PM 'open' to sending NZ peacekeepers to Ukraine
PM 'open' to sending NZ peacekeepers to Ukraine
Asked whether New Zealand would be prepared to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, Christopher Luxon told RNZ that was something he "would be open to".
If there is an ongoing hot war you are not sending peacekeepers, you are sending mercenaries. If the war is over why do you need peacekeepers?
@[email protected] Russia has said that they won't allow foreign armies in Ukraine. It's just a trick by Ukraine to bring NATO into the war and Russia will reject the proposal:
20 Feb, 2025 https://www.rt.com/russia/613064-peskov-responds-report-uk-troops-ukraine/
This isn't Afghanistan, we should be very careful. It's speculation at this point whether foreign armies will deploy to Ukraine or not. More likely there will be a ceasefire to restore US-Russia relations, and then Russia will eventually break the ceasefire to fight in Kursk (at a time when they can get away with it).
America doesn't want to deploy their troops, but we're dumb enough to send ours. This is hilarious. Christopher Luxon should forget about our historical peacekeeping operations and look at Ukraine as an individual case. We can't just say yes to every crisis because of our past decisions.
Russia has said that they won’t allow foreign armies in Ukraine. It’s just a trick by Ukraine to bring NATO into the war and Russia will reject the proposal:
Who cares what Russia has said. They don't get to dictate what happens anywhere outside of Russia.
. It’s speculation at this point whether foreign armies will deploy to Ukraine or not.
it won't have to. The US intends to carve up Ukraine and give parts of it to Russia. Then the US has said it's going to take half of the mineral wealth of Ukraine as payment.
America doesn’t want to deploy their troops, but we’re dumb enough to send ours.
they don't have to. They just send the weapons and the ammo.
How exactly does Russia get a say in what Ukraine does?
As the aggressor in this situation, Russia doesn't really get to allow/disallow anything. Other than nuclear sabre rattling, what power does Russia have here?
There is no "trick" Ukraine would welcome direct NATO support, it has said so. NATO member countries can also act independent of NATO; individual countries could directly support Ukraine, unlikely but possible.
You are looking at the issue from a moral perspective rather than a logical perspective. Russia has a lot of power here - they have hundreds of thousands of troops in Ukraine, they have Oreshnik missiles which could destroy Kyiv's government and economy district. The only thing which could save Ukraine now, is for Russia's economy to collapse. Don't count on that happening - if there was a way to force it to happen, then it would have happened in 2022.
When I said "trick" I meant that Ukraine wants to invite foreign armies to the border, and then deceive the world with something, a provocation, that would "justify" foreign armies to invade Donbass and Crimea. We already see these provocations in the media. Last July, Ukraine claimed that Russia used a KH-101 missile to deliberately strike the children's section of a hospital in Kyiv. This was false and designed to provoke outrage in the West.
If a KH-101 had hit a building, there would be no survivors. Yet only 2 people were killed, leading me to believe that the missile was not a KH-101, but rather an air defence missile launched by Ukraine, which missed its target and ran out of fuel and crashed into the hospital, killing 2 adults and injuring 35. If Russia was deliberately trying to kill as many civilians as possible, why would they waste a missile worth millions of dollars, just for the sake of killing 2 random people?
The Ukrainian government is counting on a deception to provoke a full-scale war between European nations and Russia.
The most interesting part is whether Trump will support Ukraine, or whether Trump will see Ukraine as a liability and give up on the situation. So far we already know that one of Russia's negotiators has ruled out any concessions. When asked if Russia would give back land to Ukraine, he said to the BBC "why should we? we have liberated lands where russian people are living for centuries". We are now back at 2014, wondering whether to give-in to Russia's 2014 demands, or continue the war for another 2 years or longer in the hope that Russia's economy collapses, causing their army to disintegrate.
If there is an ongoing hot war you are not sending peacekeepers, you are sending mercenaries.
The article says he was asked about if there was a cease fire:
Asked whether New Zealand would be prepared to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of any ceasefire, Christopher Luxon told RNZ that was something he would consider.
If the war is over why do you need peacekeepers?
NZ do a lot of peacekeeping operations. In places that were previously at war. What do you think peacekeepers do?
Peacekeepers are trigger wires. They act as a casus belli when one of them are killed.
What do you think they do? Do you think they patrol the streets like cops do? Do you think they are building houses and schools? Do you think they are escorting old ladies across the street?
I think peace keepers mostly help train local security forces so locals are helping locals instead of foreign forces telling citizens what to do.
Its something you could easily look up: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/peace-rights-and-security/international-security/peace-support-operations
And a ceasefire does not mean the war is over.
To kill Russians. Next question?
Yep. To kill and die.