I mostly agree. As you say, this has been a mostly bloodless occupation, and a NATO country is not under attack. There is no willingness amongst NATO members to go to war, and I don't reckon Putin will attack a NATO country - at present. NATO will not "rescue" Ukraine.ORIGINAL: Firov
I’m curious. What makes you think NATO should become involved in this? What US, US ally, or NATO interests have actually been threatened by Russia’s annexation of the Crimea? The simple fact of the matter is, Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, nor is it a US ally. As such, it seems to me we really have no horse in this race.
Sure, the US, UK, and Russia were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which guarantees Ukraine’s borders, BUT, and this is important, that treaty doesn’t require, or even call for, military intervention on the part of the other signatories if those borders are compromised by one of the three parties through conventional means. The only direct intervention that would be required from the signatories would be if one of the of the three countries deployed nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and even that only calls for a United Nations Security Council action.
You might be able to try to make a humanitarian appeal here, but again, so far the Russian occupiers have been rather… restrained in their invasion. In fact, for the most part it has been a bloodless occupation. Russia has seemingly gone through great efforts to ensure that no lives are lost. They’re a restrictive, authoritarian government, sure, but those are hardly in short supply. So if we’re going to go in for “humanitarian” reasons, then it seems to me we’d better be prepared to invade half the world, including China, who is every bit as restrictive as the Russian Federation.
I’m not saying Russia is entirely right here. The fact is, they did violate the treaty of Budapest and have occupied territory claimed by a neighboring state. However, none of that demands military intervention on the part of any NATO members. Things would be different if Russia had occupied German, or French, or Polish territory, in which case I’d agree with you on calling for immediate and overwhelming military action, but they haven’t. From the perspective of NATO, Ukraine is an independent third party, and as such, they’re largely on their own.
All a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine is going to achieve is massive loss of life on both sides for no real gains. Aside from economic sanctions against Russia, Ukraine stands alone.
Nevertheless the facts remain that Moscow a) reneged on a signed memorandum regarding nuclear weapons and sovereignty, and b) is breaking international law by invading an annexing a territory that doesn't belong to it.
The excuse given is of supporting a Russian-speaking minority, one that could be used by powerful countries anywhere to annex neighbouring territories with minorities. The major historical example is of the Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland, and we know what that "new world order" led to.
This means that much of the international community is greatly concerned, as it completely disrupts the existing world order whereby agreements are adhered to and international law is respected. This very much includes the immediate neighbours to the west, most of whom are NATO members. It's thus perfectly correct that NATO now takes a defensive posture amongst its member states in the region, as Russia can no longer be relied on to honour existing agreements and protocols.
In short: if Russia can choose to invade and annex part of Ukraine (and earlier parts of Georgia), people are concerned it can do so elsewhere, including those NATO states with Russian-speaking minorities. Thus it's perfectly correct that NATO should increase readiness and meaningfully deploy within those member states, so as to reassure them they will be defended if Russia were to invade them too.
