NATO

Sorry, I missed the point (and to be fair to you that of the thread) that Ukraine are only prevailing because of NATO. Can't argue with that, but would argue that NATO is stretching it's bounds slightly to leap to the defence of a none NATO country, although I get that the presumption is that if it didn't Putin would be in east Germany by now. Perhaps a 'coalition of the willing' as per post 9/11 would have been more appropriate even if it was still pretty much the same mix of US,UK and the hangers on?
The point was that NATO is still important, still has purpose, because of regimes like those in Russia that continue to threaten peaceful nations.The Invasion of Iraq was led by a coalition of nations who also happened to be members of NATO, but was not approved by NATO, like some people assume; it was a U.S. led invasion.

Zelenskyy and Ukraine have often spoken of their thanks to NATO and how their support has turned the tide. The early days of the invasion of Ukraine, the 'Siege of Kyiv' etc, showed how Russian force came so close to dominating the country, but with rapid support and delivery of HIMARS gave them the ability to fight back. NATO saw the collapse of Ukraine would then see Russia sharing border's with several more NATO countries. Funny how that is what the Russian's claimed to accuse NATO of expansionism, when an invasion of Ukraine would effectively achieve the same result.
 
So what are they backing off from if they're not actually fighting?

@Bigga’s idea of peace is going to be something like…Ukraine gives up 30% of its land and 75% of its mineral resources to Russia and if they say no then they’re the warmongerers, not the poor old Russians.
 
Or NATO can back off and engage in peace talks and the world can get trade back to some working degree.
What is NATO doing that is so wrong? Ukraine has asked NATO for weapons systems to defend themselves and we've supplied them with their request. We're giving them the gun, not pulling the trigger. RUSSIA needs to back off, pay reparations and acknowledge Ukrainian sovereignty, then the world will get back to normal.
 
The point was that NATO is still important, still has purpose, because of regimes like those in Russia that continue to threaten peaceful nations.The Invasion of Iraq was led by a coalition of nations who also happened to be members of NATO, but was not approved by NATO, like some people assume; it was a U.S. led invasion.

Zelenskyy and Ukraine have often spoken of their thanks to NATO and how their support has turned the tide. The early days of the invasion of Ukraine, the 'Siege of Kyiv' etc, showed how Russian force came so close to dominating the country, but with rapid support and delivery of HIMARS gave them the ability to fight back. NATO saw the collapse of Ukraine would then see Russia sharing border's with several more NATO countries. Funny how that is what the Russian's claimed to accuse NATO of expansionism, when an invasion of Ukraine would effectively achieve the same result.
I think both have been attempting to expand for some time and Ukraine is now effectively the new cold war frontier.
 
@Bigga’s idea of peace is going to be something like…Ukraine gives up 30% of its land and 75% of its mineral resources to Russia and if they say no then they’re the warmongerers, not the poor old Russians.
Why stop there? Surely the Ukrainians should give up 100% of everything and issue an official apology to Russia for daring to exist before committing collective mass suicide (but not until they've dug their own mass graves).
 
Ukraine weren't even entertaining joining NATO before all this happened.
I'm not trying to say Russia are not the aggressor here, but the reality is that NATO membership has been creeping steadily eastwards and that Russia after initially using the cover of 'the war on terror' to go into Chechnya/Georgia and later Crimea have also been expanding. Two opposing forces expanding are bound to meet eventually and in this case that meeting point appears to be Ukraine.
 
Yes, I’m 100% OK arming a country that has a tiny amount of neo-nazis in its armed forces in their fight against a country that’s also got a bunch of neo-nazis.

Every country has these people on their armed forces, including us, and it’s something every country has to stay on top of.

We’ve seen all the evidence anyone would ever need to see that the 1,000 members of the Azov Battalion are not representative of the 250,000 strong Ukrainian army nor the population as a whole.

So why would anyone think we should not arm Ukraine over them?

This is a PoV I can see not having a dog in the fight.

Maybe hating neo Nazis is just a thing for me that others are fine with.
 
A) I was never in the group that fantasised Russia would be 'wiped out by the weekend' (and some are very much still on that drug in the other thread)

and

B) Continuing Ukrainian shelling of the Russian speaking Donbas in 2014, probably tipped a decision there, reneging on the Minsk Agreement. With the push to have NATO on Russia's virtual doorstep, it was a factor in saying no more.

As a side note, the continuing re-writing and celebrating of the Neo-Nazi factions of the Ukrainian army as 'heroes' should be disturbing for everyone. Countries fought in World Wars to get rid of these idiots and yet the MSM and MIC are turning this on its head even as they decry the very same Nazis on their own shores!

Make it make sense...
We are being slowly but inexorably dragged into an armed conflict fighting FOR Ukrainian nazis and fascists and AGAINST the grandsons of the men and women who sacrificed so many millions of their number to win WW2 for us.

It’s mental. But sadly inevitable.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.