-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Putin & Russia
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
Silly McSilly Face
Alan Hutton
This doesn't answer the question. There hasn't been any Russian aggression that would invoke a NATO requirement for the US to do something.
Member states of NATO - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Mikey10
Christian Ziege
Depends what something is.
There has been nothing yet to make US military action a requirement.
However, Article 4 is certainly in play. History teaches us that appeasing aggression by nation states isn’t a great idea.
I’d suggest it would be better for the US to do something now (as in make explicitly clear their commitment to Article 5 and their intention to immediately act upon it) rather than give Russia further encouragement to attack a NATO state on its border.
At the moment we have the TACO-in-Chief doing his usual tough talking without ever following through.
And so Putin -who needs perma-war to survive domestically - keeps (literally) pushing the boundaries.
Silly McSilly Face
Alan Hutton
Article 4 is about consulting with each other when member states feel there is a threat. I'm sure they're consulting all the time. Why should the US do something now? As in specifically the US? Maybe the TACO-in-Chief has a massive f***ing point about us pussies in Europe whinging and crying to big daddy about "please do something about nasty Mr Putin" and pointing to a commitment to Article 5 from America when NO European NATO member has committed to upholding Article 3, which is that member countries commit to maintain and develop their individual and collective capability to resist armed attack.
If European NATO members hadn't persistently wound down their defence budgets and military capabilities, and failed to adhere to 2006 NATO GDP spending commitments, do you think we would even be having this conversation?
If you haven't been spending 2.5% of GDP a year on defence since 2006 (the agreed commitment to Article 3), why should you enjoy the protection of Article 5?
Its like giving your landlord half the agreed rent every month for 20 years and expecting him to fix everything that gets broken in the house.
ricky2tricky4city
Colin Calderwood
I wonder if Putin liked the drone shots of Gaza....and is thinking I'll go full BIBI?
metalgear
Chris Jones
5 casualties only? either evacuated or the russian bombs suck
Rorschach
Fanny Walden
I think it was the other way around. Bibi learned this scorched earth tactic from Putin.
Last edited:
1. It does involve US interests. They signed a deal around natural resources and while the war goes on they can't benefit from it. It becomes more important as China has a stranglehold on rare earth metals.
2. Do you not think anyone that has the power to stop tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths has a moral obligation to do so?
3. It's not about being the world police and about doing the right thing.
Silly McSilly Face
Alan Hutton
2 and 3 is absolutely about being the world police. Interventionalism has gone so well for us all over the decades hasnt it?
Ok, so you don't think there's a moral obligation to step hundreds of thousands of deaths. Thanks, will leave it there.
johnola
Vedran Corluka
Isn’t that on Russia?
Yes, Russia are the real evil here, I don't think anyone is disputing that. That doesn't mean everyone should go "oh, it's Russias fault, therefore I'm going to ignore it as it's not my fault and not try to stop a few 100k dying".
johnola
Vedran Corluka
Bit much to expect someone else to step up if you are not going to though.