• 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

Silly McSilly Face said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mikey10 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back