Nato members have pledged their support for an “irreversible path” to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.

While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance’s 32 members said they had “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s war effort.

Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine’s military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.

The bloc’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest.”

  • Kedly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Starting to notice a lot of Tankies jumping to .world because they let .ml slide enough that enough of us ban .ml users on sight

    edit: Site to Sight.

    • SolNine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Please don’t ban me… I joined .ml because it was privacy, security and FOSS focused! I had no idea about the ancillary political focus now associated with it.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I joined .ml because it was privacy, security and FOSS focused!

        Sort of the joke in all this. The .ml users are “raiding” the sub because they like the advanced feature set.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    …it is in our own security interest.

    No one’s security interests are served by a new era of escalating tensions between Russia and the West. No country has more nuclear weapons than Russia. All efforts should be taken to prevent Russia from becoming desperate enough to use their nuclear weapons. By further isolating and encircling Russia, I think the chances of them using their nuclear weapons increases.

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      You may want to look up the Sudeten crisis/Munich agreement and how effective it was at preventing war.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ok, I give up. I’ve been down voted to hell and told repeatedly by multiple people that I’m an idiot or a coward or a Russian bot for wanting a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so I’m going to defer to the expertise of all these people and concede the point. It’s not like my opinion was going to change anything anyway.

        • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Good on you for trying. I gave up a while ago. A consensus has formed, at least on here and on most of the English-speaking internet and lines have been drawn. Contrary opinions are rarely tolerated. Thankfully the rest of the world isn’t as gung-ho on isolating Russia and is actually helping restore some balance, because at the end of the day whether Ukraine is a NATO country or a Russian protectorate in ten years time matters little in the grand scheme of things.

          What matters more is that the global pecking order between great powers is disturbed and this will likely lead to frequent local and perhaps generalized conflict in the future. It would be helpful for more countries to remain neutral, so as to help maintain balance and independence, while limiting the reach of great powers, but under such intense competition for global dominance most countries have to pick a sponsor for better or worse. And Ukraine’s leadership has chosen NATO, naturally. Whether they could have remained neutral or not is for historians to debate. Right now, as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

          Do the US, Russia, and China have to be enemies? Yes, unfortunately they do. They have competing interests and the decline of the US is leaving space open for others. Hence also the focus on getting Europe more heavily militarized again. So that it can hold its own in the uncertain times to come. That is my understanding.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I just have to wonder what the state of the NATO coalition is going to be if Trump takes office a second time.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Probably dented for quite a while but Europe is already in the process of re-arming and there are no existential threats that could prevent it buffalo buffalo buffalo from doing so. Russia can’t take all of the EU or European NATO countries at once and Chinas military and navy aren’t set up with long distance power projection in mind. The only exception would be the US itself if they really went off the deep end on a second Trump term.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Europe is already in the process of re-arming

          They’re in the process of shoveling fortunes into a ravenous private sector arms industry.

          Russia can’t take all of the EU or European NATO countries at once

          None of these countries want a repeat of WW2. Quite a few have large right wing nationalist blocks sympathetic to Putin’s United Russia white nationalist model.

          This won’t be a fight between Russia and the EU. It will be a war of economic attrition that favors the international arms industry and cripples the domestic service sector, to the outrage of domestic people.