After the NATO conference, I'm getting rather perplexed at the different stances Nato leaders seem to be taking as they are either vague or seemingly in conflict with other Nato leaders. Take Biden for instance - use of a chemical weapon by Russia will see a response in kind.
Excuse me? 'Response in kind'? Correct me if I'm wrong but that seems to suggest Nato will deploy chemical weapons of their own. Horrible idea.
Then you have Zelensky asking for tanks and planes and UK PM Boris Johnson saying Nato should send they with macron refusing saying it will cross Russia's red line. I can't remember who said it (I think John Bolton) but what exactly is the difference between sending Ukraine armaments versus tanks and planes? Did they not manage to construct a coherent message in their summit yesterday? To single out Macron, his statements really seem to be more focused on pandering to Russia.
Other Nato countries are refusing to send other soviet-era defence systems to Ukraine due to being unable to backfil their own defence. This would require the US to step in and replace those systems which is doesn't seem to be prepared to do. This, combined with reports that Nato leaders were expecting to be supporting a smaller Ukrainian resistance at this stage almost implies that the leaders seem to think it'd be better and easier for their sakes if Ukraine folded.
I can get the reservation - an escalation of this conflict could realistically develop into WW£ (or even a Korean of Vietnam War equivalent which would still be very bad). This isn't something I want either. But there is a fine line in supporting Ukraine between within widening the conflict erring and keeping out and letting Ukraine fall and it feels like Nato are erring too much on the latter side
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
Essay Pro