Zelensky calls on NATO to launch a preemptive strike to prevent Russia from using nuclear weapons

[Uncensored2008]

How long the Holy Bible,modern Israeli authors, Church fathers, Herodotus, Tacitus and Beta Israel are equal to Nazis?
Here are the True Jews, not impostors from Khazaria
Only Beta Israel is blessed by God and is Abraham's desecndant.
Any Ethiopian Jew will tell you it

Born again Christians ( not Christian Zionists ) are True Jews too

So you're a Nazi as well as Putin's bitch - no surprise there.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not only nuclear...
There are a lot of viruses, came from Ukrainian border this decade... Include COVID...

Moron. Covid-19 was created at a lab in Wuhan China, with generous funding by Anthony Fauci and the U.S. NIH.

 

[para bellum]

I know Zelensky got a "talking to", but I think he has every right to say what he said. Russia has been threatening to nuke his country for months. It is peak irony that Russia is acting all butthurt over Zelensky's comment.

NATO has plenty of options that are not nuclear, btw. Enforce a no-fly zone, target Russian installations in Ukraine and Crimea, secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with Russia, etc.

 

[José]

Originally posted by para bellum
NATO has plenty of options that are not nuclear, btw. Enforce a no-fly zone, target Russian installations in Ukraine and Crimea, secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with Russia, etc.

An extremely severe, life-threatening case of diarrhea will surely prevent NATO from choosing the first two options.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know Zelensky got a "talking to", but I think he has every right to say what he said. Russia has been threatening to nuke his country for months. It is peak irony that Russia is acting all butthurt over Zelensky's comment.

NATO has plenty of options that are not nuclear, btw. Enforce a no-fly zone, target Russian installations in Ukraine and Crimea, secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with Russia, etc.

NATO is a defensive organization.

If they take offensive action on behalf of a non-NATO country, they violate their charter AND the treaty with the United States.

 

[para bellum]

NATO is a defensive organization.

If they take offensive action on behalf of a non-NATO country, they violate their charter AND the treaty with the United States.

It is not an offensive action if NATO thinks Europe is under threat. NATO intervened in Bosnia and Serbia which were both non-NATO countries.

If Putin uses a nuke, NATO will absolutely act- and act in a very forceful way. There would be no alternative. Inaction would terminate the entirety of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and a nuclear arms race like nothing you have ever contemplated would be the result. China doesn't want that, India doesn't want that, the US and Europe sure as hell don't want that...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is not an offensive action if NATO thinks Europe is under threat. NATO intervened in Bosnia and Serbia which were both non-NATO countries.

If Putin uses a nuke, NATO will absolutely act- and act in a very forceful way. There would be no alternative. Inaction would terminate the entirety of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and a nuclear arms race like nothing you have ever contemplated would be the result. China doesn't want that, India doesn't want that, the US and Europe sure as hell don't want that...

That's false. There must be action against a NATO member. So far there has not been.

 

[para bellum]

That's false. There must be action against a NATO member. So far there has not been.

It's false that NATO intervened in Bosnia and Serbia?

If NATO says it's under attack, NATO says it's under attack. If NATO says nuking Ukraine is an attack on all of Europe, it's an attack on all of Europe as far as NATO is concerned. File your grievance with Brussels...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's false that NATO intervened in Bosnia and Serbia?

Nope, Bill Clinton cooked up a pretense to help his Al Qaeda buddies overthrow Kosovo.

If NATO says it's under attack, NATO says it's under attack. If NATO says nuking Ukraine is an attack on all of Europe, it's an attack on all of Europe as far as NATO is concerned. File your grievance with Brussels...

Without the USA, there is no NATO. Belgium couldn't defeat Mexico in a war.

 

[José]

Originally posted by para bellum
It's false that NATO intervened in Bosnia and Serbia?

If NATO says it's under attack, NATO says it's under attack. If NATO says nuking Ukraine is an attack on all of Europe, it's an attack on all of Europe as far as NATO is concerned. File your grievance with Brussels...

He's absolutely right, dingo.

You're just parroting NATO bullshit when you say:

NATO is a defensive organization.

This is a joke.

Organizations don't have free will or self-determination.

They do whatever the hell their members want them to do... despite the labels created for public consumption.

 

[José]

Originally posted by José
They do whatever the hell their members want them to do... despite the labels created for public consumption.

And that's one of the reasons Russia had to break stuff in Ukraine.

 

[José]

But there's no need to worry.

Russia could bomb the shit out of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and NATO wouldn't do jackshit.

There's a reason article 5 of the North-Atlantic Treaty doesn't say anything about NATO going to war if one of its members is attacked and it was not a case of absent-mindedness.

Neither America nor western Europe are crazy enough to risk WWIII to save the 3 baltic dwarves.

So there's zero chance they'll do it in Ukraine.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Nope, Bill Clinton cooked up a pretense to help his Al Qaeda buddies overthrow Kosovo.



Without the USA, there is no NATO. Belgium couldn't defeat Mexico in a war.

If there had never been a NATO, the Europeans would almost certainly have organized another defensive military organization, and would almost certainly have built a sufficient nuclear arsenal to deter a Russia nuclear attack, and a united Europe would almost certainly have been able to defeat Russia's crap army in a conventional war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

But there's no need to worry.

Russia could bomb the shit out of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and NATO wouldn't do jackshit.

There's a reason article 5 of the North-Atlantic Treaty doesn't say anything about NATO going to war if one of its members is attacked and it was not a case of absent-mindedness.

Neither America nor western Europe are crazy enough to risk WWIII to save the 3 baltic dwarves.

So there's zero chance they'll do it in Ukraine.

Obviously, you haven't read article 5 or if you have you obviously didn't understand it.

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

each of them, in exercise of the RIGHT..

will ASSIST...

such action as it DEEMS NECESSARY, including the use of armed force...

Absolutely nothing about the compulsory use of force by the members.

A case of absent-mindedness?

No, just the cold calculation based of realpolitik that the military strength of the attacker will be taken into consideration before the organization or any of its members resort to armed force.

A tacit confession that neither America nor Europe would attack Russia to protect any european statelet.

 

[José]

Maybe Poland and certainly Germany, France and Britain would be an entirely different case.

If any of the major european countries were attacked by Russia you would see the "including the use of armed force" finally being put into action.

 

[toomuchtime_]

each of them, in exercise of the RIGHT..

will ASSIST...

such action as it DEEMS NECESSARY, including the use of armed force...

Absolutely nothing about the compulsory use of force by the members.

A case of absent-mindedness?

No, just the cold calculation based of realpolitik that the military strength of the attacker will be taken into consideration before the organization or any of its members resort to armed force.

A tacit confession that neither America nor Europe would attack Russia to protect any European statelet.

The message is an attack on any member will be treated by all members as an attack on themselves. That's what they signed up for when they joined NATO and that's why Putin has been so careful not to go near any NATO member.

 

[José]

I still can't find any statement regarding the compulsory use of force in case of a NATO member is attacked.

NATO officials vomiting bragadoccios about defending Latvia, Estonia, Podunkstan, etc.... against russian aggression are a dime a dozen but they didn't even have the courage to explicitly state it in their founding document.

If you don't believe this poor devil who's debating with you, read what George Kennan, America’s greatest expert on Russia, said about Nato expansion:

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.

“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.

 

[Toro]

 

[alexa]

I know Zelensky got a "talking to", but I think he has every right to say what he said. Russia has been threatening to nuke his country for months. It is peak irony that Russia is acting all butthurt over Zelensky's comment.

NATO has plenty of options that are not nuclear, btw. Enforce a no-fly zone, target Russian installations in Ukraine and Crimea, secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with Russia, etc.

Russia is not some 3 year old having a tantrum who you have to sort out by hitting him harder, assuming that is how you treat children as what you are saying here is not the words of an adult. Russia has never said it is Ukraine it is going to nuke. It has said it will nuke the UK but I read they would prefer not to use nukes in Ukraine and frankly once you bring nukes in or push someone one else so that they might you have lost your marbles and are threatening the whole world.