Russia Angrily Demands U.S. Stop Sending Weapons to Ukraine

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-dem...op-sending-weapons-ukraine-kyiv-1700447?amp=1

I have the perfect solution, accept but with the condition the Russia do the same.

 

Putin has shown his hand. He's looking for a reason for WIII. He's impotent.

 

I think it's more typical boilerplate bravado, which is indicative of Putin's weakness.
An old kgb hand like him knows that arming our proxy allies is standard procedure for all powers. He knows that the west is arming the Ukrainians to the teeth under the table, just as he has done against the US when it suited him.
What's sad is the continuing hypocrisy and myopia of the big picture, and the long term consequences of clinging on to failed policies for all involved.

 

Nothing new here tbh

 

U. S. angrily demands Russia get the hell out of the Ukraine.

 

Another proof, as if one were needed, that Russia is losing this war.

 

I’m confused, if the reason for not giving Ukraine all these heavier weapons, straight up rejecting certain weapons like the Polish offer of fighter jets, etc. before now was for fear of making Putin mad enough he will start WWIII…what’s changed? I feel like he’d be mad enough at this point to have already started it if he was able to.

So what exactly is this magical formula by which we calculate not only is Putin able to start WWIII whenever he wishes, but that he’s willing to do so if we do X but not Y?

or is that WWIII talk all a bunch of BS by which our leaders use conveniently to justify half-assing everything from sanctions to weapons, thus massively prolonging a war into what some are already projecting will take years.

Regardless of the outcome, the word is out now: if you have nukes you can invade anyone you want. N.Korea can invade S.Korea, Iran can invade its neighbors once it gets the bomb, China can attack Taiwan. And the only thing stopping it is if the targeted country also has the bomb.

What a wonderful world of nuclear proliferation and future war we are carving out of our own cowardice.

 

Only world disarmnament can lead to a future without war. The future isn't one where nukes are launched, but ones where nukes guarantee the safety of conventional warfare forces. We're already seeing this play out as you outline. Conventional warfare will expand as the stakes raise and as no one will want to use a nuke.

 

Accept what? I wasn't aware that Putin was supplying the Ukrainians? Of course, if he is, then certainly, he should also stop.

 

This is faulty logic, on your part, to equate any country with a couple of nuclear bombs, with Russia, which has exponentially more nuclear capacity & sophistication than any nation on Earth, other than the U.S. This includes not only a surplus of missiles to destroy the world, and nuclear submarines, to launch even after Russia had been defeated, but also the most expansive collection of "tactical," battlefield nukes, on the planet. It is hardly much of a victory, to remove Russia from a Ukraine that had been turned into a radioactive wasteland. I am not saying that I expect this to happen, BTW, I am only pointing out that your argument ignores considerations which a President, whose viewpoint actually affects real people, does not have the luxury to disregard.

As to your facile confusion over our hesitancy to do more, your argument fails to appreciate that NATO represents a COLLECTIVE of nations. Hence, the decisions require a fair degree of consensus, which takes more time, than unilateral actions.

From past experience trying to have a mature discussion with you, I am anticipating that you will respond to these reasonable points, about weaknesses in your argument, with rudeness and insult. Thank goodness, at least, that you are not armed with nukes, or I probably would forego pointing out your flawed reasoning.

 

Nothing faulty about it: it is completely logical that the rationale to not come into direct conflict with a nation by the entire world, UN and EU both included, be based on its nuclear arsenal and threats, that other countries will race to build up their own nuclear capabilities as well.

you making a counter argument to that based on absolutely nothing whatsoever is what’s faulty. It’s difficult to conclude anything from you in fact.

again, no idea what your point is as it relates to the arguments used to half-ass both sanctions and weapons. The US is not needing the EU permission or consensus to aid Ukraine, before during or after the war began. Every country can unilaterally support Ukraine in myriad ways. So again, your counter argument is simply aimless arguing with no logic at all. What else is new with you?

Keep fighting those straw men of yours. That you seem to be claiming that I think we should nuke countries is at least the biggest straw man I’ve ever read on here, so kudos to you for failing harder than anyone ever has

 

Since I made no such suggestion about nuking other countries, you are not giving yourself enough credit: your thinking that I had, is then clearly, by far, the most spectacular of "failings."

So here is a simpler version, to help with your trouble concluding things. It is stupendously bad analogizing, to equate the situation of just ANY country with nukes, invading ANY other country, to RUSSIA, invading UKRAINE. This is not the same as North Korea, invading South Korea, for reasons that I think most find self-evident, but which you apparently need explained. One primary difference is that we have a signed agreement to defend South Korea, which we do not have with Ukraine. We also have tens of thousands of well- armed, U.S. forces, already at the border, with North Korea. Also, the North Korean nuclear threat is several orders of magnitude less than Russia's capabilities. Is any of that getting through, or are you still having trouble, discerning my point?

Again, I guess I need to somehow simplify, for you, what it means for an alliance to have a COORDINATED RESPONSE. Let us at least start with the concept that the U.S., nor no other member of NATO, is free to send its own troops into a war zone, without NATO approval, if not theoretically, at least for all practical purposes. Is this too much for you to understand?

 

Do you not think words mean things? You specifically stating you’re afraid of me having nukes because you think I’d use them on you means something. So either learn how words work or cut the crap.

lol your “simpler version” is an even longer wall of worthless text that completely ignores everything I just said and simply restates what you said with caps involved.


I will repeat for your benefit since you really need it:

1) nuclear proliferation will happen across the globe
2) sanctions and weapons transfers have been and are half-assed.
3) the justification for half-assing sanctions and weapons transfers have been for fear of WWIII, fears based not on any facts just cowardice of those doing the claiming.

4) Fears based on cowardice about WWIII or nuclear war of any size do not go away simply because of a treaty here or troops over there. So sure, there are more things to consider in each particular circumstance like NKorea attacking S.Korea. That is absolutely zero guarantee of anything, particularly when N.koreas nuclear capabilities are going to get better.


How anyone in the world can actually argue that what’s going on right now is making the world a safer place is beyond me, but by all means keep trying. Tell me more about how great the UN and EU is right now. They’re gonna git tough any second right? Lol.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ramp-up-nuclear-weapons/ar-AAWATFi?li=BBnb7Kz

Common DEFinning, explain this to me. N.Korea ramps up its arsenal and gets sophisticated enough to threaten the US mainland with its ballistic missiles. It decides to take a page out of Putins playbook and attack S.Korea regardless of treaties and presence of US troops, all while threatening to nuke us if we support S.Korea. How we respond is completely beside the point: the fact they thought they could do this is exactly the problem. Just as Russia thought they could do what it’s doing is exactly the problem.

N.Korea is positioning itself to present exactly this scenario. And what’s your answer to preventing it? Nothing. We have treaties and men over there all is great.

Ridiculous.

Kim jong is apparently doing this for the fun of it eh? I’ll bet you thought the same thing as Putin was placing his troops on 3 sides of Ukraine. Anything else to offer, how about a “nah, Iran will never get the bomb, Biden’s gonna do great”?

You and yours can’t even figure out how defunding police = more crime. Does it suck being constantly wrong about crazy criminals big and small yet actually having the oblivious arrogance in talking like you know what makes them tick?

Ridiculous.

 

Putin misses having his Puppet in office, better be careful or Putin will help make him President again in 2024

 

Wow

 

Wishful thinking is great, but this is a worrying lack of either awareness or information - or perhaps both.

 

At this point Trump won't need Russian social media and disinformation campaigns. The seeds have been planted and the weeds are just waiting their turn.

 

That would be a good solution .. but we would never accept .. .. we send weapons to whom ever we want .. when we want .. how we want .. and no one gonna tell us different ..

 

Well smack darn doody .. don't think Putin thought he would be going up against the military arsenal of the West .. thought he could win the day using small stuff with minimal casualties and destruction .. he sure got dat wrong now didn't he.. and as you suggest .. gonna be tough to win this thing keeping things the same .. Time to escalate .. bring out some heavier stuff .. aye mate .. that will keep ya going for the show ..come on its time to go

 

How do you propose to accomplish this, to what extent and why does a nationalist feel this way?

 

He only needs to change his tactic. Instead of shooting at birds he needs to go after the elephants. It disappoints me that he from the beginning didn't figure on half the world coming to help Ukraine, only to help Russia go down.

 

ISTM using a nuclear device is a massive overkill (pun intended) to , in the greater context, merely take over territory. Such an old fashioned, personally pelvis objective seems relatively insignificant reason to use the ultimate weapon.
Unless Putin really is mentally ill, the constant threats to use nuclear are an empty threat designed to warn the West to back off. It is always used when Putin feels pressured. This time the wests offering weapons to defend Ukraine.

What worries me more has been the slow breakdown of global rule of law. The UN is increasingly weak and nations are not afraid to ignore it and its internationally agreed conventions.
Even the UK govt has tried to ignore international maritime law and UN human rights legislation it signed up to. Their notion of sovereignty includes behaviour that used to be the attitude of rogue states.
At least one international treaty has been broken by Russia...the one under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. That is what you get when you assume nations are trustworthy.

Given that Russia has behaved like a rogue state and is completely untrustworthy...outside the norms of a rules based world, the West MUST never be so negligent and naive again.

 

Oh I’m certain it’s standard procedure to complain about arming weapons to proxy states. The question is, who is this really targeting? The west obviously won’t stop. Sweden and Finland are planning on applying to NATO. Maybe the response isn’t towards the US but the countries getting ready to apply to NATO?

 

And the US is giving him that reason.