3 ms·
That's right. And let's not forget that Europe and USA have been helping directly for a few years now anyway. It's really disappointing how much misinformation
by 0rzech 2y ago
That's right. And let's not forget that Europe and USA have been helping directly for a few years now anyway.
It's really disappointing how much misinformation gets reiterated on the Internet with regards to this memorandum, given how short the document is and how easy it is to verify its contents oneself.
PS. NATO's Article 5 is also worth a read. It does not guarantee what is commonly claimed.
- Wololooo 2y agoLet's not go there. In the history of the Alliance there is only a single country that invoked article 5, and it was the US with 9/11 that lead to the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Italy, New Zealand to send resources and troops to help with Afghanistan. And managed to get people involved in Iraq namely United Kingdom, Australia, Poland. And this situation was way worse and way less called for than the Ukrainians defending themselves... EDIT/NB: I listed just the major contributors, some other countries participated in different ways and at different levels, but still this is important to mention here...
- Gud 2y agoThere was a lot more nations in Afghanistan than those listed, including many non Article 5. When the US requested assistance, Europe provided.
- Wololooo 2y agoYes, it was a non exhaustive list and I should have mentioned it...
- attentive 2y agorelevant, Ukraine also joined the "Coalition of the Willing," a U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq
- Wololooo 2y agoThank you for that addendum which, indeed, is critically relevant to the current situation.
- 0rzech 2y ago> Let's not go there. I genuinely don't know where's "there". It is a fact, that NATO Article 5 doesn't guarantee anything regardless of other countries' response to USA triggering it, just as it is a fact, that the Budapest Memorandum was mischaracterized in this thread and that both the Europe and USA did help Ukraine. Should we not go where the facts are? If you're about that the USA should continue helping Ukraine, then I did not question this point of view at all. Pointing out factual errors is not equal to taking a stance.
- Wololooo 2y agoThe implication that I read from what your wrote suggested that the US could offer "assistance" or sit it out, which is not an acceptable stance to hold, by history and the assistance that was provided in need. Friendship among nations sometimes involves transactions that transcend the pure material considerations, and this shift in alignment is not desirable by anyone. That's what I meant by "let's not go there". But I see that basically we are in agreement and I also agree that article 5 interpretation could be dicey.