4 ms·

I think the best stance is what we should all know by now: Ukraine is highly propagandistic because their victory scenario involves getting NATO directly involv

I think the best stance is what we should all know by now: Ukraine is highly propagandistic because their victory scenario involves getting NATO directly involved and escalating a regional conflict into a World War. So let's treat any information coming out from them as such and wait 1 day for more accurate accounts to come in.

Johnny555 5y ago
To be fair, I'm certain that the Ukraine does not want to spark a world war, but they certainly would appreciate some direct support from NATO, even just air support. (which is likely to lead to a world war, but that's not Ukraine's intention, they are just trying to preserve their country). Despite any inaccuracies due to the "fog of war" or even propaganda, the basic facts of this unprovoked invasion are more than enough to justify NATO intervention.
- ericd 5y ago
  “Just air support” means a hot war between the US and Russia, which would be an extremely dangerous thing. It’s extremely irresponsible to advocate for that. There is a reason they weren’t allowed into NATO before, and that reason has only gotten stronger.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    I'm not advocating for any direct NATO involvement, I was just saying that Ukraine would love NATO support, even if just air support (which they've already asked for), but even that would likely escalate this into a world war. I'm not sure how you read that as me advocating for NATO involvement. But I disagree with your assertion that the reason to not let them into NATO has gotten stronger, I think this invasion shows that the reason to let Ukraine in to NATO has gotten stronger.
    - ericd 5y ago
      Sorry, I don’t understand, how is air support not direct NATO involvement? The reason has gotten stronger because if we let Ukraine into NATO now, that obligates NATO to defend them, which makes this into WW3. That would be extremely bad for humanity on a much, much larger scale than Ukraine represents. NATO is not a tool for humanitarian aid.
      - Johnny555 5y ago
        It is direct NATO involvement, I never advocated for it -- Ukraine did. Obviously we wouldn't let Ukraine into NATO now during a conflict, but if this conflict somehow ends and Putin withdraws then I think there's a strong case for giving them NATO membership. Letting Ukraine join NATO later is a deterrent from another invastion, letting them join NATO today is just the start of WWIII
        ericd 5y ago
        Ah ok, I agree. Sorry, I must’ve misunderstood what you meant by “the basic facts of this unprovoked invasion are more than enough to justify NATO intervention” in your original post.
        Johnny555 5y ago
        Oh, I definitely think NATO has ample justification to join the battle, and if the adversary were not Russia (or China), I think they already would have. But I also think it would be a horrible idea to get into a direct war with Russia.

Johnny555 5y ago

To be fair, I'm certain that the Ukraine does not want to spark a world war, but they certainly would appreciate some direct support from NATO, even just air support. (which is likely to lead to a world war, but that's not Ukraine's intention, they are just trying to preserve their country). Despite any inaccuracies due to the "fog of war" or even propaganda, the basic facts of this unprovoked invasion are more than enough to justify NATO intervention.

ericd 5y ago
“Just air support” means a hot war between the US and Russia, which would be an extremely dangerous thing. It’s extremely irresponsible to advocate for that. There is a reason they weren’t allowed into NATO before, and that reason has only gotten stronger.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  I'm not advocating for any direct NATO involvement, I was just saying that Ukraine would love NATO support, even if just air support (which they've already asked for), but even that would likely escalate this into a world war. I'm not sure how you read that as me advocating for NATO involvement. But I disagree with your assertion that the reason to not let them into NATO has gotten stronger, I think this invasion shows that the reason to let Ukraine in to NATO has gotten stronger.
  - ericd 5y ago
    Sorry, I don’t understand, how is air support not direct NATO involvement? The reason has gotten stronger because if we let Ukraine into NATO now, that obligates NATO to defend them, which makes this into WW3. That would be extremely bad for humanity on a much, much larger scale than Ukraine represents. NATO is not a tool for humanitarian aid.
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      It is direct NATO involvement, I never advocated for it -- Ukraine did. Obviously we wouldn't let Ukraine into NATO now during a conflict, but if this conflict somehow ends and Putin withdraws then I think there's a strong case for giving them NATO membership. Letting Ukraine join NATO later is a deterrent from another invastion, letting them join NATO today is just the start of WWIII
      - ericd 5y ago
        Ah ok, I agree. Sorry, I must’ve misunderstood what you meant by “the basic facts of this unprovoked invasion are more than enough to justify NATO intervention” in your original post.
        Johnny555 5y ago
        Oh, I definitely think NATO has ample justification to join the battle, and if the adversary were not Russia (or China), I think they already would have. But I also think it would be a horrible idea to get into a direct war with Russia.