this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
14 points (63.0% liked)
World News
32286 readers
656 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
NATO is a defensive alliance that only defends (counterattacks) when attacked. If Sweden is not in NATO and attacked by ruzzia terrorists, they'd be supported in the same way Ukraine is being supported now. If in NATO and attacked by ruzzia, ruzzia would be instantly flattened by NATO.
So would NATO... boom goes the nuke
Incorrect.
You do understand that nuclear war is final?
Refuse ruscist terrorist extortion.
??? This wasn't my point.
Here's the deal: Putler and his orc regime are terrorists. Countries joining NATO won't change his mind on using nukes. If there were no NATO, he'd be just as likely to do it. You see? He is a terrorist, and also a coward.
What do you mean by ‘are terrorists’? That word seems so ambiguous these days. Sometimes it means they infiltrate societies and attack civilians through homemade bombs, shootings or some suicidal maniacs. Sometimes it means they’re the baddies. Sometimes it’s a slur that basically means middle eastern. The word is meaningless to me at this point, specially when used to reference a country waging actual war against a sovereign country. Not even a guerrilla kind of thing.
They’re definitely a problem and obvious aggressors, for sure the biggest threat to peace in Europe. But how do you categorize them as ‘terrorists’?