Cowards. The Ukrainians are laying down their lives in defense of Europe and they can’t even get this, but a genocidal maniac who would sacrifice millions to remain in power gets all the aid he wants.
IDK, this seems like the DoD actually doing their jobs (for once).We’ve given tons of anti-missile systems to ukraine. Deploying THAAD to a conflict where we can’t actively deploy US troops alongside it is a serious intelligence risk, and it doesn’t fill a particular role thats missing in Ukraine. Russia hasn’t been using ballistic missiles of the size THAAD would even be effective against. Patriot, MANPAD, aerial launched and even hera systems have been extremely effective, and NATO continues to supply those systems for Ukraine.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Time for your medication, grampa
Removed by mod
Just a tip, nobody is ever going to accept a youtube video as a valid source. Nobody is going to spend 10+ minutes potentially watching some bullshit propaganda just to see if it even contains anything relevant to your claim. It could be the most perfect, well-sourced, undeniably-accurate youtube video in the history of videos, but literally nobody is going to watch it when brought up as a source for a claim on Lemmy or similar sites.
I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m being genuine. If you think there is actually vital information that people should know, you absolutely need to find a verifiable text-based source of that information. Period. Of course I can’t say if that applies in your case or not because as previously stated, nobody, myself included, will ever click on a youtube video as a source for a claim, so I can’t speak to whatever you’re trying to spout.
These are the same guys who went to North Korea, you know, the place where owning a kdrama DVD will get your whole family executed, and basically said, “it’s not so bad idk what the fuss is about.”
Let’s see a source that isn’t from authoritarian apologists.
North Korea, you know, the place where owning a kdrama DVD will get your whole family executed
That is quite the claim.
Definitely not propaganda amirite?
Oh wow, a YouTube video! How credible! You owned everyone, good job Comrad! /s
Heres also a youtube video, I aint clicking your link to some invariably tankie bullshit so heres a link to some NAFO bullshit.
Removed and temp banned for Russian propaganda. Ukrainians are NOT Nazis.
Just stop with the conspiracy bullshit. If you believe none of it, you’ll be right 98% of the time. There’s not much else in life with such certainty.
At least you picked an appropriate username.
Username checks out.
☝️ I’ll have what he’s having
… lolwut
Removed by mod
Do you have a real source rather than some youtuber who starts his video picking his nose?
dO yOuR oWn rEsEaRcH!
Ukraine has recieved several anti missile systems from the US, but do not man them as in Isreal. I suppose if US Troops were killed by the Russians in an attack, then all kinds of escalating shit would happen.
What kind if escalation does putin have though? Hes bombing civilians, schools and hospitals. And the nUcLeAr saber rattling has been used so much the saber is all dull.
But he’s not bombing US hospitals. Read NATO, Article 5
Article 5 requires co-defense an attack occurs in the territory of NATO nations (or places occupied by members when NATO was created). It doesn’t cover US forces getting put in harms way and attacked in a non-member country. It doesn’t even cover troops getting attacked in Hawaii.
Which is the reason NATO joined the US is Afghanistan
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, but NATO was in Afghanistan because the US mainland was attacked, not because some soldiers got attacked in a foreign country.
NATO joined the US in Afghanistan well after 9/11. Fact is NATO will respond to the attack of any member’s forces, if in their homeland or not. At sea, for instance.
That’s just not true. These aren’t arcane pieces of information, they’re bureaucracy from an international treaty. You can just go read the NATO treaty, which defines what an attack is (Article 6). Or go read the history of the NATO in Afghanistan. Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time on September 12th not because troops got hurt later. Remember how the same thing didn’t happen in any of America’s other wars?
NATO will respond to attacks on forces at sea, but only in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. It’s not a general “if you hurt an American soldier anywhere” treaty.
That’s not how article 5 works.
Yes, it does.
I see you can’t support your own statement.
But escalating with Iran is fine I guess?
Iran would be destroyed by US Airpower. They know it.
And then what? Iraq got destroyed by air power, Afghanistan got destroyed by air power. Now both countries are hot beds of terrorism and instability.
No, Afghanistan was not about air power. Iran has a lot to lose and could lose it very easily.
Yeah, but the Taliban or Iraq are not able to mass manufacture drones to sell to Russia.
And they’re not a nuclear power. Like, pointedly not. We made real sure of that.
Ukrayinska Pravda (The Ukrainian Truth) - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Ukrayinska Pravda (The Ukrainian Truth):
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - Ukraine
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
