this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
32 points (83.3% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

806 readers
48 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
32
Why won't they send in more NATO countries, after these months, to help Ukraine regain land from Russia? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It makes sense that they won't allow their own skin to be ravaged (United States, Britain, Germany, France etc), but why not the Baltics and Poland, at this point?

I'm surprised they haven't done so, after these long months

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because sending in a NATO country would start a new world war.

And NATO has no interest in doing that, they just want Ukrainians to die for making Russia weaker.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, we could say the same of the Korean War, but that didn't stop the U.S from bombing the hell out of the DPRK...

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

There is no money to be made from nuclear armageddon.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

drpk tested it's first nuke in the 2000's, the us invaded in the 50's thinking it would be a easy campaign since the country was recovering from japanese occupation, the general heading the campaign even fucking asked to deploy nukes on drpk

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Even then, Socialist Russia and China were developing nukes that they could theoretically use on stand-by to counter U.S, not to say that they had necessarily planned for that all...