NATO didn’t intervene in Iraq. It did intervene in Afghanistan under Article 5, which I don’t think was even particularly controversial - as compared to what happened after that.
In most NATO member countries, public support for membership is at a 20 year plus high. Any reservations about the action in Afghanistan have been set aside. Sweden and Finland joining is a massive shift.
At this point , I’m not sure if a peace deal is possible which is acceptable to both. Either side which wins , It will ultimately be a pyrrhic victory (between EU and Russia atleast).
Well US and UK which were a part of NATO did. Semantics.
Nope. You’ve made this point before and it’s still nonsensical.
Not from the vantage point of this NATO member citizen. A world of difference, we didn’t join NATO with the expectation of being able to control the US.
From the vantage point of a rest of the world citizen like me , US defense expenditure is 830B USD , one which defacto allows it to control NATO. UK is second around 70B USD. Those are the two major countries in NATO with significant defense forces and maybe France. It’s not unnatural for the rest of the world to see NATO as US + (other satellite countries)
Sure, but your point was that somehow support for Ukraine is going to fade because foreign armed aid is going to be hard to justify given the poor track record of NATO in the past. The reality appears to be quite the opposite, virtually every member of NATO is increasing defence spending now - and virtually all on the basis of a consensus that includes political parties historically against the idea. What the rest of the world thinks about NATO doesn’t really factor into it come budget time, the relevant constituency are the electorates that pay the bills.
Ironically, probably the single greatest risk to support for Ukraine is precisely from the United States, and the Trumpist GOP.
And I entirely understand why Sweden , Finland want to join NATO. They likely see Russia as a threat to their existence. The loss of their neutrality as a side effect of this Russian action is something that Russia will repent a lot for.
Genuinely never imagined seeing that happen in my lifetime.
And if it has happened in the past , There’s every chance it can happen in the future as well. I imagine it will be very tough for Trump to mount a comeback though but someone with the same thought process and without the baggage and the prospect of a “Trumpist” GOP becomes very scary
So by your reasoning NATO through one of its members (UK) fought Argentina over the Falkland’s?
The scale of the war is different totally and you know it. Falkands was a limited military exercise at best and one which was over in a matter of days. Compare that with the Iraqi misadventures.
Igor Girkin has a new rant btw. Always interesting to read, though should as always be taken with a large dose of salt, since it’s mostly ideological conspi-stuff here:
Those are not his words, but one whom he appears to agree with. Probably a member of his little club of Angry Patriots (lol).
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1679238336785858560
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1679238828597420039
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1679239801990512640
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1679239311881846786
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1679241164770414592
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1679241824689332225
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1679249294660976641
Just some reading if you want. Grain of salt until corroborated as usual. Never trust every word.
Ooooh, corroborated. Trouble in Russian paradise (like we knew):
Politik-lingo, but some still may find this interesting. I did, so maybe someone else does even though you have to take it for what it is:
https://twitter.com/GoncharenkoUa/status/1679125302943907843
Completely agree with the content of this post. However, it was reported, and with reason. I’ve removed offensive phrases from it, which weren’t needed or warranted.
Remember lads: tackle the ball, not the man, please.
