-32
Nato’s failure to save Ukraine raises an existential question: what on earth is it for?
(www.theguardian.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 19 May 2024
-32 points (28.4% liked)
Ukraine
8227 readers
670 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Please read the article
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
@jmcs and would have been #fuckrussia decision to make. Evidence shows the Russian scum backs down only against strength. So, still, #nato sucks. P. S. There l were a zillion options what the orcs could have done except nukes. Dont fall for their propaganda.
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.
"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"