As someone said sometime ago, article 5 dey look face!

If we all recall, for every mishap, happenstance, alleged war crimes, sabotage activities etc. The collective western government and their media is very quick to parrot a narrative, “the Russians did it”. They are quick to conclude prior to investigations how it is most likely Russian in every scenario. They have even gone ahead with their media to suggest Russia blew up its own pipeline just to paint how bad the Russians could be and destroy its own self.

Now the crux; how come when a missile landed in Poland, despite the fast paced rush by Poland to name it a Russian made missile and summon the Russian ambassador and lodge a protest, put its military on heightened alert and summon its security chiefs to anticipate triggering article 4 and Ukraine’s claim that Russia has attacked NATO and as such article 5 should be triggered; the almighty US without getting the complete evidence and with investigations still sketchy and early was the first to pour cold water and say it’s most likely not a Russian missile. What changed from the usual hysteria to blame the Russians before even an international investigation is called.

Again; realize how immediately the US president poured cold water on it, NATO SG follows suit and Poland did a U-turn. Zelensky refused to backed down on his claim and hence received a warning from Washington to refrain from accusing the Russians.

This takes us back to what we have been telling so many here, the west will not risk Washington, New York, California, Berlin, Paris, London in exchange for Russian destruction for the sake of Ukraine. NATO vs Russia in a direct conflict would be WW3 and it would be full nuclear, no victors. It also shows there is an extent to which the west would go for Ukraine. Ukraine has been used, simply expendable collateral.

Nato 5 is for small countries not for Russia. The other time Lithuania tried shit, nato, USA and UK quickly called her to other as Putin already said he doesn't care which club she belongs, it will be brutal if he fights his way through.

babyboy4every1:
Nato 5 is for small countries not for Russia. The other time Lithuania tried shit, nato, USA and UK quickly called her to other as Putin already said he doesn't care which club she belongs, it will be brutal if he fights his way through.

Exactly NATO is for weak countries

If Russia was a minor country NATO would have bombed them to nonsense

redseason:
As someone said sometime ago, article 5 dey look face!

If we all recall, for every mishap, happenstance, alleged war crimes, sabotage activities etc. The collective western government and their media is very quick to parrot a narrative, “the Russians did it”. They are quick to conclude prior to investigations how it is most likely Russian in every scenario. They have even gone ahead with their media to suggest Russia blew up its own pipeline just to paint how bad the Russians could be and destroy its own self.

Now the crux; how come when a missile landed in Poland, despite the fast paced rush by Poland to name it a Russian made missile and summon the Russian ambassador and lodge a protest, put its military on heightened alert and summon its security chiefs to anticipate triggering article 4 and Ukraine’s claim that Russia has attacked NATO and as such article 5 should be triggered; the almighty US without getting the complete evidence and with investigations still sketchy and early was the first to pour cold water and say it’s most likely not a Russian missile. What changed from the usual hysteria to blame the Russians before even an international investigation is called.

Again; realize how immediately the US president poured cold water on it, NATO SG follows suit and Poland did a U-turn. Zelensky refused to backed down on his claim and hence received a warning from Washington to refrain from accusing the Russians.

This takes us back to what we have been telling so many here, the west will not risk Washington, New York, California, Berlin, Paris, London in exchange for Russian destruction for the sake of Ukraine. NATO vs Russia in a direct conflict would be WW3 and it would be full nuclear, no victors. It also shows there is an extent to which the west would go for Ukraine. Ukraine has been used, simply expendable collateral.

NATO article 5 says, 'an attack on one member is an attack on all'. But there is an important requirement that must be met before article 5 can be applied. In a situation whereby Russia attacks a NATO member. For article 5 to be applied, all members must vote in favour of any action NATO intend to take, before such action can be taken. The vote must be 100% (not 99%).

So when dealing with a non-nuclear state. This can be easily achieved. But for a nuclear state, it is not going to be easy. Because it is like signing a death warrant.

On an individual level, this is why you must be tough as a person, or else, others will devour you. Nato has the most to lose in a war with Russia. They have more citizens, more economical might, more densely built and populated areas, and are filled with hegemons such as the UK, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Modern warfare is no longer about how many men you have, but about your military technologies. Russia doesn't even have to send a single man to the EU to vaporize it to dust, just missles will do the job. Now imagine when Bush ordered the Iraqi president and his son to leave the country before the US invaded, and they had to leave because they are weak.

I was expecting them to order Putin to leave Russia, and see what they will do if he didn't. So you are right, NAto de looks face. They only deal with weak countries, not powers like Russia or China, civilizations that are far older by thousands of years than the US which is less than 300 years old.

olugabbie:


NATO article 5 says, 'an attack on one member is an attack on all'. But there is an important requirement that must be met before article 5 can be applied. In a situation whereby Russia attacks a NATO member. For article 5 to be applied, all members must vote in favour of any action NATO intend to take, before such action can be taken. The vote must be 100% (not 99%).

So when dealing with a non-nuclear state. This can be easily achieved. But for a nuclear state, it is not going to be easy. Because it is like signing a death warrant.

You are right, but many of the nato operations globally are unilateral in nature, meaning that the US decides and the rest follows. Why change in the case of Russia? also, the uniformity of sanctions against Russia is all US-led, these countries don't have independent foreign policies, even though they are independent states.

pansophist:


You are right, but many of the nato operations globally are unilateral in nature, meaning that the US decides and the rest follows. Why change in the case of Russia? also, the uniformity of sanctions against Russia is all US-led, these countries don't have independent foreign policies, even though they are independent states.

NATO has a lots of members. But most of them are dependent on the US for security. It is only France and may be UK that are independent. Even UK still depend on the US in some areas. France does not buy weapon from the US. She builds her own weapon.

So the US has great influence on most of the NATO members. But there is a limit to the extent the US can push them. The threat of a Nuclear war will break the alliance.

olugabbie:


NATO has a lots of members. But most of them are dependent on the US for security. It is only France and may be UK that are independent. Even UK still depend on the US in some areas. France does not buy weapon from the US. She builds her own weapon.

So the US has great influence on most of the NATO members. But there is a limit to the extent the US can push them. The threat of a Nuclear war will break the alliance.

True again, but me think in the blackest of NATO's sheep, it's not France that takes the place, but Turkey.

Turkey is the only NATO member that has an independent foreign policy, the only one that refuses to sanction Russia, and the only one that calls for dialogue and negotiation.

Turkey is also the reason why Sweden and Finland have not joined NATO yet, because it keeps vetoing their bid. Turkey also buys weapons from Russia, and produces it's own defense equipments.

And would you blame Turkey? Turkey is the oldest country that has put an application to join the EU, but it keep getting refused for flimsy reasons. Croatia joined even while Turkey bid for membership was older.

The EU that preaches freedom for everything can't seems to accept that a majority Muslim country will be part of tht EU. Turkey is only tolerated in NATO due to its strategic location as a transcontinental country.

So yes, Turkey, not France takes the spot.

pansophist:


True again, but me think in the blackest of NATO's sheep, it's not France that takes the place, but Turkey.

Turkey is the only NATO member that has an independent foreign policy, the only one that refuses to sanction Russia, and the only one that calls for dialogue and negotiation.

Turkey is also the reason why Sweden and Finland have not joined NATO yet, because it keeps vetoing their bid. Turkey also buys weapons from Russia, and produces it's own defense equipments.

And would you blame Turkey? Turkey is the oldest country that has put an application to join the EU, but it keep getting refused for flimsy reasons. Croatia joined even while Turkey bid for membership was older.

The EU that preaches freedom for everything can't seems to accept that a majority Muslim country will be part of tht EU. Turkey is only tolerated in NATO due to its strategic location as a transcontinental country.

So yes, Turkey, not France takes the spot.

You are right. But I think it was the coup that occurred in Turkey some years ago that destroyed the good relationship that existed between Turkey and her Western partners.

Erdogan was expecting his Western partners to condemn the coup and stand with him. But he was abandoned. The US even refused to extradite the master-mind (suspect) of the coup that live in US. Turkey was forced to look inward after the disappointment.

Secondly some countries like Turkey, Israel, Hungary, Croatia e.t.c don't see Russia as a threat. They don't see Russia as an aggressor. They believe Russia is backed to the corner by the West. Even though they can not support Russia so as not to fume the US.

olugabbie:


Secondly, some countries like Turkey, Israel, Hungary, Croatia e.t.c don't see Russia as a threat. They don't see Russia as an aggressor. They believe Russia is backed to the corner by the West. Even though they can not support Russia so as not to fume the US.

Yes, but isn't it telling how their foreign policy aligns with Russia? Observe all the US traditional allies, they all sanctioned Russia and stood in solidarity in their aggression. That doesn't seem like true independence to me. Also, the EU even though it prides itself on a trade union, now operates as a big country. No independence from a member state. You can see the pressure Hungary is facing just because it chooses to put its interests first.