FILE PHOTO. © AFP / Sergei Supinsky
Business Insider: Ukraine lawmakers call on NATO to impose no-fly zone over Ukraine, saying the bloc is reaping the consequences of ignoring Putin's threats for years
* Russia attacked Ukraine early Thursday, with explosions heard across the country.
* Two Ukrainian MPs told Insider that NATO must enforce a no-fly zone over their country.
* One said NATO underestimated Putin for years and that Ukraine is now paying for it.
NATO must announce a military no-fly zone over Ukraine in response to Russia's invasion, two Ukrainian members of Parliament told Insider on Thursday, saying the bloc was now seeing the consequences of ignoring President Vladimir Putin's threats for years.
Western powers sanctioned Russian entities earlier this week after Putin ordered troops to enter two pro-Kremlin regions of Ukraine. Putin ordered a "special military operation" into Ukraine — effectively an invasion — early Thursday, and cities across Ukraine were subsequently hit by shelling.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: NATO is not going to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. To do so will be a declaration of war between Russia and NATO.
A pro-Russian bloc of Ukrainian MPs are now demanding Zelensky to start negotiating with Moscow .... Ukrainian MPs call on Zelensky to start talks with Putin (RT).
8 comments:
Pro-Russian bloc is doing no such thing, and many have joined in the defense of their own country. Again with the RT drip from you.
Your coverage of the Ukraine war has been nothing but an absolute disgrace. For someone who has family/relations over there, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'd like to ask a question. Why is it ok, for the United states or Britian to Invade any country they want? But if a another country does it, it's terrorism or a Act of war.
WNU loves to spread fake news especially when it comes to China. The guy haven't set foot in China for over 40 years and claims to knows all the latest happenings.
Sam
cite the countries we invaded. Were they sovereign nations that were or were not involved in harming our national interest? Perhaps they were. But you need to name the places. I know we have done bad things. But not always.
So it would be a declaration of war and ...
There needs to be war between NATO and Russia.
Then the Russian generals have choice. Double tap Putin or kiss everyone goodbye.
Sam,
Was it ok to invade Afghanistan?
Was it okay for Pakistan to invade Afghanistan in the 1990s.
Was it okay to invade Kuwait?
Was it okay to invade Iraq after it broke the armistice? Fucking liberal assholes never answer that one. Merely stating that an inspector believed there were no WMDS or that none were found is not the totality of complying with the armistice.
If the police have a warrant to search a house for drugs and guns, but they are held off for 3 days and during that time a car drives off from the house into the distance. What then? The police eventually enter the house and find no drugs. That proves that there were never any drugs there. Right?
Where the US had no justification for invading was Libya. Obama did that and his shit don't stink. Liberals might grouse about it around drinks or a hookah, but that is the extent of it. Seen any mass protests at one of his speaking engagement or his McMansions.
Don't ever, EVER talk about Iraq and Afghanistan without solving the Libya situation.
Lastly there is Syria. Other than R2P the Kurds, our national interest that there is not a jihad state going global, and payback there legal justification.
So there is no legal justification given the current legal rules. Or the rules you want to admit to.
How would you protect the Kurds?
The Yazidis
The Christians.
How would you protect the world against ISIS. If ISIS had not been setback maybe they would stretch from Turkey to Iran to Yemen to Egypt.
Then you would what?
What would you do?
The there is the fact that the Assad government is prima facie illegitimate. So in reality there is no government to transgress against.
"Syria’s Assad wins fourth term with 95 percent of the vote, in election the West calls fraudulent"
2014 Syrian presidential election
2000 Syrian presidential election
Assad got 99.74% of the vote in 2000. I am sure that the vote was legit and that the government of Syria is legal.
I am soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BRAVE?
Are you as brave as me, Sam?
It is not illegal to be in Syria, because there is no legitimate government in Syria.
Plus we owe that asshole Assad. He equipped jihadis heading into Syria.
The governments of China, Russia, the US, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Mexico(?), Canada, Norway(?), Sweden(?) France, Vietnam, Burma, Laos, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt are not legitimate either.
Bosnia
Iraq
Syria
Lybia
Antitroll now that your Russian master are on the march you feel brave enough to crawl out from under your rock?
Years go you got regularly man handled. You enjoyed it, but it still hurt your pride, so you did not post much at all.
I conceded Libya. Bush left them alone. He got the WMDs and Libya not supporting terrorist training camps. Obama listening to Samantha Power and invaded.
Bosnia is a mixed bag. Clinton did it to wag the dog and perhaps to save the Muslims. Clinton stood by while the Serbs beat the fuck out of the coats in Vukovar and Osijek.
Vukovar and Osijek were majority Serbian?
I am so happy that you, Anti-"trill", support Iraq's right to invade Kuwait. Take a bow, you dog molester.
Syria has not held an real elections in 2 or 4 decades. It is not a legitimate government. The Assad government assassinated the Lebanese PM. Syria has also sent soldiers into Iraq after 2003. So we owe the the Assad government malice. The Assad government persecuted the Sunni majority so badly during and after the Arab Spring that it has zero legitimacy.
The bad thing about defeating ISIS, is that the US saved the ASSad Regime. The Russian might have been able to do it all by themselves, but it is not a given that they could.
Post a Comment