With this the Ukrainian battlefield is becoming increasingly more and more dangerous for even the most advanced Russian armored vehicles
So now the goalpost has shifted. First, it was "Who did NATO ever attack??" And then when that list came out, it was, "OK, yeah, those countries, but who did NATO absorb??" What's the point of this question? It's OK to attack someone but not OK to absorb them? That's where your moral line lies? How about returning every land that the US absorbed in becoming a country?Refresh my memory. Which of those countries did NATO absorb into itself?
So how did NATO come to be involved? Did they attack NATO first or did NATO decide that something going on in another country was terrible and that NATO's principles apply to that sovereign nation too, for some reason? Cus the Russians say they're fighting because they can't tolerate Nazism taking over Ukraine and that's at least as good as anything NATO/the US has ever come up with.You might also want to look into HOW NATO came to be involved in those actions. I know, details, details, and they might not tell the tale you prefer so. .
Actually because of what is happening in Ukraine and not (that much) as a pretext.If that is the case they were probably looking a pretext to join NATO, rather than just looking at the crisis as a result of predominant US-Russian geopolitical rivalry and a desire of the US to have Ukraine join NATO... Leaders of such countries should be much better informed and wiser than the sentiments of their populations on such vitally important issues... Look, a much increased percentage of the US population than before feel that the United States should intervene directly in the war... It is possible that the majority of the population might believe that it should intervene directly in the war...
Should President Biden listen to that sentiment if it were put up to a vote and the majority of them felt that way and then World War 3 and nuclear holocausts resulted just for the sake of non-NATO Ukraine when the American elites know full well that Russia would likely act as it did if it had a hostile government in a strategically and historically extremely important country to it that seeks to join a block that is hostile to Russia? HELL NO!!!
Perhaps Russians should depose Putin, put the CIA lackey Navalny in charge and join NATO .Russias security interests would be taken care ofBecause NATO has so far managed to prevent a war between Greece and Turkey. Why shouldn't that also work with Armenia?
There was, though not openly in Finland for obviously reasons with their Soviet overlords watching them closely.Why didn't either of those countries join NATO during the Cold War when the Russians were driving tanks over Hungarians, Poles and other various types of eastern Euros? Weren't the public outraged back then?
Informed or uninformed public opinion doesn't matter when you have nuclear bombs detonated on top of your house. And after that you also have radiation.And informed public opinion still matters in representative democracies opposed to the U.S. which isn't exactly the epitome of such
I keep hearing the word "shelling" applied to everything Russia's doing, so I decided to write a Journalist's Guide To Russian Shelling:
500kg ODAB fuel-air bomb: shelling.
Iskander SRBM: shelling.
Kalibr cruise missile: shelling.
Kinzhal aeroballistic missile: shelling.
152mm artillery shell: bombing.
Feel free to add to the guide.
I actually think it will be the other way round.They'll be watching this conflict's outcome i guess.
If Russia lost or they think to be severely weakened already. they will join.