Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
Listen, I understand the Nuke thing and WW3. I really do. But instead of non stop press conferences and bragging about defending every inch of NATO, an attack on one is an attack on all etc. Act or quite pretending your acting.
With the Polish fighter jet transfer, the press conference from a few minutes ago went something like this.
We continue to support Ukraine with arms that they and we feel is needed to defend. If other NATO countries (Poland) want to loan their jets, that is up to them. Our analysts conclude that the US loaning jet's, via Poland is risky.
So we have Poland concerned with their security, rightfully so. They want the backing of NATO and the US, rightfully so. The US, fearful of escalating is ok with Poland lending jet's, but feels it's too risky for them to loan the Mig's directly, via the 3rd party.
So we statements of support and giving Ukraine what they want but not really and lot's of talk NATO members being there for each other 100%, but not really. UN talking about human rights and war crimes, but not really.
We have a lot of powerful elite's talking power and unity, but not really. We have Putin who doesn't really mess around and concludes action is action and is going to do what he want's to achieve his goal and it won't stop in Ukraine.
I just fear that he won't be stopped and than everybody looking back and wondering what happened at the start. Tactical and strategic error. I know I am in the minority but seeing this thing play out is mind boggling to me.
Can these countries actually continue to discuss democracy, human rights, war crimes and all this other non sense going forward? Or is it all talk? Maybe the leaders of these other regimes are accurate and we are all just fed BS when it doesn't matter.
I don't know anymore. Seems like crazy to me all around.
|
I really do not know what you are confused about. The USA contributing fighter jets - either directly or indirectly - is a clear provocation to Russia and it's totally understandable why they wouldn't want to take that step to escalate tensions beyond where they already are. In terms of defending NATO, they've been very clear and consistent: you don't attack NATO. Well, NATO hasn't been attacked.
It's as if you've somehow come to think that "Russia doing horrible things and committing war crimes" must be something that results in NATO going in and stopping them from doing those things. This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of NATO. NATO is a defensive military pact. It is not a global police organization. It does not prevent, or respond to, war crimes. It does not keep the peace or intervene to stop conflicts once they've started. It's essentially a promise that if you attack someone in NATO, you will be vaporized, potentially along with the rest of humanity... so
don't do it.
And, since vaporizing all of humanity is a very big thing to threaten, the "trip wire" that causes that result needs to be very clear and very simple:
do not attack NATO countries. There's no "well, maybe if you attack someone who isn't in NATO we'll still respond, but maybe not, and maybe if you commit war crimes, and they're bad enough, and it's all over the news, then we'll intervene". No. It's simple: we only act if you attack us.
So again - with all of that in mind - what exactly is it about NATO's behaviour to date that you find confusing?