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
zorro_mfc said:
Yes we don’t fly as you know with nato flags we are in Nat be de facto treaty so the Russians will see the RAF or the Royal Navy for what it is a nato force.
Click to expand...
NATO is the banner and the overall organisation but the flag and insignia will be Britain. All NATO members will be given the overall mission and members will deconflict and carry out their mission as nations. It isn't like a UN mission with the blue berets and all the Insignia.
 
Steve8778 said:
NATO is the banner and the overall organisation but the flag and insignia will be Britain. All NATO members will be given the overall mission and members will deconflict and carry out their mission as nations. It isn't like a UN mission with the blue berets and all the Insignia.
Click to expand...
Exactly and that is my point so we can’t get involved but not be representing nato
 
changingman said:
I think there are (fairly subtle) differences though.

For Hitler, some of it was about territorial gains previously lost but this quickly morphed into "living space", effectively taking any land he could through force. Now obviously no one is 100% clear on Putin's objectives, most commentators feel they're related to the old soviet union. As such, I can see incursions in the Baltics but Germany, France, Belgium etc? Unlikely I think.
Click to expand...
Agreed, his problem with the Batlic states is they are members of NATO and I believe Estonia and Lithuania are very anti-russian and have small russian populations. Latvia is a little different having about 25% russian population.

He wouldn't go into Germany, France, Belgium. I really doubt he would go into the old warsaw pact states either. Not just because they are NATO, but because they were never part of the USSR
 
By way of comparison, Hitler may have acted differently in 1939 if he'd known England, Russia and subsequently USA (among others) would all act to defend Poland (which is in effect what NATO membership is trying to achieve here).
 
BoroMart said:
I really doubt he would go into the old warsaw pact states either. Not just because they are NATO, but because they were never part of the USSR
Click to expand...
They were though as it’s all about the “layers of the onion” as..

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin wanted a buffer zone of friendly Communist countries to protect the USSR from further attack in the future.

They became the shield to reach the mother land so although not part of the greater USSR they were seen as strategically significant.
 
zorro_mfc said:
They were though as it’s all about the “layers of the onion” as..

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin wanted a buffer zone of friendly Communist countries to protect the USSR from further attack in the future.

They became the shield to reach the mother land so although not part of the greater USSR they were seen as strategically significant.
Click to expand...
It didn't stop Stalin starving them in the millions.
 
changingman said:
By way of comparison, Hitler may have acted differently in 1939 if he'd known England, Russia and subsequently USA (among others) would all act to defend Poland (which is in effect what NATO membership is trying to achieve here).
Click to expand...
He did know though as we actually told him and yet he’s still did it

in fact that was intention to start war with Russia so agin it held no fear.

But not a valid comparison at at all as diff world order back then
 
changingman said:
By way of comparison, Hitler may have acted differently in 1939 if he'd known England, Russia and subsequently USA (among others) would all act to defend Poland (which is in effect what NATO membership is trying to achieve here).
Click to expand...

The USSR were happy to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany a take a nice chunk of Poland with it, as well as massacring a swathe of Polish officers and soldiers at Katyn.
 
zorro_mfc said:
?????

That’s was about a policy to create industrialisation to create a superstate at the expense of the agriculture.
Click to expand...

The holodomor was, depending on who you believe, a natural disaster or a state imposed famine in Ukraine and Kazakhstan (and elsewhere).
 
Steve8778 said:
Interesting take, how would you go about it?
Click to expand...

You try the UN first.

Because it is Russia and China are in their corner versus the West at the moment, you aren't going to get a resolution, but you might get plenty of widespread condemnation to the extent that another 'coalition of the willing' is possible, allowing a peacekeeping force to go in and help, but not a NATO one. It's outside NATO's remit, so NATO forces would be operating without legal justification I think, since it isn't an attack on a NATO country. I guess if there was a genocide develop there would be a precedent such as in Kosovo.

That said, I'm not that up to speed these days with the politics and framework of the UN, or even the current situation, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

Morally, we should be helping defend these people against Russian aggression and its violation of the 1994 Budapest agreement, but it can't be a NATO Article 5 response, some other justification must be found. I don't know if the 1994 Budapest Agreement is sufficient legally but also politically. The UN must be the first port of call.
 
We’ve been so weak. Putin must be laughing at the west. Sanctions? Feeble approach at best a slap on the hand. It’s all about the oil and gas — Germany? What a joke of a country. And Biden says we stand for freedom— meanwhile Ukraine is being burned to the ground.
 
NATO sends in troops....what's the end game? It would have to be more than restoring Ukranian sovreignty....it would ultimately be about getting rid of Putin and that to me is a World War 3.....
 
I'm surprised 18 people have voted yes. Ukraine are not a member so NATO cannot react by sending military forces. More importantly, a NATO response like that would result in a World War which would probably surpass World War 2 in destruction.
 
I think accepting asylum seekers is probably the best thing for countries like ours to be doing.

It's easy to talk about no fly zones or whatever but once you start down that path how/when do you dial it back down?
 
So let’s see Hungary might be next — or the former Yugoslavia. What then—we just let Putin do what he wants? and not to mention each of these countries he invades represents further power through money and resources. Maybe Putin is already pressuring Hungary to realign with Russia. It might take several more years for this to happen. Putin is no fool he knows how the west works. Putin already has mainland Europe where he wants them thanks to the pipelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top