Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We had troops in south Vietnam since the end of ww2. You’re now stretching it. The defending nation was south Vietnam. By your logic we should have won the war. You do know we had as many as 17 support troops stationed in Vietnam for every active soldier. They were all at risk and getting killed. Bases were being seized and over run….Excuse me for stepping in. But there is a reason why we lost in South Vietnam. Because we didn't send troops into North Vietnam. But the U.S. didn't want to start what would have been another Korean war. We also lost in Afghanistan for the same reason. We didn't send troops into the country where the Taliban was operating from. Pakistan.
Huh ? Are you saying we should now invade Russia ? What are you saying ? You really don’t seem to know the goals. The goals were not to conquer nations. North Vietnam had little industrial complex and there was literally, no place to occupy. I don’t know what your point is . Bases and occupations in every war put more American troops at risk, big time. That’s why we have no need to put troops in Ukraine. The nation would stand for it the same way they revolted vs the Vietnam war.Excuse me for stepping in. But there is a reason why we lost in South Vietnam. Because we didn't send troops into North Vietnam. But the U.S. didn't want to start what would have been another Korean war. We also lost in Afghanistan for the same reason. We didn't send troops into the country where the Taliban was operating from. Pakistan.
Nothing to discuss really. The USA supported by a UN resolution had every legal right to counter the N-Korean invasion. That they later manipulated the UN to get a resolution, allowing them to further attack a sovereign N-Korea, is what caused the demise and irrelevancy of the newly (1945) restructured UN, till today.We can discuss Korea .....
Due to the security guarantees given by the USA, UK and Russia towards the sovereignty of Ukraine in 1994, the USA and UK have every right to assist with whatever means Ukraine, upon having been attacked by someone (e.g. Russia). Why NATO as a whole is involved beats me, since Ukraine is no NATO member. The mere anticipation of an Ukraine being controlled/occupied by Russia being a danger towards NATO members, does not constitute a legal basis for direct NATO involvement, NATO themselves have refuted/invalidated Russia from using the exact same argument.And now Americans have no business in Ukraine so sending American fighter jets and American weapons is illegal.....
During the Korean War, both China and Russia sent fighter jets to North Korea. During the Vietnamese War, both China and Russia sent fighter jets to North Vietnam. And at least in North Korea, it was Russian pilots who were flying them! Just imagine how the Russians would howl if we not only sent fighter jets to the Ukraine, but had them piloted by American fighter pilots. All we would have to do is drop leaflets on Moscow telling them that in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, they did it to us. So now we are doing it to defacto General Secretary Putin.
Maybe our pilots can become Ukrainian citizens before they start bombing Moscow.
I agree.Nothing to discuss really. The USA supported by a UN resolution had every legal right to counter the N-Korean invasion. That they later manipulated the UN to get a resolution, allowing them to further attack a sovereign N-Korea, is what caused the demise and irrelevancy of the newly (1945) restructured UN, till today.
This is a can of worms:Due to the security guarantees given by the USA, UK and Russia towards the sovereignty of Ukraine in 1994, the USA and UK have every right to assist with whatever means Ukraine, upon having been attacked by someone (e.g. Russia). Why NATO as a whole is involved beats me, since Ukraine is no NATO member. The mere anticipation of an Ukraine being controlled/occupied by Russia being a danger towards NATO members, does not constitute a legal basis for direct NATO involvement, NATO themselves have refuted/invalidated Russia from using the exact same argument.
Any country on this planet however has it's own right to object towards a country using military force to attain it's objectives. E.g. via imposing sanctions (but contradicts the WTO charter). Or to supply weapons, humanitarian and financial means to e.g. Ukraine.
That the individual EU member countries chose NATO to handle their own individual response as a central organization, is what has placed them in a very tight spot with Russia. Since NATO coordinates and directs military involvement directly against Russian forces, it constitutes an indirect deceleration of war by NATO towards Russia. Therefore NATO and Russia are basically at war
with each other already.
If NATO would simply reflect towards e.g. a coordination of weapon supplies requested by Ukraine, everything would be quite in order. If however e.g. a NATO member such as Poland is constantly bringing in demands and proposals publicly - to arm and train Ukraine with whatever - NATO again gets directly involved towards Russian forces. The same goes for intelligence related info supplied via NATO to the Ukrainian MoD, as a result aiding directly in killing Russian troops.
Due to these factual circumstances, countries such as e.g. Iran, China or India or whoever, have also the right to assist, support e.g. Russia by whatever means.
The USA did exactly that during the Iraq-Iran war. Therefore the USA was clearly an active war participator against Iran, independent of not having had boots on the ground.
The same goes for all these Israel-Arab wars - both the Soviet-union and the USA having been direct participants.
It could have been so simple - UK and US boots on the ground and Putin's agenda would have ended latest by the end of last year. But these two had to get the whole world involved.
Well global politics instituted and directed by a huge bunch of incompetent politicians - what else should one expect?
What the "H" are you talking about?We had troops in south Vietnam since the end of ww2. You’re now stretching it. The defending nation was south Vietnam. By your logic we should have won the war. You do know we had as many as 17 support troops stationed in Vietnam for every active soldier. They were all at risk and getting killed. Bases were being seized and over run….
We had troops in south Vietnam since the end of ww2. You’re now stretching it. The defending nation was south Vietnam. By your logic we should have won the war. You do know we had as many as 17 support troops stationed in Vietnam for every active soldier. They were all at risk and getting killed. Bases were being seized and over run….
Why? that a Russia controlled or occupied Ukraine represents a threat towards NATO is a mere anticipation - IMO Russia would never attack a NATO member.I agree.
This is a can of worms:
* every right to assist with whatever means but ... The mere anticipation of an Ukraine being controlled/occupied … »» This looks very suspicious.
Civil war raging in a country with known results, and the attack by one country onto another sovereign country are two separate issues - would you agree?* Any country on this planet however has it's own right to object towards a country using military force to attain it's objectives. … »» Does this apply to The mere anticipation of the treatment of the ethnic Russian Donbas population from Kyev?
The moment e.g. China might do it - we will find out, due to the UN having to take on a position - unavoidable in this specific regard.* Due to these factual circumstances, countries such as e.g. Iran, China or India or whoever, have also the right to assist, support e.g. Russia by whatever means. »» You might be right.
It's certainly okay to discuss/argue in regards to the outcome, due to such a scenario.* It could have been so simple - UK and US boots on the ground and Putin's agenda would have ended latest by the end of last year. But these two had to get the whole world involved. »» I do not agree with your projected outcome but you are merely stating a possible scenario, not condoning it, right?
... If NATO would simply reflect towards e.g. a coordination of weapon supplies requested by Ukraine, everything would be quite in order. ...
Absolutely correct - just as I had stated before.To give the Ukraine weapons so she is able to defend herselve makes no one who gives this weapons to a part of the war between Russia and the Ukraine.
As I stated many times; Ukraine IMO can't win this war - unless US and NATO boots are on the ground, Ukraine can only slow down the Russian advance.And about one thing you should be totally clear: Russia is not able to win this war. Also in case Putin will win Russia will lose.
NATO is not involved in facilitating the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, the EU is. NATO clearly condemns Russia's attempt to colonize Ukraine and is urging member states to strengthen their defenses to prepare for a possible direct confrontation with Russia but NATO has not taken any direct action to aid Ukraine. Stop repeating Putin's lies.Absolutely correct - just as I had stated before.
But once a country e.g. Germany uses an institution such as NATO to coordinate and to additionally direct military measures - it's going beyond a mere assistance.
Not to mention providing intel information, and stationing NATO advisors and units onto Ukrainian territory. (keep in mind that Ukraine is not a NATO member)
As I stated many times; Ukraine IMO can't win this war - unless US and NATO boots are on the ground, Ukraine can only slow down the Russian advance.
In case Putin will "win" this war (either total control of Ukraine or certain -see present areas) - a new world power constellation would be factually established, making sure
that Russia is not on a loosing side.
How 'republics' of the Donbas virtually independent from the Ukrainian government correspond with the Minsk agreements?It’s good to see you’ve understood that part of it. Now, all you need to do is apply it to the facts of the Minsk Agreement
Every single claim you make in your post - is either wrong or simply based on one-sided Western media gossip.NATO is not involved in facilitating the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, the EU is. NATO clearly condemns Russia's attempt to colonize Ukraine and is urging member states to strengthen their defenses to prepare for a possible direct confrontation with Russia but NATO has not taken any direct action to aid Ukraine. Stop repeating Putin's lies.
There is abundant evidence that Russia is running low on ammunition and has sustained enormous casualties in its attempt to take Bakhmut, so there is no possibility Russia can win this war in any sense or even control he Donbass.
If NATO were to enter this war, it would not be with "boots on the ground" but with planes in the air and it would quickly establish air superiority and use it to destroy the Russian forces in Ukraine.
Based on bad intelligence and inferior military leadership, Putin blundered into a war it was not prepared to fight, and unrealistic expectations like yours will insure the war will result in a badly broken Russia.
Is it really possible that you do not see the double standard or are you only shucking & jiving with me in order to generate a good old fashioned (but friendly) debate by playing the devils' advocate?Why? that a Russia controlled or occupied Ukraine represents a threat towards NATO is a mere anticipation - IMO Russia would never attack a NATO member.
That is why we had and have NATO in the first place. That Putin will use non military methods to gain further influence towards it's neighborhood - is a logical conclusion
and is performed by all nations.
Civil war raging in a country with known results, and the attack by one country onto another sovereign country are two separate issues - would you agree?
Also Russia had no right to send Russian troops into another country to participate alongside separatists - no legal business, unless a UN mandate would exist.
The moment e.g. China might do it - we will find out, due to the UN having to take on a position - unavoidable in this specific regard.
It's certainly okay to discuss/argue in regards to the outcome, due to such a scenario.
"Condoning" isn't the right term IMO. USA and the UK clearly committed/vouched by themselves to guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine.
So either they stick to their "contractual obligations" - or in view of avoiding a war that might get out of control - (they should have thought about that before) they will
have to commit themselves at least towards supplying military and whatever support to Ukraine.
Off course they could also simply disregard their obligation entirely, and leave the Ukraine issue to Russia and Ukraine. (not very likely is it)?
The EU is seeking countries outside the bloc to join its efforts to collectively buy ammunition, with at least Norway already expressing interest, according to one EU official and two diplomats.Every single claim you make in your post - is either wrong or simply based on one-sided Western media gossip.
Aside from sanction agreements - the EU is not involved in any military issues. They have provided humanitarian and financial support to Ukraine - that all.
There is no EU military or army or an EU military command.
Did Zelensky or the Western media tell you about the actual Ukrainian losses? No, since it's obviously not in NATO's and Ukraine's interest.
There has never been a war - that was won solely by deploying fighter aircraft or gaining air-superiority - it's a ridiculous claim and assumption, defying military history.
www.politico.eu
And you should study and understand the relationship and function between the EU and the independent government of it's members.You really should try to keep up with events.
Which or what double standard are you refering to, that I haven't pointed out already?Is it really possible that you do not see the double standard or are you only shucking & jiving with me in order to generate a good old fashioned (but friendly) debate by playing the devils' advocate?
Absolutely correct - just as I had stated before.
But once a country e.g. Germany uses an institution such as NATO to coordinate and to additionally direct military measures - it's going beyond a mere assistance.
Not to mention providing relevant target intel information, and stationing NATO advisors and units onto Ukrainian territory whilst Ukraine is in a war.
(Keep in mind that Ukraine is not a NATO member)
As I stated many times; Ukraine IMO can't win this war
- unless US and NATO boots are on the ground, Ukraine can only slow down the Russian advance.
In case Putin will "win" this war (either total control of Ukraine or certain -see present areas) - a new world power constellation would be factually established, making sure
that Russia is not on a loosing side.
What language are you using? Versteht doch kein normaler MenschNo. We will blow the Rsusians sjst sinel top teh endpo fdth teh galacyxyx adn we weil haevnto aponertm any longer.
