NATO article 5 explicitly mentions "collective defense" and that an attack against one member should be considered as an attack against them all. You are right in that it doesn't obligate all member states to immediately send troops. However nothing like that is in place for Ukraine, otherwise logically they wouldn't need to apply to join NATO, would they?
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
NATO article 5 explicitly mentions "collective defense" and that an attack against one member should be considered as an attack against them all. You are right in that it doesn't obligate all member states to immediately send troops. However nothing like that is in place for Ukraine, otherwise logically they wouldn't need to apply to join NATO, would they?
Separating how we got here from where we are, do you believe that no one should support Ukraine in defending themselves from Russia's illegal and immoral invasion, and therefore Russia's illegal and immoral invasion should succeed?It's really fortunate that we have all these declassified documents showing that we did in fact promise the Russians not to expand Eastwards when they handed over East Germany.
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documentsnsarchive.gwu.edu
It seems that we didn't actually adhere to what we promised them, and even when they didn't kick up too much of a fuss about all the Baltic states, the US insisted on interfering in Ukraine - which they explicitly made clear was a red line, so here we are.
Yup. It is more of an honor contract. No comeback if we don't, but it's morally correct to do so.
I think we can and should provide aid to Ukraine, however I think the current levels are provocative enough to risk a wider war between Russia and NATO, but also not at a level sufficient enough to allow Ukraine to win the war. It's like, what's the point? We're just dragging out a war that will probably end with Russia holding onto the territory it currently holds, or in some freak worst case scenario nuclear war erupts. Ukraine can never join NATO because Russia only has to make sure there's a constant state of conflict and they won't be allowed to join. If I'm in charge of Russia then I'll just drag this war out because they have the man power and resources, eventually the Western public will vote in someone who says they'll end the war, and Ukraine will be forced to negotiate.
I agree with what Dr Cornell West says in this interview
I can agree with the point that at the time of the collapse of the USSR the world could have found a route leading to NATO being disbanded. However, the good Dr fails to acknowledge that Russia failed to meet any of the conditions required make the possibility of NATO disbandment a reality. Under Putin Russia become a corrupt dictatorship with hostile intentions. When Putin took power his first act was to turned Russia away from the Gorbachev path of peace and cooperation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Russia has a choice. Either it carries on a perpetual war it can never benefit from at huge economic and pollical cost. Or it can accept Ukraine doesn't belong to them and they are free to make their own choices.
except it does
The Russian Federation
Russian is the aggressor and has Veto on the UNSC, but that doesn't stop the other two parties living up to their agreement.
I have a lot of respect for professor West but he is so wrong on this
Nuclear weapons haven't been used, and "assistance" is unfortunately, yet very deliberately, vague enough that it can amount to, for example, simply providing humanitarian assistance.
What level of aid should be provided in your view?
if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used
About as vague as article 5
At least we've moved on from there being no agreement.
Last edited:
Russia deployed nuclear weapons into Belarus and is at war with Ukraine. Either of those acts satisfy the requirement.
I was happy with small arms, anti-tank, man pads, and providing training for their soldiers which the UK is very good at. Apart from anything else I don't think the UK has much in the way of equipment that we can afford to give away. Who knows what wars we'll be asked to fight in 10 years?
At best that likely results in a perpetual state of war or steady Russian expansion into Ukraine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
So weapons that guarantee they lose, Russia wins and Ukraine ceases to exist as a free democratic nation. Well I'd never want you watching my back, you'd likely stab me in it and try and use me as a bargaining chip to help yourself.
If we don't honour the spirit of it, it makes it harder for us to negotiate future pacts, whether anyone cares about that or not is another matter but I'd rather be seen standing up to our obligations, even something with a lot of vagueness like this, than walking away.
It is quite clear what the intention was of the Budapest and Helsinki agreements.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,398
- Location
- ST4
Wagner have been operating in Africa for years.
- Status