3 ms·
> NATO could, it chooses not to. So they're lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they're committed to protect them against foreign aggressi
by coliveira 2y ago
> NATO could, it chooses not to.
So they're lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they're committed to protect them against foreign aggression.
> Expansion doesn’t make NATO weaker.
Of course it can, if you include a geographic area you cannot defend, that's by definition adding a weakness.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> So they’re lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they’re committed to protect them against foreign aggression. No, they haven’t. They have repeatedly said they will provide material assistance to Ukraine in the current emergency with Russia, but they have pointedly not committed the alliance to protect Ukraine, and have in fact stalled every Ukrainian request for such a commitment since 2008. They have indicated that at some future time they expect to be willing to make such a commitment, but that’s…very different than making it now. (There have been several NATO members discussing making a similar commitment outside the confines of the alliance, and more directly intervening in the conflict, but that is both still just talk, and distinct from the commitments of the alliance itself.)
- coliveira 2y agoOk, so the point is just to sell military equipment, that makes sense.
- CamperBob2 2y agoIf that were true, the rational move for the US would have been to back off and let Putin's imperialist vision continue to unfold unimpeded. Eventually there would be an enormous market for weapons to eject his forces from Eastern Europe and points west. What history tells us, though, is that the best time to stop Putin was 2014, and the second best time is now.