NATO members will put troops on the ground in Ukraine to help
Zelensky out if they believe my guesses. But they are chicken-hawk
sissies so they will be content with fighting a proxy war on the cheap.
Putin's Russia & Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Zelensky out if they believe my guesses. But they are chicken-hawk
sissies so they will be content with fighting a proxy war on the cheap.
ROTFLMAO!!!
When retired, former 10-star Russian generals lit up like a Christmas tree in full moth-eaten military uniform speak, the world goes, "da, da, da".
That's just reality of combat when assaulting prepared positions without air superiority and wanting for artillery. I can't help it that propaganda trumps what's left of your sense.
Oh I see, so you really want them to put boots on the ground as to escalate the war and have Russian supporters like yourself be able to say, SEE I WAS RIGHT!!!
Well um, no, Nato is a defensive force and will only step in with boots on the ground to help other NATO nations. Supplying defensive weapons to a sovereign country begging for help because they are being attacked by a tyrant is not being in a war themselves, luckily for Russia. Nato would literally obliterate Russia in probably less than the 3 days Russia thought it would take over Ukraine.
I am more inclined to give a bigger ratio in favor of the
Russian side. My other wild-ass guess is those Patriot
missile batteries won't likely last till it is Russia's turn to
launch their counter-offensive.
Um, yes, they are. Who's nonsense and bullshit are you buying into to believe otherwise?
There is a difference between me saying what right thing NATO could
do and wanting it to do the right thing.
European members of NATO are going to pay for this Ukraine mess
big time and the U.S. is going to reap the reward after this conflict.
Not a wild-ass guess just a prediction based on wishful thinking.
Well, considering they've been bombing civilian landmarks and infrastructure nonstop since they began their illegal invasion, please tell me how you go from attacking to launching your own counter-offensive.
Russia at this point is still fending off Ukraine's counter-offensive, They
are probably still holding back air attack out of fear of damage inflicted
by Ukraine's lethal NATO-supplied missiles. The counter-offensive cannot
continue forever and will have to stop at some point. By then what do you
expect Putin to do? Total retreat? Absent a miracle this war still has a few
more months to go even in the most hopeful scenario.
Putin can't win by terrorizing Ukraine's population. He's also wasted too much of his ordnance killing Syrian children.
This is interesting but I don't consider it to be true.
This is interesting but I don't consider it to be true.
Ohh, what colour will your BooGhatti be. I hear Blue on Yellow is a lovely colour scheme.
Incoherence is incoherent.
Buying a lotto ticket is nothing at all like buying a plane ticket to a warzone.
Also even if he did go, you wouldn't believe anything he says if it doesn't fit with your narritive to it's a weaksauce suggestion.
There is absolutely no need to, but I wouldn't object.
At the very least I would hope they would man the Belarus frontier as peacekeepers and incidentally freeing up Ukraine troops for more active fronts. That would make a pretty good difference.
Maybe send in some anti air units with NATO crews, after all there isn't a war, it's a military action, nothing wrong with keeping civilians and bases behind the lines safe from errant missiles.
Also supporting someone in their fight doesn't make it a proxy war. Ukraine is quite willing to fight and they need all the help they can get, stop trying to imply that they are being manipulated or used.
Unlike current Russian Generals who get lit up by the Ukraine military.
<insert picture of Nelson going Har Har>
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yeah how dare they
- demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
- imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
- authorizes "all necessary measures [...] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory";
- strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
- imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
- imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
- extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
- establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.
NATO got involved in Kosovo because there was an ongoing genocide and all attempts at diplomacy had failed, based on the thinking that falling to intervene would cause the conflict to spread into NATO states. It was NATO's first foray into unilateral peacemaking and NATO learned it's lesson which why is why it hasn't engaged in that since. I don't think anyone is trying to claim NATO is perfect, but it's been around since 1949 and only made this mistake once. That's not a bad record.
The UN's Charter spells out the rights and powers in the UNSC to authorize force for peacemaking operations. The UNSC, which Russia is part of and has veto powers in, passed resolution 1973 with 10 votes for and none opposed. This authorized international militaires to establish and enforce a no-fly zone and to take any military actions to preserve civilian life. Multiple NATO members immediately got involved under the auspices of the UN, until the UN asked the NAC to take over and the NAC met and agreed to.
The NATO Charter and international law allow NATO to engage in non-defensive operations under very strict circumstances. While those weren't met in Kosovo, they were in Libya. No one, not even Russia, had a problem with NATO mission in Libya, nor does that violate NATO's stance as a defensive force.
NATO took over as a means of improving command and control of a mission that was primarily being carried out by member states acting under their own auspices. It became NATO led out of necessity, it was not a NATO-initiated action, and it was done with full authorization and under the direction of the UNSC. This interaction with the UN was a direct result of lessons learned from Kosovo.
NATO is indeed a defensive alliance that acted offensively unilaterally once in error, and otherwise may act on the direction of the UNSC in cases of humanitarian crisis. Acting under the auspices of the UNSC, given the ability of opposing regional powers spread across the globe to veto any resolution as permanent members of the UNSC, is a reasonable way to establish the necessity and benefit of offensive operations to preserve human life and does not violate the integrity of being a defensive pact. If it did, that would mean no defensive organization could provide medical aid or assist in evacuations for natural disasters without being called out for "non-defensive operations." It's a ridiculous position to argue Libya proves NATO is not a purely defensive alliance.
