President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that it was Russia’s business whether or not it decided to use North Korean troops and said that if Ukraine wanted to join NATO then Moscow could do what it wanted to ensure its own security.
The United States said on Wednesday that it had seen evidence that North Korea has sent 3,000 troops to Russia for possible deployment in Ukraine, a move that the West is casting as a significant escalation of the Ukraine war.
Ukraine’s military intelligence service said that the first North Korean units trained in Russia had been deployed in the Kursk region, a Russian border area where Ukrainian forces took a chunk of Russian land in August.
By that logic, it sounds like it’s Ukraine’s affair whether or not it allows NATO armored brigades and CAP to operate in the Ukrainian theater, in concert with AFU forces.
To be fair, that is probably up to Ukraine. Except that we aren’t offering those NATO brigades. I wish we would.
Can you imagine being a Putin supporter and simping for such a dumb and cowardly piece of shit?
if Ukraine wanted to join NATO then Moscow could do what it wanted to ensure its own security
NATO should really just allow Ukraine to join and tell Russia: get out within 1 week and restore the original borders or you’re at war with NATO. It’s Ukraine’ and NATO’s affair after all, correct?
That’s probably why NATO doesn’t invite countries at war. What’s stopping Ukraine from invoking article 5 immediately?
Well, that’d be the point of Ukraine joining NATO currently.
NATO maintains that it is a defensive alliance. If NATO starts adding countries Russia is currently at war with, it becomes an offensive alliance.
That being said, why wasn’t Ukraine added earlier?
NATO maintains that it is a defensive alliance. If NATO starts adding countries Russia is currently at war with, it becomes an offensive alliance.
I don’t think so. Ukraine is in a defensive war. Actively joining their side doesn’t turn it into an offensive one. The difference between offensive and defensive conflicts is the goal: In an offensive, you want to gain something. In a defence, it is about keeping what you have. Just because NATO would come to their aid, Ukraine wouldn’t want to conquer Russia.
That being said, why wasn’t Ukraine added earlier?
Multiple reasons probably:
- Ukraine was and to some extent still is a post-soviet state: Oligarchs, corruption and all that comes with it.
- There was the Budapest Memorandum in place which guaranteed a sovereign Ukrainian state affectively as buffer between Russia and other NATO countries. Which was subsequently broken by Russia in 2014.
- “Don’t anger the Russians”. See where this got us?
Man, to drop decorum, I don’t give a shit about the Russians and angering them. I’m just trying not to give Russia a pretext to do something really fucking stupid. Yes, they can perform false flag operations for their own pretext.
Joining an active war without a prior alliance is an escalation. To keep NATO defensive and not to bring them into an active war, there should be a different agreement signed.
Hell, NK joining the war is an escalation by both NK and Russia. Does this justify NATO adding Ukraine just for them to immediately invoke article 5? I don’t think so.
Regardless of ethics and politicking though, someone HAS to be done to show Russia that it can’t just arbitrarily annex parts of other countries.
Hell, NK joining the war is an escalation by both NK and Russia. Does this justify NATO adding Ukraine just for them to immediately invoke article 5? I don’t think so.
Here’s the thing, if Ukraine just invaded Kursk, unprompted, and Russia used North Korean troops to push them back into Ukraine, it would be problematic because of the sanctions against North Korea, but it would not be an escalation, it would merely be Russia’s allies helping it to defend itself.
The reality though, because Russia is in Ukraine, is that those troops, even if they’re only deployed to Kursk, are done so to free up more Russian troops to invade Ukraine. Which makes it a massive escalation of the invasion of Ukraine no matter what.
NATO troops (or planes if we were to impose a no fly zone), would, however, still be purely defensive. Hell, ask Ukraine to give up Kursk for direct Nato support and they would in a second.
Russia can stop being at war at any second, if it chooses to
Right, but if chooses too Ukraine will likely join NATO and Russia ends up with another NATO country against its land border.
The only reason they would withdraw is if they don’t have enough troops - which they are supplementing with North Korean troops. It’s against Russia’s geopolitical interest.
That and Putin is a crazy guy doing crazy things. Putin may not stop even if it IS in his best interests to do so
if it annexes Ukraine it it has multiple new NATO countries at its land border.
The idea of this strategic depth is, ultimately, an excuse. Poland didn’t join NATO because it wanted to be a war torn wreck protecting Germany from suffering if Russia tries to invade.
The NATO countries bordering Russia aren’t disposable. Bordering super powers is actually fine, if you’re not a psycopath
Bordering super powers is actually fine, if you’re not a psycopath
It’s also fine if that superpower isn’t a psychopath.
You know what? That’s actually a really good take
Ukraine’s purpose is just to hold off dying long enough to keep oil prices high and weapon sales up. Any threat of winning gets the US nuked.
You can sanction North Korea more if this upsets you. Or use US empire’s deep friendship with DPRK to get them to withdraw.
How about you stop typing and go step on a landmine in Kursk if you wanna be Putin’s patriotic little bitch boy so badly?
lol. Dipshit
Any threat of winning gets the US nuked.
I’m pretty sure war is not a one-sided situation, Vlad.
Look what you make me do to you
IMO this is going to backfire. Russia and Putin will look weak. North Korean troops will get a glimpse of the outside and the high tech weaponry of the west. The ones that survive will take that knowledge back with them
Ah yes, destroy the people around you in the name of security, using humans you don’t even care about.
Reuters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Reuters:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
