7 ms·

Surprisingly clear and objective. Just no one think the west will react like that. Or the UkrainianS.

bhaak 5y ago
You can bully over and over again but at some point the most cowardly person will snap. Still, if the Ukrainians wouldn't have shown tremendous defense capabilities, the West probably wouldn't have shown such a swift reaction.
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  > You can bully over and over again but at some point the most cowardly person will snap. You could use this exact statement to justify what Russia is doing right now, if NATO is the bully. And if we look at recent history, we definitely know that NATO behaves as a bully when things don't go the way they planned.
  - bhaak 5y ago
    You need to be more specific. To my knowledge there were no military operations by NATO forces that were not either sanctioned by the UN or just within the borders of NATO members. If you refer to the fact that sovereign countries applied for NATO membership and got accepted, you have to tell how that is bullying. If Ukraine were part of NATO, it's unlikely that it got attacked.
    - croes 5y ago
      What about the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afgha...
      - selectodude 5y ago
        Do those have something to do with joining NATO?
      - bhaak 5y ago
        NATO forces weren't involved with the Iraq war. The Afghanistan missions were conducted due to UN resolutions.
        croes 5y ago
        So the US has different soldiers and equipment for NATO, or is it just legal construct. How can you distinguish a coalition army of Brits, Italians and Americans from a NATO army of Brits, Italians and Americans? It's the patch, isn't it? The rest is the same.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        pastacacioepepe 5y ago
        NATO and UN are basically twin brothers from the geopolitical stance. We can say the "West" instead of NATO if that's better for you.
        mbg721 5y ago
        The UN puts Russia and China in veto positions; that's a significant difference from NATO.
        pastacacioepepe 5y ago
        Yet it's clear that Russia is isolated in the UN (with slight support from China). As of now, NATO and UN are both playing the same game.
        croes 5y ago
        And it was about NATO forces not led by NATO. The forces of a NATO member are NATO forces. Or do you think if Russia would attack polish forces it wouldn't be considered as an attack on NATO forces?
    - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
      Beside the middle east, Yugoslavia comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
- jacquesm 5y ago
  The bully is the coward.
jdrc 5y ago
he does speculate what would happen in these cases, but tbh i don't like this future world

You can bully over and over again but at some point the most cowardly person will snap. Still, if the Ukrainians wouldn't have shown tremendous defense capabilities, the West probably wouldn't have shown such a swift reaction.

pastacacioepepe 5y ago
> You can bully over and over again but at some point the most cowardly person will snap. You could use this exact statement to justify what Russia is doing right now, if NATO is the bully. And if we look at recent history, we definitely know that NATO behaves as a bully when things don't go the way they planned.
- bhaak 5y ago
  You need to be more specific. To my knowledge there were no military operations by NATO forces that were not either sanctioned by the UN or just within the borders of NATO members. If you refer to the fact that sovereign countries applied for NATO membership and got accepted, you have to tell how that is bullying. If Ukraine were part of NATO, it's unlikely that it got attacked.
  - croes 5y ago
    What about the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afgha...
    - selectodude 5y ago
      Do those have something to do with joining NATO?
    - bhaak 5y ago
      NATO forces weren't involved with the Iraq war. The Afghanistan missions were conducted due to UN resolutions.
      - croes 5y ago
        So the US has different soldiers and equipment for NATO, or is it just legal construct. How can you distinguish a coalition army of Brits, Italians and Americans from a NATO army of Brits, Italians and Americans? It's the patch, isn't it? The rest is the same.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
        NATO and UN are basically twin brothers from the geopolitical stance. We can say the "West" instead of NATO if that's better for you.
        mbg721 5y ago
        The UN puts Russia and China in veto positions; that's a significant difference from NATO.
        pastacacioepepe 5y ago
        Yet it's clear that Russia is isolated in the UN (with slight support from China). As of now, NATO and UN are both playing the same game.
      - croes 5y ago
        And it was about NATO forces not led by NATO. The forces of a NATO member are NATO forces. Or do you think if Russia would attack polish forces it wouldn't be considered as an attack on NATO forces?
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    Beside the middle east, Yugoslavia comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
jacquesm 5y ago
The bully is the coward.

jdrc 5y ago

he does speculate what would happen in these cases, but tbh i don't like this future world