The alliance also pledges more aid to Ukraine, but China warns it to stop "provoking confrontation".

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.”

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      141·
      6 months ago

      I also recall Afghanistan having a Russia problem inside their borders. A very large Russia problem that Russia lost. Also NATO didnt even start that, the US did, and was the primary driver of all Afghanistan actions, and then drug some part of NATO into it (which is a separate problem) after the fact. Your point?

        • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
          111·
          6 months ago

          The US Afganistan invasion was supplied through Pakistan, and to a lesser extent, the old Russian lines that Russia used in its own invasion. Georgia was also an intermediary to a lesser degree.

          None of these are NATO members.

            • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
              61·
              6 months ago

              How does this relate to Afghanistan wanting to have NATO neighbours or not? The original debate was whether Russia was justified to be hostile to neighbours joining NATO, and you brought up Afghanistan as an example.

              Yet the Afghanistan neighbours involved in the NATO invasion were not NATO members, they were in fact NATO-hostile. So the lessons seems less “don’t have NATO neighbours” but “ally with your trustworthy neighbours that won’t sell you out”.

              And all that said, NATO and the US in the Middle East and Asia is not the same as NATO in Eastern Europe. I agree that the US should fuck off all the way back to where they came from, but Russia is more of a clear and present danger than the US is. At least here. There are no good guys, only the bad one near you with a rifle and the one far away with a loan.

              Linkerbaan, put yourself into the shoes of any Eastern European country in 1930, and decide who to ally with. I bet however you answer that question, there will be a nice example why it was a dogshit choice. It is not that much different now, except the collective West seems less bad than the Third Reich was.

                • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
                  4·
                  6 months ago

                  Again, look at it from Eastern Europe. What’s the good choice?

                  Being independent is a choice as well, and most tried that. They mostly got invaded by both sides, either being raped and pillaged in tandem or one after the other.

                  What’s the good choice Poland or the Baltics should take?

            • ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.worldEnglish
              61·
              6 months ago

              For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.

              I guess it was a UN operation, not NATO. Aren’t semantics fun?!