This might be mostly based on personal perception but it seems that the general opposing, or the contrarians, view, (as opposed to the main line from Western governments) moved from "NATO caused this war by expanding and forcing Putin's end" to "NATO is leaving Ukraine alone to fight and must do something". Then the "opposition" asks for a no-fly zone (something they picked up somewhere but have no clue about what it really is) or even asks for troops on the ground.
How did this sort of 180° turn happened? Is it that a different "opposition" group is now shouting the loudest and the previous one is being shoved to the side because most non-partisan people see them as a joke?
Or could we have the case that some of the same people that blamed NATO first now are basically saying that NATO should engage in war with Russia?
I do have the suspicion that this is also happening, as it not so uncommon in these complicated situations to have people being what can be described as "turncoat", even publicly.
What do you think?
By the way, where's some reading to understand why a no-fly zone will most likely mean more harm than good, or in other words, can cause the country and its people to die of the cure instead of the disease: The dangerous allure of the No-Fly Zone
Or as someone else have said: this is trying to give assistance in a huge multiple lane car accident with dozens of vehicles, by dropping a fucking passenger plane on it!
No comments:
Post a Comment