Post AXeafkL5hjB1jIs5UO by PVTejas@mstdn.social
(DIR) More posts by PVTejas@mstdn.social
(DIR) Post #AXeafjYWcIKRIg9In2 by Free_Press@mstdn.social
2023-07-13T10:31:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
HIGH WIRE BALANCINGKudos to President Biden and NATO for their successful simmit. NATO confirmed their commitment to help Ukraine in their fight against the aggressor Russia. Putin invaded Ukraine with the belief that NATO's commitment to Ukraine would falter and wane - it hasn't. NATO offers Ukraine Security guarantees similar to that of Israel. NATO membership will follow after war's end.#Ukraine️ #Russia #Putin #EU #NATO #Zelensky #war #news #USA https://www.npr.org/2023/07/12/1187291581/biden-vilnius-ukraine-nato
(DIR) Post #AXeafkL5hjB1jIs5UO by PVTejas@mstdn.social
2023-07-13T13:36:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Free_Press "NATO membership will follow after war's end" unfortunately sounds like an empty promise to me. Is there a reason for not giving them membership right now?I hope I'm wrong here.
(DIR) Post #AXeaflNFrAVAwItKV6 by Free_Press@mstdn.social
2023-07-13T13:40:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@PVTejas if we gave Ukraine NATO membership now, we would automatically be in WW III. The NATO charter states an attack on one is an attack on all. It would obligate the NATO member countries to immediately attack Russia. I yearn to see Ukraine in NATO, but first we have to end the Russian invasion by means of security guarantees and weapons arming. It's a rock and a hard place NATO was in.
(DIR) Post #AXeafly7e5zame8lxw by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-07-13T13:53:05.991141Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Free_Press To be fair, it does not. The #NATO Article 5 as seen below, does not obligate allies to “immediately attack Russia”. It merely obligates them to “assist” the attacked ally, and only in a way “it deems necessary”:“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.Unfortunately or fortunately, there’s nothing “automatic” in international relations, especially as it comes to armed conflicts. If #Ukraine became part of NATO tomorrow, nothing would change, the allies could just go on and continue supplying it weapons they “deem necessary” and that would entirely satisfy their Article 5 duty.Note that #Russia has already attacked NATO countries, using chemical weapons (UK, twice; Bulgaria), Czechia (Vrbětice explosions) etc and nobody really declared war on Russia because the consensus among other NATO members was apparently that it would be an “escalation”.@PVTejas
(DIR) Post #AXeafmf14cIsvgD1pA by Free_Press@mstdn.social
2023-07-13T13:58:35Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @PVTejas Thank you for that important clarification!
(DIR) Post #AXeav6ZBLW6t0gmmci by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-07-13T14:03:55.941694Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Free_Press @PVTejas Sorry if that sounded a bit pessimistic, it was probably a bit too pessimistic than it’s really. The main thing I wanted to highlight is that international relations are complex and are always subject to deliberation and various political games even if there are clear contractual obligations. But all in all it seems like the outcome of these negotiations in Vilnius is a consensus that all current allies will continue to support Ukraine with weapons, logistics and training (most important), political security guarantees (somewhat important) and clear declaration of membership in NATO after the war ends (most important in long term).
(DIR) Post #AXeb16r7BRUTe22MDo by PVTejas@mstdn.social
2023-07-13T14:05:03Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @Free_Press i was worried I was too pessimistic! I think your reply laid out the complex reality of the situation clearly.
(DIR) Post #AXebrl9kaloDh1rKQS by amayer@rheinneckar.social
2023-07-13T14:09:38Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @Free_Press @PVTejas You seem to ignore this part:"to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”I don’t think, anyone could honestly claim that providing weapons would be sufficient to restore the security of Ukrainian territory.Additionally, Biden and other NATO leaders have already pledged to defend "every inch" of NATO territory. So, in my opinion, NATO would, indeed, be forced to intervene.
(DIR) Post #AXec9dTZsy1V5Neo9w by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-07-13T14:17:46.496674Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@amayer Won’t argue, I’m not expert on international treaties 🤷♂️ That’s an opinion voiced by Arestovych a few days ago, then I double checked in the actual NATO statue, and the wording was consistent with what he said. Note that nothing in the “restore and maintain” implicates an immediate armed offensive action against the perpetrator - quite the opposite, the whole wording is constructed in a way that allows the allies to use the means they “deem necessary” for that “restoration”.@Free_Press @PVTejas