Nato members have pledged their support for an “irreversible path” to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.
While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance’s 32 members said they had “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s war effort.
Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine’s military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.
The bloc’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest.”
Yes. NATO should have dissolved, or at least decommissioned a large part of their forces. It was formed to defend against the USSR. When that republic ceased to exist, it only continued because it was militarily and financially advantageous to do so.
If your neighbor sets up sniper nests on their roof, and sets up sandbags and barbed wire on the fence line while claiming that it is purely defensive ; would you take them at their word. Or, would you see that as a threat of violent escalation?
And yet here we have Russia, the successor nation showing that NATO needs to be kept around so they don’t invade another neighbor. Remember, Crimea wasn’t the first time this century they’ve done that.
To your example, my neighbor would be within their rights to do that if I have a history of kicking down doors. But I guess violence only matters from one direction, nevermind that so many former client states actively sought protection from this shit happening, especially when Russia can’t be taken at their word to leave neighbors alone.
This is some
logic.
Projection is common among your set, so I’m not surprised you see it that way.
Thanks for letting me know you’re out of arguments though.