US is a different story - but you're caught in a US political psychodrama there.
I take your point, if Trump gets in we're probabaly all on the menu for Putin. Europe will then be relying on the UK and French nuclear deterrent to keep him at bay.
Over the past 2 years not doing this may seems convenient now but somewhere down the line NATO may regret not doing this when Putin decides who is next on the pick list. .
unless NATO countries start producing ammunition, missiles etc on a war footing. Plus it cannot make up for Ukraine's manpower disadvantage.
I get what you say about promises and photo ops that haven't delivered - NATO shoud have been honest from day one what it could realistically deliver.
It was never an option to arm Ukraine to the required level without effectively going to war with Russia.
14 dead in a missile attack by Russia today I remember Stoltenberg and the NATO leaders saying there support would be for the long term. Well this seems to have dried up with no help for the air defences that the Ukraine so desperately need.
No wonder Zielenski is angry that the support has dried up and as for stoltenberg he seems to be in hiding. The Middle East conflict seems to be a convenient reason for the west to ignore the help that the Ukraine also desperately need.
And the media seems to be complicit in ignoring the reluctance of the west to help the Ukraine by not highlighting this by not interviewing influential people involved in the decision making.process.
Responses