@nanoelquant I think this leaves out the part where #NATO started a 20 year #bullshit war in #Afghanistan, disasterous involvement in #Libya, and key NATO members invaded #Iraq because they wanted its oil. Sure, joining NATO could stop #Russia from invading, but then you're contributing to invading other countries.
@eighthave kind reminder - for us, there is no "but". In order to have these funny idle talks about whether some war is bullshit or choice between militants and genocidal morons it is necessary to stay alive. For Ukraine and for other countries near russian border the question of NATO is the matter of existence, other things, if any, go later.
@nanoelquant Switzerland and Sweden have been neutral for centuries, they were not taken over by the Nazis or Soviets, unlike all of their neighbors. So saying military alliances will save a country from invasions is overlooking actual history. It is not that simple.
@nanoelquant Joining military alliances also means getting dragged into the wars of other countries. You can see that over the history of #NATO. Right now, it is plain to see how Putin is leaning on Belarus to join in the war of Ukraine, and tried with Kazakhstan too.
Consider #Trump does not seem to like NATO and could be the next US President https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/john-bolton-trump-nato-2024
NATO won't let Ukraine join until the war is settled. After that, its not clear Ukraine benefits. Neutrality might work better
@nanoelquant And Austria and Finland provide possible examples of how neutrality could work for Ukraine. Austria was neutral while Soviet tanks rolled into our neighbors Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They did not invade Austria, even though militarily, it would have been simple for the Soviets to take over Austria. They had done it before. I know at lot less about it, but #Finland's situation during World War Two looks quite similar to Ukraine's now. Finland was neutral yet not invaded again.
@eighthave @nanoelquant where do you live? You really should learn some history before spouting off this kind of nonsense.
@eighthave @nanoelquant what? We as Austrians joined NATO in Afghanistan. While being super neutral. But beside that. What is the whole point? Still quite save surrounded by nato countries.
@tootiredtothink @nanoelquant Austria sent a small contingent of soldiers to Afghanistan that mostly did logistics then some police work. It peaked at something like 100 solders, but was 5-10 soldiers for most of the duration of the war. This was a symbolic contribution, and was also largely based on UN Security Council decisions rather than duties from a military alliance. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatz_des_Bundesheeres_in_Afghanistan
@eighthave @nanoelquant so it was no NATO operation, as Irak.
@tootiredtothink @nanoelquant NATO invoked its mutual defense clause, that's what started the war. The UN and other organizations did not just give up on doing anything in Afghanistan, and rightly so, in my opinion
@eighthave @nanoelquant that’s just wrong.
@eighthave @tootiredtothink "NATO invoked its mutual defense clause, that's what started the war."
You contradict yourself. If NATO invoked the mutual defense clause, this means the war had already been started.
That's the point of a "mutual defense clause", you agree to protect others in response to protection of you. The reason why some Austrians don't want this is obvious and I have been writing it too much times to repeat again.
@nanoelquant @tootiredtothink I suggest you look into what actually happened to start the war in Afghanistan. No one believes that Afghanistan or the Taliban attacked the US on Sept 11th. The Taliban even offered to turn over Al Qaeda to a third country. The Bush administration was hell bent on war, and NATO was sympathetic given the scale of the attack. 1/
@nanoelquant @tootiredtothink I'm also a New Yorker. On 9/11, I watched with my own eyes the 2nd plane hit and both towers fall. I worked around the corner then. My home and office was immersed in its smoke for a month. NYC knows what it means to be attacked, and yet the vast majority were opposed to both the Iraq and Afghan wars. It crushed me to see the logic of war set in in Ukraine. More weapons means more death and destruction with no other guarantees. History shows there are other ways 2/
@eighthave @tootiredtothink History shows that russians understand only force and stop only where their asses are kicked. If you fail to realize this, keep learning history.
There is only one guarantee in this situation - less weapons means genocide of Ukrainians, collapse of the current world order and total nuclearization of the planet. If the choice is between genocide and no guarantees - I would choose no guarantees.
Enjoy your full protection by "ambiguous" NATO and be ready to serve your neutral country. All the best.
@nanoelquant And also consider that #NATO and #US directly supported terrorist militants in Kosovo, where they remain problematic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army