I believe he has been asked this multiple times and the answer is always deflection.
Ukraine will be part of Nato.
- Thread starter Whiskeydeltadeltatango
- Start date
And I just want to be clear I’m not judging those that haven’t - i just take exception to those criticizing those who haven’t when they haven’t.
My background is irrelevant and none of your business. And your comparison is absurd.
The U.S. hasn't been invaded and I haven't departed to a foreign country.
Got it - you are a hypocrite. Do as you say, not as you do. Keyboard warrior.
Go on. Did the hibernating bear sleepwalk into Ukraine?
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” -Albert Einstein
Not him but...
Draft-dodging plagues Ukraine as Kyiv faces acute soldier shortage
An early burst of patriotic fervor saw draft centers swamped with volunteers, but that has waned with Vladimir Putin’s war in its third year.
www.politico.eu
Ukraine Considers Drafting Convicts to Replenish War-Battered Troops
Ukrainian lawmakers plan to consider a bill that would allow prison inmates to join the war effort as the nation seeks ways to bolster manpower on the front lines after recent Russian advances.
www.bloomberg.com
'Hot Potato': Ukrainian Mobilization Bill Driving A Wedge Between President And Armed Forces
Ukrainians aren’t rushing to sign up for military service as they did in the early days of Russia’s invasion, causing manpower issues and frustrating many on the front lines. A new bill in parliament aims to rectify the problem, but politicians and military officials seem leery of backlash.
www.rferl.org
You display the American flag in your avatar and admonish Ukrainians for not serving in their military. Figure it out.
Feel free to move to Russia comrade. Get lost.As long as we’re doing ‘if’s’, IF Russia hadn’t been stabbed in the back re: NATO expansion and IF the CIA hadn’t overthrown a legitimately elected Ukrainian president then none of this would be happening.
Op-Ed: Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise
Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014.www.latimes.com
CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?
An explosive new NYT report shows how Washington needlessly fed into Russia’s worst fears and precipitated the invasion, justified or notresponsiblestatecraft.org
Russia's nuclear weapons are still on MS DOS, and we have the capability to destroy them while still in space.
Plus, Ukraine joining NATO doesn't equal nuclear war. Dictator types make outlandish threats, that's nothing new.
The thing about anonymous message boards is that you never really know what is real or what is bluster.
My background is none of your concern. Similarly, I don't give two shits for what you or any other random person on this board claim to be.
Also find it funny that you equate the display of the American flag with military service. I can think of a thousand ways to serve our country, many of them no less valuable.
I truly DGAF about you. But, I will point out inconsistencies when I seem them, when shade is thrown.
Well, then maybe you should find an inconsistency first.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that fighting age people from Ukraine have departed the country while at the same time other people and some world leaders are floating the idea of NATO troops joining the fight.
Yeah - the US went way to far when they poked Putin to invade Ukraine. Or Crimea. Or Georgia.
Yes, you are stupid.
Every American armchair warrior clamoring to prolong the situation in Ukraine should purchase a rifle, some ammo and a plane ticket to Kiev.
Put your money where your mouth is. Go fight the good fight. Maybe Herr. Zelenskyy will send you a handwritten thank you note from one of his many estates.
Put your money where your mouth is. Go fight the good fight. Maybe Herr. Zelenskyy will send you a handwritten thank you note from one of his many estates.
Sure. This is an example for those that went to Ireland.
40% OF UKRAINIAN REFUGEES AGED 18 – 24 WERE MALES, STATE ACCOMMODATION FIGURES SHOW
A document seen by Gript shows that 40% of the Ukrainians aged between 18 and 24 who were in state accommodation on April 26 this year were male.
...
That cohort, but particularly that of 18-24 year olds, includes all who are eligible to be conscripted into the Ukrainian army. The only exemptions being those males who are fathers of three or more children or who are found to be of ill health.
That would suggest that a large number of Ukrainian males of military age have in effect come to Ireland in order to avoid the draft.
40% of Ukrainian refugees aged 18 - 24 were males, state accommodation figures show - Gript
40% of Ukrainian refugees aged 18 - 24 were males, state accommodation figures for April 26th show - an upwards trend MATT TREACY says is also being observed in other EU countries.gript.ie
And what percent of the refugees where aged 18 to 24.
If you read that it says that 40% of the refugees who were aged 18 to 24 were male. But it doesn't say how many of the refugees were aged 18 to 24.
If you want to discuss the invasion of Ukraine, we have to go back to 2014 and Crimea,.. If you want to discuss NATO poking the bear, we need to go back to the ill advised 2004 expansion,.. This has been coming on for a long time.
Honestly the only peace treaty that I could see working for both parties is if Ukraine gives up the ethnically Russian parts of it's territory in exchange for it's immediate acceptance into NATO.
Any other solution just lets the Russians re-arm for a 2nd go at invading Ukraine. Only way Ukraine exits this war and protects it's own security is if it joins NATO.
Any other solution just lets the Russians re-arm for a 2nd go at invading Ukraine. Only way Ukraine exits this war and protects it's own security is if it joins NATO.
I'm guessing you're one of the rubes who thinks adding allies to NATO is a bad idea because it upsets Putin.
How about we let the nation that was in invaded let us know when they’re done fighting for their freedom. I have no problems giving them weapons to defend themselves.
Because you want Putin to win or at best view a democratic nation and an authoritarian nation as moral equals.
Under martial law, Ukrainian men between 18 and 60 are not allowed to travel outside the country but 18 percent of the Ukrainian refugees in Europe are men between 18 and 65, according to numbers from Eurostat.
George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of Nato’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”
In 2015 this professor laid out how Ukraine was being walked down a primrose path to destruction.
Events have borne out his prediction:
I don’t want anyone to win or lose. I don’t want to be involved in foreign affairs at all.
All you statists need to do is look at the huge numbers of absolute foreign affair disasters that have occurred on our watch the past 110 years or so.
The Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Palestine f***ups are just the tip of the iceberg.
You’re delusional if you think we can ‘fix’ things
So your answer is "yes" - don't bring on allies because it will bother Putin. SMFH
If there's ever been any doubt that you are a Putin stooge, this should put it to rest.
There will always be isolationists that believe the US can just ignore the rest of the world and all will be well. Hell, there was even one vote in Congress against going to war against Japan in December, 1941.
Whelp. Guess since we're responsible for this war, we have no choice but to get in there and kick Russian ass back to The Urals.
Yes, that is the bloodthirsty neocon take, but can we check their record for success first?
Seems to never play out as they expect, but the lesson learned is always moar war.
Yeah. The non-stop wars, revolutions, massacres, terror attacks, ad nauseam around the world the past hundred years would have been sooo much worse had the US been an isolationist country that kept its nose out of other country’s business.
Minding one’s business is not something that empires are inclined to do though, is it?
And btw, what you were taught about Japan and WWII was a bunch of propaganda.
Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]
Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor | Robert Higgs
Ask a typical American how the United States got into World War II, and he will almost certainly tell you that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans fought back. Ask him why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and he will probably need some time to gather his thoughts. He might...
Likewise, conspiracy nuts have been around for a long time as well.Yeah. The non-stop wars, revolutions, massacres, terror attacks, ad nauseam around the world the past hundred years would have been sooo much worse had the US been an isolationist country that kept its nose out of other country’s business.
Minding one’s business is not something that empires are inclined to do though, is it?
And btw, what you were taught about Japan and WWII was a bunch of propaganda.
Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]
Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor | Robert Higgs
Ask a typical American how the United States got into World War II, and he will almost certainly tell you that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans fought back. Ask him why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and he will probably need some time to gather his thoughts. He might...www.independent.org
You're a special kind of dumb.
Partisan clowns on the right and partisan clowns on the left (you) are responsible for the implosion of America.
Your delusion knows no bounds.
