Originally Posted by
NutLoose
Well, it would appear that is a question that is becoming front and center with countries decisions of materiel and systems supply, where they will be precluded from using their resources to assist against a criminal and murderous aggressor on a sovereign nation. The UN was established to stop that sort of nonsense, and NATO arose out of the failure of the UNSC to follow their own wording in the charter §27(3). Apparently, English is a second language to everyone and the rest is all greek anyway. What it is, is a corruption of the rationale to have the UN in the first place. NATO is compromised by the politicisation of countries that were added to assist their security and now play petty internal politics jeopardising legitimate membership applicants. If I was a Scandinavian country I would be having a bit of a discussion with the Turks before providing any support when the Turks ask for emergency aid. Apparently integrity flows inconsistently and has a fair share of diodes...