You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Can anyone explain how Putin can give a nuclear threat on any NATO countries stepping in to fight directly.
But no fucks are given if NATO is supplying weapons, indirectly helping?
What's stopping Putin from giving the same nuclear threat and setting the rules that NATO can't help with resources either?
Advertisement
__________________ __________________________________________________ Last edited by AzNightmare; Today at 10:09 AM
Can anyone explain how Putin can give a nuclear threat on any NATO countries stepping in to fight directly.
But no fucks are given if NATO is supplying weapons, indirectly helping?
What's stopping Putin from giving the same nuclear threat and setting the rules that NATO can't help with resources either?
While not being a full member, Ukraine has relations with NATO under "MAP" which means they will assist them depending on their needs, with possible membership later (which they declined to do last year)... They want to make it very clear that they aren't influencing Ukraine in any way, and let them decide what to do on their own. This is exactly what Putin is afraid of, and what he thinks is actually happening, so it didn't matter in the end.
It was supposed to deter Russia from fucking with them, while not giving them full membership which probably would have caused this invasion - and directly WW3 - earlier. Or maybe it would have been a stronger deterrent. Who knows with Putin?
While not being a full member, Ukraine has relations with NATO under "MAP" which means they will assist them depending on their needs, with possible membership later (which they declined to do last year)...
It was supposed to deter Russia from fucking with them, while not giving them full membership which probably would have caused this invasion - and directly WW3 - earlier. Or maybe it would have been a stronger deterrent. Who knows with Putin?
So you mean, Putin is actually following "rules" so he is ok with NATO helping with resources cause it's in writing, cause of MAP. But if NATO cheats and helps in the battlefield, then nukes will come.
So you mean, Putin is actually following "rules" so he is ok with NATO helping with resources cause it's in writing, cause of MAP. But if NATO cheats and helps in the battlefield, then nukes will come.
Frankly there's not much he can do about it... His choices are to go home, or to escalate to world war, in that case he's truly fucked.
So one side can 'play by the rules' (in other words, go by their word of non influence and non intervention) and let the other side do what they do, since they're the ones that started this shit in the first place. Ukraine desperately wants them to do something more, but their hands are tied for now.
So you mean, Putin is actually following "rules" so he is ok with NATO helping with resources cause it's in writing, cause of MAP. But if NATO cheats and helps in the battlefield, then nukes will come.
"We are not part of this conflict," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference.
"We have a responsibility as NATO allies to prevent this war from escalating beyond Ukraine because that would be even more dangerous, more devastating and would cause even more human suffering."
Willing to sell a family member for a few minutes on RS
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North vancouver
Posts: 12,545
Thanked 32,155 Times in 7,474 Posts
Failed 211 Times in 159 Posts
Anything over none is enough, but you have to understand they are weighing the risks to their own nations in NATO. If other countries start getting hit, the damage to human life throughout the world goes up exponentially. Their job is first and foremost to protect nato countries. I don’t like what’s happening, but to suggest we have better ideas is completely daft. We have no clue what the consequences for the actions could be, and the people making decisions do. We are the people yelling at the TV during a hockey game thinking we could do better if we try and make suggestions of what to do.
__________________
98 technoviolet M3/2/5
Quote:
Originally Posted by boostfever
Westopher is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fsy82
seems like you got a dick up your ass well..get that checked
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkwax
Well.. I’d hate to be the first to say it, but Westopher is correct.
President Zelensky has repeatedly asked NATO to declare a no fly zone over Ukraine in order to prevent Russia from further bombardment of civilians and military targets with their missiles and rockets.
That no fly zone is not gonna happen despite Zelensky's pleas.
When you involve jet fighters of countries in NATO enforcing a no fly zone over Ukraine, that tactic to protect Ukraine can trigger an escalation of this war.
We have a crazy Russian bear in Putin. Who knows how he will react to NATO defending Ukrainian air space?
It's never a good idea to poke a bear.
Having said that about Zelensky, I give this president huge props for his courageous leadership in these dark times for his country. He's putting his life on the line to defend his country and to fight for his people's freedoms.
It didn't seem to bother Western gov'ts too much when it was happening to brown people (Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan...) so I assume we've got some ways to go.
It didn't seem to bother Western gov'ts too much when it was happening to brown people (Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan...) so I assume we've got some ways to go.
While you're completely right, "human suffering" is a bad measuring stick. Also doesn't help with Yemen/Syria/Afghanistan et al. that a lot of these conflicts are internal and contained within their own borders, although Russia meddling in Syria certainly did nothing to help.
Ukraine is being invaded, so a slightly different dynamic - not that it negates what is happening in other parts of the world.
It's either shut up and put up or just walk away.....REALLY hope it's the first one.
Is the hope that they keep providing some weapons to the Ukrainians and that they will hold off the Russian advances and bombardments long enough that Putin gives up? Certainly don't see that happening? Maybe the soldier give up themselves?
In the mean time the country is bombed to shit and put back 10 years rebuilding everything?
They could predator drone annihilate everything the russians have have be done with it.
I do feel a bit bad for Ukraine in that they gave up their nukes after having been given security assurances in the Budapest Memorandum and now all the players in that agreement are completely fucking them over.
I do feel a bit bad for Ukraine in that they gave up their nukes after having been given security assurances in the Budapest Memorandum and now all the players in that agreement are completely fucking them over.
This. Talked about cucked. I'm Ukrainian with ties back to Ukraine. Its disappointing to see no action being taken by NATO and I try to be understanding that there is a reason systems and agreements are put into place but theres also a history of f*ckall happening too as per Budapest Memorandum (which also can be debated if you consider the munitions and training provided but direct intervention is out the window). It shows that whatever diplomatic solution and agreement you try to make in the end it means absolutely nothing as people will negate on their promises.
__________________
I'm so stance my roof rack got a roof rack
Have you guys come across any quality analysis on the economic impact Russia is suffering as a result of all the sanctions? Also, are there any estimates on how long the Russian military effort can sustain itself in a war-time, active conflict environment?
What I am thinking is -- we know the SWIFT expulsion is causing a lot of grief in the everyday lives of ordinary citizens -- the have been runs on the banks, trade is dead. We've seen Russian soldiers looking hungry, been given expired rations, etc. Tanks running out of fuel and they seem to be having re-supply issues. Actively supporting a military effort in a wartime environment is a gigantic logistical undertaking, and so far, we've seen the Russian army not doing particularly well. If there are clues or well-educated guesses on how long the war effort can last before it collapses back on itself, then you can see a timeline of sorts, you can expect the Russian effort to ramp up, get more desperate, and take more risks -- including the use of nukes -- as time wears on.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
NATO will not intervene unless one of their member countries is directly attacked. That's literally its job. 
