Emboldened by NATO's reluctance to stop him when he invaded Crimea, gave Putin the confidence he needed to do what he has now done, which is genocide. Does NATO actually think he will stop at Ukraine? No sane person wants war but NATO must START adhering to its principles to maintain peace in the region. Emboldened as he his by NATO's reluctance to ACT, his next targets could be the Baltic countries, all NATO members, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
I don't understand why it was OK to intervene in Bosnia but not Ukraine. Yet several NATO countries did including us. Genocide is genocide I agree but what is happening in Ukraine is far worse than anything else since WWII. I know we are all worried that it will unleash nuclear war but if their tanks can be destroyed so easily, if the 40 mile long queue of vehicles all have worn and useless tyres and, by now, also have flat batteries, why would their nuclear weapons be fit for anything other than parading in Red Square once a year. But there again, do we wish to take that chance?
I cannot think why any sane person would not feel strongly that Ukraine should be in NATO, they are canny fighters and I applaud the way they are defending their country as best they can but why on earth does Putin think the West is remotely interested in his poxy country. Why not concentrate on free trade and let the Russian people enjoy the fruits of their labour instead of everything going to the top dogs. Even Putin's daughter I believe is still living in the UK. Why?
I would say rather that NATO exists to ensure peace by providing a background threat of returned military action. The treaty states that if one member state is attacked, the others are obliged to support it with military force, if necessary. That is why Putin doesn't want a NATO-Ukraine on his western flank: NATO is a military force. Its material is not just words but troops stationed throughout Europe's NATO bloc. NATO is not a "peacekeeping force" as the UN's troops are. Each NATO country is supposed to contribute 2% of its annual budget to NATO for weapons, troops, training, etc. Germany, for the record, has up to now never met this standard but has promised each year to "do better". The bald fact is, the American taxpayer is shouldering the lion's share of Europe's defence, against such a day as this.
Today, in the TIMES (ours) another general has piped up to state that he was initially against a no-fly zone, but after watching what Putin has done, he now believes that NATO will "have to fight sooner or later". The problem is, if NATO had read the handwriting on the wall earlier, how many lives might have been saved by the conflict ending earlier?
It is true that Putin has the world's largest nuclear arsenal. But it's also true that once everyone else has any nuclear arsenal, it rather becomes a distinction without a difference. Britain, France, and Sweden all have nuclear arms. All it takes is one or two to devastate.
And, at that point, I don't think China, which values stability, is going to see Russia taking Ukraine as much of a ROI.
To me, this has always had 1939 written on it. There are times when you cannot escape the truth: to allow Putin to succeed, and then to plough further millions of taxpayer money into a ten-year insurgency in a ruined county (the bill for Afghanistan across the Pond was, I think, $3 trillion), is in my view to fail, anyway.
This man is a dangerous lunatic ready to kill millions. This is too familiar. The answer is also familiar. TC
NATO exists to keep the peace , can NATO not therefore stop the genocide, if NATO turns the back to whats happening in the Ukraine, where does Putin stop, thats the billion dollar question, as to me this is what this is all about, does dollars mean more than lives, yes i can understand no one wants, another world war, i grew up in the after math of WW11, what i clearly remember are the values, i carry them to this day, respect for human life. Who is going to stop Putin,without further blood shed either in The Ukraine or the world.
There is not doubt the majority of the democratic world supports Ukarine with donations flooding in, but will that half the shelling in Ukraine? Will donations of clothes free the people trapped in cities that have been reduced to rubble? Will taking in refugees stop Russian troops from advancing?
The answer in NO to all the above. The media are focusing on the humanitarian crisis which was bound to happen, but to stop the humanitarian crisis form getitng worse one must look at the bigger picture and stop the cause. Until that is addressed, the humanitarian crisis will continue until there are no civillians left to help.
Excellent update, thank you. It is important to remember NATO's role: why it was formed and why countries decided to join (or not). They have a distinct position here and it is easy to suppose they can simply step in when/wherever they think best. They do all need to be on board with any final decision, and the big Q is always going to be the US, since the remaining countries are geographically, and many politically, aligned, whereas the US is distant on both those counts. And of course, that means it also has its own agenda. Bottom line: NATO isn't going to budge without the US's explicit approval. Many Americans simply don't see why the US should get involved in a conflict not of their own making, or, more precisely, their government might be implicated but they feel they are not. There are upcoming elections which will have a huge impact on the US's next moves, and that needs to be figured into the equation.
Watching this unfold has been wrenching to say the least. Although I am American, I do live in Europe, and this is going on right on our doorstep, as it were. I was born just after WWII, and I really thought we had learned from the last two conflicts not to go there again: grand, vibrant cities reduced to rubble, with millions of now homeless, innocent victims, trudging through the devastation, trying desperately to find shelter, clinging to all they have left in one small suitcase. I hadn't reckoned on another megalomaniac in our midst who either never learned from or simply ignored the past.
Just a note on your new moniker EL: brought a smile (in the midst of all this tragedy). When I was young and starting to get books as presents, my dad gave me a stack of small, stick-on labels to put in the front of each book: Ex Libris, a lovely woodcut of a tree, and my name. I still have many of those books!
Thank you to EL for your persistent work in bringing to our attention unadulterated facts. Like so many millions around the world, I fear we are on the brink of World War 3. From the pictures I have seen coming out of Ukraine, I see genocide which is a crime that can take place in war as well as in peace. Under Article 5, the UN Security Council may take "measures" necessary to restore and maintain "international" peace and security. I await President Zelinsky's comments when he speaks to MP's in the House of Commons tomorrow (Tuesday) in London. I share EL's
prayer that my merciful God watch over the Ukrainian people.
Putin reminds me of a school yard bully, telling the much smaller child he is thrashing that if he stays down with his face in the dirt and doesn't fight back, then he will leave him alone. The problem is the bully will return to the smaller child and thrash him again, usually encouraged by the bully's supporters, while the crowd gathers round to watch but stay back for fear of being next. The only way to stop a bully is for a bigger, stronger bully to wade in to defend the smaller child. I find myself wondering if NATO doesn't want to step up out of fear of China stepping in to help Putin.
Emboldened by NATO's reluctance to stop him when he invaded Crimea, gave Putin the confidence he needed to do what he has now done, which is genocide. Does NATO actually think he will stop at Ukraine? No sane person wants war but NATO must START adhering to its principles to maintain peace in the region. Emboldened as he his by NATO's reluctance to ACT, his next targets could be the Baltic countries, all NATO members, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
I don't understand why it was OK to intervene in Bosnia but not Ukraine. Yet several NATO countries did including us. Genocide is genocide I agree but what is happening in Ukraine is far worse than anything else since WWII. I know we are all worried that it will unleash nuclear war but if their tanks can be destroyed so easily, if the 40 mile long queue of vehicles all have worn and useless tyres and, by now, also have flat batteries, why would their nuclear weapons be fit for anything other than parading in Red Square once a year. But there again, do we wish to take that chance?
I cannot think why any sane person would not feel strongly that Ukraine should be in NATO, they are canny fighters and I applaud the way they are defending their country as best they can but why on earth does Putin think the West is remotely interested in his poxy country. Why not concentrate on free trade and let the Russian people enjoy the fruits of their labour instead of everything going to the top dogs. Even Putin's daughter I believe is still living in the UK. Why?
While the whole world claims to be standing UP for Ukraine, the Ukrainian people need world leaders to stand WITH Ukraine in stopping the genocide.
President Zelensky has today echoed Churchill, "We will NEVER surrender". NATO please note!!!!
I would say rather that NATO exists to ensure peace by providing a background threat of returned military action. The treaty states that if one member state is attacked, the others are obliged to support it with military force, if necessary. That is why Putin doesn't want a NATO-Ukraine on his western flank: NATO is a military force. Its material is not just words but troops stationed throughout Europe's NATO bloc. NATO is not a "peacekeeping force" as the UN's troops are. Each NATO country is supposed to contribute 2% of its annual budget to NATO for weapons, troops, training, etc. Germany, for the record, has up to now never met this standard but has promised each year to "do better". The bald fact is, the American taxpayer is shouldering the lion's share of Europe's defence, against such a day as this.
Today, in the TIMES (ours) another general has piped up to state that he was initially against a no-fly zone, but after watching what Putin has done, he now believes that NATO will "have to fight sooner or later". The problem is, if NATO had read the handwriting on the wall earlier, how many lives might have been saved by the conflict ending earlier?
It is true that Putin has the world's largest nuclear arsenal. But it's also true that once everyone else has any nuclear arsenal, it rather becomes a distinction without a difference. Britain, France, and Sweden all have nuclear arms. All it takes is one or two to devastate.
And, at that point, I don't think China, which values stability, is going to see Russia taking Ukraine as much of a ROI.
To me, this has always had 1939 written on it. There are times when you cannot escape the truth: to allow Putin to succeed, and then to plough further millions of taxpayer money into a ten-year insurgency in a ruined county (the bill for Afghanistan across the Pond was, I think, $3 trillion), is in my view to fail, anyway.
This man is a dangerous lunatic ready to kill millions. This is too familiar. The answer is also familiar. TC
NATO exists to keep the peace , can NATO not therefore stop the genocide, if NATO turns the back to whats happening in the Ukraine, where does Putin stop, thats the billion dollar question, as to me this is what this is all about, does dollars mean more than lives, yes i can understand no one wants, another world war, i grew up in the after math of WW11, what i clearly remember are the values, i carry them to this day, respect for human life. Who is going to stop Putin,without further blood shed either in The Ukraine or the world.
There is not doubt the majority of the democratic world supports Ukarine with donations flooding in, but will that half the shelling in Ukraine? Will donations of clothes free the people trapped in cities that have been reduced to rubble? Will taking in refugees stop Russian troops from advancing?
The answer in NO to all the above. The media are focusing on the humanitarian crisis which was bound to happen, but to stop the humanitarian crisis form getitng worse one must look at the bigger picture and stop the cause. Until that is addressed, the humanitarian crisis will continue until there are no civillians left to help.
Excellent update, thank you. It is important to remember NATO's role: why it was formed and why countries decided to join (or not). They have a distinct position here and it is easy to suppose they can simply step in when/wherever they think best. They do all need to be on board with any final decision, and the big Q is always going to be the US, since the remaining countries are geographically, and many politically, aligned, whereas the US is distant on both those counts. And of course, that means it also has its own agenda. Bottom line: NATO isn't going to budge without the US's explicit approval. Many Americans simply don't see why the US should get involved in a conflict not of their own making, or, more precisely, their government might be implicated but they feel they are not. There are upcoming elections which will have a huge impact on the US's next moves, and that needs to be figured into the equation.
Watching this unfold has been wrenching to say the least. Although I am American, I do live in Europe, and this is going on right on our doorstep, as it were. I was born just after WWII, and I really thought we had learned from the last two conflicts not to go there again: grand, vibrant cities reduced to rubble, with millions of now homeless, innocent victims, trudging through the devastation, trying desperately to find shelter, clinging to all they have left in one small suitcase. I hadn't reckoned on another megalomaniac in our midst who either never learned from or simply ignored the past.
Just a note on your new moniker EL: brought a smile (in the midst of all this tragedy). When I was young and starting to get books as presents, my dad gave me a stack of small, stick-on labels to put in the front of each book: Ex Libris, a lovely woodcut of a tree, and my name. I still have many of those books!
Thank you to EL for your persistent work in bringing to our attention unadulterated facts. Like so many millions around the world, I fear we are on the brink of World War 3. From the pictures I have seen coming out of Ukraine, I see genocide which is a crime that can take place in war as well as in peace. Under Article 5, the UN Security Council may take "measures" necessary to restore and maintain "international" peace and security. I await President Zelinsky's comments when he speaks to MP's in the House of Commons tomorrow (Tuesday) in London. I share EL's
prayer that my merciful God watch over the Ukrainian people.
Putin reminds me of a school yard bully, telling the much smaller child he is thrashing that if he stays down with his face in the dirt and doesn't fight back, then he will leave him alone. The problem is the bully will return to the smaller child and thrash him again, usually encouraged by the bully's supporters, while the crowd gathers round to watch but stay back for fear of being next. The only way to stop a bully is for a bigger, stronger bully to wade in to defend the smaller child. I find myself wondering if NATO doesn't want to step up out of fear of China stepping in to help Putin.