SteveXVII @ SteveXVII @pawb.social

Posts

21

Comments

127

Joined

2 yr. ago

The best defense was to negotiate with russia.

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?

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?

Listen, I know the US has done plenty of shitty things and I am not trying to defend it. What I am saying is that their aid to Ukraine is entirely justified, because it helps Ukraine regain their soveieignty back from the aggressor.

Can you please be a little more presize with NATO antagonizing Russia, what should they have done differently?

And lastly: since you haven't answered this question I am going to ask it again: What should Ukraine do, in your eyes, to protect themselves from Russia?

Russia has a 'history'* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb. This is still continuing to this day with the most obvious example being Ukraine. Eastern Europe knows this and sought NATO protections. Ukraine didn't and look at what situation they're in now.

I want to ask you what your solution would be, and how the west should act in your eyes in order to adequately protect themselves from Russia. And how Ukraine should defend themselves.

*in quotation marks 'cause they're still doing it.

About the Cuban missile crisis: I don't beleive the US had the right to respond the way they did considering the nukes in Turkey.

We were however talking about aid to Ukraine.

I thought that you believed the response from the US was caused by the economic aid the Soviet Union send to Cuba. I was mocking that idea.

Let's stick to the topic.

I haven't even seen that one. 😅

Russia indeed should not.

The US freaked out after the USSR gave Cuba money AND installed missiles there. It sure must be the money that freaked the US out, it can't possibly be the missiles pointed directly at he US, that wouldn't make any sense.

/s just in case.

Yeah :(

As messy as it is here, it ia at least not the US.

:3

I can confirm that Jet Lag: The Game is worth a try.

In this dilemma I would choose to defend Ukraine full stop.

Victories coming at a cost is not something new and info on how severe they are is hard to come by due to the fog of war. So unless you have a decent source, this point is kind of useless.

What good reason does Russia have for it's full scale invasion?

And next: I don't know why I should be the one looking up how many conscripts Ukraine has when it is your argument. Why don't you look it up yourself?

And what should the west do to protect themselves form Russian aggression in your eyes? If this is not the right way to do it.

Ukraine has managed to do a lot in this war: they have repelled Russia's attack on Kyiv, despite expectations and even pulled of two succesful counteroffensives. (I am talking about Charkiw and Kherson.) I know Ukraine is in a bad spot but that doesn't mean that it's over for them.

If they don't want to negotiate and would rather fight, then why should we tell them they shouldn't and instead should negotiate with the agressor? And why should we believe that Russia won't violate such a deal? Their track-record isn't great in this regard.

Wikipedia says that the Ukrainian armed forces consists of 1000000 armed personell. Compared to Russia's 1320000. I don't know the relevancy of this, but hey, I answered your question, now you answer mine.

What makes you think that's the case? It looks like the ukrainians would rather fight russia instead of being conquered again.

Yee-claw

Because they do the right thing this time. What is wrong with helping a country defend itself from an agressor? I know the US does and has done shitty things, that does not mean that everything the US does is bad.

As one should.

:3