Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Seriously, exactly.
There is flawed logic here.
We can’t put troops in Ukraine to help defend them because Russia might use nukes.
Russia has said Ukraine joining NATO is akin to an attack on Russia by NATO and might be met with nukes.
But Russia is lying about that.
But we still don’t want to send troops.
And I’m Chamberlain because I prioritize avoiding nuclear war and killing millions and millions over Ukraine’s self determination even though thousands may die there.
Got it, makes sense.
If you believe what all of you are saying then logically NATO troops should be in Ukraine helping them, since we can’t believe anything Russia says. This is not 1939, entirely different context. In fact, almost everything is entirely different really. So why are all of you applying 1939 war logic to this? Maybe Churchill would have taken a different road if Germany could wipe London off the map with the push of a button.
|
Or maybe, just maybe, NATO countries do not have the appetite for sending their troops to war. Does the US want to send their troops on the ground of another grueling war after just pulling out of the Middle East? It would be political suicide - regardless if you believe Putin would, or even could (I doubt his generals would let him get to that point) press the button. No one has the appetite in the West for another war.
There is absolutely no way Ukraine gets admitted into NATO with an ongoing war.