Olaf Scholz: the NATO will not be part of the Ukrainian War

[Estro Felino]

That's what he said, here in this video:
The NATO is not and will not be part in this war. And that will stay like that. We don't want the war between Russian and Ukraine to turn into a war between Russia and NATO. We agree on that with all of our allies. Which means: no participation of Germany in this war.
This is what our soldiers can count on. To be clear: as Germany's Federal Chancellor I will not send any soldiers: our soldiers can count on that.




That's the stance of us Europeans. Because Germany and Italy are totally united about this topic and many others more.

So I will just say to the elitist cabal of warmongers overseas: Abandon all hope, dear warmongers.
No war in Europe.

 

[Altfish]

Alternatively, goodbye Poland, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia

 

[Rival]

Alternatively, goodbye Poland, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia

Then let these places fight on their own? There are enough of them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A war between NATO and Russia would be a war between multiple nuclear powers and the world's largest nuclear power. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that NATO would not want to step into that utter nightmare and would instead keep supporting Ukraine financially and militarily without sending troops against Russia.

A nuclear war would not help Ukraine; it would merely ensure that Ukraine and numerous other countries would suffer unprecedentedly catastrophic consequences from nuclear destruction and its aftermath that would almost certainly last for generations.

 

[Stevicus]

That's what he said, here in this video:
The NATO is not and will not be part in this war. And that will stay like that. We don't want the war between Russian and Ukraine to turn into a war between Russia and NATO. We agree on that with all of our allies. Which means: no participation of Germany in this war.
This is what our soldiers can count on. To be clear: as Germany's Federal Chancellor I will not send any soldiers: our soldiers can count on that.




That's the stance of us Europeans. Because Germany and Italy are totally united about this topic and many others more.

So I will just say to the elitist cabal of warmongers overseas: Abandon all hope, dear warmongers.
No war in Europe.

Not at the moment anyway. That question was already decided from the outset. The U.S. also has no intentions of going to war with Russia or sending troops to Ukraine. NATO's entire position rests solely on the belief that Putin is secretly planning to conquer more countries in Europe. So, if Putin attacks any NATO countries, then there would certainly be war with all of NATO.

If Putin limits his aggression to just Ukraine, then the fears of Western leadership may not ever be realized.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Alternatively, goodbye Poland, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia

I hear this a lot here from Biden and others. "We need to send more money to Ukraine because if we don't stop Putin there he will keep going and invade other (NATO) countries." Total BS IMHO. The last thing Putin wants is to fight NATO because, short of the use of tactical nukes, he would be crushed.

 

[Estro Felino]

Alternatively, goodbye Poland, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia

Paranoiac assumptions have never led anywhere. With all the utmost respect.

Russia is not interested in Europe.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not at the moment anyway.

You don't understand. Ever.
Not "not at the moment".
Germans and Italians are over with the notion of war.

That question was already decided from the outset. The U.S. also has no intentions of going to war with Russia or sending troops to Ukraine.

The American people doesn't. But the US elitist cabal of warmonger does.

NATO's entire position rests solely on the belief that Putin is secretly planning to conquer more countries in Europe.

Putin is not interested in Europe. In any European country.

So, if Putin attacks any NATO countries, then there would certainly be war with all of NATO.

But he will not do that.

If Putin limits his aggression to just Ukraine, then the fears of Western leadership may not ever be realized.

He just annexed four regions where people speak Russian. And also Crimea.
He is not interested in countries where people speak Romanian or Polish.

 

[Altfish]

Then let these places fight on their own? There are enough of them.

By that logic Europe would be currently run by Nazis, as Germany would have won the 2nd WW

 

[Altfish]

Paranoiac assumptions have never led anywhere. With all the utmost respect.

Russia is not interested in Europe.

When did Crimea and Ukraine stop being in Europe, I must have missed that?

 

[Altfish]

I hear this a lot here from Biden and others. "We need to send more money to Ukraine because if we don't stop Putin there he will keep going and invade other (NATO) countries." Total BS IMHO. The last thing Putin wants is to fight NATO because, short of the use of tactical nukes, he would be crushed.

If the west had taken Putin's take over of Crimea seriously, Ukraine wouldn't have happened.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then let these places fight on their own? There are enough of them.

Should USA have let England fight
with the Nazis unassisted?
There are likely terrible consequences
from letting violent predators do as
they please.

 

[Estro Felino]

When did Crimea and Ukraine stop being in Europe, I must have missed that?

Crimea has always been Russia.

 

[Revoltingest]

Crimea has always been Russia.

Does it make you happy that Putin
is being encouraged & permitted
to invade more countries?

 

[Rival]

By that logic Europe would be currently run by Nazis, as Germany would have won the 2nd WW

Should USA have let England fight
with the Nazis unassisted?
There are likely terrible consequences
from letting violent predators do as
they please.

NS Germany was actually attacking us.

Russia is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

NS Germany was actually attacking us.

Russia is not.

It is threat of attack vs ongoing attack a useful distinction?
You posted...
"Then let these places fight on their own? There are enough of them."
If those countries should fight on their own,
why should USA have assisted England, if
it shouldn't assist European countries?

Note that England invaded & attacked USA
a couple times. Those countries never did.

 

[Rival]

It is threat of attack vs ongoing attack a useful distinction?
You posted...
"Then let these places fight on their own? There are enough of them."
If those countries should fight on their own,
why should USA have assisted England, if
it shouldn't assist European countries?

Note that England invaded & attacked USA
a couple times. Those countries never did.

The US dragged its ****, that's for sure.

The idea that we wouldn't have won without them is not really true, as that medal goes to the USSR.

The problem is when everyone piles on to defend everyone else, that's when you end with a world war.

I don't support a world war.

I also don't support NATO or US and UK interventionism.

 

[Koldo]

NS Germany was actually attacking us.

Russia is not.

Germany didn't attack the US though. By this rationale, the US shouldn't have attacked Germany.

 

[Rival]

Germany didn't attack the US though. By this rationale, the US shouldn't have attacked Germany.

Yes.

And afterwards they sheltered a bunch of them and gave them jobs.

 

[Regiomontanus]

If the west had taken Putin's take over of Crimea seriously, Ukraine wouldn't have happened.

I don't think Russia taking Crimea back is any of our business.

Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago?

In 1954 the Soviet Union transferred control of Crimea to Soviet Ukraine. Mark Kramer (Harvard) explains the reasons behind this surprising decision, one which has come back to haunt Ukraine today with tragic consequences.

www.wilsoncenter.org