Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaavycw wrote

It really is time for NATO to seriously get involved. We need to send Putin straight to hell.

−55

Profrog888 t1_jabfjo3 wrote

im so glad that the world leaders are smarter than most of redditors that advocate for nato strikes on russia

105

Brilliant-Rooster762 t1_jab4ium wrote

That is exactly what the Botox Dwarf wants, a defeat by NATOs hand.

18

SnakeBiter409 t1_jabbjjc wrote

Then why not cut to the chase?

6

Brilliant-Rooster762 t1_jabjhd7 wrote

Because he needs the west to be the initiator (ie directly intervene). He is trying his best to shift the narrative as such, but it isn't succeeding. A defeat by Ukrainians alone, with western assistance of course, would be a complete disaster for a regime that has been for almost a decade planning its ethnocide.

13

SnakeBiter409 t1_jacrph1 wrote

What defines a defeat for Putin?

0

Brilliant-Rooster762 t1_jacs9et wrote

Being Ghaddafied. Nothing less. He will sink Russia alongside himself. And the Russian people are at fault for having fallen for a snake oil salesman promising them Empirical delusions.

We are seeing the end of Russia as a state. It's over.

3

SnakeBiter409 t1_jae5oae wrote

I think when the Soviet Union fell and became the Russian federation should be testament that Russia will always be Russia regardless of any Balkanization, but there will be more Ukraines and there will always be a threat of invasion.

0

70ms t1_jabmcl2 wrote

That's not how NATO works. It is a strictly defensive alliance, and Ukraine's not a member. I would love to see Russia stomped too but it won't be NATO unless Russia attacks a member state.

16

djinniofthelamp t1_jabplv2 wrote

Tell that to Serbia. NATO is only "strictly defensive" when it suits.

17

-RaptorX72- t1_jabtvsj wrote

Serbia was not a nuclear power.

5

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jac3qt6 wrote

Keeping an organization from being liars and aggressive by sheer threat of nuclear attack is not a point in favor of that organization...

3

jeeepblack t1_jacpef1 wrote

You are scared of replies that are negative about Russia. That is weak on your behalf.

1

djinniofthelamp t1_jad4cx0 wrote

I'm not arguing whether or not NATO should do something, I'm just saying that using "defensive only" as a reason is invalid

1

ArBui t1_jac4zw5 wrote

Okay, wish granted. Everyone unleashes their nuclear weapons and we all die.

Would you like to simulate another game?

12

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaeaxnq wrote

Your foolishness is exactly what Putin is banking on. He isn’t going to launch shit. How many more countries will we allow him to destroy over fear of his launching threats? Sooner or later, you will need to overcome your fear.

−5

ArBui t1_jaeczs3 wrote

I tentatively agree but obviously it's worrying. There's no real good options tbh other than, he grinds himself down and Russia has to take the L, and it's all resolved going forward especially after he's dead.

4

Law-of-Poe t1_jaawk1r wrote

I bet it’d fuck Putin right up if NATO started conducting strikes in Ukraine.

Wouldn’t be threatening an inch of Russian territories or a single Russian citizen. More than we could say for what Russia is doing to Ukraine and innocent Ukrainian civilians

10

dve- t1_jablml9 wrote

The point is: they think and at least say that they ARE in Russian territory.

Even if the rest of the world says otherwise, who knows if they might act accordingly if we strike.

3

BRXF1 t1_jabz8ki wrote

Yeah that's pretty much a declaration of war and NATO will not go for starting a Russia-NATO war.

2

Airtightspoon t1_jabek9h wrote

We're not starting WW3 for a country that we aren't even obligated to defend.

10

simonp101 t1_jabgoe2 wrote

>time for NATO to seriously get involved

You mean with troops on the ground? that's the last thing the World needs, a nuclear war with grave consequences for the entire planet.

NATO is already involved militarily. Just the US contribution alone all aid pledged so far exceeds $110 billion, and according to Summit News and ZeroHedge "US Military Aid To Ukraine Exceeds The Costs Of Afghanistan".

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabuyr8 wrote

The us spent over 2 trillion on Afghanistan so that number is either wrong or comparing something else. My guess is it’s dividing by years (2 trillion/20=100 billion).

4

simonp101 t1_jabwpdf wrote

> 2 trillion on Afghanistan

It's only talking about US military spent amount, which is a portion to what you're referring to. $46.6 billion in Ukraine vs $43.4 billion in Afghanistan.

3

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabxuid wrote

Can you link? Just curious.

1

simonp101 t1_jac1d1u wrote

>Can you link?

I'll try: https://summit.news/2023/02/25/us-military-aid-to-ukraine-exceeds-the-costs-of-afghanistan/

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jac1qxn wrote

Ah as I suspect it’s average annual cost. But that’s to be expected: the us was fighting the taliban in Afghanistan, whereas for Ukraine the us is supplying them to fight a modern (ish) military of a nation state. The Taliban didn’t even have planes.

2

thederpofwar321 t1_jabwfld wrote

It could count weapons meant to be turned to junk, but got donated.

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabww6r wrote

Yeah, it could. I’ve heard (from Perun) how misleading figures of military aid can be. Basically, many countries report what the price of what they’re donating would be new, others what it will cost to replace the equipment (ie inflating it), whereas others report what it actually sells for in used condition.

2

ktchong t1_jabb92a wrote

So, let's start World War III... for Ukraine?

So, is that the hill that humanity is gonna die on? Let's risk apocalypse and extinction for... Ukraine. Really??

−6

whatamidoing84 t1_jabk1z7 wrote

Nuclear war would be bad for Ukrainians as well as the rest of the world. Assuming you are referring to troops on the ground?

−6

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaebagn wrote

So I guess we continue to allow Putin to destroy countries. All because he threatens to launch.

1

whatamidoing84 t1_jaej376 wrote

Those aren’t the only two options, you know. I know discussion over the internet is hard and it’s easy to want to demonize the anonymous person you are speaking with, but damn. I support Ukraine but US boots on the ground means direct military conflict with Russia, which means nuclear weapons are on the table. I don’t see that resulting in a positive outcome for anyone.

Unless you have some reason you don’t think we have any reason to fear the use of nukes? Putin doesn’t strike me a particularly rational actor.

1

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaepez0 wrote

Because Putin doesn’t want to die either. It is called ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ and has worked for 50 years.

Where do you draw the line? How many countries are you willing to hand over to Putin?

At some point even the biggest pacifist has a line.

1