I know there's an active ukraine thread, but since that goes all over the place i rather start with a dilemma (meaning : no right answers. I repeat : no right answers!) that's still somewhat actual in the conflict.
In one perspective, the reason of the invasion of Russia is Zelensky's attempt to have ukraine join NATO, which Putin doesn't like (understatement).
Since Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the other countries don't treat this as an attack worth completely engaging for. Hence : no ground troops and other engagements that could backfire both with Russia and the homeland (it's fun defending other countries until you come home in a body bag).
The no - fly zone is... Similar, albeit less controversial. Frankly put : it means installing anti air weapons to stop Russian planes from bombing targets from above.
Russia (okay : Putin) has responded to this urgent request by Zelensky by issuing a threat that leaves little to the imagination : Russia will treat any attack by NATO on their planes as an act of war (rather than the "we're just bullying this country here" thing they're doing now). In other words : a much larger scale war, if not outright world War 3. With multiple parties having nuclear weapons, not to forget.
So... NATO's current stance is not to engage. It's... Understandably. But is it correct?
*sigh*
Of course i can't write really objective, but in the above, at least i try to keep all perspectives open.
... But really : i think that Putin will consider the economical restrictions and (less direct) support for Ukraine will consider this an act of war as well sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner. It'll certainly save Ukrainian civilian lives.
Edit : had to check, but indeed : the bombing of the theater in Marioepol was by an airstrike. It's currently still unclear how many died there (it had a shelter housing loss of civilians). It... I can't blame NATO for this, of course. But shouldn't we at least be trying to prevent future bombings?
(well... There's also the chance that Putin's bluffing, and that he just goes by the presumption that the threat will be sufficient to just pillage ukraine)
Yes, i know : this stance might very well increase the chances of a Russian nuclear bomb on Brussels or Washington. I won't try to convince any of you for this reason. All I'm saying is i don't believe we (NATO) can avoid a conflict with Russia before they're done doing whatever it is that'll satisfy Putin in Ukraine.
Any thoughts on this?
In one perspective, the reason of the invasion of Russia is Zelensky's attempt to have ukraine join NATO, which Putin doesn't like (understatement).
Since Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the other countries don't treat this as an attack worth completely engaging for. Hence : no ground troops and other engagements that could backfire both with Russia and the homeland (it's fun defending other countries until you come home in a body bag).
The no - fly zone is... Similar, albeit less controversial. Frankly put : it means installing anti air weapons to stop Russian planes from bombing targets from above.
Russia (okay : Putin) has responded to this urgent request by Zelensky by issuing a threat that leaves little to the imagination : Russia will treat any attack by NATO on their planes as an act of war (rather than the "we're just bullying this country here" thing they're doing now). In other words : a much larger scale war, if not outright world War 3. With multiple parties having nuclear weapons, not to forget.
So... NATO's current stance is not to engage. It's... Understandably. But is it correct?
*sigh*
Of course i can't write really objective, but in the above, at least i try to keep all perspectives open.
... But really : i think that Putin will consider the economical restrictions and (less direct) support for Ukraine will consider this an act of war as well sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner. It'll certainly save Ukrainian civilian lives.
Edit : had to check, but indeed : the bombing of the theater in Marioepol was by an airstrike. It's currently still unclear how many died there (it had a shelter housing loss of civilians). It... I can't blame NATO for this, of course. But shouldn't we at least be trying to prevent future bombings?
(well... There's also the chance that Putin's bluffing, and that he just goes by the presumption that the threat will be sufficient to just pillage ukraine)
Yes, i know : this stance might very well increase the chances of a Russian nuclear bomb on Brussels or Washington. I won't try to convince any of you for this reason. All I'm saying is i don't believe we (NATO) can avoid a conflict with Russia before they're done doing whatever it is that'll satisfy Putin in Ukraine.
Any thoughts on this?
Last edited by Taleweaver,