3 ms·
> 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' resp
by 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.