But Russia bringing in 12,000 North Koreans doesn’t give Ukraine the right to defend itself? What about the war crime of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure? What about the war crime of invading a country that hadn’t attacked you?
Do feel free to provide actual evidence of these DPRK soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
NATO is at war with Russia and using Ukraine as the proxy. This is as true as the idea that the Chinese/NK, Indians and Iranians are all allies of Russia in this war due to the trade of weapons, oil, drones, troops, etc. I also count every US-based MNC that is still doing business in Russia as collaborators.
I’d vastly prefer that we cut the Russians off from the world and anyone else who helps them vs sending billions of dollars of weapons, technology and intelligence that will never be enough to actually defeat them. All doing this has done is led to more Ukranian lives being lost for the same end. Russia was always going to take the land back.
Decoupling immediately would be the best possible outcome for anti-imperialism so yes please do this Trumpist logic.
Ukraine is free to determine that NK, China, and Iran are all parties to the war due to their material support of the Russian operation. Ukraine can decide to declare war against those countries. They can go and prosecute that war, if they so choose.
This is obviously becoming a bloc conflict between G7 and BRICS. The problem that G7 has is that it’s a smaller economic bloc that doesn’t produce much anything useful at this point. Western economies have become largely financialized with all the meaningful production having moved out to countries aligned with Russia.
It is always someone retired
You misspelled the last word.
“The DoD has no comment on remarks supposedly made by a private citizen to a Russian news outlet.”
A retired colonel? Who gives a shit what a has-been nobody from a 20 year old administration has to say? What, are they going to do, interview me next for expert testimony on Canada because I carry a hockey stick?
It’s not like Russia needs permission to attack NATO anyway, Putin just needs to decide if he wants it or not and can figure out whatever justification he desires.
A lamed duck president taking the US into a war against the biggest nuclear superpower in the last weeks of his admin without congressional approval is pretty noteworthy.
the biggest nuclear superpower in the last weeks of his admin without congressional approval is pretty noteworthy.
If that had happened, it would indeed be noteworthy.
It literally did happen, as far as Russia is concerned direct attacks by NATO have shifted the nature of the conflict
so if India use their bought Rafale to attack Pakistan or China that bring France at war with those countries? Of course not… And for Ukraine it’s the same…
These weapons are being operated directly by NATO from the territory of Ukraine to attack Russia. Nobody is denying this, and the fact that you can’t understand it is frankly wild.
oh sorry, I commented on a lemmy.ml post that drink russian propaganda… Sorry to bother… But I have one question. If NATO was really on the frontline, why NATO leader are so eager to not openly enter war with Russia to the point where it took 3 years for them to greenlight the target of Russian territory? That like fighting with an hand in the back, that would be bad strategic decision… If really NATO is in the frontline why no Rafale or F-22 in the sky? If NATO is at war with Russia, why not attacking from Finland or Baltic states to flank the army? If NATO is at war with Russia, why after 3 years there are no Nuke in the sky from both side?
That’s quite the tantrum. Are you ever going to acknowledge how ATACMs works?
not what I say, what I say is NATO soldiers are not on the frontline fighting Russia and unlike what Putin says, he really not want to start that war with NATO…
So that’s a no lol
The fact that you felt the need to write an essay about how offended you are to step out of your bubble is hilarious.
As a c/NonCredibleDefense member I’m not offended by your message, I laughed a lot while writing that “essay”… but the fact that you are diverting from the question on why NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia spend 3 years saying they are at war with NATO and threatening of nuclear retaliation while doing nothing (not even a non nuclear missile or a bomb on NATO territory) tells a lot about the fact that you can’t answer…
The mismatch between what Putin says and what Putin does is so big that instead of using his IRBM on NATO soil to proof that he has to be taken seriously, Putin used it on non NATO soil which lead to more NATO help to Ukraine next Tuesday… And Putin will continue to threaten but will do nothing against NATO countries… I can bet a lot on that… So much for the not so strong leader that is Putin… XD
As a c/NonCredibleDefense member
Oh now your talk about being a proud warmongerer makes sense to me.
NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia
As a person living in Europe my wallet tells me that we actually did face some severe consequences.
🤣
ATACMS relies on targeting data that can only be obtained from NATO sources as Ukraine doesn’t have its own satellite and airborne recon platform. You could give ATACMS to Ukraine and they could only use it in short ranges because they don’t have the data they need to target deep into Russia. That means NATO is literally providing everything except the button pusher - they are providing the missiles, the launchers, the trainings, the satellites, the spy planes, the data infrastructure, the data itself. Ukraine pushes the button.
This is funamdentally different than using a bullet made in one country to kill a person in another country.
And Putin does nothing and passively let himself victimize by those same NATO country… All he does are empty threat since after 3 years of threat, NATO country still lives in peace like nothing is happening. So much for the strong leader that Putin try to show… Or maybe being a carpet for NATO boots is being strong in Russia culture…
What a ridiculous position to hold, and my god the brainworms you must have based on your exchange with @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
Russia actively responds to threats and has been doing so for quite some time. First, it took Crimea. Then it sent lethal support to the Donbas. Then it sent mercenaries into a bunch of countries in North Africa fighting against the West. Then it launched an SMO to militarize the border with Ukraine. Then it attacked Western Ukrainian infrastructure. Then it built an Africa Corps. Then it created economic alternatives to the West. Then it materially supported the West’s adversaries. Then it made a change to its nuclear protocol. Then it launched an IRBM.
Russia responding to Western salami slicing with its own salami slicing. Just as the NATO escalations are nuanced, so are Russia’s responses. NATO countries still live in peace because they have not declared war on Russia yet. Every time they make another thin slice of the salami, Russia finds a way to respond that is just as thin. However, Russia launched the capture of Crimea and no one could stop it. Russia launched the SMO to secure the Ukranian border and no one could stop. Russia worked to support decoupling of Africa from the West and no one has been able to stop it. Russia is working with partners to work around Western economic dominance and sanctions and no one can stop it.
The Russian military has not made many mistakes and it has not been strategically inactive. From this, we have to conclude that Russia understands its own limits, and I don’t think anyone, especially Russia, believes they can or need to fight all of Europe. Likewise, I think Russia is aware, as NATO is aware, there is no way NATO could defeat Russia. The risk, therefore, is that NATO chooses to engage Russia in long-term war of attrition, and that risk is very very real. Russia’s strategic imperatives are therefore 1) to not become encircled, 2) to maintain counter-intelligence supremacy, and 3) to avoid a protracted war of attrition with NATO.
- is why Russia took Crimea and subsequently invaded Ukraine
- is why Russia is being judicious with deploying its technology and why it is operating in Africa
- is why Russia is supporting the opening of additional fronts in Africa, building material support with military powers aligned against the West, building economic alternatives to the West, and most importantly, not giving the West sufficient casus belli to launch an all out war of attrition
You’re requirement that for Putin to be strong he must be irrational is ridiculous.
And once Russia hits a NATO country trolls like you will start crying how Russia started a completely unprovoked war against a peaceful defensive alliance.
I will not cry because when it will happen, their are only 2 outcomes:
- Russia is demilitarize so fast by NATO countries that the country will not be able to do much (that outcome has even been told by Putin himself in 2023 as the reason Russia has no chance against NATO)
- Both countries use their nuke and we will be all dead in a beautiful bang :)
in both outcome Russia loose
Everyone dying is hardly a loss for just Russia, mankind as a whole would lose because it would no longer exist.
The actual outcome is going to be that the US will leave Europe to hang, and NATO will collapse. The fact that you don’t get that is absolutely hilarious. If you think that the Oligarchs in US are going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Europe you should really get your head checked.
The most heavily propagandized victims always assume they are immune to propaganda.
So, Russia will stop attacking Ukraine since it has “no right”.
If we are talking about “the rules” then UA, and as a proxy for the West, failing to implement Minsk II is the primary precursor to Russia invading.
Russia attacked Ukraine because of threats to Russian national security. The “legal framework” or “rules based order” that allowed NATO countries to create those threats to Russia created the conditions under which Russia had two choices - follow the rules exactly and let their belligerent opponents (the North Atlantic empire) continue to build up the threat level, or break the rules and protect itself.
This is why for years the conversation around Russia has been a debate between people who say a security framework must guarantee security for all, on the one side, and on the other side, people who said we only need to guarantee our security and we can threaten the security of others and they can’t do anything about it.
threats to Russian national security
Yeah, like someone else living on land that Russia wanted.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
It’s more that we won’t be reading about full scale unprovoked attack on the US soil going forward.
We should really include “full scale colonial invasion” before every mention about USA getting their current territory.
Sure, because something that happened centuries ago is as urgent as something that’s happening now.
And if the US was wrong, how is Russia right in doing the same thing?
seriously
Do you I have a surprise for you
lol yeah what am I saying here, of course we will
Does it really matter if anyone has the ‘right’ to do anything? What is this Crusader Kings?
In practice, no. Countries and militaries and other such groups of psychos will always push every boundary they can unless they think the cost is too high.
In theory? Yes. If the rules as written actually mattered, countries would only respond to those that broke rules. In this case Russia would be responding to NATO breaking international law multiple times.
