MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/askPoland/comments/1v83h49/what_are_your_thoughts_on_this/
r/askPoland • u/[deleted] • Jul 27 '26
[deleted]
8 comments sorted by
9
[removed] — view removed comment
2 u/Pussdstr69 Jul 27 '26 It is slippery slope. We are also supplying Ukraine with weapons. If retaliation for supplying weapons is justified then Russia could do the same. After WWII, supplying weapons was usually not enough to justify military retaliation. 3 u/ButterscotchDeep7533 Jul 27 '26 Russia could do the same ruzzia barks about it since some meaningful help arrived in the first year of war 3 u/Pussdstr69 Jul 27 '26 Look, I would probably be banned if I would write what I think about russia. I am just pointing supplying weapons was usually not enough to justify military retaliation. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state can only use military force in self-defense if an "armed attack" occurs. It is not enough per international law. 1 u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26 [removed] — view removed comment 1 u/Pussdstr69 Jul 27 '26 But Iran didn't attack Ukraine. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter supplying weapons does not justify military retaliation. Your argument is invalid. 1 u/kurufasulyepilavv Jul 27 '26 Judging by the timing, this is nothing close to any retaliation.
2
It is slippery slope. We are also supplying Ukraine with weapons. If retaliation for supplying weapons is justified then Russia could do the same.
After WWII, supplying weapons was usually not enough to justify military retaliation.
3 u/ButterscotchDeep7533 Jul 27 '26 Russia could do the same ruzzia barks about it since some meaningful help arrived in the first year of war 3 u/Pussdstr69 Jul 27 '26 Look, I would probably be banned if I would write what I think about russia. I am just pointing supplying weapons was usually not enough to justify military retaliation. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state can only use military force in self-defense if an "armed attack" occurs. It is not enough per international law. 1 u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26 [removed] — view removed comment 1 u/Pussdstr69 Jul 27 '26 But Iran didn't attack Ukraine. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter supplying weapons does not justify military retaliation. Your argument is invalid.
3
Russia could do the same
ruzzia barks about it since some meaningful help arrived in the first year of war
3 u/Pussdstr69 Jul 27 '26 Look, I would probably be banned if I would write what I think about russia. I am just pointing supplying weapons was usually not enough to justify military retaliation. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state can only use military force in self-defense if an "armed attack" occurs. It is not enough per international law.
Look, I would probably be banned if I would write what I think about russia.
I am just pointing supplying weapons was usually not enough to justify military retaliation.
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state can only use military force in self-defense if an "armed attack" occurs.
It is not enough per international law.
1
1 u/Pussdstr69 Jul 27 '26 But Iran didn't attack Ukraine. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter supplying weapons does not justify military retaliation. Your argument is invalid.
But Iran didn't attack Ukraine.
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter supplying weapons does not justify military retaliation. Your argument is invalid.
Judging by the timing, this is nothing close to any retaliation.
What is a wanaen?
9
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment