Sweden has formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality and centuries of broader non-alignment.
Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn’t be necessary
Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.
You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.
They only come into play after a ceasefire has been negotiated. When there’s countries fighting a war they tend not trust each other. When you make an agreement to keep a demilitarized area between adversaries they tend not to trust the other to not secretly send their military into that area and launch a surprise attack.
So you put peacekeepers in that area to report to everyone if either side is breaking the ceasefire agreement. Note they aren’t there to enforce the ceasefire, they are there as a trusted third party to monitor and report on both sides.
Don’t get me wrong, peacekeepers are a very important in diplomacy. They make it more likely that countries that distrust one another will agree to peace.
But peacekeepers aren’t a fighting force. If a country is determined to attack another, they will attack even if there’s peacekeepers between them. This has happened before and the peacekeepers will report on the attacker breaking the ceasefire agreement and leave. War still happens even with the presence, alliances are still necessary to remove the incentive to go to war.
Not quite the point I was making but I shouldn’t have got sidetracked into talking about peacekeepers. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparantly) is that UN would be more able to bring pressure to bare against belugerent states if the security council didn’t have such an extreme veto. All that stuff occurs before you get to the point of defending against an invader
Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you’re right there), we’re talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.
I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn’t there. Or I didn’t intend, at least.
In no way am I trying to minimise Putin’s evil behaviour.
The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn’t be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I’m not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.
Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn’t be necessary
Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.
You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.
You’ve never heard of UN peacekeepers?
Do you know what a UN peacekeeper is?
They only come into play after a ceasefire has been negotiated. When there’s countries fighting a war they tend not trust each other. When you make an agreement to keep a demilitarized area between adversaries they tend not to trust the other to not secretly send their military into that area and launch a surprise attack.
So you put peacekeepers in that area to report to everyone if either side is breaking the ceasefire agreement. Note they aren’t there to enforce the ceasefire, they are there as a trusted third party to monitor and report on both sides.
Don’t get me wrong, peacekeepers are a very important in diplomacy. They make it more likely that countries that distrust one another will agree to peace.
But peacekeepers aren’t a fighting force. If a country is determined to attack another, they will attack even if there’s peacekeepers between them. This has happened before and the peacekeepers will report on the attacker breaking the ceasefire agreement and leave. War still happens even with the presence, alliances are still necessary to remove the incentive to go to war.
Not quite the point I was making but I shouldn’t have got sidetracked into talking about peacekeepers. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparantly) is that UN would be more able to bring pressure to bare against belugerent states if the security council didn’t have such an extreme veto. All that stuff occurs before you get to the point of defending against an invader
Yeah, not defense.
Sigh. You’re missing my point
Nah they addressed it. You missed their point.
the un and nato serve two very different and distinct purposes though.
Yes?
Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you’re right there), we’re talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.
I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn’t there. Or I didn’t intend, at least. In no way am I trying to minimise Putin’s evil behaviour. The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn’t be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I’m not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.