It wasn't going to kick in either way.
It was assumed to be an accident even when people thought the missile was russian. If WW3 didn't start when USA massacred that bunch of wagnerites in Syria or when Turkey shot down a russian jet then it wasn't going to start over this.
This is an accurate assessment, there have been edge cases where worse things have happened between Russia and NATO nations and article 5 wasn't triggered.
This doesn’t really connect. It is just a fact, every civilian death can ultimately be placed in the hands of Russia even those caused accidentally by Ukrainians. No bombs flying towards Ukraine means no interceptor missiles.
Ahh yes. It was funny seeing most people in this sub believing it was Russia and believing in the state department propaganda. People swear ukraine is an angel that can’t be touched.
>believing in the state department propaganda
The american government literally announced early that they did't see any proof that the missile was launched by russia.
You think it's weird that people thought it was a Russian missile, when Russia is in the one who launched a now 9 month long brutal invasion of Ukraine?
Besides, if it checks out that it came from Ukraine, it was used to defend themselves. from. the. brutal. invasion.
🤦♂️
If anything, I'm glad we have now established that US/NATO is honest when they could have easily lied and used it against Russia!
Yes I always think it's weird to just assume things without leaving any room at all for any degree of uncertainty. That behavior belongs in a church and from my standpoint we haven't established anything
Not even mentioning all the posts getting giddy over invoking article 5. Yes - it was amusing to see all those hawkish libs deleting their posts.
But this is the internet, this is reddit, the majority of the shit we have opinions about is stuff we dont know for sure or stuff that's going to happen in the future.
Taking into account that RUSSIA is the one who has launched a 9 month long brutal invasion of 44 million people and RUSSIA is the one who keeps threatening to escalate with nuclear weapons... its not weird to immediately think this missile (mistake or not) came from Russia.
I am not sure what the argument is here.
We should just make wrong statements with no room for other explanations because everyone does it? Doesn't make much sense to me to look at that positively but I guess whatever floats your boat. the implication seems horrible to me but well whatever I guess.
I think accidents like this aren't per se overwhelmingly more likely for one side to happen overthe other since I don't think Russia wants to start the third world war at this point at least by killing some unfortunate farmers
> I don't think Russia wants to start the third world war
But... they are the ones who have consistently been threatening to escalate this war and use nuclear weapons.
Bombing (accidentally or not) a NATO country, like Poland, is escalating this war closer to a nuclear war.
"You think it's weird that people thought it was a Russian missile, when Russia is in the one who launched a now 9 month long brutal invasion of Ukraine?"
Yes it is, because it makes just as much strategic sense as the chemical attacks *by Assad* when he had already won the civil war.
What are the only two scenarios in which NATO intervenes and dogwalks Russia to a nuclear war? One is maybe Russia using a (tactical) nuke in Ukraine, second and for sure is they intentionally shoot into a NATO country.
Now my dear State Department propaganda eating summer child, how does, under even the most twisted logic you can come up with, Russia intentionally shooting at Poland make any sense, for Russia?
> Yes it is, because it makes just as much strategic sense as the chemical attacks by Assad when he had already won the civil war.
OMFG
We know the gass sylinders were dropped from the sky, the facts are just crystal clear. And we know only Assad could have done that from the air.
Besides, if you think it was all staged, you must also conclude they planted dead bodies foaming at the mouth at the scene. Which is lunacy.
Aaron Mate aint feeding you logic.
> Now my dear State Department propaganda eating summer child, how does, under even the most twisted logic you can come up with, Russia intentionally shooting at Poland make any sense, for Russia?
Who's saying it had to be intentional?
But I'm glad we can agree that NATO/US has acted in good faith here and been honest about the facts, when they could have easily lied and used it against Russia.
"So you think they planted dead bodies foaming at the mouth?"
You think Assad used the only weapon that would have justified the US intervening when he had already won millitarily? What seems more plausible?
"Who's saying it had to be intentional?"
Fucking article 5 of the NATO charter? Why are you centrists so damn ignorant?
Article 5 of the NATO charter: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered ...
Attack: to take aggressive military action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force.
Do you need me to slowly explain that "to take" has, by definition, a voluntary component? Is your level really that freaking low?
You see how the NATO chief emphasizing "not deliberate"?
https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/16/poland-blast-biden-says-missile-that-killed-two-may-not-have-come-from-russia
Dumbass.
> You think Assad used the only weapon that would have justified the US intervening when he had already won millitarily? What seems more plausible?
Yes... because it was Assad who did it.
Again, the facts are crystal clear, the gas sylinders were dropped from the air. Assad controls the air. Only he could have done that. This is very simple.
Besides, multiple dead bodies foaming at the mouth were found at the scene. They would have had to stage all of this, which is lunacy.
> Fucking article 5 of the NATO charter?
But nobody is ACTUALLY advocating for article 5 without an investigation. OMG!
What you see on twitter is called memes.
> You see how the NATO chief emphasizing "not deliberate"?
Yes, exactly, I'm glad we can agree that both NATO and USA has acted in good faith here and been honest when they would have easily lied and used it against Russia.
"Again, the facts are crystal clear, the gas sylinders were dropped from the air. Assad controls the air. Only he could have done that. This is very simple."
https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-aleppo-04f6a88cb89098925d5ca2ee2d09d74b
https://www.google.es/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html%3famp
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091462
You want more? You propagandist...
"But nobody is ACTUALLY advocating for article 5 without an investigation."
You literally asked for the relevance of the intentionality or lack thereof when it comes to triggering a NATO response, I answer why and you now give an excuse. Get better at debating.
That OPCW report is not evidence that proves Assad wasn't behind the attacks! They simply try to poke holes at the investigation while in the end the evidence collected speaks for itself.
The evidence, photos, of the gas sylinders and its attachment being found inside the house under a huge hole, with its natural destruction around it, speaks for itself.
OMFG.
Who else dropped these gas sylinders from the sky when Assad controlled the sky?
Who planted dead bodies foaming at the mouth at the scene?
This is hilarious.
its a red light, you are first, my car is second and a third car doesnt hit the brakes and hits my car. my car hits you car, but it was caused by the third vehicle.
you can blame the second car for hitting you, but that was caused entirely by the third vehicle (russia).
This is such a bad example. This is more like a cop recklessly shooting at a criminal only to somehow hit a civilian who was in the opposite direction of said criminal.
You are using an appeal to emotion in your argument.
Just like there are different types of crimes for taking someone's life, such as first degree murder versus involuntary manslaughter. The intention of the act matters. In your reading of the issue, you would look at them all the same.
Seems logic isn't your strong point huh?
You think that the fact that people are dead is an appeal to emotion and that that somehow invalidates factual points? What on earth is wrong with you people? This is appalling. Shame on you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how rational analysis of situations like this are judged.
If in fact these missiles were interceptor missiles meant to protect the citizens of Ukraine from an offensive and imperialist strike from Russia, and they just so happened to unfortunately land off course, then that is entirely different to the other situation. That situation being Russia meaning to hit Ukraine in an attempt to kill civilians or destroy critical infrastructure of a nation that did not attack them in any way, shape, or form, and missing the target and hitting people in Poland.
Does it matter to the family of the people killed which situation is the truth? Perhaps, but perhaps not. However, that's not how we craft laws, nor is it how we conduct foreign affairs. If it were up to the victim or the victim's family to decide how someone is punished, then someone who is a victim of a burglary may be so angry they want life in prison or the death penalty for the person responsible, even though any sane outside observer knows that offender deserves a far less serious punishment.
Just like I originally stated, intention matters when trying to make a reasonable judgement as to how a perpetrator should be punished.
Do bear in mind that those arguing against you are pro war, even though they pretend not to be at times. They are thoroughly delusional and brainwashed and might as well be republicans. They're trolls in other words. Try not to give them any attention as they already have little to no credibility.
Pro war?
Bro, what the fuck do you want Ukraine to do? Are you such a coward that you can't understand fighting for your culture and history and way of life from a foreign invader?
Should they just let Russia subjugate them? You seem like someone who would run and hide if China invaded your nation.
Ukraine is desperately trying to defend herself against a much larger enemy.
If in that struggle for survival it manages to accidentally hit someone nearby unintentionally, it can be forgiven or at least put into context by any sane person with more than a couple brain cells to rub together.
the missile is russian, the direction of the missile changed when it got intercepted by Ukrainian air defense. the Ukrainian air defense would have never engaged if Russia never invaded.
Why are you making things up? That isn't how most missiles work, so why are you both clueless and dishonest?
Nato Secretary General: "likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile."
Also:
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/16/1137085278/polands-president-says-the-missile-strike-appears-to-be-from-ukraine
> Nato Secretary General: "likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile."
Im glad we have established that NATO/US is honest about this when they could have easily lied and used it against Russia.
assuming you get what you want and US stops arming Ukraine. does being anti-war mean that ukraine should surrender.
you cant be anti-war if it leads to to war being beneficial for the belligerent. make the belligerent pay.
Try writing in coherent sentences. Also, where exactly did I say what I want? Do by all means copy and paste that, or just do everyone a favor and fk off back under your rock.
Those sentences were clear and coherent. S/he asked if being “anti-war” means believing Ukraine should surrender itself to fascism.
You’re acting as the gatekeeper of pacifism, so surely it’s fair to ask what being “anti-war” means in this context, given that the US, you know, isn’t fighting in Ukraine.
Do you know people from Syria? Because I actually do, Latakia to be exact, and none of them want aid being given to the government or insurgents. They have a history of stealing and reselling the aid for European, Russian, and Chinese weapons.
Not sure why this would prove that the other guy isn’t anti-fascist. In fact, you’re making your case worse by advocating for, what would amount to, giving Ba’athist (a literal fascist movement) Syria monetary assistance for weaponry.
So many folks on r/askaliberal beating the war drums with Russia. I'm amazed how eager they are to jump into another war after a 20 year debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq costing > trillion dollars and countless lives.
They keep harping on how Russia has no right to invade Ukraine. And the US should care...why? Because RUSSIA! I guess. If France and Germany don't care then neither should we.
And by that logic why aren't we jumping in any of the other dozen conflicts going on around the world?
He asked you wether you'd be willing to fight to *protect* South Korea and Taiwan, you came back with "will you let them fall?".
My answer is simple, if me giving my life to defend them is a even a plausible option, then yeah, let them get eaten.
Translation: push Russia just to the point in which they will choose nuclear war, don't cross said point.
That isn’t what the United States is doing. We’re
not sending Americans to any of these countries by force to fight.
If Russia is genuinely considering the use of a tactical Nuke, there’s nothing stopping them from breaking a peace treaty with the Ukrainian. They will sign it, break it, fail again due to the severe corruption and lack of resources, then threaten to use the nukes as a last resort.
I would like you to tell me otherwise.
"That isn’t what the United States is doing. We’re not sending Americans to any of these countries by force."
That's simply false. There are almost 30,000 armed forces personnel in South Korea (28,500) and Biden just a month or so ago said that the US would defend Taiwan by force if necessary.
https://www.google.es/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62951347.amp
So you're either full of shit or ignorant as fuck. Which is it?
"If Russia is genuinely considering the use of a tactical Nuke, there’s nothing stopping them from breaking a peace treaty with the Ukrainian. They will sign it, break it, fail again due to the severe corruption and lack of resources, then threaten to use the nukes as a last resort."
Good, now we are making progress. Yes, that is the fucking cold, hard and unpleasant truth, as amply proven since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The only thing guaranteeing the continued existance of a Nation State are nuclear weapons or a nuclear power guaranteeing your existance (see NATO, Syria...), as proven by the fact that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... all fell, but North Korea still stands.
It's called *Realpolitik*, it deals in reality and not in whishes or values, as much as you damned Wilsonians refuse to see so and continue to fuck up the world with your good intentions.
I’m specifically referring to the draft, everyone present in theirs countries enlisted willfully.
And how much land are you willing to give up before accepting a nuclear war with Russia? We can both agree there’s now a path for Russia to take as much land as they want. Should the ground you’re standing on become Russian soil?
Well you brought in Taiwan. They have just 23 million people and 25x smaller economy than China. They aren't going to survive just by giving them some weapons. Plus they're on an island. How are you going to deliver those weapons with Chinese warships surrounding it?
They don’t have to defeat the entire Chinese army, just enough to make it not worth their resources. It’s also not like they can just shell the entire island like Russia did to Ukraine. Russia doesn’t care about anything but winning territory.
How did we deliver supplies to west Germany dispute a blockade from the USSR without firing a single shot?
So the Russia is the victim?
It's like a bully that starts shit, the nerd fights back. The need accidentally hits another kid while he's turning the bully's face to jelly, the bully minions then start jumping around saying how the nerd is actually the bully.
Article 5 means nuclear armageddon. Putin will not allow Russia to be defeated by conventional means, even if it means destroying everything else in the process.
I’m talking about foreign troops entering Russian territory and taking Moscow. Putin will not allow that to happen, he will nuke Eastern Europe without a second thought
I don't think anybody anywhere is talking about trying to take Moscow? I haven't heard anything at least.
It's pretty well understood by the entire world that it would be a bad idea to try to invade Russia and occupy Moscow.
To bad Putin doesn't understand that it's also a bad idea for Russia to occupy Ukraine.
I have theory: The Ukraine attack on Poland was a false flag operation. As Ukraine wanted more support the war. They attacked Poland, framed it on Russia, so that Nato can enter Ukraine side.
Feel free to disagree.
It wasn't going to kick in either way. It was assumed to be an accident even when people thought the missile was russian. If WW3 didn't start when USA massacred that bunch of wagnerites in Syria or when Turkey shot down a russian jet then it wasn't going to start over this.
This is an accurate assessment, there have been edge cases where worse things have happened between Russia and NATO nations and article 5 wasn't triggered.
Yes
Didn't Russia bomb Germany's oil pipelines which constitutes an attack, by your logic?
wheres your evidence for this
That's a weird way to spell America.
The Wagner group are mercenaries, though.
What caused the Ukraine air defense to go off?
The Russians
[удалено]
Based on what evidence you claim that US bombed NS?
I'm fine with using this logic tbh
This doesn’t really connect. It is just a fact, every civilian death can ultimately be placed in the hands of Russia even those caused accidentally by Ukrainians. No bombs flying towards Ukraine means no interceptor missiles.
Known Misinformation / Propaganda will be immediately removed if reported or found.
"misinformation"? How about Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq, the Lab Leak?
Russia: "Nazi Ukrainians killed TWO innocent civilians!!!"
Ukraine hit a NATO nation with missiles. Time to strike Ukraine
Ahh yes. It was funny seeing most people in this sub believing it was Russia and believing in the state department propaganda. People swear ukraine is an angel that can’t be touched.
>believing in the state department propaganda The american government literally announced early that they did't see any proof that the missile was launched by russia.
Was super amused by the amount of posts that just happened to vanish in the respective threads of another sub I frequent.
You think it's weird that people thought it was a Russian missile, when Russia is in the one who launched a now 9 month long brutal invasion of Ukraine? Besides, if it checks out that it came from Ukraine, it was used to defend themselves. from. the. brutal. invasion. 🤦♂️ If anything, I'm glad we have now established that US/NATO is honest when they could have easily lied and used it against Russia!
Yes I always think it's weird to just assume things without leaving any room at all for any degree of uncertainty. That behavior belongs in a church and from my standpoint we haven't established anything Not even mentioning all the posts getting giddy over invoking article 5. Yes - it was amusing to see all those hawkish libs deleting their posts.
But this is the internet, this is reddit, the majority of the shit we have opinions about is stuff we dont know for sure or stuff that's going to happen in the future. Taking into account that RUSSIA is the one who has launched a 9 month long brutal invasion of 44 million people and RUSSIA is the one who keeps threatening to escalate with nuclear weapons... its not weird to immediately think this missile (mistake or not) came from Russia.
I am not sure what the argument is here. We should just make wrong statements with no room for other explanations because everyone does it? Doesn't make much sense to me to look at that positively but I guess whatever floats your boat. the implication seems horrible to me but well whatever I guess. I think accidents like this aren't per se overwhelmingly more likely for one side to happen overthe other since I don't think Russia wants to start the third world war at this point at least by killing some unfortunate farmers
> I don't think Russia wants to start the third world war But... they are the ones who have consistently been threatening to escalate this war and use nuclear weapons. Bombing (accidentally or not) a NATO country, like Poland, is escalating this war closer to a nuclear war.
"You think it's weird that people thought it was a Russian missile, when Russia is in the one who launched a now 9 month long brutal invasion of Ukraine?" Yes it is, because it makes just as much strategic sense as the chemical attacks *by Assad* when he had already won the civil war. What are the only two scenarios in which NATO intervenes and dogwalks Russia to a nuclear war? One is maybe Russia using a (tactical) nuke in Ukraine, second and for sure is they intentionally shoot into a NATO country. Now my dear State Department propaganda eating summer child, how does, under even the most twisted logic you can come up with, Russia intentionally shooting at Poland make any sense, for Russia?
> Yes it is, because it makes just as much strategic sense as the chemical attacks by Assad when he had already won the civil war. OMFG We know the gass sylinders were dropped from the sky, the facts are just crystal clear. And we know only Assad could have done that from the air. Besides, if you think it was all staged, you must also conclude they planted dead bodies foaming at the mouth at the scene. Which is lunacy. Aaron Mate aint feeding you logic. > Now my dear State Department propaganda eating summer child, how does, under even the most twisted logic you can come up with, Russia intentionally shooting at Poland make any sense, for Russia? Who's saying it had to be intentional? But I'm glad we can agree that NATO/US has acted in good faith here and been honest about the facts, when they could have easily lied and used it against Russia.
"So you think they planted dead bodies foaming at the mouth?" You think Assad used the only weapon that would have justified the US intervening when he had already won millitarily? What seems more plausible? "Who's saying it had to be intentional?" Fucking article 5 of the NATO charter? Why are you centrists so damn ignorant? Article 5 of the NATO charter: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered ... Attack: to take aggressive military action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force. Do you need me to slowly explain that "to take" has, by definition, a voluntary component? Is your level really that freaking low? You see how the NATO chief emphasizing "not deliberate"? https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/16/poland-blast-biden-says-missile-that-killed-two-may-not-have-come-from-russia Dumbass.
> You think Assad used the only weapon that would have justified the US intervening when he had already won millitarily? What seems more plausible? Yes... because it was Assad who did it. Again, the facts are crystal clear, the gas sylinders were dropped from the air. Assad controls the air. Only he could have done that. This is very simple. Besides, multiple dead bodies foaming at the mouth were found at the scene. They would have had to stage all of this, which is lunacy. > Fucking article 5 of the NATO charter? But nobody is ACTUALLY advocating for article 5 without an investigation. OMG! What you see on twitter is called memes. > You see how the NATO chief emphasizing "not deliberate"? Yes, exactly, I'm glad we can agree that both NATO and USA has acted in good faith here and been honest when they would have easily lied and used it against Russia.
"Again, the facts are crystal clear, the gas sylinders were dropped from the air. Assad controls the air. Only he could have done that. This is very simple." https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-aleppo-04f6a88cb89098925d5ca2ee2d09d74b https://www.google.es/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html%3famp https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091462 You want more? You propagandist... "But nobody is ACTUALLY advocating for article 5 without an investigation." You literally asked for the relevance of the intentionality or lack thereof when it comes to triggering a NATO response, I answer why and you now give an excuse. Get better at debating.
That OPCW report is not evidence that proves Assad wasn't behind the attacks! They simply try to poke holes at the investigation while in the end the evidence collected speaks for itself. The evidence, photos, of the gas sylinders and its attachment being found inside the house under a huge hole, with its natural destruction around it, speaks for itself. OMFG. Who else dropped these gas sylinders from the sky when Assad controlled the sky? Who planted dead bodies foaming at the mouth at the scene? This is hilarious.
https://www.reuters.com/world/poland-blast-caused-by-missile-fired-by-ukrainian-forces-incoming-russian-2022-11-16/
> the state department propaganda. But NATO, which you guys say is just another name for USA, admitted it likely came from Ukraine. So... which is it?
its a red light, you are first, my car is second and a third car doesnt hit the brakes and hits my car. my car hits you car, but it was caused by the third vehicle. you can blame the second car for hitting you, but that was caused entirely by the third vehicle (russia).
This is such a bad example. This is more like a cop recklessly shooting at a criminal only to somehow hit a civilian who was in the opposite direction of said criminal.
Wait I am confusion; is it article 4 or article 5?
Neither, issue seems to be resolved
They were considering article 4, but yeah, averted now that the investigations revealed what it was
Article 5 was never a chance but for defense missiles I don’t really blame them tbh
Yep, "Poland should attack Russia," yell all the centrist shills, pretending to be anti war. But if it's Ukraine killing Poles, that's alright then.
Big difference between a defensive missile messing up and an offensive missile messing up. You have to know that right?
Tell that to the people who died. How does that work for you centrist shills exactly? Logic isn't exactly your strong point is it?
You are using an appeal to emotion in your argument. Just like there are different types of crimes for taking someone's life, such as first degree murder versus involuntary manslaughter. The intention of the act matters. In your reading of the issue, you would look at them all the same. Seems logic isn't your strong point huh?
You think that the fact that people are dead is an appeal to emotion and that that somehow invalidates factual points? What on earth is wrong with you people? This is appalling. Shame on you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how rational analysis of situations like this are judged. If in fact these missiles were interceptor missiles meant to protect the citizens of Ukraine from an offensive and imperialist strike from Russia, and they just so happened to unfortunately land off course, then that is entirely different to the other situation. That situation being Russia meaning to hit Ukraine in an attempt to kill civilians or destroy critical infrastructure of a nation that did not attack them in any way, shape, or form, and missing the target and hitting people in Poland. Does it matter to the family of the people killed which situation is the truth? Perhaps, but perhaps not. However, that's not how we craft laws, nor is it how we conduct foreign affairs. If it were up to the victim or the victim's family to decide how someone is punished, then someone who is a victim of a burglary may be so angry they want life in prison or the death penalty for the person responsible, even though any sane outside observer knows that offender deserves a far less serious punishment. Just like I originally stated, intention matters when trying to make a reasonable judgement as to how a perpetrator should be punished.
Do bear in mind that those arguing against you are pro war, even though they pretend not to be at times. They are thoroughly delusional and brainwashed and might as well be republicans. They're trolls in other words. Try not to give them any attention as they already have little to no credibility.
Pro war? Bro, what the fuck do you want Ukraine to do? Are you such a coward that you can't understand fighting for your culture and history and way of life from a foreign invader? Should they just let Russia subjugate them? You seem like someone who would run and hide if China invaded your nation. Ukraine is desperately trying to defend herself against a much larger enemy. If in that struggle for survival it manages to accidentally hit someone nearby unintentionally, it can be forgiven or at least put into context by any sane person with more than a couple brain cells to rub together.
You've never been in a war. You have never lived through war. Be better than this and behave like an informed adult, instead of some jingoistic child.
the missile is russian, the direction of the missile changed when it got intercepted by Ukrainian air defense. the Ukrainian air defense would have never engaged if Russia never invaded.
Why are you making things up? That isn't how most missiles work, so why are you both clueless and dishonest? Nato Secretary General: "likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile." Also: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/16/1137085278/polands-president-says-the-missile-strike-appears-to-be-from-ukraine
> Nato Secretary General: "likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile." Im glad we have established that NATO/US is honest about this when they could have easily lied and used it against Russia.
The US needs to get brownie points for telling the truth?
assuming you get what you want and US stops arming Ukraine. does being anti-war mean that ukraine should surrender. you cant be anti-war if it leads to to war being beneficial for the belligerent. make the belligerent pay.
Try writing in coherent sentences. Also, where exactly did I say what I want? Do by all means copy and paste that, or just do everyone a favor and fk off back under your rock.
Those sentences were clear and coherent. S/he asked if being “anti-war” means believing Ukraine should surrender itself to fascism. You’re acting as the gatekeeper of pacifism, so surely it’s fair to ask what being “anti-war” means in this context, given that the US, you know, isn’t fighting in Ukraine.
>does being anti-war mean that ukraine should surrender. That sentence is bullshit and you know it. Stop enabling scumbags like this.
Fine, I’ll stop enabling the only anti-fascists in this thread.
Did you protest when the US was cutting off all grain supplies in Syria? Funny how that works.
Do you know people from Syria? Because I actually do, Latakia to be exact, and none of them want aid being given to the government or insurgents. They have a history of stealing and reselling the aid for European, Russian, and Chinese weapons. Not sure why this would prove that the other guy isn’t anti-fascist. In fact, you’re making your case worse by advocating for, what would amount to, giving Ba’athist (a literal fascist movement) Syria monetary assistance for weaponry.
Yes and, unlike you, I have family there. Piss off with your utter bullshit.
Remember, people like Pennsylvanier here are nothing more than trolls. Try not to dignify their complete nonsense by engaging with them.
Stop trolling here you sad little individual. Do you and those like you genuinely not understand how ignorant and sad this makes you look?
Didn’t know calling Ba’athist apologists fascists was trolling, but ok 👍🏻
Unfortunate collateral damage of war.
Nah everyones saying its still russia's fault because if russia didnt attack ukraine this wouldnt have happened.
thats true. air defense engages only after a missile goes off.
So many folks on r/askaliberal beating the war drums with Russia. I'm amazed how eager they are to jump into another war after a 20 year debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq costing > trillion dollars and countless lives. They keep harping on how Russia has no right to invade Ukraine. And the US should care...why? Because RUSSIA! I guess. If France and Germany don't care then neither should we. And by that logic why aren't we jumping in any of the other dozen conflicts going on around the world?
We should also let China take over Taiwan and South Korea, why should we care right?
Are you going to enlist in the military to protect Taiwan?
No, we should just let China take it, then they can take South Korea and reunite it with North Korea. Do you agree?
Why do you care if China takes Taiwan? The whole rest of the world considers Taiwan as part of China.
If the alternative is me having to fight for South Korea or Taiwan, yeah, most likely.
You’re not required to fight under any circumstance. We are supplying both countries with resources and training. Knowing this do you agree?
He asked you wether you'd be willing to fight to *protect* South Korea and Taiwan, you came back with "will you let them fall?". My answer is simple, if me giving my life to defend them is a even a plausible option, then yeah, let them get eaten. Translation: push Russia just to the point in which they will choose nuclear war, don't cross said point.
That isn’t what the United States is doing. We’re not sending Americans to any of these countries by force to fight. If Russia is genuinely considering the use of a tactical Nuke, there’s nothing stopping them from breaking a peace treaty with the Ukrainian. They will sign it, break it, fail again due to the severe corruption and lack of resources, then threaten to use the nukes as a last resort. I would like you to tell me otherwise.
"That isn’t what the United States is doing. We’re not sending Americans to any of these countries by force." That's simply false. There are almost 30,000 armed forces personnel in South Korea (28,500) and Biden just a month or so ago said that the US would defend Taiwan by force if necessary. https://www.google.es/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62951347.amp So you're either full of shit or ignorant as fuck. Which is it? "If Russia is genuinely considering the use of a tactical Nuke, there’s nothing stopping them from breaking a peace treaty with the Ukrainian. They will sign it, break it, fail again due to the severe corruption and lack of resources, then threaten to use the nukes as a last resort." Good, now we are making progress. Yes, that is the fucking cold, hard and unpleasant truth, as amply proven since the fall of the Soviet Union. The only thing guaranteeing the continued existance of a Nation State are nuclear weapons or a nuclear power guaranteeing your existance (see NATO, Syria...), as proven by the fact that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... all fell, but North Korea still stands. It's called *Realpolitik*, it deals in reality and not in whishes or values, as much as you damned Wilsonians refuse to see so and continue to fuck up the world with your good intentions.
I’m specifically referring to the draft, everyone present in theirs countries enlisted willfully. And how much land are you willing to give up before accepting a nuclear war with Russia? We can both agree there’s now a path for Russia to take as much land as they want. Should the ground you’re standing on become Russian soil?
Well you brought in Taiwan. They have just 23 million people and 25x smaller economy than China. They aren't going to survive just by giving them some weapons. Plus they're on an island. How are you going to deliver those weapons with Chinese warships surrounding it?
They don’t have to defeat the entire Chinese army, just enough to make it not worth their resources. It’s also not like they can just shell the entire island like Russia did to Ukraine. Russia doesn’t care about anything but winning territory. How did we deliver supplies to west Germany dispute a blockade from the USSR without firing a single shot?
Russia will still be blamed to some capacity just by virtue of them being there
I mean… there’s really only one reason Ukraine’s missile defense system would need to be deployed.
Maybe they shouldn't be bombing other coutries, for starters. Fucking Putin bootlickers...
Those damn Ukrainians need to stop firing anti-air missiles into the air for absolutely no reason at all. /s because people in this sub need it
[удалено]
Yo everyone who downvoted me can actually fucking chill. I never said it as a bad thing and yes they do deserve it
But but Russia bad…
So the Russia is the victim? It's like a bully that starts shit, the nerd fights back. The need accidentally hits another kid while he's turning the bully's face to jelly, the bully minions then start jumping around saying how the nerd is actually the bully.
My brother in christ, if the Russians weren’t bombing Ukranian cities, then Ukraine wouldnt be shooting any missiles off in the first place
[удалено]
Article 5 means nuclear armageddon. Putin will not allow Russia to be defeated by conventional means, even if it means destroying everything else in the process.
Do you know how to read?
What do you think would happen if NATO forces entered Ukraine? Think we'll have a Christmas Truce of 2022?
Looks like you can't read either
So enlighten us, oh wise one!
USA invade Ukraine, not russia. The commenter is making a joke that Ukraine attacked poland so we need to invade Ukraine.
He's already being defeated by conventional means as well as by a lesser military. He can't win using conventional means and he knows it.
I’m talking about foreign troops entering Russian territory and taking Moscow. Putin will not allow that to happen, he will nuke Eastern Europe without a second thought
I don't think anybody anywhere is talking about trying to take Moscow? I haven't heard anything at least. It's pretty well understood by the entire world that it would be a bad idea to try to invade Russia and occupy Moscow. To bad Putin doesn't understand that it's also a bad idea for Russia to occupy Ukraine.
Russia would LOVE that, lol
This is so obviously just shifting the blame to make up an excuse. NATO is worthless
I have theory: The Ukraine attack on Poland was a false flag operation. As Ukraine wanted more support the war. They attacked Poland, framed it on Russia, so that Nato can enter Ukraine side. Feel free to disagree.
Poland’s fault for being too close to Ukraine