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.
|
I think we are starting to see hints of 'if you don't agree with everything Ukraine is doing you are a Putin lover.'
I have many friends who have family members in Ukraine right now, and they are extremely concerned about nuclear attacks.
You know, which one would be when dealing with a madman that has nuclear weapons.
I think far too many people are playing arm chair general from the safety of North America, and also maybe we sit here and are so willing to sacrifice Ukraine lives to try and dismantle Putin's power hold.
The US has been handling this well, and I admire what Ukraine has done and sacrificed, but at some point they won't get everything they want simply because of the fact that they are bordering Russia.
Unfortunate, but that is generally what happens in a war.