@Rajk999 saidWhich of our 2 candidates would be best qualified to handle this, well, any such problem…well, anywhere…..
I think that has already happened; not nukes but a whole host of other military hardware, tanks, missiles etc etc. I may be wrong. Ukraine is a new nation with not much of this stuff so to take on Russia for so long, NATO [UK included] is providing just about everything
@AverageJoe1 saidDont know and dont care.
Which of our 2 candidates would be best qualified to handle this, well, any such problem…well, anywhere…..
@moonbus saidPutin would have remained neutral if Ukraine had not enshrined NATO membership in their constitution.
You seem to think I think America is holier than any other country and can do no wrong. Get off it.
If you were to criticize Putin's Russia the way you criticize America here, you'd be sipping polonium tea courtesy of the FSB.
Putin provoked exactly what he claimed he wanted to avoid: his invasion of Ukraine drove Finland straight into the arms of NATO on a fast track. ...[text shortened]... invaded Ukraine. Now he has an even longer border with NATO. How's that for just plain stupid, huh?
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3158402-zelensky-ukraine-not-to-abolish-nato-membership-objective-enshrined-in-constitution.html
It was NATO expansion that caused Russia to invade Ukraine. NATO on their border is unacceptable. That is even closer than Turkey and the Cuban missile crisis started because the USA put nukes in Turkey. NATO expansion is to blame for the war.
Did the USA tolerate nukes in Cuba? Nobody likes it!
The USA put nukes in Turkey so the USSR put nukes in Cuba. If too close is not a pertinent issue why couldn't the USA accept nukes in Cuba? Because only an IDIOT puts up with that crap!
Why couldn't Reagan stand Nicaragua being a socialist government? Even that was too close and Nicaragua is nowhere close to our border.
-Removed-But what if a NATO member attacks Russia? Then Russia has the right to wage war against that attacker without other NATO nations attacking Russia. Article 5 of NATO is not an offense pact, or is it?
If the UK supplies Ukraine with Storm Shadow missiles isn't that an attack on Russia from a NATO member? And what right does NATO have to turn a defense treaty into an offense treaty? NATO members are obviously waging war on Russia already, but the Storm Shadow missiles make it apparent to the world. Made in the UK with USA made parts. Guided by US satellites.
That is an attack by NATO on Russia, but only the UK and the USA in an unambiguously obvious way. Russia should have the right to attack the UK and USA in retaliation without any other NATO members being obligated to attack Russia. That is assuming NATO really is a defense pact and not an offense pact.
IS NATO AN OFFENSE PACT? If not no NATO nation has the right to attack Russia for retaliation against the UK and USA. And I remind you that Ukraine is not a NATO nation. If Russia nukes Ukraine with a small tactical nuke NATO has no right to attack Russia.
@Metal-Brain
Your Lord Trump has already said he would end the Ukraine war in one day.
And that would be by getting Ukraine to give up about 30% of its territory which of course would just have the effect of telling Russia AS HE ALREADY SAID, and I quote, ' Russia you can do whatever the hell you want"
Which just says Trump is a Putin Puppet.
@Metal-Brain saidAre there any cases where a NATO country has attacked another country? NATO is supplying Ukraine with weapons because Russia is the aggressor. So your statement that NATO is attacking Russia via Ukraine incorrect.
But what if a NATO member attacks Russia? Then Russia has the right to wage war against that attacker without other NATO nations attacking Russia. Article 5 of NATO is not an offense pact, or is it?
If the UK supplies Ukraine with Storm Shadow missiles isn't that an attack on Russia from a NATO member? And what right does NATO have to turn a defense treaty into an offe ...[text shortened]... NATO nation. If Russia nukes Ukraine with a small tactical nuke NATO has no right to attack Russia.
NATO is assisting Ukraine to defend itself from an unprovoked attack from Russia.
Big difference.
@AverageJoe1 saidCertainly not the Putin lover.
Which of our 2 candidates would be best qualified to handle this, well, any such problem…well, anywhere…..
@Rajk999 saidRussia did not attack the UK and USA.
Are there any cases where a NATO country has attacked another country? NATO is supplying Ukraine with weapons because Russia is the aggressor. So your statement that NATO is attacking Russia via Ukraine incorrect.
NATO is assisting Ukraine to defend itself from an unprovoked attack from Russia.
Big difference.
The USA has been the aggressor in many invasions. There is not moral high ground here.
@Metal-Brain saidRussia attacked Ukraine.
Russia did not attack the UK and USA.
The USA has been the aggressor in many invasions. There is not moral high ground here.
Ukraine is an ally of several NATO countries.
Allies help each other.
You dont need any agreement to help a friend.
Got it?
If you had an instance where the USA has been the aggressor you would have posted at least one, without me having to ask.
@Rajk999 saidIraq, Libya, Serbia, Cuba, Philippines and recently Syria.
Russia attacked Ukraine.
Ukraine is an ally of several NATO countries.
Allies help each other.
You dont need any agreement to help a friend.
Got it?
If you had an instance where the USA has been the aggressor you would have posted at least one, without me having to ask.
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/the-u-s-invasion-and-occupation-of-syria-that-never-happened/
Ukraine is not a NATO country. You need a reason to consider if someone is a friend or a money pit parasite. Ukraine and Israel are money pit parasites. They do nothing for us. They are puppets of the imperialists in reality. That is the only explanation as to why they take and never give.