No Stupid Questions

35863 readers

1186 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-12

Would there be any merit in the idea of NATO waging a "benevolent war" (for lack of a better term) against Ukraine? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From my very limited understanding of recent news, Trump's stance on the conflict is going to be decisive in how peace is going to be negotiated one he takes office. One of the probabilities is going to involve the outcome where Ukraine can't join NATO, which would risk Russia trying to take more of Ukraine in the future.

So, this is where my totally-not-stupid-whatsoever question comes in. What if NATO were to occupy Ukraine similarly to how Russia is doing (that is, without Ukraine really doing anything to provoke it) but, unlike Russia, doesn't do any actual war stuff. Just walk in, say "it's ours now ;)", and have Ukraine take it without there being a fight. Without there being any intention of actually changing anything. Just one day most of Ukraine's taken by NATO, business going on as usual.

If American negotiations were to conclude that Russia can only keep what it captured and Ukraine cannot join NATO, then only all of Ukraine that didn't get captured by Russia or NATO, say, 10km (just inventing numbers here) of land between the two's occupied territory would be prevented from joining NATO. That way, future Russia would "only" be able to capture a remaining "10km" (which is not how area size works, but hope you get the point) at most. The majority of the country would effectively have the NATO protection it wants (or, if I'm mistaken, replace NATO with any other military alliance Ukraine would want to join).

Now, seeing as this clearly isn't policy (it were, it could've been enacted during times where Ukraine was said to be gaining territory back rather than losing it again), I'm obviously missing something in this "analysis". That's where you come in, dear reader.

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

This is the missing link in my idea. I suppose there to be a lot of reasons why Ukraine, if it wanted to enact this bottom of the barrel, shitpost-tier of international policy, couldn't simply "stage" something that would force all of NATO to stand behind the invading country due to a technicality?