Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Specialka]

Nothing bad faith in wanting to know why NATO doing good things bothers you. NATO interference would depend on many factors such as reaching & occupying Odessa and/or Kyiv. Or nuclear strike of any kind, which is not likely.

But if you want to abandon the discussion about it, fair enough. As of recently, ideas about individual countries sending troops to vanguard in Ukraine have been mentioned. It's how the world works, Russia can complain about unfairness that they cannot genocide Ukraine

I have nothing against countries sending troops on their own. Just that NATO is not designed to do so if the country is not a part of it. That is how international laws work, you can't complain other country not respecting it if you do not.

- - - Updated - - -

By that logic, RuZZia should kiss the NATOs feet in fear of being nuked. After all, US has nuked a country before, and could do so again any day, right? Why is it then, that RuZZia isn't even remotely afraid of that happening?

Because as it stands, does NATO have any nukes committed to it ? I do not think so unless I am mistaken.

[Saradain]

I have nothing against countries sending troops on their own. Just that NATO is not designed to do so if the country is not a part of it. That is how international laws work, you can't complain other country not respecting it if you do not.

Which law in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia enabled genocide as a lawful form of...settling disputes? Seems like the serbs broke various laws first, international and local alike. Then NATO intervened. Serbs and their genocide-loving friends can't complain, they broke laws first.

[Jessicka]

You ask the wrong question here because it is totally bad faith. NATO intervened without any mandate (like I said, they got it afterward), thus it totally went against what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance), so if they did it once, they can do it again, and that is what Russia (and some other country) are afraid of. Why they intervene for is totally irrelevant in global politics.

Getting involved in Bosnia was strategically the same reason it should in Ukraine, we don't want a fucking war on our doorstep that risks overspill into the rest of Europe. That's why we're arming Ukraine, and why we've broken multiple red-lines as to what that support should be from 'no tanks', 'no artillery', 'no cruise missiles', 'no fast jets', and so on. That we're now discussing sending troops, and you're shitting it over the prospect just convinces me more that the threat alone is worth it.

Letting Ukraine fall leaves much of Europe exposed to similar Russian action within a decade, I don't want that, nor should you.

[Odinfrost]

You ask the wrong question here because it is totally bad faith. NATO intervened without any mandate (like I said, they got it afterward), thus it totally went against what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance), so if they did it once, they can do it again, and that is what Russia (and some other country) are afraid of. Why they intervene for is totally irrelevant in global politics.

Looking at the wiki (so grain of salt and all that) it seems to me that NATO acted through the UN since the very beginning, with their first action being: "Hey, UN, can you guys have observers and peacekeepers in there?" and then NATO's presence slowly expanded at the behest of the UN

[Azadina]

Because as it stands, does NATO have any nukes committed to it ? I do not think so unless I am mistaken.

Committed in what way? Aimed, fueled and silos opened? That wasn't the point now, was it?

[Jessicka]

Looking at the wiki (so grain of salt and all that) it seems to me that NATO acted through the UN since the very beginning, with their first action being: "Hey, UN, can you guys have observers and peacekeepers in there?" and then NATO's presence slowly expanded at the behest of the UN

In fairness, it'd never have got through the UN today, back then with all the upheaval in Russia, it could do nothing but abstain.

[Specialka]

Getting involved in Bosnia was strategically the same reason it should in Ukraine, we don't want a fucking war on our doorstep that risks overspill into the rest of Europe. That's why we're arming Ukraine, and why we've broken multiple red-lines as to what that support should be from 'no tanks', 'no artillery', 'no cruise missiles', 'no fast jets', and so on. That we're now discussing sending troops, and you're shitting it over the prospect just convinces me more that the threat alone is worth it.

Letting Ukraine fall leaves much of Europe exposed to similar Russian action within a decade, I don't want that, nor should you.

And any western country could have been involved but it was NATO troops that went in outside any mandate, the issue is that and only that. If French or German troops intervened, we would have less of a mess nowadays.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting involved in Bosnia was strategically the same reason it should in Ukraine, we don't want a fucking war on our doorstep that risks overspill into the rest of Europe. That's why we're arming Ukraine, and why we've broken multiple red-lines as to what that support should be from 'no tanks', 'no artillery', 'no cruise missiles', 'no fast jets', and so on. That we're now discussing sending troops, and you're shitting it over the prospect just convinces me more that the threat alone is worth it.

Letting Ukraine fall leaves much of Europe exposed to similar Russian action within a decade, I don't want that, nor should you.

I do not want Ukraine to fall nor do I want NATO to intervene. I would very much prefer to have an EU army. That way, we could protect ourselves and we could kick the US out of Europe, win-win.

[Jessicka]

And any western country could have been involved but it was NATO troops that went in outside any mandate, the issue is that and only that. If French or German troops intervened, we would have less of a mess nowadays.

NATO has no standing army of its own, same as the UN, it only has what member nations give it.

[Specialka]

Committed in what way? Aimed, fueled and silos opened? That wasn't the point now, was it?

Committed under NATO command structure. As far as I know, NATO does not have any nuclear weapons at disposal (obviously, France or the US have nukes, but it is up to them how to use them).

- - - Updated - - -

NATO has no standing army of its own, same as the UN, it only has what member nations give it.

Yes, and when they intervene, they do not intervene for their original country. That is what happened in Bosnia, it was not French or US troops or whatever country but western military under NATO command that intervened. The issue is here.

[Jessicka]

Yes, and when they intervene, they do not intervene for their original country. That is what happened in Bosnia, it was not French or US troops or whatever country but western military under NATO command that intervened. The issue is here.

NATO military command was used because it was expedient to do so, because the organisation is built to coordinate the forces of different member countries. Someone had to be in charge, and otherwise there'd be a lot of duplication and cracks to fall between and it just wouldn't have been nearly as effective and leave its forces horribly open to friendly fire - which was a major problem in GW1 in Kuwait. Lessons learned and all that.

[Azadina]

Committed under NATO command structure. As far as I know, NATO does not have any nuclear weapons at disposal (obviously, France or the US have nukes, but it is up to them how to use them).

Yes, and not relevant. Your logic was that they are right to be afraid of something that has happened before, because it can happen again just right out of the blue. Why aren't they, then? Is your logic perhaps bollocks, and that's why they aren't?

[Specialka]

NATO military command was used because it was expedient to do so, because the organisation is built to coordinate the forces of different member countries. Someone had to be in charge, and otherwise there'd be a lot of duplication and cracks to fall between and it just wouldn't have been nearly as effective and leave its forces horribly open to friendly fire - which was a major problem in GW1 in Kuwait. Lessons learned and all that.

And I am pretty sure you are right, but like I said, hell is paved with good intentions. By doing what was done, NATO was not used as its primary function (protect its members), and you know the rest.

[Flarelaine]

Some of the recent discussion has veered uncomfortably close to endorsing nuclear destruction. Please mind the repeated thread warnings against that.

[Saradain]

And I am pretty sure you are right, but like I said, hell is paved with good intentions. By doing what was done, NATO was not used as its primary function (protect its members), and you know the rest.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm

Ensuring stability at home by engaging outside of NATO

Since the outbreak of crises and conflicts beyond Allied borders can jeopardise this core objective, the Alliance also contributes to peace and stability through crisis prevention and management, and through partnerships with other organisations and countries across the globe. Essentially, NATO not only helps to defend the territory of its members, but also engages – where possible and when necessary – to project its values further afield, prevent and manage crises, stabilise post-conflict situations and support reconstruction.

[Gorsameth]

You ask the wrong question here because it is totally bad faith. NATO intervened without any mandate (like I said, they got it afterward), thus it totally went against what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance), so if they did it once, they can do it again, and that is what Russia (and some other country) are afraid of. Why they intervene for is totally irrelevant in global politics.

Russia is so scared of NATO they abandoned the Finnish border to direct those troops into Ukraine...

something here does not add up. are they scared or are they not scared?

[Iphie]

Russia is so scared of NATO they abandoned the Finnish border to direct those troops into Ukraine...

something here does not add up. are they scared or are they not scared?

In fairness, that was BEFORE Finland joined NATO.

[Saradain]

In fairness, that was BEFORE Finland joined NATO.

Are those troops back then? Or is Finland and NATO lesser threat now?

[diller]

Won't happen, no one will glass no one over Ukraine.

Good, because I specifically mentioned if it was a NATO country.

[Iphie]

Are those troops back then? Or is Finland and NATO lesser threat now?

You know just as well as I do that those troops are being reincarnated into lovely sunflowers as we speak.

[Saradain]

You know just as well as I do that those troops are being reincarnated into lovely sunflowers as we speak.

Russia so scared of NATO that the troops ran away.