Nato summit: Ukraine on 'irreversible path' to membership
Nato summit: Ukraine on 'irreversible path' to membership
The alliance also pledges more aid to Ukraine, but China warns it to stop "provoking confrontation".
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."
You're viewing part of a thread.
America bad is literally the reason why countries don't want NATO on their border. You don't get to ignore that key point and pretend OP was arguing in bad faith.
America invades countries to overthrow their government steal their natural resources. Lybia, Afghanistan, Iraq, even the Genocide in Gaza is made possible by NATO countries doing the weapons logistics.
And yet Russia has multiple borders with NATO countries. "Your opinion" is parroting kremlin propaganda about "the nuclear end" that "will totally happen you guys" and can be summarized by "let's give Russia everything they want, because they have nukes so they can now rule everyone"
I really don't care enough about Russia to defend their actions any further but if you look on a map you see Ukraine does not just encircle Russia but actually sticks inwards quite a bit.
And Russia did start getting more imperialist the closer NATO came.
Ah yes the closer NATO came, since before they had east Germany, Poland and other countries.
Dude. Think about what you are saying or read up more. You are repeating russian propaganda and nothing else. This is a land grab invasion. NATO doesn't have shit to do with it otherwise Russia wouldn't grab all their troops on NATO borders and move them to Ukraine. They know NATO isn't an offensive alliance and are using that, then telling people like you bullshit about NATO encroachment, novorossia or other idiotic ramblings.
I don't care enough about Russia to debate this here's some background info debunking your claims. https://youtu.be/Ml4nqkHImjo?t=59s
Dude, you aren't some barely interested dude that "doesn't care about Russia". People have memories and can remember your posts you know. This isn't new for you spreading pro-Russia bullshit, you do it all the time and get downvoted to hell for it. Stop hiding behind "oh I don't really care, buuuuut", you aren't fooling me.
I just inform myself on global politics. Russia is not the good guy in the conflict but neither is NATO. But people here really have no idea what they are talking about. Of course literal facts that don't fit the superlib narrative are all pro Russia bullshit.
Same people that can see the gray in the Genocide in Gaza are the people that believe a territorial war between two imperialist superpowers is black and white
"I don't care about russia", but spends 10 comments in a row defending Russia and saying "um ackshyually nato made them do it 🤓☝️"
Sorry, but as Eastern European, we begged for NATO membership because of constant (>200 years) Russian occupation hazard. We only care about America as a strong ally (of many) in the NATO group, there is no imperialism, direct, indirect, effective or otherwise interprettable. It's a purely defensive pact with all its tenets clearly and publicly laid out.
We could not fight back alone and we wouldnt be able to, because just as to Ukraine and as to Nazis, the amount of meat Russia (yes the whole country, not just Putin) is willing to throw into the meatgrinder is incomprehensible.
Also, these sorts don't seem to realize that NATO is on Russia's border regardless of Ukraine's status. Even before Russia invaded and Finland joined NATO.
They've never looked at a fucking map.
I mean... When they're claiming russia applied to NATO and was rejected... What did you expect, a sound and reasonable mind? They're literally just repeating their propaganda, nothing more.
Oh I know, but I've heard that particular lie about Russia not wanting NATO on their border being behind the invasion way too many times. NATO has literally been bordering Russia since its inception.
Yeah, fair. That's the easiest, most obvious piece of propaganda to debunk ever. And they swallow it like it's putin's cum. Oh well... I hope they at least enjoy the taste.
Also with modern power projection....we don't have to be on your border....
Because countries wanted to join the defensive pact.....this isn't even hard.....
Russia might still have invaded without NATO provocation. However while Russia is evil, they do have a very valid point in not wanting NATO next to their border.
Especially since Russia's NATO application got rejected.
Ukraine not joining NATO
Russia invade Ukraine
NATO now very open to Ukraine joining due to a Russian threat.
See how Russia is causing the NATO membership? Not preventing it.
To me it feels like Russia saying they're invading due to NATO is just a smokescreen for something else, and a way to get support from their population.
And as it's caused the NATO membership, Russians can now say "see! We told you so! They are joining just like we said!", ignoring that they've directly caused this outcome.
I wonder if the main reason for this is just to try and better secure the black sea for some reason.
Russia didn't just cause NATO membership for Ukraine, they're the reason NATO was formed in the first place.
People should learn about WWII and the roots of these problems. Spend some time with the atrocities coming out of the USSR as they butchered and raped their way through peaceful countries in Europe.
June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution entered into force.
In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine’s new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO
Also relevant is Zelensky staging a coup in Ukraine in 2014 to overthrow the Russian puppet regime that was in place at that time. Meaning Russia lost control over Ukraine politically.
Right. And if I say that I'm changing my diet to fit with my neighbours, that doesn't make me part of neighbour's family.
I get what you're saying, they were aligning themselves to become NATO members. That's not the same as what's happening now though where NATO are saying "yes we want them in", which is an outcome Russia has caused by this invasion.
Edit- just another note..both of these occurred since Russia annexed Crimea, which could definitely be construed as aggressive behaviour on Russia's part. Again pointing towards Russia causing an outcome they're claiming to have a problem with.
Actually NATO just rejected the Ukrainian application. Looks like we're throwing more Ukrainians into the meat grinder and not fighting ourselves.
I guess wanting them in, and feeling that it's appropriate to bring them in right now are two different things.
As they've said. They want them in. That's not the same as thinking they should be in now.
I want to retire, but retiring right now is not appropriate.
First Ukraine didn't apply. That was false.
Then Ukraine was joining NATO. That was false.
IDK nobody here seems interested in literal facts so let's call it quits here.
Yeah let all it quits. I'm really struggling to follow you.
America bad is literally the reason why countries don’t want NATO on their border
Well, so far the only country really throwing a shit fit about having NATO on their border is Russia, probably because NATO membership gets in the way of his neo-USSR expansion plans. Don't use a plural where it doesn't belong.
I recall Afghanistan having a NATO problem within their borders. And Lybia. And Iraq. And many other countries.
Despite all the marketing NATO is not a defensive alliance. It is an offensive one in actions.
I also recall Afghanistan having a Russia problem inside their borders. A very large Russia problem that Russia lost. Also NATO didnt even start that, the US did, and was the primary driver of all Afghanistan actions, and then drug some part of NATO into it (which is a separate problem) after the fact. Your point?
And you forgot about the NATO problem very convenient. Doesn't fit your narrative.
The US Afganistan invasion was supplied through Pakistan, and to a lesser extent, the old Russian lines that Russia used in its own invasion. Georgia was also an intermediary to a lesser degree.
None of these are NATO members.
For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.
Does nobody here have google?
How does this relate to Afghanistan wanting to have NATO neighbours or not? The original debate was whether Russia was justified to be hostile to neighbours joining NATO, and you brought up Afghanistan as an example.
Yet the Afghanistan neighbours involved in the NATO invasion were not NATO members, they were in fact NATO-hostile. So the lessons seems less "don't have NATO neighbours" but "ally with your trustworthy neighbours that won't sell you out".
And all that said, NATO and the US in the Middle East and Asia is not the same as NATO in Eastern Europe. I agree that the US should fuck off all the way back to where they came from, but Russia is more of a clear and present danger than the US is. At least here. There are no good guys, only the bad one near you with a rifle and the one far away with a loan.
Linkerbaan, put yourself into the shoes of any Eastern European country in 1930, and decide who to ally with. I bet however you answer that question, there will be a nice example why it was a dogshit choice. It is not that much different now, except the collective West seems less bad than the Third Reich was.
You're right those NATO warmongers invading countries and destroying them to steal oil seem like pretty nice guys after all.
Again, look at it from Eastern Europe. What's the good choice?
Being independent is a choice as well, and most tried that. They mostly got invaded by both sides, either being raped and pillaged in tandem or one after the other.
What's the good choice Poland or the Baltics should take?
You are right Russia is likely to invade.
However you just cannot seem to understand that NATO is also likely to invade Russia. NATO is not the good guys you want to have on your border if you are not inside of NATO.
NATO will lie about WMD's and make up any excuse to invade a country if they want to do so and 10 years later all the brainwashed kiddos here will still tell you that we were right to invade Iraq
Just like Russia does imperialism we also do imperialism. In fact we do way more of it.
There was a buffer zone between Russia and us which was Poland, Ukraine etc. Then we decided to expand NATO into that buffer zone in the last 20 years.
Now we that the last countries in the buffer zone are about to join NATO, Russia decides they have nothing to lose by attacking Ukraine first before it joins NATO because we are not willing to leave any buffer zone
For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.
I guess it was a UN operation, not NATO. Aren't semantics fun?!
So why is the NATO website stating it was a NATO operation?
The UN is another imperialistic tool. As we can see from the Genocide in Gaza the UN is utterly worthless because it's controlled by America.
America giving itself a UN mandate for NATO to invade countries does not absolve NATO.
I haven't seen people defend the invasion of Afghanistan this hard since 2010.
Pointing out your obvious bs does not a defense make. Funny how hard you go into the paint for Israel and Russia, tho, isn't it?
What? None of that would have been different without NATO. Iraq did not even involve NATO at all
Oof https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_88247.htm
The participation in the invasion was also NATO participants. Same with the Genocide in Gaza right now where NATO countries are doing the military logistics to provide israel with bombs and tank shells to blow up Palestinian kids.
Either directly or indirectly NATO is just an extension of whatever imperialist escapades we go on. And the few times people actually need it it's utterly worthless such as Srebrenica and NATO just lets a Genocide happen without doing anything.
You can have independent operations by members states. If a couple of my cousins and myself go and murder someone that doesnt mean it was done by my clan. It just means some people in my clan are murderers, most alliance networks allow independent operations and actions seperate from the alliance.
The NATO site is literally bragging about it.
And yeah it just so happen people in the NATO allience all just keep invading countries together under false pretenses and lies of national security.
One experience is experience youre gonna brag about having it. Two most of the alliance didnt participate, the only members who did were the US, Uk, and Poland for some reason. Thats only two of the founding memebers and three members total, Australia was also there. It was a massive operation done by pretty important nations Poland is the most important NATO member in the east of Europe, the US just is the most important member, and Britain is also pretty fucken important.
But all four of the countries involved have independent alliances with eachother seperate from NATO, yes their offensive capabilities are helped by NATO but that is only on the experience and equipment level. If NATO was actually directly involved id expect France and Germany to have been involved for example.
Man why do I even bother Googling this bullshit. 3 members this man says. Do you just make things up and press post for fun? Not going to bother with this trolling.
Because it was only 3 members doing combat, everything else contributed by say Germany was do to secondary treaties. For example staging, hospital use, and maintenance in Germany would be covered by basing treaties. Yes quite a bit of this is wrapped up with NATO as a whole, but quite a bit also isnt lots of ifs, ands, ors, and buts in the language of it all.
Turns out alliances and treaties can be complex and esoteric things at the best of times, we figured that out after WW1. And yes only three NATO members had participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and one of them (Poland) pulled out. If you bring up Australia they arent part of NATO. Iraq was an unjustified clusterfuck ya dont need to lie about it to make it sound worse.
Also intelligence agencies dont count, half the time intelligence is in a region its to make sure it doesnt need them.
Did you google your statement before posting it?
Yes, the only listed combatant countries are fucking the US, UK, Poland, Australia, and allied Iraqi forces. Ive met enough fucking veterans to know who they fought with during the initial invasian from anecdotes alone and post invasion was the US, UK, and local forces.
Yes secondary assistance was given, but guess what only direct fucken involvement matters. Ill even qoute the fucking beginning of the fucking NATO article on the matter and the nice little list of NATO adjacent actions.
"The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organisation had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it"
And heres the little list.
-
NATO as an organisation had no role in the 2003 campaign since opinions among members were divided, as they were in the United Nations.
-
Iraq was suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction and was requested to comply with disarmament obligations.
-
The US-led coalition, operation Iraqi Freedom, ousted the Saddam Hussein regime.
-
Prior to the campaign and at the request of Turkey, NATO undertook precautionary defensive measures by deploying for instance surveillance aircraft and missile defenses on Turkish territory.
-
NATO also supported Poland - a participant in the US-led Multinational Stabilization Force set up after the campaign - with for instance communications and logistics.
The closest fucking thing to actually getting involved in Iraq is the logistical assistance during occupation and that was largely in poland and the UK.
Here the fucking article on the NATO website if ya want to look further. Most of it is dedicated to the thing with Turkey.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm
And heres the fucken wiki for the Iraq war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Its all rather dry but concise. Read it and weap profligate.
-