Should NATO send troops to help Ukraine?

Should NATO send troops to help Ukraine?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 22.7%
  • No

    Votes: 85 77.3%

  • Total voters
    110
The problem is doing nothing will make things a lot worse. Sanctions will bruise them but there needs to be more. Putin will think he can do what he likes and attempt to take somewhere else. IMO we are delaying the inevitable anyway.
We are not though as that’s why he’s in Ukraine not Estonia.

As we ALL duty bound by international law to act if he was to hit a nato Nation
 
I was thinking yesterday that if there's a scenario (however unlikely) that he attacks a NATO nation (probably one of the Baltic states) coupled with the threat of nuclear warfare and NATO don't intervene?

I'm obviously not stating that it would be a preferred option but I don't think it's off the table...
 
I guess the answer rather depends on whether sanctions can be effective.

Morally, it seems wrong to let Putin do as he pleases because Ukraine is not part of NATO. My moral outrage screams let justice be done though the heavens fall, but then I am not a world leader.

I imagine there is some numbers being run around loss of lives in different scenarios and reducing deaths will be the main factor.

Think on this for a moment. If, because Russia has nuclear weapons, the west will not act, what stops Putin from taking what he wants? Are we to stand by as nations fall?

I would maybe go half in and provide air support and declare Ukraine airspace as a no-fly zone. Putin would likely see that as an act of aggression but so what. Sometimes you have to fight.
 
British special forces are already in the Ukraine. I think Putin has totally misjudged his own people, let alone the rest of the world. This could be his ultimate downfall.
 
I was thinking yesterday that if there's a scenario (however unlikely) that he attacks a NATO nation (probably one of the Baltic states) coupled with the threat of nuclear warfare and NATO don't intervene?

I'm obviously not stating that it would be a preferred option but I don't think it's off the table...
Nato have to intervene as it’s enshrined in nato law

Article 5

An attack on one shall be regarded as an attack on all.

It’s not a debate that is nato.
 
I was thinking yesterday that if there's a scenario (however unlikely) that he attacks a NATO nation (probably one of the Baltic states) coupled with the threat of nuclear warfare and NATO don't intervene?

I'm obviously not stating that it would be a preferred option but I don't think it's off the table...
If he attacks a NATO state then NATO as a whole is duty bound to respond there would never be a scenario where we do nothing.

British special forces are already in the Ukraine.
How can you possibly know that? I know that all British personnel who were working there were moved to another location weeks ago.
 
It's devastating watching the scenes unfold, the sheer terror of watching your country, your home being invaded by Russia. I personally don't think that Russia will just stop at Ukraine. We need to act IMO. FWIW I am a serving soldier and I would jump at the chance to go and help. I have been to the Ukraine twice to help train them and they are brilliant people. I vote yes.
As horrendous as it is, its a massive NO!
 
Yes I severely doubt the sas are involved as well as it’s not our fight. They will be watching and maybe training rebels but not officially.
 
British special forces are already in the Ukraine. I think Putin has totally misjudged his own people, let alone the rest of the world. This could be his ultimate downfall.
A military man on Newsnight and UK defence secretary have both said Russian military is failing to do what it was expects up to now.
Whether this means they just send in more troops I don't know, but militarily people saying they have not advanced as quickly as they'd hoped
 
I was thinking yesterday that if there's a scenario (however unlikely) that he attacks a NATO nation (probably one of the Baltic states) coupled with the threat of nuclear warfare and NATO don't intervene?

I'm obviously not stating that it would be a preferred option but I don't think it's off the table...

I think you're pretty much reliant then on one of his senior cronies coming to their senses, realising he's lost his mind and intervening.

He might try it as a bluff of course to test the response, but there's no way NATO could back down in that scenario.

Terrifying thought mind.
 
A military man on Newsnight and UK defence secretary have both said Russian military is failing to do what it was expects up to now.
Whether this means they just send in more troops I don't know, but militarily people saying they have not advanced as quickly as they'd hoped
Putin will send more until its done.
 
Nato have to intervene as it’s enshrined in nato law

Article 5

An attack on one shall be regarded as an attack on all.

It’s not a debate that is nato.
I appreciate that but in reality there is nothing to stop them not acting. Presumably a meeting is convened when a NATO member is under threat/invasion.

Unless I'm grossly mistaken, this is mutually assured destruction we're talking about here. It wouldn't surprise me (rightly or wrongly) if Western states were keen to avoid that for what, in many people's eyes (not mine I might add) would be seen as a "minor state".

Just playing devils advocate...
 
I appreciate that but in reality there is nothing to stop them not acting. Presumably a meeting is convened when a NATO member is under threat/invasion.

Unless I'm grossly mistaken, this is mutually assured destruction we're talking about here. It wouldn't surprise me (rightly or wrongly) if Western states were keen to avoid that for what, in many people's eyes (not mine I might add) would be seen as a "minor state".

Just playing devils advocate...
That’s exactly what it is and putin knows that as well.

By if nato don’t act that’s he end of nato.
 
I voted yes, but it's a difficult one because nobody wins a war, everyone loses.

I do think Putin needs to be stopped, whether it be with a war, or with MUCH heavier sanctions on him personally and Russian elites.

All we've done so far sanction wise is bring the Rouble down 33%, but does that effect Putin or does it just make it harder for the innocent Russian people?
Putin and the oligarchs will have seen that coming a mile away and protected their assets. In essence we've done very little.

In my opinion they need to be taken off SWIFT, all trade with them needs to be stopped, the pipeline to Germany needs to be totally destroyed (not just paused for a bit), and any rail links / visa / travel to and from Russia needs to be heavily vetted. Roman Abramovich flew into Moscow on his private jet yesterday... He shouldn't be allowed to return to his £100m London mansion whenever he wants.
 
If he attacks a NATO state then NATO as a whole is duty bound to respond there would never be a scenario where we do nothing.


How can you possibly know that? I know that all British personnel who were working there were moved to another location weeks ago.
Its not really hard to find out if you have friends in the military is it.
 
This should be a UN issue and separate from NATO, surely the onus should be on the world to act and not just those within NATO, I'm not sure if boots on the ground is the answer or what scope the UN have to support the Ukrainian forces, but this demands a multilateral response.

The other question is would NATO support of the Ukraine with the provision of arms, for example, be viewed by the Kremlin as an act of hostility and lead to an escalation of tensions around the Balkans.

The really worrying thing is that the power of escalation is wholly within the hands of Putin, we've failed to heed the lessons of history and allowed a megalomaniac despot to take the strings of the puppet show.
 
Back
Top