It only means Russia will have one less plane flying to Ukraine to strike and kill Ukrainians. … Our job as politicians is to explain what will happen if we do not make such a decision. It is necessary to realize that in such a case, the Russian army will go to the western border of Ukraine, up to the Polish border. These troops will then be directly in front of the NATO border, which we are also defending. If we don’t stop Putin, then, as a result, our territory and our military will be jeopardized. Because if [Russia] attacks Poland or another NATO country, such as the Baltic states, we Germans will also be drawn into the war. If you don’t want that, you have to make life difficult for Putin.
It’s an aspect I had not considered – “I don’t want a hostile military alliance coming right up to my country’s border” cuts both ways.
It’s an aspect I had not considered – “I don’t want a hostile military alliance coming right up to my country’s border” cuts both ways.
Its been Putin’s argument for invading Ukraine, except Ukraine wasn’t hostile militarily to Russia until Russia started seizing Ukrainian land in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk.
Ukraine was fine turning its back on Russia and embracing the rest of Europe economically, not militarily. Russia was NOT fine with that and started invading.
Yeah. You can actually look at the timeline, and there was an extensive debate inside Ukraine about whether or not they should make any kind of attempt at NATO, with the “not” side being initially pretty strong, and for pretty much exactly the reason you’d expect. And then, every time Russia did some unprovoked horrifying military aggression nearby or directly to them, the eagerness for NATO within Ukraine got a lot greater, until at this point, they and the West are both firmly in favor of it once things stabilize to a non-WW3 level of safety to do that.
The whole “Russia responded after the West tried to get Ukraine into NATO, which Ukraine had no independent desire for” thing is backwards in two whole separate different ways.
Her actual response:
There’s more. Her full statement is:
It’s an aspect I had not considered – “I don’t want a hostile military alliance coming right up to my country’s border” cuts both ways.
Its been Putin’s argument for invading Ukraine, except Ukraine wasn’t hostile militarily to Russia until Russia started seizing Ukrainian land in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk.
Ukraine was fine turning its back on Russia and embracing the rest of Europe economically, not militarily. Russia was NOT fine with that and started invading.
Yeah. You can actually look at the timeline, and there was an extensive debate inside Ukraine about whether or not they should make any kind of attempt at NATO, with the “not” side being initially pretty strong, and for pretty much exactly the reason you’d expect. And then, every time Russia did some unprovoked horrifying military aggression nearby or directly to them, the eagerness for NATO within Ukraine got a lot greater, until at this point, they and the West are both firmly in favor of it once things stabilize to a non-WW3 level of safety to do that.
The whole “Russia responded after the West tried to get Ukraine into NATO, which Ukraine had no independent desire for” thing is backwards in two whole separate different ways.
Yes, that’s the full statement. Her answer to the question in the post title, is what I quoted.
Wasn’t intending it as any kind of negative thing, just giving more of the info, since you provided some which I thought was a good idea
Based
Thanks for saving me that click on that site