-33
Nato’s failure to save Ukraine raises an existential question: what on earth is it for?
(www.theguardian.com)
It’s for its members
this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
-33 points (27.4% liked)
Ukraine
8139 readers
512 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
The whole thing is that NATO protects its member states right? That's why Vlad the Sad attacked a non member state?
Yes, you’ve got it right. If Ukraine had been a member, Putin would have found another country to invade. Bullies pick on weak loners, not kids with lots of tough friends. The combined strength of NATO is more than the Russian military can handle.
I don’t understand why this article was written the way that it was. Although the author makes several valid points, it is most definitely not NATO’s job to police all of Europe. NATO exists to ensure the security of member states. Aside from some unlikely situations, “strength in numbers” is all NATO is for. A simple idea, but an effective one.
I do agree that Europe should be doing more to help Ukraine. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current condition of NATO, though. This could have been a powerful opinion piece, but my main takeaway is that the author doesn’t seem to understand NATO’s duties or purpose.
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?
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.
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.
UN will remain powerless as long as the permanent security council members have veto right. It never should have been introduced.
What a stupid fucking premise.
If anything NATO should be joining Ukraine, they're the ones liberating the Russian navy from its muscovite overlords
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!