• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should NATO Go Into Ukraine?

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
34,575
Reaction score
41,511
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
At first, I was a no but I have changed my mind. I think NATO should go in, drive Russia back and get out. Russia is a serious world threat and Ukraine is unfairly bearing the brunt for all of Europe. It doesn't seem right to me to let this happen to the brave Ukrainian people but is their an appetite to defend them?
 
Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. There is absolutely zero justification for NATO sending forces into Ukraine.

If there was genocide, then it would be a different story. At this juncture, it does not appear as though Russia is committing genocide and slaughtering large numbers of civilians.
 
Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. There is absolutely zero justification for NATO sending forces into Ukraine.

If there was genocide, then it would be a different story. At this juncture, it does not appear as though Russia is committing genocide and slaughtering large numbers of civilians.
I know that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. That doesn't mean that the invasion of Ukraine is not a threat to Europe and NATO. I don't want us to go in but if we did and got right out I would not be nearly as ticked as I would have been two weeks ago.
 
Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. There is absolutely zero justification for NATO sending forces into Ukraine.

If there was genocide, then it would be a different story. At this juncture, it does not appear as though Russia is committing genocide and slaughtering large numbers of civilians.

What is your (personal?) definition of the number (percentage?) of civilian casualties which would constitute ‘genocide’?
 
I know that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. That doesn't mean that the invasion of Ukraine is not a threat to Europe and NATO. I don't want us to go in but if we did and got right out I would not be nearly as ticked as I would have been two weeks ago.
NATO getting involved by actually joining in the fight is likely a good way to have nukes launched. Putin has as much as said so.
 
I think this will be one of those threads where people accidentally admit that they're for Russia.
I think this is one of those threads where people will purposefully try to derail a conversation because they don't have anything of actual value to add.
 
I did not see any numbers mentioned. Are you asserting that Russian military forces are not currently killing folks simply for being ’in the group of’ Ukrainian civilians?
There is a difference between war and genocide.

Russia is currently committing an act of war, which is awful. But they are not committing genocide.

The two are different.

 
There is a difference between war and genocide.

Russia is currently committing an act of war, which is awful. But they are not committing genocide.

The two are different.


OK, then back to my initial question - how many dead (or fleeing) Ukrainian civilians would it take to cross your line between an unprovoked military invasion and a genocide?
 
I did not see any numbers mentioned. Are you asserting that Russian military forces are not currently killing folks simply for being ’in the group of’ Ukrainian civilians?



How is war fought? What was the tally from Iraq and Afghanistan? Were all those tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead because the US simply killed them for being "in the goup of" Iraqi civilians?
 
At first, I was a no but I have changed my mind. I think NATO should go in, drive Russia back and get out. Russia is a serious world threat and Ukraine is unfairly bearing the brunt for all of Europe. It doesn't seem right to me to let this happen to the brave Ukrainian people but is their an appetite to defend them?



Terrific idea!
 
OK, then back to my initial question - how many dead (or fleeing) Ukrainian civilians would it take to cross your line between an unprovoked military invasion and a genocide?


If it crosses the butcher's bill from Iraq
 
I think this will be one of those threads where people accidentally admit that they're for Russia.



God forbid the Russian side of the argument is voiced.
 
Getting involved with NATO forces is committing Europe and most likely the world to war. There may come a time for that to happen but I believe it is a last resort. Let's all pray it doesn't come to that.
 
That 40 mile long caravan, does Ukraine not have an air force? missiles? A few missiles would all it would take to take out that caravan.

**** Russia, it may get to a point others get involved
 
case in point.


Of course. Why should anyone but your august self voice an opinion. An inability to stand contrary opinion is intellectual cowardice. Each argument stands or falls on its own merit. If your argument against Russia is strong- and I am not saying it is not- then it has to be from its merits, not from pretending away the contrary arguments.
 
Of course. Why should anyone but your august self voice an opinion. An inability to stand contrary opinion is intellectual cowardice. Each argument stands or falls on its own merit. If your argument against Russia is strong- and I am not saying it is not- then it has to be from its merits, not from pretending away the contrary arguments.
don't worry, you won't be the only person in this thread who accidently shows their support for Putin as he slaughters civilians.
 
OK, then back to my initial question - how many dead (or fleeing) Ukrainian civilians would it take to cross your line between an unprovoked military invasion and a genocide?
The difference is the intention, not the number of dead bodies.

And, at this juncture, involving NATO forces could very well lead to nuclear weapons being launched.

I think the *only* option that NATO/the US/the EU has is to provide support but NOT become directly involved.

It is awful. But, I do not see how any country can become physically involved (ie. send troops/become directly involved) without escalating the situation with the way it stands now.
 
At first, I was a no but I have changed my mind. I think NATO should go in, drive Russia back and get out. Russia is a serious world threat and Ukraine is unfairly bearing the brunt for all of Europe. It doesn't seem right to me to let this happen to the brave Ukrainian people but is their an appetite to defend them?
No.

And there is a difference between the thread question and your last sentence.
 
Russia was never given a permanent seat on the UN security council, The USSR was, and Ukraine was as much a part of the USSR are Russia.
Perhaps the UN should intervene, and Russia should loose their permanent seat.
 
At first, I was a no but I have changed my mind. I think NATO should go in, drive Russia back and get out. Russia is a serious world threat and Ukraine is unfairly bearing the brunt for all of Europe. It doesn't seem right to me to let this happen to the brave Ukrainian people but is their an appetite to defend them?

I personally think that with Putin's invasion forces still bogged down by stiff Ukrainian resistence, the Russian military will do what it does best ... kill civilians in massive numbers. The Russians will not distinguish between military and civilian targets. Their artillery and multiple-launch rocket systems are well within range of Kyiv. In a not unexpected development, Belarussian armor columns have also crossed the border in the north. The Russian military will place Kyiv (and other resisting Ukrainian cities) under siege, shelling and bombing them unless/until the Zelenskyy government capitulates. Look for the Russians to destroy power stations, water plants, and especially hospitals and clinics to deny the wounded medical care. Civilian deaths and casualties are about to climb exponentially.

Putin cannot allow himself and the Russian military to appear impotent. I look for Russian bombers, fighter jets, and helicopters to drop/shoot ordanance on cities in massive quantities now. Especially bunker-buster bombs and the horrific fuel-air explosives. I think the carnage may become so terrible that the world begins to demand that the UN and NATO inpose a "no fly zone" over Ukraine. This is where NATO and Russia could militarily collide. How long does the free world sit and watch as genocide is being perpetrated on a modern European nation that did nothing wrong?

Where is the line between conventional war and war-crime annihilation? I fear very dark days lie ahead.
 
At first, I was a no but I have changed my mind. I think NATO should go in, drive Russia back and get out. Russia is a serious world threat and Ukraine is unfairly bearing the brunt for all of Europe. It doesn't seem right to me to let this happen to the brave Ukrainian people but is their an appetite to defend them?
I agree, if NATO and the US had stood up to Russia ..most likely an invasion wouldn't have happened.

So what we do instead is aggravate Russia with sissy ass sanctions, its embarrassing.
 
Back
Top Bottom