said:
Ukraine has to accept its current position, its just not feasible to regain its territory, the losses are going to be astronomical.
Click to expand...

You would have been a real help in WWII.

'Sorry Poland, France, and everyone else Germany is currently occupying, you'll have to accept your current position. It's just not feasible to regain your territory, the losses are going to be astronomical.'

That's Lord Haw Haw rhetoric.

The losses in this war have been significant, but not unsustainable, and Ukraine is regaining territory. Astronomical losses are counted in the millions, not the tens of thousands. We're not going to see millions of dead from this war. We didn't even see millions of dead from ~20 years in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
I might say I'm not in a relationship with your sister, but if we're holding hands, going out for romantic meals together, and both have no interest in seeing anyone else, then we're de facto a couple. This is what is Ukraine and NATO are.
Click to expand...

If ukraine was defined in this way then russian has already become nvaded nato and article 5 applies.

However we are not in that situation. Ukraine asked for assistance in providing arms that it is paying for against a russian agressor.
Ukraine is not a part of NATO - that is the legal and political position.

That is the reality of the situation.

Likewise iran and china are also supplying arms thus in your logic BRICS initiated an invasion of NATO.

The reality is Russia is being russia. A bully to small states.
 
Last edited:
How you can twist this situation into the west is attacking Russia through a Ukrainian proxy is too far down the rabbit hole or Russian revisionist propaganda.

The west did everything they could to prevent this war from starting. Russia thought they could win without much Ukrainian resistance so they went for it. They were wrong.

It’s a move right out of pre ww2 expansionist playbook.

If Russia left Ukrainian sovereign territory the war would be over. Neither NATO or Ukraine have any interest in attacking Russia.
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
If ukraine was defined in this way then russian has already become nvaded nato and article 5 applies.

However we are not in that situation. Ukraine asked for assistance in providing arms that it is paying for against a russian agressor.
Ukraine is not a part of NATO - that is the legal and political position.

That is the reality of the situation.

Likewise iran and china are also supplying arms thus in your logic BRICS initiated an invasion of NATO.

The reality is Russia is being russia. A bully to small states.
Click to expand...

They are de facto part of NATO, it doesn't really matter what a piece of paper says. Article 5 doesn't even force member states to do anything other than "assist the Party" under attack. China and Iran have sent some limited supply of weapons. NATO members have sent massive amounts, along with intelligence, we even have special forces in Ukraine. Why is this even a point of contention.
 
Roar87 said:
They are de facto part of NATO, it doesn't really matter what a piece of paper says. Article 5 doesn't even force member states to do anything other than "assist the Party" under attack. China and Iran have sent some limited supply of weapons. NATO members have sent massive amounts, along with intelligence, we even have special forces in Ukraine. Why is this even a point of contention.
Click to expand...

It's a point of contention because you are talking out of your rear end.
 
Roar87 said:
They are de facto part of NATO, it doesn't really matter what a piece of paper says. Article 5 doesn't even force member states to do anything other than "assist the Party" under attack. China and Iran have sent some limited supply of weapons. NATO members have sent massive amounts, along with intelligence, we even have special forces in Ukraine. Why is this even a point of contention.
Click to expand...

They are not. NATO said no to Ukraines membership. That would have been the answer with or without the Russian invasion. Ukraine needs to address a number of issues unrelated to being at war with Russia.

Having special forces in Ukraine for state visits, sure. NATO special forces involved in direct actions against Russians?

You do know you’re talking around your hat? It’s comical to even imply this conflict is some type of stealth war by proxy.
 
Last edited:
Lord-Jaffa said:
People in this thread would have us all conscripted and in the trenches dying if they could (apart from themselves of course). The sooner the war ends the better for everyone. Ukraine has to accept its current position, its just not feasible to regain its territory, the losses are going to be astronomical.
Click to expand...
I hope you are getting paid for this rubbish, otherwise it's more than embarrassing.
 
The USA and Britain are involved because they have a treaty obligation to do so.

The former independent Warsaw pact countries are involved because not only do they feel threatened, but they actually have been.

The scandinavian countries are involved because altho they by and large agreed to stay netural while there was peace, Russia couldn't help itself shooting it's mouth off about how hard it is and treatened to take Finland, probably in 3 days.

Turkey just like causing trouble, The dutch want payback for that plane the Russians murdered a load of it's citizens on.

But i get it's complicated and easier to just think............... DUH DUH it's the NATOz fault.
 
Sythe79 said:
The USA and Britain are involved because they have a treaty obligation to do so.
Click to expand...

Not correct, there's no treaty obligation for the US and Britain to defend Ukraine. Did you not think to perhaps Google what the treaty says before just typing random sentences?

4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Click to expand...
 
Roar87 said:
Not correct, there's no treaty obligation for the US and Britain to defend Ukraine. Did you not think to perhaps Google what the treaty says before just typing random sentences?
Click to expand...

You are horribly informed on a topic you seem to be so emotional involved in.

The agreement for the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine came with security guarantees from many nations.
Notably the Trilateral agreement.

Ukraine was a superpower in terms of it’s nuclear arsenal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom