Strange you’d ignore “Security Council”
2 Likes
is the big gotcha that russia (a guarantor of the memorandum) vetoed the resolution at the UN? wow, technically correct. probably should rollback javelins etc.
1 Like
No, that the “immediate action” promised was that of the security council, as the sentence said, so I found the first image I could find of immediate security council action
lol, no it’s not.
Having Russia agree to bring any nuclear threat against Ukraine to the UN Security Council, when Russia is obviously the most likely perpetrator of such a threat and can veto things brought to the Security Council, seems like a bit of a strategic error.
Seriously, can we just skip the SK is totally willing to let a genocide happen so long as it doesn’t bother him discussion?
8 Likes
I saw like 40 new posts in here in a couple hours and thought something must have happened.
1 Like
the action isn’t the assistance in that sentence. the assistance isn’t done by the sec council, its provided by the countries themselves. if anything, US is abiding by the spirit of the agreement, even if technically the sec council didn’t provide a mandate to, due to violations and vetoes by one of the guarantors, who is also the aggressor.
but also, there’s probably greater verbiage describing each of the six points.
To be fair, I think his position is more a willingness to let it happen to prevent a significant increase in the probability of nuclear war, which would bother him.
Is genocide preferable to a 25% chance of nuclear war?
- Yes
- No
- I don’t know
0 voters
It might work out different on the battlefield but it sounds good for Twitter.
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409060176949248?t=V8UrKfzduf-bCw4GzREGng&s=19
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409073128955907?t=GsaWlA0SpLnOeawrhTmzzA&s=19
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409085896466433?t=5sNAPghlTAptm5NRJQTEpw&s=19
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409091374227456?t=kcX_ivHDvjNMgWyUd73Dpw&s=19
1 Like
Kind of my point. He can imagine nuclear war happening to him.
keed dont give a shit about nukes, the keeds the tulsis the greenwaldolols and the tuckers of late hate us mil industry complex and for once it’s winning and on the side of good and they can’t handle it, there is nothing more to it, you don’t need to read or reply to another post of his on this topic
5 Likes
Is avoiding general thermonuclear war a desirable foreign policy goal? Opinions vary!
2 Likes
A lot is actually happening. Ukraine is making spectacular advances. There seems to be an inverse correlation to how well Ukraine is doing and how much posting is done about how actually Ukraine should be surrendering to Russia.
1 Like
This is an interesting theoretical pole I guess, but you’ve got the chance of “nuclear war” way too high.
The obvious answer is to create an incentive for countries to acquire nuclear weapons because, once you have the nukes, you can do anything you want so we don’t have thermonuclear war!
A lie! I was saying I don’t think the US should be supporting Ukraine. They can fight, surrender, not surrender, its up to them.
Of course this is all irrelevant – the US is supporting Ukraine massively and there’s no indication that is stopping.
Not looking to accurately gauge the true probability of nuclear war. I’m more interested in knowing what percentage makes people indifferent when given a choice of genocide or risking nuclear war.
Is it okay for the US to sell arms to both sides at a fair market price so long as it doesn’t pick a side?