Why won't they send in more NATO countries, after these months, to help Ukraine regain land from Russia? - eviltoast

It makes sense that they won’t allow their own skin to be ravaged (United States, Britain, Germany, France etc), but why not the Baltics and Poland, at this point?

I’m surprised they haven’t done so, after these long months

  • Redcuban1959 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    De jure, it’s because NATO is a defensive pact. In other words, they didn’t help the United Kingdom during the Falklands/Malvinas conflict or France during the First Indochina War and the Algerian conflict.

    De facto, it’s because they fear that Russia could retaliate by using nuclear weapons or intercontinental missiles that could easily hit the US. What’s more, these troops would be of little use and would actually turn European public opinion against the war. And they would be used as propaganda for Russia to inspire Ukrainians to desert their army to fight a foreign enemy.

    • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      using nuclear weapons or intercontinental missiles that could easily hit the US.

      If that happens, USian submarines retaliate and it’s game over for the planet

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In other words, they didn’t help the United Kingdom during the Falklands/Malvinas

      Argentina attacked then and there’s article 6, looks like it’s explicitly written so that NATO countries didn’t had obligations to participate into each other’s colonial wars.