Personally if nato stayed out of Ukraine thise war wouldn't have happened..Russia sees Nato expansion to Ukraine as a security threat is that so hard to understand..
Mr. President, if not NATO for Ukraine, then what? What other guarantees are there for her? There was already the Budapest Memorandum, which Russia did not care about. If there are no real guarantees, Putin will enter Khreshchatyk tomorrow.
@@vlbogorad Yes, I read it, it says that "(Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom) pledge not to use military force or threaten to use military force against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, except in self-defense" By trying to join NATO, Ukraine created a threat to Russia, - period
Conceding Ukrainian territory to Russia could set a dangerous precedent, similar to the concessions made to Nazi Germany during the Munich Agreement in 1938. History shows that appeasement emboldened aggressors rather than pacifying them, ultimately leading to greater conflict. Such a move would undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine, weaken international law, and signal to authoritarian regimes worldwide that territorial aggression can succeed. This not only risks further destabilizing Europe but also erodes the principle of territorial integrity critical to global peace.".
Not equivalent AT ALL. Had Nazi Germany been a Nuclear Superpower, the West would have contained him within German Borders (eventually) but NEVER bombed Germany. Fact.
It is not true that the Soviet army, which is currently the army of the Russian Federation, is an invincible army. The war with the Finns in 1939, the war in Afghanistan in 1979, the first Chechen war in 1994. The Russian army is of course not currently the second army in the world. And if you add up and it will continue, corruption in the army, theft of military equipment. One should consider whether the current army of the Russian Federation will win this war (???). However, I believe that after a few years of war both armies will stop and there will be positional fighting, trenches and bunkers. The fact is, the NATO army is stronger. And to what extent is the Russian Federation able to buy military equipment from another country, produce it at home. Well, I don't know (???). Because here too, time is important in this. In my opinion, the war may last 10 years, but it will be positional fighting, in trenches and bunkers. A052
Former Soviet army is not current Russian army. Soviet army heavily relied on troops, technology and know-how from the other 'republics', most notably Ukraine. E.g. Ukraine developed and produced rocket engines and such before the 90s - current Russia does not have the same technological capacity
Personally if nato stayed out of Ukraine thise war wouldn't have happened..Russia sees Nato expansion to Ukraine as a security threat is that so hard to understand..
Mr. President, if not NATO for Ukraine, then what? What other guarantees are there for her? There was already the Budapest Memorandum, which Russia did not care about. If there are no real guarantees, Putin will enter Khreshchatyk tomorrow.
Ukraine made her own bed and can lay in it. No nuclear for Ukraine! Because those are the Stakes here.
Budapest Memorandum was violated when Ukraine applied for NATO
@@shambo-rm8ql Did you read the Memo? Where in the text did you finf this condition?
@@vlbogorad Yes, I read it, it says that "(Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom) pledge not to use military force or threaten to use military force against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, except in self-defense"
By trying to join NATO, Ukraine created a threat to Russia, - period
@vlbogorad - shambo got you molded.
Conceding Ukrainian territory to Russia could set a dangerous precedent, similar to the concessions made to Nazi Germany during the Munich Agreement in 1938. History shows that appeasement emboldened aggressors rather than pacifying them, ultimately leading to greater conflict. Such a move would undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine, weaken international law, and signal to authoritarian regimes worldwide that territorial aggression can succeed. This not only risks further destabilizing Europe but also erodes the principle of territorial integrity critical to global peace.".
If only more people would understand this…
Not equivalent AT ALL. Had Nazi Germany been a Nuclear Superpower, the West would have contained him within German Borders (eventually) but NEVER bombed Germany. Fact.
Times have changes, stop always referring to Nazi Germany, it is called fallacy of false equivalence
Putin's buddy Trump will fix it for him.
It is not true that the Soviet army, which is currently the army of the Russian Federation, is an invincible army. The war with the Finns in 1939, the war in Afghanistan in 1979, the first Chechen war in 1994. The Russian army is of course not currently the second army in the world. And if you add up and it will continue, corruption in the army, theft of military equipment. One should consider whether the current army of the Russian Federation will win this war (???). However, I believe that after a few years of war both armies will stop and there will be positional fighting, trenches and bunkers. The fact is, the NATO army is stronger. And to what extent is the Russian Federation able to buy military equipment from another country, produce it at home. Well, I don't know (???). Because here too, time is important in this. In my opinion, the war may last 10 years, but it will be positional fighting, in trenches and bunkers. A052
Former Soviet army is not current Russian army. Soviet army heavily relied on troops, technology and know-how from the other 'republics', most notably Ukraine. E.g. Ukraine developed and produced rocket engines and such before the 90s - current Russia does not have the same technological capacity
@@Ausdoerrt Thank you for what you wrote to me.
I want to see if u lie or tell the truth
Best guy, best time