Hacker News Reader

What's the point of NATO if we just defend other countries who don't meet our requirements of NATO?

NATO is _already_ in a tough spot, many countries will fail the 2% spending on defense requirement (though I'm sure Russia is making them reconsider). We can't just be throwing NATO's guarantees around to countries who didn't make it into the alliance yet.

NATO is an alliance, and a defensive alliance at that. The line is literally drawn at Poland and Romania right now. We are debating if that line should include Finland and Sweden.

-------

There are several requirements to join NATO:

1. The country must want to be part of NATO (and neither Finland nor Sweden wanted to join until recently).

2. The entire rest of NATO must accept them.

3. A few other things, but #1 and #2 are probably the most important. If we get those two things figured out, everything else is cake.

----

That being said: support to Ukraine economically and militarily (military aid) is still on the table and looks like its happening. Ukraine will fight its own war, but they can use our weapons while doing so.

That was enough for France when it helped USA during the 1700s Revolutionary war, and the USA certainly remembers France's help in those troubling times. The "Arsenal of Democracy" approach. We likely will offer that to Finland / Sweden if they get attacked by Russia before they join NATO as well.

But getting our blood directly involved in other people's wars is still a very difficult prospect. USA shouldn't overcommit, nor should NATO.

I don't care about NATO. I'm talking about what my country alone, the USA, must now do. We can't allow anyone to use MAD as an excuse to march into a sovereign nation, anywhere on Earth. The US has to do the right thing now, and defend Ukraine before it falls. This is Hitler in Czechoslovakia.

Going tit for tat on details of NATO and hand-wringing as I take it you are doing, is a point we are far beyond now. It's something I'd expect from a bureaucrat. Vladimir Putin is an evil man, that must be recognized and his soldiers have to be met on the battlefield today. They have to be repelled, and Putin brought to his knees, or we're going to be in a much larger mess down the road.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

But we aren't doing nothing.

USA is 100% employing the old "Arsenal of Democracy" strategy. We're shipping huge amounts of weapons over to Ukraine. Just last January, we sent something like $200-million in weapons (largely Javelin missiles, which are clearly blowing up Russian tanks in pretty good numbers). That's January alone.

There's different steps and different grades to the aid we can give to other countries. We shouldn't reach for the most extreme action immediately, we need to choose the right level of "Grayness", the right level of aid for each situation.

Ukraine is in luck: Poland is an immediate neighbor to the west and Poland is a NATO ally. That means we actually have a physical ability to bring in those weapon supplies, and a logical basis to base our operations out of.

-------

> This is Hitler in Czechoslovakia.

If we put this on WW2 terms: USA only started sending military equipment to UK after France fell. For us to already be openly arming a nominally neutral party like Ukraine is already a steep escalation in terms of historical terms.

USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.

The "Arsenal of Democracy" speech by Roosevelt wasn't until December 1940, months AFTER the fall of France.

It's just my opinion based on what I know. I hope whatever is done, whether it's my viewpoint or yours, is the correct one. There is likely no right answer here, just degrees of success and it depends how many innocent Ukrainians you're prepared to let die (and the citizens of the next nation on Putin's list). I'm praying for President Biden so he may make the right decision. So far, I'm dismayed.

It does sound like we both want success for Ukraine here. I just don't believe that anything but full-on measures will be enough. I think it's wishful thinking. Putin is clearly the bully at school that you either punched in the nose, or you didn't. If you didn't, you're likely still getting bullied to this day. They prey on weakness. The west is weak, and this is our moment to put our money where our mouth is on defending freedom.

>USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.

That's the problem. We already learned what happens next.

> That's the problem. We already learned what happens next.

No. You missed the lesson.

USA is largely a peaceful nation that's many thousands of miles away from this conflict. It takes an incredible amount of evil before the US people are roused into action.

The US people in 1939 or 1940 weren't ignorant. Even as Hitler rose and took over large swaths of Europe, the US citizen was not roused into action. It still took significant amounts of political pressure / propaganda to get people to agree with the Arsenal of Democracy approach after the fall of France.

-------

EDIT: Those troubles are still with us today. We are still a nation very far away and seen as outsiders to the countries we visit. No one wants the USA to half-ass a war, that's how you get Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam.

Rousing the people to action is an incredibly important part of sending troops. If the people don't support the actions, the troops fight with less morale and less justice in their hearts.

The NATO process holds power. I do believe that if a NATO ally is attacked, the US people will rise up and truly move to defend our allies. You can't trigger that prematurely or artificially.

> It takes an incredible amount of evil before the US people are roused into action.

Fair enough. Which is why the world stood with you after 9/11. And this is a far larger event.

I'm not ignorant of the ISAF / Operation Enduring Freedom if that's what you're referencing. And I do think that's a good point you bring up.

I'm more representative of the US today than the long gone population of 1939 is at this point.

In 1939, the nation was weary of being involved with European wars, having just finished one 20 years prior. My family fought in both of them. My grandfather (RIP) had scars up and down his body from German gunfire. My great grandfather, who was a grandchild of Germany himself, fought in the French trenches before him. I'm a descendent of the people of 1939 USA, we did learn and we changed. I'm the product.

Further, I think I am taking the lesson correctly. It's not about the "wisdom of the masses" (which I do not believe in) as you suggest, but rather doing the right thing as soon as possible. We made a mistake in 1939, I believe the people of the US today are a proud and noble people, unafraid of self-sacrifice and doing the right thing for humanity and world peace.

Hitler nearly won. I've never seen a more worthy time to commit our lives to a cause than today, at least in the course of my life.

This is a once in a lifetime calling of our conscience that we have to answer. We'll be answering it anyway, on less favorable terms later on.

That isn’t the only response. There are a lot of things NATO can do without committing ground forces:

- NATO could ensure a supply train for material coming from Poland and Romania: all Ukrainian forces need to do is hold a corridor from Poland/Romania to Lviv.

- NATO could share intelligence and strategic advice to aid the Ukrainian forces’ ability to respond (I believe this is already happening)

- if the war bogs down while Russian troops hold onto say a large area east of Kyiv, then NATO could use the “impregnable state border” to provide troop training and re-supply from inside the Polish border, or in an area just over the border in Ukraine.

- NATO could train Ukrainian pilots in Poland, and allow Ukrainian planes to be based out of a NATO air field (and could even supply those pilots with NATO planes, missiles, fuel, etc), similar to how Germany allowed the US to use bases on German soil to launch attacks on Iraq.

The last option seems unlikely (it’s probably close enough to joining in the fight with your own personnel that Putin would respond accordingly). But it is still something that could be done, would help Ukraine wage war, and wouldn’t technically involve NATO troops fighting within Ukraine.

I thought about your comment after you wrote it, and I recently read this article from The Atlantic.[0]

I agree with your assessment, and have changed my mind. I believe what the article suggests. That President Biden has actually handled this situation perfectly thus far, is the most correct analysis. Allowing Putin to turn this into the US vs Russia is the worst case scenario. He'd love that. Today? He's getting absolutely pummeled. I won't be surprised if the Russian people don't end up hanging him.

[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/how-the-we...

Somebody is enthusiastic about dying in a nuclear war.

In a nuclear war his chances are just as good as yours.

In a nuclear war everybody loses, so yes.