I don’t need to, as I believe almost nothing I read from either side.
***You’re so full of bullshiite. You only criticize one side.
Both leaders and countries suck.
***One country invaded the other. The other country adhered to the agreement signed by them, the invading country, and the USA. Pretty simple 40,000 feet stuff. If we don’t get nuclear nonproliferation right, the world is doomed.
I support neither.
***You are a liar.
I support ending this ASAP.
***Then support giving the Ukes back their nukes. If they had never given up their nukes in adherence to that agreement, they never woulda been invaded twice, none of those other countries woulda sold arms for invading Ukraine.
Sending more weapons will only result in extending the war.
***It will keep this war CONVENTIONAL rather than pushing the Ukes into a suitcase nuclear engagement. Bein’ on the side of not sending more weapons is taking a side, contrary to what you just said.
More deaths, and greater economic fallout that effects the world.
***If it’s okay for a country with nukes and big military to bully its neighbors just to take their oil & gas reserves then we should just invade mehico straightway, using your reasoning.
I criticize one side, because all of the articles are one sided. What are you babbling about non proliferation? Who’s creating and spreading nuclear weapons? I’m a liar? I’m impressed that you can read minds. The nukes were never the Ukraine’s, they were just stationed there.
Are you concerned about the African conflicts currently happening? Should we go to war there as well?
How about the border conflicts in South America?
China and their treatment of Uighurs?
Is there anywhere you don’t want to go to war?
What branch did you serve in?
Constellis, formerly BlackWater, is hiring mercenaries.
Why don’t you sign up?
NO ONE can “give Ukraine back its nukes”!
They were given/sold/traded/stolen/sent to America as weapons and parts. Whole. After the soviet union broke up.
We took the plutonium out of the warheads, re-loaded into US nuclear reactor fuel pellets, and are burning now as fuel.
Correct in your assessment. However, I would add that given modern capabilities short of nukes, but including bioweapons and chemical weapons, if the security structure largely imposed by the West (lead by the US) breaks down, most of humankind is probably hosed anyway. MOST likely, if nukes somehow are not in major play, IMO, we get to the year 2300 with maybe 2 billion people left, 1 billion in China (and China takes most of central and eastern Russia.) Somewhat less likely is a population not too dissimilar in numbers from today, mostly techno-enslaved in something closer to North Korea than China of 2022, except for the far superior technologies of surveillance and control.
Of course nukes almost certainly will be in major play, and likely repeatedly, so results generally look to be far worse. Unless... We might still fall into a techno-slavery world.