a few more headlines ~

Ireland: (RTE) French President Emmanuel Macron has declined to repeat US President Joe Biden's accusation that Russia was carrying out "genocide" against Ukrainians, warning that verbal escalations would not help end the war.
England: (BBC) Russia claims 1,026 Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered in the besieged port city of Mariupol. But a top adviser to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky insists the city is still standing and the marines have joined another battalion. The mayor of Mariupol says some 21,000 civilians have been killed in the southern city and 100,000 are still awaiting evacuation.

America: (Fox) Pro-Putin fugitive politician captured in special operation, Ukraine says. (CNN) Putin's bullying backfires as Finland and Sweden edge closer to joining NATO

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 13 2022 05:02am

If Europe could form their own NATO without the USA and UK.
I believe there can be some peace for the time being.
The Problem is not NATO.
The Problem is USA. I have always stress on this point with even with my friends in Hong Kong when I discuss this issue.

do you not actually know the purpose of NATO?
There's no such thing as "merely defend" in a nuclear age. The entire point of NATO is to say that if the Russians nuke a NATO member, we nuke them back. That if they attack any NATO member, we attack them back. We don't "defend" a NATO country by saying we'll supply arms and training and moral support to them while they're being invaded, we don't vow to sanction their attackers and boycott their products and denounce them in most vehement language, we don't say we'll stop an invasion by holding it at the Russian border and refuse to tiptoe over. Article 5 of the NATO charter says an attack against one member is an attack against all. That we declare war on anyone who attacks one member state. You know, an alliance. One of the most basic concepts in international relations that exists back to prehistoric times. You know, when you get the prompt that the Trilarians want to join an alliance with you, and later when the Darloks attack them, they demand you declare war on the Darloks?

I'm not sure how much more fundamental this could get. The entire point of NATO is that it is a formal military alliance, that each country vows to fight a war if any of them is attacked. It says it right on the tin. And NATO and the west in general are unwilling to fight a war to protect Ukraine, and were not willing to expand NATO into Ukraine. Comprende?

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 13 2022 05:05am

the argument you're trying to make there simply doesn't add up: you're suggesting finland should join when tensions are not so high - but at the same time you're suggesting that a country aiming to join nato is what heated up tensions in the first place. meaning there is no "good" time to join anyway. whenever a russian neighbour tries to join, it triggers pootin's "paranoia". even an accelerated membership takes some time, you don't do that literally over night while the whole of russia is asleep, and surprise them with it next day...

its like boiling water. if the water is about to boil over, you turn down the gas. feel free to heat the water if its cold.
finland joining nato is turning up the gas while the water is boiling.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 13 2022 05:13am

here's the crayon version, just for you:

- nato would never attack or invade russia
- putin knows that

- you misleadingly tried to portray russia attacking a nato country, and nato defending itself, as an "attack" by nato, and you're justifiably being ridiculed for it
- now you're corn-cobbing hard by pretending whoever mocked you doesn't understand nato, lol

foh with that weak shit.

To be fair to fender (and everyone knows that fender and I have bashed heads in this topic) he is right in this instance that your argument is weak. I think I did not quote the correct post so i will tag you instead.

Ultimately Nato will not attack Russia first. probably. counter attacking after a nato member has been attacked by Russia, is a different scenario, and one which is expected, in the unlikely event that russia attacks a Nato member. and i have no clue where finland sits in that equation.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 13 2022 05:21am

Do you eat the crayons in krautland?
Of all the things you could get hung up on, trying to comprehend the most basic definition of a military alliance is quite the embarrassing choice.

You know during WW2, germany attacked the allies of the united states. Guess what the united states did in response. Give you a hint, the Russians did it too.

Problem is Putin's failure as a leader. They are a nation with the GDP of Italy without nearly the same quality of life and with a million times the natural wealth and resources.

Only Putin and his weird supporters in the west like you want the Soviet Union back. Nobody who lived in the Soviet Union is longing to give up their freedom and become Russians serfs again. It is beyond the pale that you suggest liberation from totalitarianism is the problem. No, the totalitarian is the problem. Putin is trying to bring back the worse part of the twentieth century.

If Russia was a Democracy there would be no war in Ukraine right now.

This action shows that Ukraine was right for approaching NATO.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 13 2022 05:21am

Sadam Hussain was thinking the same. Rhyme!