And, since none of those countries were members of NATO, it was specifically not part of NATO’s business – which is entirely the defense of NATO members by other NATO members when a NATO member is attacked.
It isn’t NATO’s Business. NATO is a defensive military alliance. This is the UN’s business. It is exactly what the UN was established for in the first place. The Security Council’s inability to address the Ukrainian war lies squarely on the West’s Shoulders. Communist China should have never been allowed to continue to have a veto when they took the seat from Taiwan. Same thing with Russia. Russia is not the Soviet Union. When the Russian federation was allowed to take the Soviet seat on the council it should have been without the veto as well.
You have to understand why both NATO and the U.S. have not “been on the ground” in Ukrain.
The reason is that Putin’s got googobs of nukes at his disposal. Putin is a few bricks shy of a load so he might well use said nukes. No person with a soul wants to be resonsible for starting WWIII
Legally, it isn’t NATO’s business, any more than it’s the business of the National Potato Growers Association to stand up for the beef industry or demand lower gasoline prices. NATO was set up as a mutual-protection alliance, and none of the victimized nations mentioned here are NATO members that would fall under that mutual-protection umbrella. Quite the contrary. If NATO were to intervene militarily in some conflict where it didn’t have a direct interest, it would be the agency violating the rules of war.
The United Nations was established, not to “govern” the world nor to rule it but merely to maintain the world order that was established at the end of the second World War.
That “world order” has long since disappeared and currently exists only in the “fever dreams” of the few who regularly meet in the structure in New York City.
What small amount of usefulness it once had has now been superseded by reality and is now even more useless than the old “League of Nations”, since it has no way of “restructuring” itself into usefulness!
The initial establishment of the “Security Council” ensured its eventual failure as anything but “window dressing”.
I agree. NATO has a role to play here. Butits not a simple one. Its help Ukraine keep Russia out with the added complexity of trying to keep Putin from going nuclear. That’s NATO’s role. I think NATO and President Biden have done a fantastic job so far.
john_chubb about 2 years ago
And, since none of those countries were members of NATO, it was specifically not part of NATO’s business – which is entirely the defense of NATO members by other NATO members when a NATO member is attacked.
Walrus Gumbo Premium Member about 2 years ago
NATO = Nothing Alarming To Observe.
Govi Premium Member about 2 years ago
A fair call. Sadly.
Hammurabi.Wolfe about 2 years ago
It isn’t NATO’s Business. NATO is a defensive military alliance. This is the UN’s business. It is exactly what the UN was established for in the first place. The Security Council’s inability to address the Ukrainian war lies squarely on the West’s Shoulders. Communist China should have never been allowed to continue to have a veto when they took the seat from Taiwan. Same thing with Russia. Russia is not the Soviet Union. When the Russian federation was allowed to take the Soviet seat on the council it should have been without the veto as well.
banjoAhhh! about 2 years ago
You have to understand why both NATO and the U.S. have not “been on the ground” in Ukrain.
The reason is that Putin’s got googobs of nukes at his disposal. Putin is a few bricks shy of a load so he might well use said nukes. No person with a soul wants to be resonsible for starting WWIII
Richard S Russell Premium Member about 2 years ago
Legally, it isn’t NATO’s business, any more than it’s the business of the National Potato Growers Association to stand up for the beef industry or demand lower gasoline prices. NATO was set up as a mutual-protection alliance, and none of the victimized nations mentioned here are NATO members that would fall under that mutual-protection umbrella. Quite the contrary. If NATO were to intervene militarily in some conflict where it didn’t have a direct interest, it would be the agency violating the rules of war.
wellis1947 Premium Member about 2 years ago
The United Nations was established, not to “govern” the world nor to rule it but merely to maintain the world order that was established at the end of the second World War.
That “world order” has long since disappeared and currently exists only in the “fever dreams” of the few who regularly meet in the structure in New York City.
What small amount of usefulness it once had has now been superseded by reality and is now even more useless than the old “League of Nations”, since it has no way of “restructuring” itself into usefulness!
The initial establishment of the “Security Council” ensured its eventual failure as anything but “window dressing”.
Masterskrain Premium Member about 2 years ago
Just remember, ALL of the wars noted above were instigated by trump’s best buddy, Putin.
admiree2 about 2 years ago
Rogers, you have to do more reading or at least change what you are reading if you want to be taken seriously l
FrankErnesto about 2 years ago
Actually, it isn’t. We cannot be the World’s police force, if we tried they would run us to death, from one end of the Earth to the other.
freshmeet2030 about 2 years ago
Rogers view on intelligence: “It’s none of my business.”
Rich Douglas about 2 years ago
This isn’t NATO’s call. The UN can handle this. I want NATO to keep the war from spreading to its member states.
estes.house.account about 2 years ago
I agree. NATO has a role to play here. Butits not a simple one. Its help Ukraine keep Russia out with the added complexity of trying to keep Putin from going nuclear. That’s NATO’s role. I think NATO and President Biden have done a fantastic job so far.
rossevrymn about 2 years ago
Send the cartoonist to the front.