291–300 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The discussion was not about wants, predictions, or evaluation of pros and cons. It was about whether or not declaring a no-fly zone over a country that requests it is an act of violence.
Honestly, thats an even more bizarre take. Shooting down planes is quite clearly an act of violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given your attitude you would have said the same thing about Poland, Sudetenland or when Austria invaded Serbia.
Invasion of Poland literally triggered WW2 with the UK and France declaring war against Germany. Has anything comparable happened yet? No? Then how is it different from any of the dozens of wars fought since WW2?
Yes, the invasion of Ukraine. Have you not heard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK guaranteed the independence of Poland with an agreement that in language is the same as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The West is refusing to fulfill its current obligations under the spirit of that agreement, the same way the UK could have failed to fulfill their agreement in 1939. So in retrospect saying “it literally triggered WW2” provides zero informational context as to the situation as…
With the Budapest Memorandum, the UK agreed to > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine 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". Which it did. While the British assurance to Poland was: > ...in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a misnomer. And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter. A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.
A no fly-zone officially drags NATO into the conflict and WW3 kicks off.
NATO protecting Ukraine would not trigger anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a misnomer. And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter. A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.
If NATO shoots down a Russian plane in Ukraine it is most likely WW3. I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a misnomer. And, asserting NATO air dominance in Ukraine is easy and guaranteed to succeed with de minimis cost (in lives and/or military equipment). Whereas creating land dominance with tanks is another matter. A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO and would make Ukrainian civilians safe from aerial bombardment.
> A no-fly zone is an easy win for NATO Doing this feeds the narrative from Putin that NATO is an aggressive force and it would also go against what NATO is, a defensive alliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If NATO shoots down a Russian plane in Ukraine it is most likely WW3. I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.
If Russia starts WW3 they'll be nuked as well. Contrary to popular belief, Putin is all but stupid or crazy, and he'd never put himself and his country in a position to lose everything. If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. But this time they know the odds might be against them and probably will be more inclined to real…
I 100% support Ukraine but this is building a muscular reflex pattern than can't be unlearned. We shouldn't have private tech enforcing state wishes. They are no longer un-biased parties.
No one should be un-biased about the war crimes being committed by Russians in Ukraine! Where is your humanity?
So hate speech is now new trend? Or prepare for war? Where are so called the regulations of extremism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it just makes me think I don’t understand their policy. I don’t suddenly start thinking thoughts of rage only between 9am and 9pm.
I don't really understand the policy either. I'll respond again tomorrow during a scheduled "thoughtful response time window".