Ukraine's U.N. Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya responded: "None of the countries that provide assistance to Ukraine is under Security Council sanctions." "Receiving assistance from the fully-sanctioned North Korea is a brazen violation of the U.N. Charter," he added. "Sending the DPRK troops to support Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is a flagrant violation of international law."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RiikkaTheIcePrincess@pawb.social 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hey Vassily, if Russia gets to call in a buddy to fight for them then why doesn't Ukraine?

Lot of bad jokes being told these days :-\

[+] smb@lemmy.ml -28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

if Russia gets to call in a buddy to fight for them then why doesn’t Ukraine?

it seems its just the other way around, dude. they got you that far already...

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which Western country has send troops to the Ukrainian front?

[–] smb@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Which Western country has send troops to the Ukrainian front?

so just choosing how to exactly limit the question changes if "help in war" was provided? what if western countries just helped with some nukes instead of only some normal rockets or whatever was sent there to help? what if western countries troops quick-changed their passports to be ukrainians instead?(guess that secret agencies already have enough passport printing capabilities,or just get them printed on demand), would that be sufficient to say no "western" troops were sent even if it were millions of soldiers "from" the west?

but living in a propagandainfested country i'ld already expect such bad manipulations to happen instantaneous.

what if western countries didn't send "troops to the front" but to the rest of the country so that invading military would have to fight western troops while ukrainian troops could concentrate on the front. would that also not be help in war by your (seemingly) position?

or the other way around: what if one would only call the directly by russian soldiers occupied area (like 1m² where they each actually stand) would that still be an invasion or just a US-style visit with US style damaging of democracy and economics? manipulating questions is a bad propaganda habit and does not prevent wars, it creates them.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago

so just choosing how to exactly limit the question changes if "help in war" was provided?

No. It's based on the "help in war" that is actually received. Russia receives actual North Korean troops to fight for them.

what if western countries just helped with some nukes instead of only some normal rockets or whatever was sent there to help? what if western countries troops quick-changed their passports to be ukrainians instead?(guess that secret agencies already have enough passport printing capabilities,or just get them printed on demand), would that be sufficient to say no "western" troops were sent even if it were millions of soldiers "from" the west?

I like how you have to make up various made up straw man scenarios to counter something that is actually happening in real life. Ironically this is very much projection too, since Russia did more or less exactly that with their "little green men" since 2014.

but living in a propagandainfested country i'ld already expect such bad manipulations to happen instantaneous.

You mean RuZZia? lol

what if western countries didn't send "troops to the front" but to the rest of the country so that invading military would have to fight western troops while ukrainian troops could concentrate on the front. would that also not be help in war by your (seemingly) position?

Again. You make up a scenario that did not happen. But since you likely try to say that those made up scenarios would make it consequently okay for Russia to use those NK troops, then them using those troops anyway (which they do) means the West is allowed to actually put troops on the ground to liberate Ukrainian territory? :)

or the other way around: what if one would only call the directly by russian soldiers occupied area (like 1m² where they each actually stand) would that still be an invasion or just a US-style visit with US style damaging of democracy and economics? manipulating questions is a bad propaganda habit and does not prevent wars, it creates them.

Call? Like a telephone call? Or calling it a name? Please translate more coherently.

[–] Burstar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 days ago

While it has been public since late '22 that special forces from a few NATO countries are in Ukraine for advisory and training purposes, I am not aware of any credible evidence for them participating in front line fighting (unofficial/volunteers don't count).

[+] reddit_sux@lemmy.world -30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They have already called in EU and US

[–] Adm_Drummer@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

European nations and the US presently have boots on the ground?

[–] Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

While nobody has officially send troops, there are a significant amount of professional soldiers from NATO states in Ukraine. Some of them volunteered sure, but I would assume that there are also special forces there, for let's say payed time off. This however does not change the original point, that the use of 10000+ NK soldiers changes the dynamic of the war.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago

The only quote on quote "official" foreign troops in Ukraine that we know of are UK troops programming Stormshadow missiles. Everyone else we know of are all private volunteers who joined Ukraine's army on their own. If NATO had actual troop involvement in Ukraine this war would be very quickly over (and I personally think we're just wasting lives & time for what is inevitably needed anyway).

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

I'm sure you can show us proof of US & EU armies fighting in Ukraine then?