GlastonSpur
Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 17,716
- Supports
- Spurs
It's not "semantics" - it's plain distinction between two very different things. NATO did not want Russia to invade Ukraine, but you are implying that they did in order to fight a proxy war. NATO would obviously have much preferred the unmolested development of Ukraine as a free and democratic nation, moving down a pathway to eventual EU membership, and as an example to what is possible to the Russian people.There was an agreement to provide Ukraine with support but it wasn't like Article 5 was it? It wasn't necessary.
I agree if you want to get into the semantics of it that we're helping Ukraine but we're absolutely fighting a proxy war in the process. To say that we aren't is quite naive IMO. Tell me how what we're doing in Ukraine is any different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past? ...
This is what's "different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past": (a) Ukraine is a democracy looking Westward; (b) Ukraine borders NATO countries; and (c) this is the first time since the end of WWII that Russia/USSR has invaded an independent European nation.
Russia is the aggressor here, not NATO.