Russia Just Invaded Ukraine

[Alfster]

We? Peacekeepers. Haha. What fucking world do you live in?

[Gelston]

Crimea is west of Mariupol. While Russia is securing that obliterated port, Ukraine should throw everything they have at retaking Crimea. They sank the flagship belonging to the Russians which could threaten Odessa or Crimea, so they're in a better position to not have to face sea based cruise missiles.

As a matter of fact, Ukraine takes Crimea, gives up the eastern provinces, then we institute a protective cordon around Crimea, western Ukraine and start landing peacekeepers.

It is technically West, but would be the Eastern portion of Ukraine. I thought you were talking Kiev area. I doubt they could retake Crimea, there is a difference between defeating an attacking army as opposed to being the attacking army.

Also, who is "we"? The UN? That requires the Security Council to approve it. Russia and China wouldn't allow it. You mean a unilateral deployment? You mean NATO? That would more likely than not cause a far larger conflict.

[Shaps]

Remember when... Trump was supposed to usher in WW3... I do... ROFL.

[Parkbandit]

Remember when... Trump was supposed to usher in WW3... I do... ROFL.

Given enough time.. I'm sure an alt-leftie like Seran could somehow blame Trump for this Russia/Ukraine war.

[Methais]

Given enough time.. I'm sure an alt-leftie like Seran could somehow blame Trump for this Russia/Ukraine war.

I'm pretty sure he already has.

[Tgo01]

Given enough time.. I'm sure an alt-leftie like Seran could somehow blame Trump for this Russia/Ukraine war.

I've already seen some hot takes such as Russia would have invaded Ukraine under Trump but Trump was already giving Russia everything they wanted. Like I guess peace is a bad thing now, even if you're claiming Trump is Putin's puppet or something.

[Seran]

It is technically West, but would be the Eastern portion of Ukraine. I thought you were talking Kiev area. I doubt they could retake Crimea, there is a difference between defeating an attacking army as opposed to being the attacking army.

Also, who is "we"? The UN? That requires the Security Council to approve it. Russia and China wouldn't allow it. You mean a unilateral deployment? You mean NATO? That would more likely than not cause a far larger conflict.

America. Something like 70% of Americans are in support of Ukraine and both Republicans and Democrats are calling for more involvement, so an internationally agreed to and funded UN peacekeeping mission would would. Remember, Russia doesn't get to engage it's UN Security Council veto due to being a belligerent in the matter. China may veto, but I doubt it. Even if they did, a toothless general assembly vote showing overwhelming support, then NATO action would suffice.

[Alfster]

Russias just going to shoot at said peacekeepers. Dumbest take I've seen in a long time.

The UN is largely symbolic. They can't do shit, with or without Russia getting a veto

[Tgo01]

The UN is largely symbolic. They can't do shit, with or without Russia getting a veto

Alfster making sense for a change.

I'm not sure exactly what Seran thinks the UN can do. They are largely a bureaucratic organization. The only thing they do well is spend rich countries' money.

[Alfster]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ukr...022-04-09/#app

Not sure where he's getting his 70% from either, this is the newest one I could find and he either A) can't interpret the results or B) pulled it out of his ass