6mo ago

North korean armoured vehicles sighted in Ukraine according to german news

www.spiegel.de Ukraine meldet Kampfpanzer aus Nordkorea an der Front

Der ukrainische Präsident möchte mehr Schutzräume in Schulen bauen. Die Ukraine verstärkt Verteidigung an der Grenze zu Belarus. Schwere Kämpfe in der Ostukraine. Und: Wohl erste nordkoreanische Schützenpanzer an der Front entdeckt. Der Überblick.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/1439031

Ukraine @sopuli.xyz

smokeysnilas @feddit.org

6mo ago

North korean tanks sighted in Ukraine according to german news

www.spiegel.de /ausland/ukraine-meldet-nordkoreanische-kampfpanzer-an-der-front-a-584c1b72-3023-41e1-8263-76aa39dcf4e6

117 13

DACH - Deutschsprachige Community für Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz @feddit.org

Hubi @feddit.org

6mo ago

Ukraine meldet nordkoreanische Kampfpanzer an der Front

www.spiegel.de /ausland/ukraine-meldet-nordkoreanische-kampfpanzer-an-der-front-a-584c1b72-3023-41e1-8263-76aa39dcf4e6

62 24

You're viewing a single thread.

76 comments

Well they are using NATO weapons against Russia so alls fair.
- Sending weapons to help defend against an illegal Invasion and genocide is different from supporting an illegal Invasion and genocide. Should Sweden have sent weapons to Germany in 1941 after the US started sending weapons to the UK?
  
  I didn't say either was right or wrong I just said that it was fair. The way you feel about a conflict doesn't change how either side fight. And your historical examples are only relevant because we were on the winning side so of course we fell it was the right thing to do. But during that time period the American public was very against getting involved with another war in Europe after WW1. FDR was looking for every way possible to convince the American public to support the Allies but during that time period we were very isolationist.
  So to answer your question, No Sweden should not have sent weapons to the Germans in 1941. Not because the US sent weapons to the UK but because Sweden was neutral by their own policy.
  
  It's war, fairness doesn't come into it.
  As for whether it's an escalation, you're right that it's not.
  
  I know that fairness doesn't come to play but I was originally pointing out that if NATO can supply Ukraine than North Korea can supply Russia. Nothing anyone can do about it but complain to deaf ears.
  
  Ok, fair enough, but then would it have been fair for Sweden to do so if they had not declared themselves neutral? The US was neutral too. Was it unfair for the US to send weapons to the UK or Ukraine? I would argue that it wasn't, because of the ethics of defending countries from outside attack, and upholding international law.
  So then, what is the basis of "fair"? Ethics? International law? Statements by Kim? Statements by Biden?
  I mean, I pointed out why the ethics argue against it, and for international law, Russia's importation of weapons from North Korea violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
  Kim's statements don't seem to justify this, since Kim has not made any outright statements about Ukraine, and has only pledged to supply weapons to Russia for "defence against aggression", which does not match Russia's situation. NK is basically saying they're neutral, and then sending weapons to Ukraine, which doesn't seem very fair.
  Biden definitely isn't ok with NK sending weapons, and his administration has denounced North Korea's involvement and pointed out that is illegal under international law.
  No party has made any statements justifying North Korea sending weapons to Ukraine, so I can hardly see how it's fair.
  
  I find it funny that you're using the UN Security Counsel as some sort of authority. Could you tell me who are the 5 permanent members of that security counsel? Those resolutions are only as legal as the they are enforceable. Honestly if North Korea wants to supply weapons to Russia and Russia accepts then who can stop them? No other country or entity has any authority of either. The best you can do is sanctions or war. But to give another example of how the UN has no power unless granted power; Everyone seems to forget that NATO, a defense alliance, attacked a sovereign European nation.
  NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.
  -- From Wikipedia.
  So here we have NATO itself ignoring the UN Security Counsel.
  
  So you're equating the 10 year-long invasion of Ukraine, complete with attacks on civilian targets, torture, and genocide, with the NATO airstrikes on the Yugoslav military during the Kosovo War?
  OK russkiy.
  
  No. I'm equating Russia ignoring the UN Security Counsel with NATO ignoring the UN Security Counsel. And resorting to name calling just means you have nothing to use in this conversation.

76 comments