Ukraine needs a guaranteed security measure to prevent Russia from attacking again. It’s a stop gap to a more permanent solution. Either NATO membership or Nukes.
So what you’re saying is, there is nothing wrong with attacking Russia as they consistently provoke other nations? Or is it simply that only Russia is allowed to invade and its the fault of the victim once they do?
Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters
Ukraine is not Russia. Eat shit.
Ukraine is not (yet?) NATO either, so why send troops there?
Wouldn’t sending troops actually just escalate things further and drag the whole of NATO into it if anything were to happen to those soldiers?
Ukraine needs a guaranteed security measure to prevent Russia from attacking again. It’s a stop gap to a more permanent solution. Either NATO membership or Nukes.
Why not both? Call the nukes a welcome to NATO bonus.
Perhaps Russia wouldn’t attack if it wasn’t provoked.
So what you’re saying is, there is nothing wrong with attacking Russia as they consistently provoke other nations? Or is it simply that only Russia is allowed to invade and its the fault of the victim once they do?
Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters
Peacekeepers keep the peace silly boy.
That is truly a 5 years old understanding of the current conflict