18
Russia ambassador warns U.S. resolution pushes for nuclear war over Ukraine
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
18 points (87.5% liked)
World News
32285 readers
781 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah shelling Nuclear power plants and using depleted uranium ammo is something only NATO clowns can do, when Russia is using something radioactive, we suddenly start to think about the neighbors!1!!1!
Nice whatabouism.
In what sense? That the very gentlemen who tipped their hats and said to Russia's concerns on toxic ammo "bla bla", now assemble because of the same concerns, are called reasonable?
You don't have to be online all the time, you know. There are other things you can be doing with your life.
lemmy patrol?
having a rough day for some reason?
received some bad news, maybe?
Not really, just got reminded of this kind of memes bro
you really caught @terror_alarm on twitter in 4k
if he was a part of this conversation hed be entirely shook, im sure
Hey mr big brains, that was only for example sake, I had the talk between the Bri'ish gents and Russia in mind, I don't even know what this twitter account is
Wow, thought this was fake, but no, it's real (deleted now tho)
3:
Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but I’ll be charitable and assume you are.
I don't understand if you are sarcastic? Literally a few months ago the Britbongs announced they sent depleted uranium ammo to Ukraine, known for causing increased cancer rates and birth defects in the regions they are used. Japan said they will donate trucks which were used during Fukushima and still are radioactive to Ukraine. Now, NATO suddenly cares about contaminates? LMAO this only proves Westerners see Ukrainians as subhumans just as Russians, they put them through stuff they would never accept on their soil.
anything on 'the use of any tactical nuclear weapon' or 'the destruction of a nuclear facility', what with that being what the conversation is about and all
This you left out on purpose?
yes, what with it not being one of the conditions for an "immediate response", and actually just being elaboration on the actual conditions
thats why it says "or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory"
as opposed to "or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, or dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory"
so sure, on purpose, that purpose being treating the text as if it says what it actually says
what? My point still stands NATO likes to sh*t but not to eat sh*t