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

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