19
submitted 5 months ago by trajekolus@lemm.ee to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 44 points 5 months ago
[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 22 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] trajekolus@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago
[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] trajekolus@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

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

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] DrGeraintLLannfrancheta@nafo.army 1 points 5 months ago

@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.

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] DrGeraintLLannfrancheta@nafo.army 1 points 5 months ago

@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.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 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.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 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"

[-] apotheotic@beehaw.org 27 points 5 months ago

The whole thing is that NATO protects its member states right? That's why Vlad the Sad attacked a non member state?

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

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?

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 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.

[-] Psiczar@aussie.zone 13 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Lorindol@sopuli.xyz 17 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.

[-] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

What a stupid fucking premise.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 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!

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
19 points (100.0% liked)

Ukraine

8178 readers
361 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