- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has delivered a blunt warning that Europe has entered a “pre-war era” and if Ukraine is defeated by Russia, nobody in Europe will be able to feel safe.
“I don’t want to scare anyone, but war is no longer a concept from the past,” he told European media. “It’s real and it started over two years ago.”
His remarks came as a fresh barrage of Russian missiles targeted Ukraine.
Russia has intensified its bombardment of Ukraine in recent weeks.
Overnight into Friday Ukraine’s air force said it had shot down 58 drones and 26 missiles and Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said energy infrastructure had been damaged in six regions, in the west, centre and east of the country.
What was the alternative? Invade Crimea with NATO troops?
Not NATO necessarily, but trade blockades on Russian ports accessible through European waters, hard sanctions, actual seizing of Russian assets, and potentially coalition troops from various countries with approval from Ukraine. NATO isn’t an offensive pact, only defensive. However those countries could form coalition forces to strike back at Russian military assets in Crimea. Instead we just lightly slapped them on the wrist and said “don’t do that again” and then they straight up murdered civilians and attacked a non-aggressive border nation.
We do all that right now. The impact it is having on Russian aggression? Nearly zero.
Oh damn, I forgot if we had done all of that years ago instead of recently we’d still be in the same boat… it’s having an impact. Russia has an unsustainable market, however the US and its allies need to blockade. We don’t do that currently. Start forcing the population there to rethink their support for Putin.
Stop simping for a failed state and leader like Putin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
Turns out that when there’s capital to gain that the “defensive pact” part is negotiable.
That didn’t start as a NATO mission at all. It only became one after the US, UK, Canada and France had already started the mission and Italy wanted NATO to take control otherwise they wouldn’t join in. I don’t know the specifics of how it met criteria for NATO to be involved, but it certainly wasn’t something NATO started. It’s also probably better if NATO generals take over missions that are more western country based as that means all members have a say in what goes on and for how long. They even talk in the article about how the only ground forces were non-NATO troops and were not authorized by NATO.
Sure bro, whatever lets you sleep at night.
Sorry bruh, having a more powerful military than Russia definitely helps me sleep at night. 😴 although that’s not saying much since Ukraine was able to kick Russia’s ass…
Are you under the impression either America or Russia needs anything beyond nukes to protect themselves or…
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
It’s incredible that you could put NATO led right in your quote and think it proves your point
Shitlibs, lmao
Just gonna ignore my point to call me a name? Classy
Um, sir, cows are brown sometimes.
If you’re implying my point is a non-sequitur, it’s directly from your source and relevant context. Not a single nation voted against the resolution, both the African Union and the Arab League strongly supported intervention. I think it’s pretty clear in hindsight it was inappropriate for NATO to handle but a one time intervention backed by the UNSC does not a doctrine make. It definitely doesn’t justify Russia invading Ukraine or stealing Crimea.
Edit: just to head off any Yugoslavia bombing rebuttals, UNSC 1203 was also passed with no votes against.
In other words
It’s negotiable when capital is on the line.
Because now the rape is a systemic revenge policy but all of a sudden the oil isn’t paying for everyone’s college and healthcare.