3 ms·
The argument was and still is that by "helping" you'd actually cause more devastation(or, at worst - start a nuclear exchange between superpowers). But like OP
by gambiting 5y ago
The argument was and still is that by "helping" you'd actually cause more devastation(or, at worst - start a nuclear exchange between superpowers).
But like OP said, there has to be a threshold, an attrocity so bad that NATO will be forced to intervene. I personally think seeing 18 month old babies killed by shrapnel is enough - but I'm not in charge of the policy(for better or worse).
- ProAm 5y agoRegardless of helping or not helping there will be more devastation, that is unavoidable at this point. Will the world let one person terrorize an entire region and neighboring countries? If US does not intervene in means Putin has won, and can have all of the old soviet states back, the US is too scared to get its hands dirty again. Of course there is massive risk, but we are beyond that point. Without intervention you let Russia expand, rebuild and have the same risk of nuclear war as before, just with a bigger bully. If this invasion was justified in any manner I would feel different.