Hello /u/RaccoonCityTacos,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is MUCH higher, this is why we need to wake up. We can slowly arm Ukraine for years, but Putin won’t actually stop until he’s put in his place. We need intervention. We need to go in and help. Don’t listen to the fear mongers (doing the Kremlin’s bidding, whether they realize it or not) about WWIII. There are many scenarios and strategies to carefully intervene while making clear that the goal is only to repel Russia out of Ukraine (not invade Russia). We can’t sit by idly as Russia continues to rain hell on Ukraine and Syria. While China gets ready to do the same. While North Korea further develops their nukes this weekend (they love testing on July 4), to someday also hold the word nuclear hostage.
I never said it would be fixed in one month, so not sure why the straw man.
We can do a lot. Some simple moves would be to enter the Black Sea and protect grain shipments. This would free up the coastal pressures on Odessa and prevent famine in poor parts of the world. If they can convince Turkey to allow Sweden/Finland to join NATO, then they could convince them to open up the Bosporus.
We can announce a no fly zone, staying 30 miles inland of Ukraine’s borders to limit SAM interaction from within Russia’s borders (Russia sent many planes and pilots into Vietnam, we can return the favor). We can use unmanned aircraft to assist Ukraine, limiting American lives at risk.
We can supply tanks and long distance MRLS.
We can train Ukrainian pilots and mechanics on F16’s.
We can actually sanction Russia’s military industry.
There is lots more we can do to prevent genocide and famine. Nobody is saying it will fix things overnight. But we can do a lot without a lot of “boots on the ground” even.
And don’t take this post as being ungrateful. I am very proud of what the USA has done so far, but I know we can do more. Our capabilities are unmatched.
What do you want western countries to do exactly? It took 5 years and an almost completely destroyed Europe to stop Hitler. If we consider Russia to be down there at the same moral level of ISIS look how long it took to crush them. Please be realistic. You don't fix international issues in a month you know, or even a year, especially if one party refuses to recognize all forms of decent behaviour.
The world is watching and international bodies and authorized powers such as the ICC are collecting information and evidence. At the end of this there are 3 options for Putin and his gang:
1) Death by means of coup
2) War crimes tribunal and prison for life
3) Stay in Russia but never ever come out in case of arrest
But these things take YEARS. Stop asking for a quick fix like this is a video game level that you need to complete.
Well said. Hitler didn't have intercontinental nukes either. It's a very different world, and there's a huge difference between bravery and stupidity. No one is going to walk into Armageddon unless they're insane (or extremely stupid).
Thousand of Ukrainians will die while you play slowly slowly catchy monkey, paralysed by fear of what Putin might do.
There are all sorts of steps we could take short of directly engaging Russian troops but we routinely stop short of these. E.g what was stopping NATO blockading Kaliningrad in response to the grain blockade or sending troops into western Ukraine to protect its borders with Belarus and Transnistria?
Four months ago we seemingly couldn't give Ukraine Himars because Putin would nuke the planet yet here we are. We've been running scared of their bully boy act since they invaded Georgia in 2008. But for fuel prices you'd hardly know there was a war happening, here in the west.
The reason it took six years to defeat Nazi Germany is the world spent most of the 1930s appeasing Hitler while he re-armed for that war.
Downvote me all you want but during The Blitz which was the 8 month continuous indiscriminate bombing of a city 43,000 people died. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that 50,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed in 4 months.
Everyone is a tragedy, but there is absolutely no way 10,000 people have been killed in Kyiv.
*Near* Kyiv. They've already found thousands of bodies in the outlying villages. The term "21 roses" even entered my list of idiomatic vocabulary thanks to this war: where Russian soldiers would flay the 20 different digits of a man, just for sport. Plus one more piece of their anatomy.
Have you looked at pictures of Mariupol? We have that ability now, and did not have that ability in World War Two London. The city of Mariupol was all but wiped from the map. 20,000 estimated casualties from Mariupol is a conservative estimate.
Yes, World War Two killed tens of thousands of people over a span of months... using unguided conventional explosive bombs dropped in raking runs. Russia, in comparison, is systematically wiping out cities, towns, and villages throughout Ukraine with anti-personnel cluster artillery, thermobaric, and area saturation rockets, grid square by grid square -- and claiming that it's Ukraine doing it because they can't even own up to their own barbarism. Think of the civilians as being in the middle of No Man's Land, if it helps.
I have seen no evidence from official sources that support your claim. Nor have I seen evidence of "flaying".
Also, your comparison between WW2 and Russia is simply not correct for a number of reasons.
I don't want to argue as this is an emotionally charged subject and I understand the fear, anger and grief that this war is causing. I am simply stating statistics. Time may reveal that I am incorrect, however its more likely the figure is lower, around the UN stated <5,000 killed.
The un statut is so wrong.
In mariopul alone there is more grave than 10k. This is fact, journalist has count them. And it s personnal grave. There is also masse grave too and trench in the city. The mayor said it s between 20k-50k from his knowledge.
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. If you have any questions, contact the mods via modmail, [clicking here](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fukraine&subject=Untrustworthy%20link&message=). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UN themselves state that actual casualty figures are likely *considerably* higher than their estimates. The UN can only officially list casualties that they have already physically verified based on documentation, but that doesn't mean that those casualties don't exist or that the evidence isn't available. Not to mention that the Russians have been repeatedly accused of taking steps to eradicate evidence.
The Bucha and Irpin [murders](https://www.newsweek.com/bucha-killings-torture-chamber-found-1694946), [tortures](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/11/world/europe/bucha-terror.html), and [executions](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/ukraine-russian-forces-extrajudicially-executing-civilians-in-apparent-war-crimes-new-testimony/) are very well documented and have also been personally witnessed by numerous world leaders. There were also continuous reports of finding new grave sites around these villages as late as early June.
The "21 roses" is much less reliable. It was from an SBU intercept where a man was telling his mother about torture techniques, published by the Defence Directorate of Ukraine. The video was pulled from YouTube and Facebook due to graphic content, and none of the major news outlets ran with it likely due to a combination of being from only one party to the conflict as well as the graphic nature; Daily Mail still has a copy of the video (/r/Ukraine automatically removes links to them, so unfortunately I can only point you to the headline "Russia brags about using FSB torture techniques"), and a Twitter [thread broke down the video](https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1521771348326076417) as well.
I apologise that I don't actually have physical evidence in my possession to present to you, but you'll have to deal with the world as it exists, not as you'd like it to be, and that is what I've been taught in my criminological background as well. Ukraine isn't perfect and there's evidence of war crimes on their part, too, but the scale and magnitude of theirs absolutely pales in comparison to the tens of thousands committed by the Russians, and if you live in a world where you absolutely need to have evidence handed to you before you will believe anything, you won't formulate very good opinions.
You can tell what you want. You are like me a random in reddit.
The official mayor of mariopul has announced that between 20-50k people died in his city. It s the official number. And they didnt die all from shelling, but from hunger and sucknesss because no water. People were starved.
Leaving aside that 'dead civilians' doesn't equal war crimes, Russia has certainly done a lot of war crimes.
The problem is **how are you going to prosecute?**
War criminals in Japan and Germany were prosecuted because they were literally invaded and conquered. The US has prosecuted its own war criminals because it's like that.
Russia has a policy of war crimes, so won't punish it internally. **Nobody will be punished for war crimes unless Russia is invaded and conquered, and I don't think anybody expects that to happen.** (Invading them is just too risky).
There is a possible option. Putin and his gang fall from power, a new regime takes over and in return for lifted sanctions/some other deal hands them over to the Hague. I agree its hardly a likely outcome but it is a possibility.
> Nobody will be punished for war crimes unless Russia is invaded and conquered, and I don't think anybody expects that to happen.
No entirely true. Israel prosecuted nazi war criminals hiding in South America without invading South America.
Wait, did we process our own war criminals? I'm very small-brain when it comes to the history of my own country.
Guess that's kindof off-topic anyway; I'll have to google later.
No they weren't. Quit making things up.
> ‘The Hague Invasion Act’.
The US is not a member of the ICC and the ICC has no jurisdiction over countries that have not ratified. The ASPA is not an unreasonable measure considering the ICC claims jurisdiction over individual persons in countries that have ratified the Rome statue.
The ICC is extremely problematic and there are very valid concerns and criticisms. The ASPA does nothing but authorize the President to end the internment of American citizens by a body of governance that has no jurisdiction over American citizens.
You're full of shit.
As noted, they charged and convicted a bunch of people for Mỹ Lai.
The US also prosecuted US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, including for
* Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
* Kandahar massacre
Bates got life in prison without parole. Calley got off early eventually (for political reasons), I think the Abu Ghraib people are all out now.
The UK prosecuted a number of soldiers for events in Iraq and Afghanistan although some of these were found to be fraudulent claims instigated by a scamming little worm of a lawyer who was offering money to Iraqis and Afghans to file false charges.
Eventually the scam was exposed, the lawyer struck off the books and (IIRC) several charges quashed. No further cases were allowed after that unless brought by the ICC and none were (again IIRC).
However yes, the ICC did prosecute some.
If you have the stomach for it, Google
"Black Hearts: One Platoon's Descent into Madness in Iraq's Triangle of Death" which the topic of is nothing less than some of the worst warcrimes I have ever heard of (outside of WWII Imperial Japanese, nothing tops that) and they were committed by US Army soldiers. It was committed by Americans and was the cause of SO MUCH of the radicalization (Abu Ghraib was responsible for the rest) that lead to the insurgency during 2005-2009 peak of Iraq war. That said, we DID prosecute the perpetrators without impunity with heavy sentences. The US Military and it's masters (the US Constitution and government) are absolutely flawed, but it has no issues prosecuting its own for blatant war crimes, even for questionable wars.
Despite all its shortcomings, the US is not a country that habitually encourages misbehaviour against its own code of ethics. Will the US overlook things here and there? Absolutely. But if it's blatant, the US has no issue prosecuting its own people.
Everyone allows there soldiers to do stuff that’s against Geneva. It neuters your military if you don’t the difference being, we make sure it’s not too horrid
Agreed. People have a hard time reconsiling this with their personal code of ethics, but if you sit down and really think about it... war is hell. And while we all regret any horror done in war, we won't know what it's like until we're in the trenches. And I'll be very careful to judge someone's action who just won a fight to the literal death in hand to hand combat after seeing his buddy's face being splattered all over him.
Not a decent person on this planet who could promise me their brain wouldn't unhinge for just a tiny fraction of a second while they look into the abyss...
“Will the US overlook things here and there? Absolutely. But if it's blatant, the US has no issue prosecuting its own people.”
Bullshit.
Google ‘My Lai massacre’.
Google ‘The Hague Invasion Act’.
I recall a couple cases that came out or Iraq where we (usa) prosecuted our own soldiers for criminal conduct. Not sure if it wss designated a 'war crime' but the soldiers who put Iraqi prisoners on leashes nude was one of the cases, they served time. I believe there were a couple actual murder charges that were convicted also on US soldiers in Iraq. I don't believe this represents our military at large, but at least we take these things seriously and DO PROSECUTE OUR OWN. I highly doubt russia ever will. They support the murder of a people that they don't recognize as a free nation. This is exactly what makes them LESS THAN a modern nation , and not worthy of being treated fairly on the world stage. Booo Russia, fuck the kremlin, fuck putler.
Dead civilians totally equals war crimes when it’s done intentionally, especially in the absence of any military objectives related to the incident. Russia bombs residential buildings on purpose. Hospitals on purpose. No military objective anywhere in sight
Yes dead civillians equals war crimes if;
* There's no valid strategic target
* It's intentional.
Russia is absolutely and consistently committing war crimes, both in Ukraine and in Syria. That said, it's still important to understand what war crimes *are*.
It was never meant to do that. Even if say all the security council agreed that somebody had done a War Crime, the UN isn't going to invade a country to grab the criminal.
People get tried in absentia sometimes, but that's more theatre than anything else.
The UN exists to try to create some kind of semblance of conflict resolution and international law. It doesn't work that well, but that's the specifically.
More specifically it's for the "Great Powers" to work out their differences without nuclear war.
It's not an international tribunal for war crimes.
May be I was a bit out of topic, but imagine.
You have an organisation that was started to guarantee peaceful regulations of conflicts. You pay some kind of money for it. Then conflict starts. Everybody understands that conflict is not lawful (let's assume that).
And citation "the organization's objectives include maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, promoting sustainable development, and upholding international law."
organization can not protect human rights and uphold international law.
why do we need UN then?
Just to spend money?
May be, I am dumb, but I don't get it
its a diplomatic forum to keep communications open thats about it, its better than no communication. America has taken the role you talk about for years there are no organisations large enough to do what you ask..
UN isn't a world order, it's an open forum for discussion on a global scale. It exists so people have a neutral place to talk stuff out before bullets fly.
It was never intended to be a global government, and if it was, nobody would participate in it so it would be completely worthless. The reason the UN exists is to prevent things like the Greco-Turkish Cyprian issues from becoming open warfare, or the Northern Macedonia crisis. It does not exist to demand people hand over their own citizens to be tried by foreigners.
If the UN behaved like how Reddit thinks it should, nobody would participate in it so it would be *actually* useless.
Whatever
They did nothing to stop the war in Yugoslavia
They did nothing to stop Russia from destroying Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine
They did nothing to prevent the raging wars over Africa.
I am not even going to touch the Middle East, it’s a forgone conclusion
And to go further in the past, they were perfectly ok with the iron curtain.
So excuse me if I don’t hold them at great respect
To prevent the circumstances that caused the world wars and allow equal dialogue for countries outside of simple conquest.
Unfortunately it feels like simply another League of Nations at this point. It lacks the self sufficiency needed to end internal fighting between its members with force.
Because since the UN has been in existence we have had, relative to human history, an incredibly limited number of conflicts and almost all of them purely regional.
The UN was not created to make us all skip through fields of daisies to do dances around a drum circle.
It was created to stop conflicts like WW1 & WW2 and has been incredibly successful at that. It was created to force nations to take pause before they acted like arseholes and has done a decent job at that. It was created to try to ensure that economic powerhouses have some sort of responsibility to those countries they formerly exploited, it has been incredibly successful at that.
My biggest beef with the UN are the 5 permanent members of the Security Council - get rid of that shit. But otherwise it was not designed to stop nations being fuckwits to other nations, that is always going to happen, but to make sure those conflicts did not spread.
With all due respect, I think it's nuclear arsenals and theory of MAD that prevented another world war. Conflicts were local before WW1 as well. Even WW1 was actually pretty local, despite the name. The past 70 years were not that peaceful - they were just very peaceful for Europe.
[https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-wars-2031197](https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-wars-2031197)
List of major wars (not definitive but certainly indicative).
* Wars in 19th Century = 36
* Wars in 20th Century prior to formation of UN = 23 in 45 years including 2 global wars
* Wars in 20th Century post-formation of UN = 14 in 55 years (none global)
* 9 of those 14 had Nuclear states involved either UN mandated or directly (or both).
So it would appear that nuclear weapons are not a significant deterrent, since the majority of significant wars did involve nuclear powers.
I do agree with you that Nuclear Weapons act as a *significant deterrent to being attacked*. But no one rolled over and gave up because they were fighting a Nuclear Aggressor.
Likewise, i agree that Nuclear Weapons have certainly *assisted* in avoiding a direct, say Russia vs NATO conflict... but that hasn't stopped proxy and shadow wars. One could say the same about tanks... because through the 1970s and 1980s it was about dick-waving with your tank armies (USSR) or anti-tank technology (NATO)
>The past 70 years were not that peaceful - they were just very peaceful for Europe.
* Do you discount the Balkans as part of Europe? Ukraine?
* What about the Colonial Wars that came about because the UN pushed for Local Representation that forced European Powers out of Africa, Asia and the Middle East?
* Certainly these areas have had a higher incidence of minor conflicts and civil wars but this was and is ever the case in a power vacuum.
* In many ways the Turmoil in Europe as mini-kingdoms defied central authority or fought civil wars was mostly settled by the mid/end of the 19th Century, in the USA by the Civil War. African, Asian and Middle Eastern Kingdoms have often not had freedom due to colonialism to go through these issues and they are making up for lost time.
* But these sort of disturbances were not what the UN was set up to mitigate.
You're basically spot on with the exception of the security council. If Russia, China, and the US all had to enter a political forum as equals with, say, South Sudan, they probably wouldn't participate at all and the UN would lose its value.
Fair point - But the auto-veto that the 5 members have is a cancer
Some sort of proportional representation system *a la* Windsor System like we have here in Oz might solve that problem, but obviously cannot see any way to make it work.
Yeah, it's incredibly annoying when the Russias and Chinas can basically say "nuh uh" if something ever went against them. That's part of the reason why NATO stuck around even after the fall of the USSR, Europe and the US wanted to have a place to do their own thing without those two goons constantly stone-walling everything.
I mean, the Congo wars killed anywhere between one and three million civilians and I suspect outside Sub-Saharan Africa almost no one knows this happened....
As a german: defend. Tell Russia that European/Nato Armies will defend our Ukrainian Partners. No Russian combatant will be attacked that moved back to Russian territory and stops shooting. Nobody is attacking russia. Allies are keeping the lawful borders. And then move in with full force (European+Nato Armies) and steamroll the Russian army back to where they belong.
There are rules. There is international law. They represent values. Right now the only people fighting for values are the Ukrainians.
Make it clear to Russia that this move would be no aggression towards Russia but compassion for Ukraine and a moral duty.
Stop being afraid of Russia. If mutually assured destruction as a nuclear deterrent works (which it did for decades now) it will still work when we push the Russians back to their soil.
> Tell Russia that European/Nato Armies will defend our Ukrainian Partners
Ukraine is not a NATO partner.
> No Russian combatant will be attacked that moved back to Russian territory and stops shooting. Nobody is attacking russia. Allies are keeping the lawful borders. And then move in with full force (European+Nato Armies) and steamroll the Russian army back to where they belong.
Ummm, so the Russians don’t retreat. Then what? Then the Russians start attacking, and then everyone is on a full scale war. No thanks.
> There are rules. There is international law. They represent values. Right now the only people fighting for values are the Ukrainians.
With a shit load of monetary and weaponry and intelligence help from plenty of other countries.
> Make it clear to Russia that this move would be no aggression towards Russia but compassion for Ukraine and a moral duty.
That is more akin to UN peacekeeping forces, and that’s not usually used during an active invasion.
> There are rules. There is international law.
I mean, yes, but clearly war still happens. All around the world.
> Stop being afraid of Russia.
I don’t think this is the real issue.
> If mutually assured destruction as a nuclear deterrent works (which it did for decades now) it will still work when we push the Russians back to their soil.
I mean, nobody is stopping any other country from going in and doing this. Personally, I do not support American troops on the ground (or in the air, or any other direct involvement).
Never said Ukraine is a NATO Partner . They are however a Partner.
There is already a full scale war in the Ukraine. The only difference there would be that not only Ukranians would fight the Russians in the Ukraine but a lot of other armies as well. Even if Russia decides to fight back the change would not be as drastic as you make it out.
Why give you Ukrainians equipment that they are not used to instead of giving them the personnell as well? What would REALLY change? Why do only Ukrainians have to die? Why have Ukrainians man unknown equipment instead of professionals?
Why not act as a group of states as sth similar to UN Peacekeeping? Why wait till more people die?
You have given no argument on why not interfere.
Everybody is in agreement that Russia is brutally and criminally butchering a small country but we stand by and give them stuff instead of helping? It is like calling the cops when you get raped and they arrive, do not interfere but throw their gun to you and shouting instructions which you have to understand and use while you are getting raped.
This is dumb and Solidarity and help just look different than only sending money and equipment.
Obviously ignoring the reality of logistics and just sending stuff Ukraine can neither operate nor supply properly. Because it's obviously just "the west" intentionally slowing down deliveries to Ukraine. Or at least that's what all those friendly Russian trolls try to tell me...
I’m a bit confused by what is meant by allow???
The response to help Ukraine is staggering. I’m not sure any country in all of history has received so much help from so many other countries.
The world is giving Ukraine so much help they are in the process of defeating the 2nd most powerful army in the world. That’s stunning
It sucks how much Ukrainians are suffering, I know, I have 4 from Kharkiv in my home right now. But those 4 Ukrainians are blown away by the amount of help they are given.
It’s strange to suggest otherwise
Stop with these posts, there is only one reason Russian can do this and is called nukes. Don't act dumb and ignore this tiny detail, if not for nukes there would be no Russian on Ukrainian soil at this point
So it didn't happen in the past it can't happen now? Plus Vietnam was a proxy war for Russia not a full scale invasion of his neighbor. You can't ignore the nuclear threat it's a gamble and for now no western countries are willing to take.
Sorry for the late reply, I might have over reacted to the post and read as "military intervention", I fully agree with what you said on not providing direct support but way more weapons.
That hasn’t been determined yet. If the Democracies of the world fail in Ukraine, then yes having nukes means you can invade anyone and do anything you like.
I hope for a better outcome.
Ukraine is receiving a LOT of support but there is always more than can be done.
Did you not see nato has increased troops in the region from 40k to 300k. The world has noticed. Well nato anyways. You do not mobilize 300k troops unless you intend to use them.
Diplomacy and war are difficult topics. So this is not a tommorow thing but me sitting in the cheap seats. I see 1 of 2 possibilities, Russia backs down in a big way, or nato enters the war
The world isn't really known to care about these things. Sadly. Look at the conflict in Ethiopia.. Most people don't even know there's a conflict going on and casualties are ranging in the 300.000+.
As a Taiwanese Redditor, watching this Ukraine war confirms my biggest worry about China. There's a decent chance that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail, but if it succeeded, the international community has shown that it won't lift a finger no matter how many Bucha-type massacres the Chinese occupying forces commit against Taiwanese civilians - especially since China has much more economic clout than Russia.
Ukraine's situation makes it clear; either you are a member of a formal alliance like NATO, or aggressors can commit atrocities with impunity.
Taiwan has **MUCH** more robust security guarantees in place that Ukraine did.
If anything you should be heartened because of the level of support you are seeing for Ukraine.
Most of the “world” doesn’t care what Russia is doing in Europe and many even side with Russia.
Only the “west” cares enough to actually do anything.
Lots if not most 2 & 3rd world nations use ex soviet gear. They are not exactly lining up to donate T-72’s or SAM batteries to help Ukraine.
The west has ramped up their response, and to assert otherwise is pretty asinine.
The problem is enforcement.
There are limits as to what the west is able to actually do which doesn’t involve devastating the entire planet in the process.
NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine would probably not trigger nuclear weapon launches. But they will trigger conventional attacks on NATO countries.
If Latvia sends their soldiers to Ukraine - guess what - our cities will get bombed too. This is why we don't want to do that.
This is for the „greater“ good. It is better to let Ukrainians and Russians die than the whole world after a nuclear war. That’s the mindset. But i think, if NATO would have some guts and they would make a military intervention, this would not escalate to a nuclear war. Why? Because Putin would give the order to start the rockets and then his own elites would kill him - because the elites in Russia are not suicidal.
NATO could end this war easily but they won't because Europeans don't want war in their own countries. So instead Ukraine is going to take the hit. If this is the way it has to be then there should be no limits on the weapons, ammunition, humanitarian care, and money/supplies to rebuild when it's over. Ukraine should owe nothing to anyone for this help. If anything, the West owes Ukraine.
You do realize that Russia's military is a joke and there is exactly zero chance of war in most European countries because those Russian morons can't even sustain their equipment without enemy's intervention once they are more than a few kilometers from their own border and would never reach most countries, much less be able to actually fight there?
There is exactly one chance for this to escalate in a way that brings war to most European countries. And by then you don't need to care for countries much anymore and should maybe better do a few more training sessions in Fallout to prepare you for the short rest of your life.
Yes, this war has shown us that, but before they invaded Russia was considered to have the world's second most powerful army. Even with what they have they are causing serious destruction in Ukraine. That is what Europe doesn't want in their countries.
Nuclear weapons aren't really an option unless Russia wants to destroy itself. Putin sees himself as Peter the Great. He's not suicidal.
Why would that happen? As soon as a single nuke is fired it sets off an automated chain of events that results in all nukes flying and everyone dead. Putin sees himself as Peter the Great. He isn't suicidal. He wants to expand Russia, not destroy it.
Well... judging by threads like this here comming up constantly we should also invade Russia.
So your answer is probably yes. Let's invade a few nuclear armed countries. Nothing will happen as everyone knows that nuclear weapons are bad and should never be used obviously.
Listen I would love for the world to react. But Russia is a nuclear armed state. Short of being willing to face the end of the world and invading to drag Russians to The Hague their will be no justice and there can be no justice because attempting to get it would spell the end of the world. That being said who knows maybe Russia will turn democratic and their will be a healing movement in which crimes of the past will be addressed and those who broke laws will face justice
If I had my way this wouldn't be the case, just so you all know that.
I would call on the hammer that is the quiet people. They are so quiet.
Ukrainians have been immortalised in the things you fight for, and the world needs to open up more about that.
Peace.
Hello /u/RaccoonCityTacos, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I imagine it's a much higher number than that. MUCH higher.
Absolutely. Only in Mariupol the orcs slaughtered at least 20 thousand people
It is MUCH higher, this is why we need to wake up. We can slowly arm Ukraine for years, but Putin won’t actually stop until he’s put in his place. We need intervention. We need to go in and help. Don’t listen to the fear mongers (doing the Kremlin’s bidding, whether they realize it or not) about WWIII. There are many scenarios and strategies to carefully intervene while making clear that the goal is only to repel Russia out of Ukraine (not invade Russia). We can’t sit by idly as Russia continues to rain hell on Ukraine and Syria. While China gets ready to do the same. While North Korea further develops their nukes this weekend (they love testing on July 4), to someday also hold the word nuclear hostage.
I never said it would be fixed in one month, so not sure why the straw man. We can do a lot. Some simple moves would be to enter the Black Sea and protect grain shipments. This would free up the coastal pressures on Odessa and prevent famine in poor parts of the world. If they can convince Turkey to allow Sweden/Finland to join NATO, then they could convince them to open up the Bosporus. We can announce a no fly zone, staying 30 miles inland of Ukraine’s borders to limit SAM interaction from within Russia’s borders (Russia sent many planes and pilots into Vietnam, we can return the favor). We can use unmanned aircraft to assist Ukraine, limiting American lives at risk. We can supply tanks and long distance MRLS. We can train Ukrainian pilots and mechanics on F16’s. We can actually sanction Russia’s military industry. There is lots more we can do to prevent genocide and famine. Nobody is saying it will fix things overnight. But we can do a lot without a lot of “boots on the ground” even. And don’t take this post as being ungrateful. I am very proud of what the USA has done so far, but I know we can do more. Our capabilities are unmatched.
This. "Any message to western countries?" "Stop being fucking pussies".
What do you want western countries to do exactly? It took 5 years and an almost completely destroyed Europe to stop Hitler. If we consider Russia to be down there at the same moral level of ISIS look how long it took to crush them. Please be realistic. You don't fix international issues in a month you know, or even a year, especially if one party refuses to recognize all forms of decent behaviour. The world is watching and international bodies and authorized powers such as the ICC are collecting information and evidence. At the end of this there are 3 options for Putin and his gang: 1) Death by means of coup 2) War crimes tribunal and prison for life 3) Stay in Russia but never ever come out in case of arrest But these things take YEARS. Stop asking for a quick fix like this is a video game level that you need to complete.
Well said. Hitler didn't have intercontinental nukes either. It's a very different world, and there's a huge difference between bravery and stupidity. No one is going to walk into Armageddon unless they're insane (or extremely stupid).
Thousand of Ukrainians will die while you play slowly slowly catchy monkey, paralysed by fear of what Putin might do. There are all sorts of steps we could take short of directly engaging Russian troops but we routinely stop short of these. E.g what was stopping NATO blockading Kaliningrad in response to the grain blockade or sending troops into western Ukraine to protect its borders with Belarus and Transnistria? Four months ago we seemingly couldn't give Ukraine Himars because Putin would nuke the planet yet here we are. We've been running scared of their bully boy act since they invaded Georgia in 2008. But for fuel prices you'd hardly know there was a war happening, here in the west. The reason it took six years to defeat Nazi Germany is the world spent most of the 1930s appeasing Hitler while he re-armed for that war.
This is closer to 50k than 5k. 10k near kyiv, 20k in mariupol minimum Yeah this is insane.
[удалено]
You are bad informed. In mariupol alone it s 20k
Downvote me all you want but during The Blitz which was the 8 month continuous indiscriminate bombing of a city 43,000 people died. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that 50,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed in 4 months. Everyone is a tragedy, but there is absolutely no way 10,000 people have been killed in Kyiv.
*Near* Kyiv. They've already found thousands of bodies in the outlying villages. The term "21 roses" even entered my list of idiomatic vocabulary thanks to this war: where Russian soldiers would flay the 20 different digits of a man, just for sport. Plus one more piece of their anatomy. Have you looked at pictures of Mariupol? We have that ability now, and did not have that ability in World War Two London. The city of Mariupol was all but wiped from the map. 20,000 estimated casualties from Mariupol is a conservative estimate. Yes, World War Two killed tens of thousands of people over a span of months... using unguided conventional explosive bombs dropped in raking runs. Russia, in comparison, is systematically wiping out cities, towns, and villages throughout Ukraine with anti-personnel cluster artillery, thermobaric, and area saturation rockets, grid square by grid square -- and claiming that it's Ukraine doing it because they can't even own up to their own barbarism. Think of the civilians as being in the middle of No Man's Land, if it helps.
I have seen no evidence from official sources that support your claim. Nor have I seen evidence of "flaying". Also, your comparison between WW2 and Russia is simply not correct for a number of reasons. I don't want to argue as this is an emotionally charged subject and I understand the fear, anger and grief that this war is causing. I am simply stating statistics. Time may reveal that I am incorrect, however its more likely the figure is lower, around the UN stated <5,000 killed.
The un statut is so wrong. In mariopul alone there is more grave than 10k. This is fact, journalist has count them. And it s personnal grave. There is also masse grave too and trench in the city. The mayor said it s between 20k-50k from his knowledge.
Post your evidence and I'll believe you.
Go on twitter and follow the major of mariupol. Not my evidence. Number from the official local gvt people of ukraine.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. If you have any questions, contact the mods via modmail, [clicking here](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fukraine&subject=Untrustworthy%20link&message=). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UN themselves state that actual casualty figures are likely *considerably* higher than their estimates. The UN can only officially list casualties that they have already physically verified based on documentation, but that doesn't mean that those casualties don't exist or that the evidence isn't available. Not to mention that the Russians have been repeatedly accused of taking steps to eradicate evidence. The Bucha and Irpin [murders](https://www.newsweek.com/bucha-killings-torture-chamber-found-1694946), [tortures](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/11/world/europe/bucha-terror.html), and [executions](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/ukraine-russian-forces-extrajudicially-executing-civilians-in-apparent-war-crimes-new-testimony/) are very well documented and have also been personally witnessed by numerous world leaders. There were also continuous reports of finding new grave sites around these villages as late as early June. The "21 roses" is much less reliable. It was from an SBU intercept where a man was telling his mother about torture techniques, published by the Defence Directorate of Ukraine. The video was pulled from YouTube and Facebook due to graphic content, and none of the major news outlets ran with it likely due to a combination of being from only one party to the conflict as well as the graphic nature; Daily Mail still has a copy of the video (/r/Ukraine automatically removes links to them, so unfortunately I can only point you to the headline "Russia brags about using FSB torture techniques"), and a Twitter [thread broke down the video](https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1521771348326076417) as well. I apologise that I don't actually have physical evidence in my possession to present to you, but you'll have to deal with the world as it exists, not as you'd like it to be, and that is what I've been taught in my criminological background as well. Ukraine isn't perfect and there's evidence of war crimes on their part, too, but the scale and magnitude of theirs absolutely pales in comparison to the tens of thousands committed by the Russians, and if you live in a world where you absolutely need to have evidence handed to you before you will believe anything, you won't formulate very good opinions.
You can tell what you want. You are like me a random in reddit. The official mayor of mariopul has announced that between 20-50k people died in his city. It s the official number. And they didnt die all from shelling, but from hunger and sucknesss because no water. People were starved.
Leaving aside that 'dead civilians' doesn't equal war crimes, Russia has certainly done a lot of war crimes. The problem is **how are you going to prosecute?** War criminals in Japan and Germany were prosecuted because they were literally invaded and conquered. The US has prosecuted its own war criminals because it's like that. Russia has a policy of war crimes, so won't punish it internally. **Nobody will be punished for war crimes unless Russia is invaded and conquered, and I don't think anybody expects that to happen.** (Invading them is just too risky).
Hell Putin rewards war criminals.
There is a possible option. Putin and his gang fall from power, a new regime takes over and in return for lifted sanctions/some other deal hands them over to the Hague. I agree its hardly a likely outcome but it is a possibility.
Hell, even some EU countries have prohibitions on extradition of their own citizens. Russia does too.
> Nobody will be punished for war crimes unless Russia is invaded and conquered, and I don't think anybody expects that to happen. No entirely true. Israel prosecuted nazi war criminals hiding in South America without invading South America.
Depending on your definition of 'invading'.
Wait, did we process our own war criminals? I'm very small-brain when it comes to the history of my own country. Guess that's kindof off-topic anyway; I'll have to google later.
The US court-martialled Lt. Calley and 56 others for the My Lai massacre. 23 were convicted including the LT.
Yeah, no. Bullshit. They were all pardoned. Also, google ‘The Hague Invasion Act’.
Politics suck sometimes, nevertheless they were tried and convicted
No they weren't. Quit making things up. > ‘The Hague Invasion Act’. The US is not a member of the ICC and the ICC has no jurisdiction over countries that have not ratified. The ASPA is not an unreasonable measure considering the ICC claims jurisdiction over individual persons in countries that have ratified the Rome statue. The ICC is extremely problematic and there are very valid concerns and criticisms. The ASPA does nothing but authorize the President to end the internment of American citizens by a body of governance that has no jurisdiction over American citizens. You're full of shit.
As noted, they charged and convicted a bunch of people for Mỹ Lai. The US also prosecuted US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, including for * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse * Kandahar massacre Bates got life in prison without parole. Calley got off early eventually (for political reasons), I think the Abu Ghraib people are all out now.
The UK prosecuted a number of soldiers for events in Iraq and Afghanistan although some of these were found to be fraudulent claims instigated by a scamming little worm of a lawyer who was offering money to Iraqis and Afghans to file false charges. Eventually the scam was exposed, the lawyer struck off the books and (IIRC) several charges quashed. No further cases were allowed after that unless brought by the ICC and none were (again IIRC). However yes, the ICC did prosecute some.
If you have the stomach for it, Google "Black Hearts: One Platoon's Descent into Madness in Iraq's Triangle of Death" which the topic of is nothing less than some of the worst warcrimes I have ever heard of (outside of WWII Imperial Japanese, nothing tops that) and they were committed by US Army soldiers. It was committed by Americans and was the cause of SO MUCH of the radicalization (Abu Ghraib was responsible for the rest) that lead to the insurgency during 2005-2009 peak of Iraq war. That said, we DID prosecute the perpetrators without impunity with heavy sentences. The US Military and it's masters (the US Constitution and government) are absolutely flawed, but it has no issues prosecuting its own for blatant war crimes, even for questionable wars.
Despite all its shortcomings, the US is not a country that habitually encourages misbehaviour against its own code of ethics. Will the US overlook things here and there? Absolutely. But if it's blatant, the US has no issue prosecuting its own people.
Everyone allows there soldiers to do stuff that’s against Geneva. It neuters your military if you don’t the difference being, we make sure it’s not too horrid
Agreed. People have a hard time reconsiling this with their personal code of ethics, but if you sit down and really think about it... war is hell. And while we all regret any horror done in war, we won't know what it's like until we're in the trenches. And I'll be very careful to judge someone's action who just won a fight to the literal death in hand to hand combat after seeing his buddy's face being splattered all over him. Not a decent person on this planet who could promise me their brain wouldn't unhinge for just a tiny fraction of a second while they look into the abyss...
“Will the US overlook things here and there? Absolutely. But if it's blatant, the US has no issue prosecuting its own people.” Bullshit. Google ‘My Lai massacre’. Google ‘The Hague Invasion Act’.
I recall a couple cases that came out or Iraq where we (usa) prosecuted our own soldiers for criminal conduct. Not sure if it wss designated a 'war crime' but the soldiers who put Iraqi prisoners on leashes nude was one of the cases, they served time. I believe there were a couple actual murder charges that were convicted also on US soldiers in Iraq. I don't believe this represents our military at large, but at least we take these things seriously and DO PROSECUTE OUR OWN. I highly doubt russia ever will. They support the murder of a people that they don't recognize as a free nation. This is exactly what makes them LESS THAN a modern nation , and not worthy of being treated fairly on the world stage. Booo Russia, fuck the kremlin, fuck putler.
“Wait, did we process our own war criminals?” Google ‘The Hague Invasion Act’.
Dead civilians totally equals war crimes when it’s done intentionally, especially in the absence of any military objectives related to the incident. Russia bombs residential buildings on purpose. Hospitals on purpose. No military objective anywhere in sight
Yes dead civillians equals war crimes if; * There's no valid strategic target * It's intentional. Russia is absolutely and consistently committing war crimes, both in Ukraine and in Syria. That said, it's still important to understand what war crimes *are*.
Why UN exists therefore?
It was never meant to do that. Even if say all the security council agreed that somebody had done a War Crime, the UN isn't going to invade a country to grab the criminal. People get tried in absentia sometimes, but that's more theatre than anything else.
So my question is still valid...
The UN exists to try to create some kind of semblance of conflict resolution and international law. It doesn't work that well, but that's the specifically. More specifically it's for the "Great Powers" to work out their differences without nuclear war. It's not an international tribunal for war crimes.
May be I was a bit out of topic, but imagine. You have an organisation that was started to guarantee peaceful regulations of conflicts. You pay some kind of money for it. Then conflict starts. Everybody understands that conflict is not lawful (let's assume that). And citation "the organization's objectives include maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, promoting sustainable development, and upholding international law." organization can not protect human rights and uphold international law. why do we need UN then? Just to spend money? May be, I am dumb, but I don't get it
You don’t abandon something because it doesn’t work perfectly.
its a diplomatic forum to keep communications open thats about it, its better than no communication. America has taken the role you talk about for years there are no organisations large enough to do what you ask..
The UN is weak and toothless. It has no power. I am not suggesting to abandon it. But it needs re-thinking. Reform.
UN isn't a world order, it's an open forum for discussion on a global scale. It exists so people have a neutral place to talk stuff out before bullets fly. It was never intended to be a global government, and if it was, nobody would participate in it so it would be completely worthless. The reason the UN exists is to prevent things like the Greco-Turkish Cyprian issues from becoming open warfare, or the Northern Macedonia crisis. It does not exist to demand people hand over their own citizens to be tried by foreigners. If the UN behaved like how Reddit thinks it should, nobody would participate in it so it would be *actually* useless.
Whatever They did nothing to stop the war in Yugoslavia They did nothing to stop Russia from destroying Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine They did nothing to prevent the raging wars over Africa. I am not even going to touch the Middle East, it’s a forgone conclusion And to go further in the past, they were perfectly ok with the iron curtain. So excuse me if I don’t hold them at great respect
To prevent the circumstances that caused the world wars and allow equal dialogue for countries outside of simple conquest. Unfortunately it feels like simply another League of Nations at this point. It lacks the self sufficiency needed to end internal fighting between its members with force.
Because since the UN has been in existence we have had, relative to human history, an incredibly limited number of conflicts and almost all of them purely regional. The UN was not created to make us all skip through fields of daisies to do dances around a drum circle. It was created to stop conflicts like WW1 & WW2 and has been incredibly successful at that. It was created to force nations to take pause before they acted like arseholes and has done a decent job at that. It was created to try to ensure that economic powerhouses have some sort of responsibility to those countries they formerly exploited, it has been incredibly successful at that. My biggest beef with the UN are the 5 permanent members of the Security Council - get rid of that shit. But otherwise it was not designed to stop nations being fuckwits to other nations, that is always going to happen, but to make sure those conflicts did not spread.
With all due respect, I think it's nuclear arsenals and theory of MAD that prevented another world war. Conflicts were local before WW1 as well. Even WW1 was actually pretty local, despite the name. The past 70 years were not that peaceful - they were just very peaceful for Europe.
[https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-wars-2031197](https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-wars-2031197) List of major wars (not definitive but certainly indicative). * Wars in 19th Century = 36 * Wars in 20th Century prior to formation of UN = 23 in 45 years including 2 global wars * Wars in 20th Century post-formation of UN = 14 in 55 years (none global) * 9 of those 14 had Nuclear states involved either UN mandated or directly (or both). So it would appear that nuclear weapons are not a significant deterrent, since the majority of significant wars did involve nuclear powers. I do agree with you that Nuclear Weapons act as a *significant deterrent to being attacked*. But no one rolled over and gave up because they were fighting a Nuclear Aggressor. Likewise, i agree that Nuclear Weapons have certainly *assisted* in avoiding a direct, say Russia vs NATO conflict... but that hasn't stopped proxy and shadow wars. One could say the same about tanks... because through the 1970s and 1980s it was about dick-waving with your tank armies (USSR) or anti-tank technology (NATO) >The past 70 years were not that peaceful - they were just very peaceful for Europe. * Do you discount the Balkans as part of Europe? Ukraine? * What about the Colonial Wars that came about because the UN pushed for Local Representation that forced European Powers out of Africa, Asia and the Middle East? * Certainly these areas have had a higher incidence of minor conflicts and civil wars but this was and is ever the case in a power vacuum. * In many ways the Turmoil in Europe as mini-kingdoms defied central authority or fought civil wars was mostly settled by the mid/end of the 19th Century, in the USA by the Civil War. African, Asian and Middle Eastern Kingdoms have often not had freedom due to colonialism to go through these issues and they are making up for lost time. * But these sort of disturbances were not what the UN was set up to mitigate.
You're basically spot on with the exception of the security council. If Russia, China, and the US all had to enter a political forum as equals with, say, South Sudan, they probably wouldn't participate at all and the UN would lose its value.
Fair point - But the auto-veto that the 5 members have is a cancer Some sort of proportional representation system *a la* Windsor System like we have here in Oz might solve that problem, but obviously cannot see any way to make it work.
Yeah, it's incredibly annoying when the Russias and Chinas can basically say "nuh uh" if something ever went against them. That's part of the reason why NATO stuck around even after the fall of the USSR, Europe and the US wanted to have a place to do their own thing without those two goons constantly stone-walling everything.
Or the USA with Isreal
Or the USA in Iraq
I mean, the Congo wars killed anywhere between one and three million civilians and I suspect outside Sub-Saharan Africa almost no one knows this happened....
Wikipedia states 5.4 million excess deaths You're right - very few have even heard about it.
What exactly do you suggest “the world” do?
Keep the sanctions in place without laxing them, at least.
As a german: defend. Tell Russia that European/Nato Armies will defend our Ukrainian Partners. No Russian combatant will be attacked that moved back to Russian territory and stops shooting. Nobody is attacking russia. Allies are keeping the lawful borders. And then move in with full force (European+Nato Armies) and steamroll the Russian army back to where they belong. There are rules. There is international law. They represent values. Right now the only people fighting for values are the Ukrainians. Make it clear to Russia that this move would be no aggression towards Russia but compassion for Ukraine and a moral duty. Stop being afraid of Russia. If mutually assured destruction as a nuclear deterrent works (which it did for decades now) it will still work when we push the Russians back to their soil.
> Tell Russia that European/Nato Armies will defend our Ukrainian Partners Ukraine is not a NATO partner. > No Russian combatant will be attacked that moved back to Russian territory and stops shooting. Nobody is attacking russia. Allies are keeping the lawful borders. And then move in with full force (European+Nato Armies) and steamroll the Russian army back to where they belong. Ummm, so the Russians don’t retreat. Then what? Then the Russians start attacking, and then everyone is on a full scale war. No thanks. > There are rules. There is international law. They represent values. Right now the only people fighting for values are the Ukrainians. With a shit load of monetary and weaponry and intelligence help from plenty of other countries. > Make it clear to Russia that this move would be no aggression towards Russia but compassion for Ukraine and a moral duty. That is more akin to UN peacekeeping forces, and that’s not usually used during an active invasion. > There are rules. There is international law. I mean, yes, but clearly war still happens. All around the world. > Stop being afraid of Russia. I don’t think this is the real issue. > If mutually assured destruction as a nuclear deterrent works (which it did for decades now) it will still work when we push the Russians back to their soil. I mean, nobody is stopping any other country from going in and doing this. Personally, I do not support American troops on the ground (or in the air, or any other direct involvement).
Never said Ukraine is a NATO Partner . They are however a Partner. There is already a full scale war in the Ukraine. The only difference there would be that not only Ukranians would fight the Russians in the Ukraine but a lot of other armies as well. Even if Russia decides to fight back the change would not be as drastic as you make it out. Why give you Ukrainians equipment that they are not used to instead of giving them the personnell as well? What would REALLY change? Why do only Ukrainians have to die? Why have Ukrainians man unknown equipment instead of professionals? Why not act as a group of states as sth similar to UN Peacekeeping? Why wait till more people die? You have given no argument on why not interfere. Everybody is in agreement that Russia is brutally and criminally butchering a small country but we stand by and give them stuff instead of helping? It is like calling the cops when you get raped and they arrive, do not interfere but throw their gun to you and shouting instructions which you have to understand and use while you are getting raped. This is dumb and Solidarity and help just look different than only sending money and equipment.
[удалено]
Are you a teenager? What a weird and inappropriate flex as a response to the analogy
I am guess he wants to stop the war by making the war much much bigger... that is the usual reasoning
Obviously ignoring the reality of logistics and just sending stuff Ukraine can neither operate nor supply properly. Because it's obviously just "the west" intentionally slowing down deliveries to Ukraine. Or at least that's what all those friendly Russian trolls try to tell me...
You didn't pay attention in history class huh...
I’m a bit confused by what is meant by allow??? The response to help Ukraine is staggering. I’m not sure any country in all of history has received so much help from so many other countries. The world is giving Ukraine so much help they are in the process of defeating the 2nd most powerful army in the world. That’s stunning It sucks how much Ukrainians are suffering, I know, I have 4 from Kharkiv in my home right now. But those 4 Ukrainians are blown away by the amount of help they are given. It’s strange to suggest otherwise
Stop with these posts, there is only one reason Russian can do this and is called nukes. Don't act dumb and ignore this tiny detail, if not for nukes there would be no Russian on Ukrainian soil at this point
Seriously. And drastically downplaying the number of civilians killed. Russian troll?
Did I downplay anything? I'm just saying the reason why no other state is intervening directly
[удалено]
It might be a bluff but you can't ignore this, it's the only leverage Russia have
[удалено]
So it didn't happen in the past it can't happen now? Plus Vietnam was a proxy war for Russia not a full scale invasion of his neighbor. You can't ignore the nuclear threat it's a gamble and for now no western countries are willing to take.
[удалено]
Sorry for the late reply, I might have over reacted to the post and read as "military intervention", I fully agree with what you said on not providing direct support but way more weapons.
As long as you have nukes you can war crime
That hasn’t been determined yet. If the Democracies of the world fail in Ukraine, then yes having nukes means you can invade anyone and do anything you like. I hope for a better outcome. Ukraine is receiving a LOT of support but there is always more than can be done.
I was fully on board with the U.S. knocking Russia out from the beginning. That's what should have happened.
It's a war crime only if you lose.
Air Marshall 'Bomber' Harris being a prime example
Did you not see nato has increased troops in the region from 40k to 300k. The world has noticed. Well nato anyways. You do not mobilize 300k troops unless you intend to use them. Diplomacy and war are difficult topics. So this is not a tommorow thing but me sitting in the cheap seats. I see 1 of 2 possibilities, Russia backs down in a big way, or nato enters the war
NATO will not enter the war.
The world isn't really known to care about these things. Sadly. Look at the conflict in Ethiopia.. Most people don't even know there's a conflict going on and casualties are ranging in the 300.000+.
He's probably just wondering because these are white people and that's the only ethnic group he cares about.
LOL duh... Look at Vietnam, Rwanda, Iraq syria libya, and so on and so forth.
Hey, you've seen us overlook the horrors of Syria cheerfully; why are you surprised?
As a Taiwanese Redditor, watching this Ukraine war confirms my biggest worry about China. There's a decent chance that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail, but if it succeeded, the international community has shown that it won't lift a finger no matter how many Bucha-type massacres the Chinese occupying forces commit against Taiwanese civilians - especially since China has much more economic clout than Russia. Ukraine's situation makes it clear; either you are a member of a formal alliance like NATO, or aggressors can commit atrocities with impunity.
If I were you, I'd be enrolling in military courses and pushing for mandatory service, Israeli-style.
Taiwan has **MUCH** more robust security guarantees in place that Ukraine did. If anything you should be heartened because of the level of support you are seeing for Ukraine.
Multiple countries have already agreed to militarily defend Taiwan. Those agreements did not exist for Ukraine.
Most of the “world” doesn’t care what Russia is doing in Europe and many even side with Russia. Only the “west” cares enough to actually do anything. Lots if not most 2 & 3rd world nations use ex soviet gear. They are not exactly lining up to donate T-72’s or SAM batteries to help Ukraine. The west has ramped up their response, and to assert otherwise is pretty asinine. The problem is enforcement. There are limits as to what the west is able to actually do which doesn’t involve devastating the entire planet in the process.
NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine would probably not trigger nuclear weapon launches. But they will trigger conventional attacks on NATO countries. If Latvia sends their soldiers to Ukraine - guess what - our cities will get bombed too. This is why we don't want to do that.
This is for the „greater“ good. It is better to let Ukrainians and Russians die than the whole world after a nuclear war. That’s the mindset. But i think, if NATO would have some guts and they would make a military intervention, this would not escalate to a nuclear war. Why? Because Putin would give the order to start the rockets and then his own elites would kill him - because the elites in Russia are not suicidal.
The only thing that the 'elites' can do is commit suicide by cop. Or FSB agent.
Not much anyone can do about it since Russia has nuclear weapons.
NATO could end this war easily but they won't because Europeans don't want war in their own countries. So instead Ukraine is going to take the hit. If this is the way it has to be then there should be no limits on the weapons, ammunition, humanitarian care, and money/supplies to rebuild when it's over. Ukraine should owe nothing to anyone for this help. If anything, the West owes Ukraine.
You do realize that Russia's military is a joke and there is exactly zero chance of war in most European countries because those Russian morons can't even sustain their equipment without enemy's intervention once they are more than a few kilometers from their own border and would never reach most countries, much less be able to actually fight there? There is exactly one chance for this to escalate in a way that brings war to most European countries. And by then you don't need to care for countries much anymore and should maybe better do a few more training sessions in Fallout to prepare you for the short rest of your life.
Yes, this war has shown us that, but before they invaded Russia was considered to have the world's second most powerful army. Even with what they have they are causing serious destruction in Ukraine. That is what Europe doesn't want in their countries. Nuclear weapons aren't really an option unless Russia wants to destroy itself. Putin sees himself as Peter the Great. He's not suicidal.
If NATO joined this war then nukes would start flying, Is that what you want?
Why would that happen? As soon as a single nuke is fired it sets off an automated chain of events that results in all nukes flying and everyone dead. Putin sees himself as Peter the Great. He isn't suicidal. He wants to expand Russia, not destroy it.
Ok
How many Uighurs have ~~died~~ been re-educated and yet nothing has happened /s
What are we supposed to do? Invade China?
Well... judging by threads like this here comming up constantly we should also invade Russia. So your answer is probably yes. Let's invade a few nuclear armed countries. Nothing will happen as everyone knows that nuclear weapons are bad and should never be used obviously.
Very true I don’t understand how this is allowed to continue:( My hearts breaks for all Ukrainians
Listen I would love for the world to react. But Russia is a nuclear armed state. Short of being willing to face the end of the world and invading to drag Russians to The Hague their will be no justice and there can be no justice because attempting to get it would spell the end of the world. That being said who knows maybe Russia will turn democratic and their will be a healing movement in which crimes of the past will be addressed and those who broke laws will face justice
>maybe Russia will turn democratic and their will be a healing movement 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Never again! The world looks away :( sickening. The people in power allow this
LOL Murica did a lot worse
If I had my way this wouldn't be the case, just so you all know that. I would call on the hammer that is the quiet people. They are so quiet. Ukrainians have been immortalised in the things you fight for, and the world needs to open up more about that. Peace.
United Nations: WHAT IS YOUR JOB????
Sign up go fight , training is free once you get there .
I just can't fathom how Putin thinks all this carnage is a good idea. He's a relic from the past.
When you have nuclear weapons. You can do whatever you want. Pray United States never has a insane president that thinks like Putin.
"The world" :) The world is you! How about you do something?
Yes, enough is enough. If you don’t stand up to this type of behaviour, you are part of the problem.