Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 21,328
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
The point was that NATO is still important, still has purpose, because of regimes like those in Russia that continue to threaten peaceful nations.The Invasion of Iraq was led by a coalition of nations who also happened to be members of NATO, but was not approved by NATO, like some people assume; it was a U.S. led invasion.Sorry, I missed the point (and to be fair to you that of the thread) that Ukraine are only prevailing because of NATO. Can't argue with that, but would argue that NATO is stretching it's bounds slightly to leap to the defence of a none NATO country, although I get that the presumption is that if it didn't Putin would be in east Germany by now. Perhaps a 'coalition of the willing' as per post 9/11 would have been more appropriate even if it was still pretty much the same mix of US,UK and the hangers on?
Zelenskyy and Ukraine have often spoken of their thanks to NATO and how their support has turned the tide. The early days of the invasion of Ukraine, the 'Siege of Kyiv' etc, showed how Russian force came so close to dominating the country, but with rapid support and delivery of HIMARS gave them the ability to fight back. NATO saw the collapse of Ukraine would then see Russia sharing border's with several more NATO countries. Funny how that is what the Russian's claimed to accuse NATO of expansionism, when an invasion of Ukraine would effectively achieve the same result.