No, you're just a warmonger. Happy to let the world burn in your own ignorance.
Seriously, learn history instead of trying to throw random insults at people online. The would would be much better off for it. I'm not joking about that reading list.
Let's say the us gets involved. Article 5 is invoked in NATO and we get a WW1 style escalation into world war. Major nuclear powers are all involved. Someone is going to use a nuke. Maybe tactically at first but it will quickly spiral out of control. Unless something happens that renders all nukes inert, their use is all but guaranteed in WW3.
World war is not good in any instance, regardless if it triggers nuclear Armageddon. Europe has only just recovered from 1 and 2.
No I do not. And it's why I don't want the US provoking that exchange by engaging their own military in a war with Russia in some attempt to protect Ukraine's sovereignty
And that still doesn't answer my question. You are stating facts. I'm not arguing that. What I'm simply asking is if this is worth the US getting into a hot war with Russia using nukes over? It very literally would bring WW3 and nuclear Armageddon. That is the plain and simple fact when the US commits troops to this quagmire. Are you personally prepared to die in a nuclear explosion in the name of protecting Ukraine's sovereignty?
But by all means, keep deflecting with irrelevant facts. It's the sort of thing someone does when they have nothing intelligent to say
Wtf does this have to do with the US escalating their military presence? You do realize that once the us officially get involved it's WW3 with literal nukes, right? You don't seriously think a territorial conflict between Russia and Ukraine is worth nuking the world over, do you?
Remember how WW1 escalated? Treaties calling everyone into a pointless war over someone else's conflict.
Right, and Ukraine has every right to defend their country. The US escalating the situation by involving troops brings this from a regional conflict to a global nuclear war. The US escalating this can lead to nuclear aniahialation
At the time of my reply it was not yet commented. OP should have added text with the post, or at the very least commented the recipe instead of saying they posted another comment somewhere when asked. I stand by it and wish I had more snark for you but can only offer
OPs comment history
This is how things start. Just like with weapons assistance, first it's a little then it's billions on the regular. This is an increase to an already way oversized presence of a foreign continents military in a delicate situation.
People are mean to me that I'm advocating for a senseless war with a nuclear element. Since obviously I can't be wrong I'm taking my ball and hiding in my echo chamber
I have just as much a right not to die fighting a foreign war as a Ukrainian has to die fighting for their country.
Advocating for an increase in US military involvement in a foreign war sounds like someone hasn't studied the great 20th century conflicts. If you'd like, I am a practicing historian and I can give you a reading list at your literacy level to give you some context for current world events.
This is just the start. It's the exact same way the "weapons assistance" went. First small, then billions of dollars worth of weapons being sent on the regular. It's to get us used to the idea of even more troops being sent over. The fact that there's 80k US troops on a foreign continent already doesn't make it any better. If anything, it provides the context for why Russia is acting irrationally as it is being surrounded by an adversaries military
No, you're just a warmonger. Happy to let the world burn in your own ignorance.
Seriously, learn history instead of trying to throw random insults at people online. The would would be much better off for it. I'm not joking about that reading list.