It’s for its members
Yeah exactly…what. It’s like asking if your families insurance didn’t pay for the damage to the next door neighbours house, what is it for? Hopefully Ukraine will become a member of NATO soon and it will be a different story but right now Ukraine is not under the NATO umbrella.
The article was written by someone that doesn’t know what NATO is for. For all its problems NATO has excelled at doing what it was made to do, which is keeping Russia out of its members territories. Contrary to Russian propaganda NATO is not supposed to be the be-all and end-all of Western power projection - in fact there is no such organization.
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
Please read the article
“Nato should have intervened robustly to deter Russia’s aggression right from the start, as repeatedly urged here. No-fly zones could have prevented thousands of civilian casualties and limited damage to Ukraine’s cities.”
So stupid. The author is casually handwaving away the implications of nuclear armed countries directly going head to head when no NATO countries have been invaded. The author needs the most basic prior on geopolitics.
“Imagine how future historians may view all this.”
I can imagine it going something like this: “It looks like they remembered the the implications of the death of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and successfully avoided WWIII”
The whole thing is that NATO protects its member states right? That’s why Vlad the Sad attacked a non member state?
Yes, you’ve got it right. If Ukraine had been a member, Putin would have found another country to invade. Bullies pick on weak loners, not kids with lots of tough friends. The combined strength of NATO is more than the Russian military can handle.
I don’t understand why this article was written the way that it was. Although the author makes several valid points, it is most definitely not NATO’s job to police all of Europe. NATO exists to ensure the security of member states. Aside from some unlikely situations, “strength in numbers” is all NATO is for. A simple idea, but an effective one.
I do agree that Europe should be doing more to help Ukraine. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current condition of NATO, though. This could have been a powerful opinion piece, but my main takeaway is that the author doesn’t seem to understand NATO’s duties or purpose.
NATO is based around its Article Five provision: An attack on any one NATO member becomes an attack on every single member of NATO.
Is Ukraine a member of NATO? Would they perhaps like to be?
NATO? Better to ask what is the UN for? They should have a standing army ready to slap down dictators and genocidal maniacs if they step out of line.
