Originally Posted by
Beamr
I am puzzled by the fact that NATO comes up on this thread constantly.
If a group of countries goes to fight for Ukraine, IT IS NOT A NATO OPERATION. Even if all those countries would be a part of NATO.
NATO is a defence organisation that defends its members in case of an attack from outside.
If a NATO member country goes to a peace keeping action it is NOT a NATO action.
If a NATO country attacks some third country, it is not an article 5 trigger.
To make it simple. Imagine for arguments sake that Poland decides to assist Ukraine by sending troops to help dismantle the russian laid minefields in Belarus/Ukraine border. It is not a NATO action.
Russia decides to shoot at these Polish troops on Ukrainian soil: it is not a Article 5 triggering action.
Russia then decides to launch missiles to Poland, now you have an article 5 triggering action.
Exactly this. It wasn't NATO that ousted Iraq from Kuwait.
Russia has shown itself to be a paper tiger, nukes or no nukes (they're not the only nuclear power, and they should remember that), and the West (either collectively or as individual nations) should not shy away from taking direct military action to help Ukraine.
I can remember the Yugoslav wars, when we in the West imagined the Serbian soldier to be 10ft tall and used every excuse in the book to avoid intervention. We eventually built up the backbone after one atrocity too many, and so ended the war. If we hadn't, they'd still be fighting it today.