Comments by "Diogo Jorge" (@DiogoJ1) on "Netherlands just SHOCKED NATO by admitting the truth in Ukraine | Redacted with Clayton Morris" video.

  1. He had Ukraine invaded. That makes him a villain no matter how you slice it. You don't invade a country no matter the reason, unless they invade you first thus giving you the right to retaliate.
    2
  2.  @charlescarabott7692  No he hadn't. You don't invade nations over a possibility. Proof that there were going to be nukes there? Just saying "they might put nukes there" is no reason to invade, otherwise Russia should have been invaded a long time ago due to their abudance of nuclear warheads.
    2
  3. Nobody cares about his patience. He started it, thus to hell with his feelings.
    1
  4.  @indycoon  As they should. Russia is the enemy, no enemy parties should be allowed, democratic or not.
    1
  5. So be it if it happens. War it is, if Russia insists on hurting Ukraines just to "save" Donbas rebels.
    1
  6.  @Javier79ism  Assuming they can whitout nuclear weapons. If they are stupid enough to use those, they will receive nuclear weapons as well in return.
    1
  7.  @zoomzoom3950  You mean Russia's agression has consequences.
    1
  8.  @zoomzoom3950  As if. It has nothing to do with MSNPC, since I don't watch that. Hardly. Never used it inside the car, as there is no need. Never caught COVID, unlike my brother, so there was no risk, specially since most of the time I drive by myself. Only in medical offices, as it's no longer obligatory elsewhere either.
    1
  9. If Russia is dumb, then sure. Just a reminder that a nuke in Ukranian territory will have effects on Russian territory as well.
    1
  10.  @joemalone3099  We already heard it many times before. Donbas, NATO expansion blah blah blah. Which doesn't matter, because there are no valid excuses to start a war.
    1
  11. NATO being Europe only property sounds nice for us Europeans. But is USA willing to give up membership?
    1
  12.  @charlescarabott7692  Proof? NATO wouldn't allow those missiles to be launched unless Russia attacks first, and if they aren't nuclear then they would be fair game to be on Russia's borders. Cuba had nuclear missiles being sent there, and there was evidence of such, unlike this case, where no nuclear weapons were being sent. And yet Russia is allowed to have nuclear missiles near their neighboors. Russia's hypocrisy. They have the right to join NATO if they so wish. And even if they didn't, that's no good reason to invade. There's only one good reason to invade another country, and that is if you are invaded first. No more no less, indeed, Russia is to blame.
    1
  13. Then Russia should leave.
    1
  14. No, it's not. Russia backstabbed Ukraine too many times, neutrality isn't an option.
    1
  15.  @susannamarker2582  No, it's not. Russia is a threat, there can be no neutrality.
    1
  16. If that was really true, that would mean war. Mercenaries aren't part of any nation and thus not part of NATO.
    1
  17. Netherlands is lying though. For starters, it is USA, not NATO that is doing any kind of proxy war. Secondly, Russia started the war, meaning they are to blame, or at best, complicit in USA's scheme.
    1
  18. It's not a matter of bravery. Ukraine isn't part of NATO, thus they can't take any direct action. The result would be the destruction of Russia, at least until they resort to nukes.
    1
  19.  @gordon7470  Not at all. NATO is very powerful. Russia is powerful, but NATO is mightier still. Nukes are pretty much their only chance at victory.
    1
  20.  @gordon7470  Lol. What does that matter? They are just weapons. Ukraine is the one doing the fightning not NATO. Maybe you should wake up to the real world and realize that NATO isn't in Ukraine.
    1
  21. Like they did to Ukraine? Preemptive strikes are a great way to show how paranoid Russia is.
    1
  22.  @nataliadtut  That's collateral damage from the civil war. Which isn't Russia's problem, for Donbass isn't Russia. That's another reason why Russia is to blame, they should never recognized their independence. They don't have any right to protect them, as they are part of Ukraine, as we don't recognize those regions as independent, only Russia does. Not to mention that they attacked first by invading Ukranian territory. No it didn't. Russia did by invading Ukraine. They had no permission to enter Ukranian soil and thus should be shot on sight considering Russia's threats. So afraid, I'm absolutely right, as usual.
    1