this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
45 points (77.8% liked)

World News

32306 readers
442 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sweng@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (27 children)

Everything except building trust, it seems.

And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (24 children)

Building trust from whom, pretty much everybody outside west is on Russia's side:

The global majority understands why this war happened and the role the west played in creating the conditions for the war, as well as the role it plays in perpetuating it today.

The objective is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes a threat to Russia and that NATO expansion stops. that's the objective that is being achieved.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.

Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Sweden and Finnland, both already being de facto NATO members beforehand... You're not too informed baout this international politic thingy, aren't you?

[–] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as "de facto" NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist "de facto" members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don't do anything) and both (the rest).

The organisation can make PR about how it has "partners" and the like, but that does not change a thing.

[–] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a "de facto" member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?

NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous "de facto" members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a "de facto" member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)