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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are in fact wrong though. What you’re attempting to argue is incorrect and from a single misunderstood point of one agreement out of many complex agreements.

Great tolerance and restraint was afforded to Putin and his aggression towards Ukraine. Now it’s for the Ukrainians to decide what’s tolerable.

Ok, I mean facts obviously aren't important here so I'll bow out.
 
I'm not doubting Russia is illegally and immorally invading Ukraine and not respecting their territorial integrity, I'm just saying we're not obliged by any treaty to defend them, despite being told "I'm wrong".

You are saying Ukraine is "de facto" NATO member... which is precisely the type of BS Russia likes to peddle as they attempt to make this a Russia vs NATO war because losing to war to Ukraine they started is to much for their little Z brains to cope with.

Do you think NATO member's would stand aside if any other non member European state were attacked in a similar way?

Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria?

Of course they wouldn’t.

So why single out Ukraine as a "de facto" member?

The reason countries join NATO is two reasons. They want extra guarantees of support to act as a deterrent. They also want to contribute to the alliance because they value its strength.

Ukraine has neither benefited from guarantees of support or contributed to the alliance. They are not members in any way.

NATO members are involved in Ukraine because they want to preserve a system where attacking another country for territorial gain is seen as unambiguously unacceptable.

For reasons I don't really understand, you seem to want to send out an all together more muddy message.
 
Last edited:
Pedantically speaking, @Roar87 is correct here: there is no formal treaty obligation on the UK (or US, etc.) to defend Ukraine. The "guarantees" given were more guidelines than rules; they provide a solid justification for the UK getting involved (if we needed another one) but they do not, in the strictest sense, oblige our response.
 
Pedantically speaking, @Roar87 is correct here: there is no formal treaty obligation on the UK (or US, etc.) to defend Ukraine. The "guarantees" given were more guidelines than rules; they provide a solid justification for the UK getting involved (if we needed another one) but they do not, in the strictest sense, oblige our response.

We have a winner.
 
I'm not doubting Russia is illegally and immorally invading Ukraine and not respecting their territorial integrity, I'm just saying we're not obliged by any treaty to defend them, despite being told "I'm wrong".
So you think that Russia's invasion is illegal and immoral but you don't think anyone should support Ukraine, thus allowing Russia's illegal and immoral invasion to achieve its aims, is that accurate?
 

I agree with what Dr Cornell West says in this interview
I've just watched that and he doesn't have an answer. He throws around a lot of blame for why we got to this point - which I'm not at all sure I agree with, but that's another issue - but what he basically doesn't want to say seems to be "yes, Russia should win".
 
I've just watched that and he doesn't have an answer. He throws around a lot of blame for why we got to this point - which I'm not at all sure I agree with, but that's another issue - but what he basically doesn't want to say seems to be "yes, Russia should win".

It's the usual pile of apologist falsehoods, I couldn't be bothered to listen past the drivel claiming that there was a promise not to expand NATO to the East.
 
I've just watched that and he doesn't have an answer. He throws around a lot of blame for why we got to this point - which I'm not at all sure I agree with, but that's another issue - but what he basically doesn't want to say seems to be "yes, Russia should win".
This has been the same for every poster who has suggested the West is fuelling the war and should stop. They don't suggest an alternative strategy, just that the current one is wrong.

Russia is still conducting offensive operations against Ukraine, this seems to be easily overlooked.
 
Last edited:
This has been the same for every poster who has suggested the West is fuelling the war and should stop. They don't suggest an alternative strategy, just that the current one is wrong.

Russia is still conducting offensive operations against Ukraine.

Thats not strictly true.

Some of them, like Melon Musk, say Ukraine should capitulate.
Thats their strategy.

The cowards strategy. We have seen others in here with the same weak bladder.
 
It's the usual pile of apologist falsehoods, I couldn't be bothered to listen past the drivel claiming that there was a promise not to expand NATO to the East.

It's really fortunate that we have all these declassified documents showing that we did in fact promise the Russians not to expand Eastwards when they handed over East Germany.


U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”

It seems that we didn't actually adhere to what we promised them, and even when they didn't kick up too much of a fuss about all the Baltic states, the US insisted on interfering in Ukraine - which they explicitly made clear was a red line, so here we are.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom