• 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!

Zelensky demands 1% of Nato tanks and planes

The requests have been relentless and excessive. If requests become relentless and incessant, then they, for all intents and purposes, amount to demands.

So if you see a commercial ad from a company more than twice, they are "demanding" you buy their product?

Very curious reaction.
 
.


Zelensky is not letting Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg off the hook. He was merciless today on fancy suit Jens Stoltenberg.

Should Nato deliver 1% of its tanks and planes to Zelensky?





"""""You have at least 20,000 tanks. Ukraine asks for 1 percent, 1 percent of all your tanks. Please give them to us or sell them to us. But we, so far, have not heard a clear response. This is the worst thing about war. We're not to have a clear answer from the West to requests for help....

You can give us 1 percent of all your planes, 1 percent of all your tanks, 1 percent. We cannot buy it. These supplies depend on NATO's political decisions. Multiple rocket launch systems, anti-warship systems, air defense systems, can we fight this war without it? So when we finally have it, it will give us and you 100% security. And we need only one. The only thing I ask of you after this one month of war, is to ask you on behalf of our military, after this one month war with Russia, in the war with Russia, please do not tell us that our army is not up to NATO's standards."""""


I demand request that you learn the difference between a demand and a request.
 
The limit as relentless pleas tend towards the infinite is a demand. If a man pleads at your bedroom window all night and day it is no more a plea, it is a demand.
Oh cut it out. This is bullshit you're just making up. You quoted one speech and now you want to call it relentless pleading.
Be friggin honest, address Zelenskyy's request on honest terms, and don't indulge in hyperbolic crap. You have a point to make about NATO and Zelenskyy's request, make it without reducing your discussion to a cartoon flame-fest in the first post.
 
I demand request that you learn the difference between a demand and a request.


A demand is a request that will not take no for an answer
 
give it

Then they're the ones who have to make the tough decision: whether to treat it like a declaration of war.

It's generally good to keep your opponent being the one who makes the tough decisions.
This is exactly how to create an ever creeping into war situation. We most certainly should not be doing any more lest we want to get sucked into this quagmire.
 
Last edited:
Oh cut it out. This is bullshit you're just making up. You quoted one speech and now you want to call it relentless pleading.
Be friggin honest, address Zelenskyy's request on honest terms, and don't indulge in hyperbolic crap. You have a point to make about NATO and Zelenskyy's request, make it without reducing your discussion to a cartoon flame-fest in the first post.


Now I feel like Beni in the movie Mummy. I wanna say more in my favour, but you will only be angry with me some more.
 
I reckon it would come across that way when civilians are getting bombed in apartment complexes.

They must really be feeling some Shock & Awe right about now.:oops::eek:
 
A demand is a request that will not take no for an answer
Now, I demand that you understand the difference between a request and a demand, since I believe I have the right to expect that we use common definitions in a debate.
 
1. Criticizing either Zelensky speaking a foreign tongue OR a translator is petty.

2. I feel for the guy. His country has been at war for a month and he likely views the rest of the world as having ALL the things he could use RIGHT NOW.

Hopefully there’s a lot on the way to them for support that perhaps hasn’t gotten there yet.
 
Now I feel like Beni in the movie Mummy. I wanna say more in my favour, but you will only be angry with me some more.
All I ask is honesty. Less deliberately inflammatory language, less dishonesty. Like I said, you have a point to make about Zelenskyy's request, that's why we're here, to discuss. But you just want to ignite what we used to call 'combat prose' in the Usenet days.
Back then everything was unmoderated and people who indulged in combat prose were dealt with internally but now you guys get away with it and feel justified. And by you guys I mean both sides of centre.
It's not rocket science. Be honest. What you labeled a demand was a request, doesn't matter how you twist it with laughable analogies.
 
All I ask is honesty. Less deliberately inflammatory language, less dishonesty. Like I said, you have a point to make about Zelenskyy's request, that's why we're here, to discuss. But you just want to ignite what we used to call 'combat prose' in the Usenet days.
Back then everything was unmoderated and people who indulged in combat prose were dealt with internally but now you guys get away with it and feel justified. And by you guys I mean both sides of centre.
It's not rocket science. Be honest. What you labeled a demand was a request, doesn't matter how you twist it with laughable analogies.
Looooove the Usenet reference :)
 
"The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews — just understand, don't kid yourself, no matter what y'all say, that's called World War III."

Joe Biden is exactly right on this. The stakes are too high to risk triggering WW III.

If Ukraine was a NATO member, then they would have full support of NATO - planes, tanks, personnel, all of it., but they are not.

U.S taxpayers will be giving Ukraine billions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid. Zelensky is wrong to demand ask for more, IMO.
 
A demand is a request that will not take no for an answer

That is a necessary, but it is not sufficient criteria to turn a request into a demand.

It also requires conveying that which requested is an entitlement.
 
Does this...
"Ukraine asks for 1 percent, 1 percent of all your tanks. Please give them to us or sell them to us."
...sound like a demand to you?
Damn. I despise this kind of abuse of the English language and this kind of inflammatory dishonesty.
I was okay with it until I saw "We cannot buy it."
Cash and carry only!
When all the news stories imply Russia being defeated by the Ukrainians, why the need of involving NATO and possibly expanding the war?
 
"The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews — just understand, don't kid yourself, no matter what y'all say, that's called World War III."

Joe Biden is exactly right on this. The stakes are too high to risk triggering WW III.

If Ukraine was a NATO member, then they would have full support of NATO - planes, tanks, personnel, all of it., but they are not.

U.S taxpayers have given Ukraine billions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid. Zelensky is wrong to demand ask for more, IMO.

And just how did you or Biden determine that Joe Biden was "exactly right" on this? Most importantly, how is Biden's mangled and imprecise phrasing even relevant to his foot dragging on better weapons?

You see, old Joe is using an obvious strawman...offering a false rationalization, a transparent dodge. None of the numerous expert critics of Biden's response (or lack thereof) has supported sending in "planes and tanks and trains with American crews" to confront Russian forces. ZERO. So that "argument" is immaterial.

Now what expert critics have said is that the administrations excuses for not providing the necessary heavy material has been entirely subjective, and intended to mislead people. For quite sometime the excuse for not sending in anything more than simple personal carried weapons was that "they had to be simple" and "comfortable" for the Ukrainians to use. Which was the excuse for not providing more complex NATO systems such as western SAMS, etc. It made sense, at first.

However, then when identical models of planes used by Ukraine were considered for shipment, suddenly a new excuse was found...that the Russians would attack NATO itself. And because why? Well just because we were told. BUT after the administration is took heat, it partially relented and looked for some used Russian SAMs.

And if the excuse wat that the larger NATO weapons were unfamiliar to Ukraine's military that could have been solved over the last month by training Ukrainians in eastern Europe. As of yet, there is zero indication they have bothered to do that. Why? Because Biden does not wish to provide more effective weapons.

As the Biden administration has completely failed to produce an objective standard for what arms it will provide, Americans and critics are mystified/

The only pattern we see is that everything is permitted except: weapons of western manufacture (save for personal anti-tank weapons), weapons of Russian manufacture that are "offensive" (tanks, ballistic missiles, planes, and anything larger than a Morter or hand grenade) and anything deemed capable of hitting the Russians at ranges greater than a few thousand yards. In short, if a man cannot carry it by himself then too bad...Ukraine dies.

THAT has NOTHING to do with WWIII. So obviously some purpose is afoot...the fear of winning methinks.
 
Last edited:
I was okay with it until I saw "We cannot buy it."
Cash and carry only!
When all the news stories imply Russia being defeated by the Ukrainians, why the need of involving NATO and possibly expanding the war?
He's trying to save as many of his people as he can. This war is happening in residential streets, neighbourhoods. He's not asking himself what's good for NATO, he's asking for help for his people.
 
He's trying to save as many of his people as he can. This war is happening in residential streets, neighbourhoods. He's not asking himself what's good for NATO, he's asking for help for his people.
And how might Russia respond if NATO members became more involved? Maybe he should instead be seeking help from non-NATO members, like Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. NATO should become more involved IF Russia encroaches on a NATO member.
 
And how might Russia respond if NATO members became more involved? Maybe he should instead be seeking help from non-NATO members, like Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. NATO should become more involved IF Russia encroaches on a NATO member.
Well, I got no problem with individual NATO countries deciding to be involved at some level. Poland supplying weapons, for example or the Baltic countries. I might not like to see personnel from NATO countries engaging Russian troops though.
A NATO country has already been in Ukraine- Canada has had 200 troops training Ukraine military since 2015, when Putin took Crimea, and those were increased to 260 early this year. There's Swedes involved too but Sweden is neutral. Last I heard they had been withdrwn to Poland.
I hope they stay there. When those special forces JTF2 were training Kurds they were known to accompany them into battle engaging with ISIS which should not happen here.
 
Well, I got no problem with individual NATO countries deciding to be involved at some level. Poland supplying weapons, for example or the Baltic countries. I might not like to see personnel from NATO countries engaging Russian troops though.
A NATO country has already been in Ukraine- Canada has had 200 troops training Ukraine military since 2015, when Putin took Crimea, and those were increased to 260 early this year. There's Swedes involved too but Sweden is neutral. Last I heard they had been withdrwn to Poland.
I hope they stay there. When those special forces JTF2 were training Kurds they were known to accompany them into battle engaging with ISIS which should not happen here.



Raises some Article 5 issues. Say a Nato country gets involved on an individual level, is that nation still covered by Article 5?
 
And just how did you or Biden determine that Joe Biden was "exactly right" on this?
Joe Biden (and I) understand Putin's motivation for the invasion of Ukraine.

Putin's darkest fear: Ukraine joins NATO and NATO [the U.S.] quickly establishes "defense shield" missile installations along the Ukraine/Russian border.

Note that Putin does not consider Ukraine an independent sovereign country - he still believes that Ukraine is part of Russia. He said this last month:

“Since time immemorial, the people living in the southwest of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians and Orthodox Christians. Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia. This process started practically right after the 1917 revolution, and Lenin and his associates did it in a way that was extremely harsh on Russia — by separating, severing what is historically Russian land.” - V. Putin, Feb. 21

If NATO [the U.S.] gave aircraft or tanks to Ukraine (offensive military weapons), that would give Putin the reason to go to war with the U.S..

Obviously, China would side with Putin - - it would be WW III.

Most importantly, how is Biden's mangled and imprecise phrasing even relevant to his foot dragging on better weapons?
Biden's "mangled and imprecise phrasing" has nothing to do with policy. His rationale for keeping a safe distance from the war in Ukraine is solid, and other NATO members have agreed with Biden's calculus.

We must give Ukraine moral and humanitarian support - - NOT tanks and planes. If another non-NATO country wishes to give planes and tanks to Ukraine, then they can. NATO cannot because Ukraine is not a NATO member.
 
Raises some Article 5 issues. Say a Nato country gets involved on an individual level, is that nation still covered by Article 5?
I don't know but I would guess it would depend on the nature of the involvement. If Poland supplied a hundred Stinger missiles, for example, and Russia bombed Poland in retaliation I would guess that that could trigger Article 5 but if Poland also supplied the soldiers to use those missiles in combat and Russia bombed Poland in retaliation that shouldn't involve NATO.
When the US was attacked on 9/11 NATO got involved but not when the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina because Article 5 specifies that the attack has to happen in Europe or North America.
 
I don't know but I would guess it would depend on the nature of the involvement. If Poland supplied a hundred Stinger missiles, for example, and Russia bombed Poland in retaliation I would guess that that could trigger Article 5 but if Poland also supplied the soldiers to use those missiles in combat and Russia bombed Poland in retaliation that shouldn't involve NATO.
When the US was attacked on 9/11 NATO got involved but not when the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina because Article 5 specifies that the attack has to happen in Europe or North America.



What you list are examples of what I had in mind. Nato nations acting alone do have the potential of triggering Article 5. What if Russia doesn't bomb in retaliation? For example, Estonia is supplying arms to Ukraine. Meaning while an Estonian canon didn't fire directly across its border on Russia, same canon can do that from Ukraine. Estonia also has a not insignificant Russian population. What if Russia does not bomb Estonia, just supplies arms to groups in Estonia?
 
Joe Biden (and I) understand Putin's motivation for the invasion of Ukraine.
Putin's darkest fear: Ukraine joins NATO and NATO [the U.S.] quickly establishes "defense shield" missile installations along the Ukraine/Russian border.
Note that Putin does not consider Ukraine an independent sovereign country - he still believes that Ukraine is part of Russia. He said this last month:

If NATO [the U.S.] gave aircraft or tanks to Ukraine (offensive military weapons), that would give Putin the reason to go to war with the U.S..
Obviously, China would side with Putin - - it would be WW III.

You may think you know Putin's motivation is, and what he thinks Ukraine is on some existential basis, but you have not explained how you know that if the NATO provided more effective (offensive) military aide that it would trigger him to launch an attack on NATO.

So far you have failed to show any evidence for your, or Joe's, assertions by pure conjecture. Just because you are afraid isn't evidence for anything. Your opinion is based on a kind of argument that could have been made earlier using the equally unsupported fear that Javelins and Stingers and troop training might trigger WWIII.

You're alarmed by a hobgoblin of your own fear driven imagination.

Biden's "mangled and imprecise phrasing" has nothing to do with policy. His rationale for keeping a safe distance from the war in Ukraine is solid, and other NATO members have agreed with Biden's calculus.

We must give Ukraine moral and humanitarian support - - NOT tanks and planes. If another non-NATO country wishes to give planes and tanks to Ukraine, then they can. NATO cannot because Ukraine is not a NATO member.

No, not all have agreed. Poland, for example, has proposed a peace-keeping force. It also wanted NATO to provide aircraft to Ukraine. However, in the interests of unity (and fear of personal risk if a country goes it alone) they must agree to the lowest common denominator...i.e. Biden's speak loudly but carry a small military stick.
 
What you list are examples of what I had in mind. Nato nations acting alone do have the potential of triggering Article 5. What if Russia doesn't bomb in retaliation? For example, Estonia is supplying arms to Ukraine. Meaning while an Estonian canon didn't fire directly across its border on Russia, same canon can do that from Ukraine. Estonia also has a not insignificant Russian population. What if Russia does not bomb Estonia, just supplies arms to groups in Estonia?
Based on the only invocation of Article 5 so far I would guess that Russia supplying arms to an insurrection group in Estonia would be an Article 5 issue. Afghanistan did not attack the US on 9/11 but the fact that they sheltered the people who did was enough.
 
Well, I got no problem with individual NATO countries deciding to be involved at some level. Poland supplying weapons, for example or the Baltic countries. I might not like to see personnel from NATO countries engaging Russian troops though.
A NATO country has already been in Ukraine- Canada has had 200 troops training Ukraine military since 2015, when Putin took Crimea, and those were increased to 260 early this year. There's Swedes involved too but Sweden is neutral. Last I heard they had been withdrwn to Poland.
I hope they stay there. When those special forces JTF2 were training Kurds they were known to accompany them into battle engaging with ISIS which should not happen here.
I have no problem with the help NATO countries have/are giving him, but his talk was addressing NATO leaders. asking them to give him 1% of their tanks and planes.
 
Back
Top Bottom