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.”
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.
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?
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?