• trajekolus@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    The point is that to protect the Nato countries in Europe, Nato should have, and could have done a lot more to defeat Russia’s imperialist aims before it reaches the Nato countries doorstep

    • jmcs
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      Again, NATO’s only purposes are to defend its member countries if any of them gets directly attacked or very exceptionally to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions. That narrow scope creates some issues but it’s also a big factor in avoiding a nuclear war.

      Pretending that NATO is or should be more than that is only helping Putin.

        • jmcs
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          What happens if Russian air defenses or jet fires on the F35? Does NATO fire back? Where to stop? Moscow? There’s no way that Russia wouldn’t use nukes in that scenario.

          Maybe a limited operation where Russia’s air defenses couldn’t reach would be possible, but so close to the front is not going to happen unless Russia does something stupid like attacking NATO directly.

    • magnetosphere@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s up to individual countries to make that decision - and I think everyone should be defending Ukraine more aggressively. I agree with a lot of what the author is saying, but he doesn’t seem to understand what NATO is for. NATO is not a police force meant to defend all of Europe.