3 ms·
If they tried to take over the entire Ukraine I would. If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. Troops would be
by ipaddr 5y ago
If they tried to take over the entire Ukraine I would.
If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. Troops would be sent.
The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands. No one attacked America in the Vietman war. The US was backing up the south Vietnam government.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. No, it triggers treaty obligations. Adherence to those is not automatic. Of course, if NATO admitted Ukraine now, given that there is an ongoing war in which Russia is openly occupying part of Ukraine and attacking other parts, it would be very close to a declaration of war by the existing NATO powers against Russia. > The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands NATO’s collective defense obligations only applies to attacks on member-state territory in Europe or North America. [0] The Falkland Islands are very much not in either of those continents. [0] North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5; https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
- jevgeni 5y agoRussia claims that they are not participating in any hostilities in Ukraine, so formally it wouldn’t be.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Russia claims that they are not participating in any hostilities in Ukraine Article 5 is triggered by attacks, not whether the attacker claims they are attacking, and both Ukraine and NATO already officially recognize the fact of Russia’s military intervention in Eastern Ukraine as well as the harder-to-obfuscate fact of Russia’s occupation of Crimea.
- jevgeni 5y agoTrue. Fine, trolling attempt failed. :)
- sudosysgen 5y agoNone of the examples you cited are relevant to NATO. Vietnam and the Falklands are outside the statue of Article 5, unambiguously. Ukraine will never be part of NATO. For it to be would require change to the NATO approval process that bars states with territorial disputes from entering, and any attempt to change this would be seen by Russia (correctly) as a declaration of war and they would successfully invade the rest of Ukraine. Beyond that, it's not even certain NATO would risk nuclear warfare to save Ukraine. Because that's what it would take. Russia has the firepower to make sure the status quo will not change, no matter what.
- anticodon 5y agoThere's no reason for Russia to take over the entire Ukraine. Ukraine is a failed state, poorest country in Europe, it is drowning in problems. Just look at the stats from ukrstat.gov.ua It was a dream of US and EU that Russia would take over the entire Ukraine, so that Russia would have to feed the hostile population and at the same time suffer more sanctions. But thankfully we didn't pick the bait. Now Ukraine is like a "suitcase without a handle" for EU and US: too inconvenient to continue carrying and seems too valuable to simply throw it away. They have to feed it to prevent a complete collapse, but they don't have any more gains from having Ukraine under control.
- jevgeni 5y agoMoldova is the poorest country in Europe. Ukraine is 2nd and Serbia is 3rd. Out of some wacky coincidence these are also the European countries that had very strong alignment with Russia.
- anticodon 5y agoOut of some wacky coincidence all the countries where US staged color revolutions (Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tunis, etc, etc) are doing much worse in all areas of life than before.
- jevgeni 5y agoSure, it's the color revolutions and not the years of Russia-supported kleptocracy and outright Russian invasions that are responsible for that. (Assuming that what you are saying is true. Although in your previous comment fact checking wasn't a strong point.)