Yeah exactly...what. It's like asking if your families insurance didn't pay for the damage to the next door neighbours house, what is it for? Hopefully Ukraine will become a member of NATO soon and it will be a different story but right now Ukraine is not under the NATO umbrella.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Please read the article

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The article was written by someone that doesn't know what NATO is for. For all its problems NATO has excelled at doing what it was made to do, which is keeping Russia out of its members territories. Contrary to Russian propaganda NATO is not supposed to be the be-all and end-all of Western power projection - in fact there is no such organization.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The point is that to protect the Nato countries in Europe, Nato should have, and could have done a lot more to defeat Russia's imperialist aims before it reaches the Nato countries doorstep

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Again, NATO's only purposes are to defend its member countries if any of them gets directly attacked or very exceptionally to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions. That narrow scope creates some issues but it's also a big factor in avoiding a nuclear war.

Pretending that NATO is or should be more than that is only helping Putin.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@jmcs @trajekolus yes and no. The perception is otherwise. The perception is an alliance of western values and democracy. And as we all Know perception is reality. So, yes, #nato sucks. There was no natural law of physics that denied the circling of F35, rafale or Tornados over Kharkiv 230222. None.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

What happens if Russian air defenses or jet fires on the F35? Does NATO fire back? Where to stop? Moscow? There's no way that Russia wouldn't use nukes in that scenario.

Maybe a limited operation where Russia's air defenses couldn't reach would be possible, but so close to the front is not going to happen unless Russia does something stupid like attacking NATO directly.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

It’s up to individual countries to make that decision - and I think everyone should be defending Ukraine more aggressively. I agree with a lot of what the author is saying, but he doesn’t seem to understand what NATO is for. NATO is not a police force meant to defend all of Europe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Please read the article

"Nato should have intervened robustly to deter Russia’s aggression right from the start, as repeatedly urged here. No-fly zones could have prevented thousands of civilian casualties and limited damage to Ukraine’s cities."

So stupid. The author is casually handwaving away the implications of nuclear armed countries directly going head to head when no NATO countries have been invaded. The author needs the most basic prior on geopolitics.

"Imagine how future historians may view all this."

I can imagine it going something like this: "It looks like they remembered the the implications of the death of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and successfully avoided WWIII"

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

NATO is based around its Article Five provision: An attack on any one NATO member becomes an attack on every single member of NATO.

Is Ukraine a member of NATO? Would they perhaps like to be?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Is Ukraine a member of NATO? Would they perhaps like to be?

No, they’re not a member. Putin wouldn’t have attacked them if they were.

Ukraine would join tomorrow if they were allowed to.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

What a stupid fucking premise.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

NATO? Better to ask what is the UN for? They should have a standing army ready to slap down dictators and genocidal maniacs if they step out of line.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

UN will remain powerless as long as the permanent security council members have veto right. It never should have been introduced.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

If anything NATO should be joining Ukraine, they're the ones liberating the Russian navy from its muscovite overlords

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Advancing Russian forces in Kharkiv profit from the west’s culpably slow drip-feed of weaponry to Kyiv and its leaders’ chronic fear of escalation.

Restrictions on Kyiv’s use of western-made missiles to attack military bases and oil refineries inside Russia were, and are, self-defeating.

That’s because, for all their talk, like Nato as a whole, neither Sunak nor hawkish foreign secretary David Cameron, the Cotswolds kestrel, are prepared to step in directly to help Ukraine win.

The frontline situation grows critical, partly because Russia has exploited the delay, caused by Donald Trump’s allies, in delivering a $60bn (£47bn) US weapons package.

Aside from the dire consequences of Ukraine’s permanent partition or total subjugation, success for Putin’s neo-imperial project prospectively imperils a clutch of former Soviet republics – Georgia is one vulnerable example – the EU and European security.

Recurring spying rows, sabotage, assassinations, arson and cyber-hacks show Moscow “is waging war on European countries”, Russia expert Edward Lucas warned.

The original article contains 944 words, the summary contains 158 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!