Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Putler probably didn't think this one through enough - mercinaries don't usually care who they kill and if you aren't able to pay them, there will be trouble....and to be paid in rubles on top of that
And yet you said "As such to call it a "defensive" organisation is ridiculous..." so despite your frequent use of the word "members" it's pretty clear you were referring to NATO as an organization.
Nothing wrong with Rubles, they're on a near record streak right now....and to be paid in rubles on top of that
People who are on the receiving end of bombs care little if the bombs are dropped by "NATO member states" or "NATO as an organization". Speaking from experience.
However you chose to look at it, Jagdfieger's point is valid - none of aforementioned countries would have been attacked if they had possessed nuclear capability.
I agree. There's nothing to stop Poland from sending in its army into Ukraine on Kyiv's invitation tomorrow to help Ukraine. As long as the Poles don't take a step into Russia they're good to go. Now, if Russia in retaliation invades Poland, I'm not sure the latter can now claim Article 5 support from NATO.I still contend that individual acts by NATO member nations do not invalidate the defensive nature of the Alliance.
Maybe someone from this site should send Putin an invitation to join so that he can get the latest updates
clearly pointed out some of the factual military actions conducted by NATO members in the past 60 years.
However you chose to look at it, Jagdfieger's point is valid - none of aforementioned countries would have been attacked if they had possessed nuclear capability.
To a point. His is a generalisation and in this situation context is everything. I do know that the NATO Secretary General has made it specifically clear it will not act against Russia over Ukraine because of the fear of war in Europe, nuclear or otherwise. That Russia has nuclear weapons obviously changes the dynamic if they are used, but let's be clear, in these other circumstances the threat of all-out continental war was not a possible outcome, which also defines what action NATO might or might not take.
The statement that NATO's past actions are defined by whether or not the opposing state was a nuclear power is glib and doesn't sufficiently contextualise the individual circumstances.
It's not a conclusion that can be applied in this circumstance simply because it isn't the sole driving factor behind NATO's stance. That Russia has nuclear weapons obviously influences the situation because nuclear weapons are held in a different context to conventional weapons but it isn't the only consideration.
Diplomacy is a treading fine line and acting on behalf of other people's interests comes loaded with conditions.
I think dismissing the nuclear opposition as "glib" is inaccurate.
I saw a DW interview of someone with contacts in the Russian military. Putin learned from Chechnya and Afghanistan. When the body bags started coming back and Russian mothers started protesting, regime change. By using conscripts from distant parts of Russia and not soldiers from the big cities, high casualty figures can be easily hidden. BTW this why the troops are of such low quality. Putin, the only man to defeat Russia in winter.Bringing in jihadists from foreign countries makes sense if you are fighting in a region with a large Muslim population. They can count on local religious sympathies to assist them. Sending them into a land foreign to Islam against a population that is fighting a foreign invasion might not yield the results you want. Then again, it's mercenaries dying, and not your own people, so, less outcry on the home front.
And those of us who are unsympathetic to the Kremlin are probably being added to an arrest list.Pretty sure we're blocked in Mother Russia by now!