"If you fight in Afghanistan, that's not the same as fighting the Russians in Ukraine," Admiral Rob Bauer said on Sunday.

Summary

NATO’s Military Committee head, Admiral Rob Bauer, stated that NATO troops would likely be in Ukraine countering Russian forces if Russia lacked nuclear weapons.

Speaking at the IISS Prague Defence Summit, Bauer emphasized that Russia’s nuclear arsenal deters direct NATO involvement, contrasting Ukraine’s situation with past NATO interventions in non-nuclear states like Afghanistan.

Although NATO nations provide military aid to Ukraine, direct troop deployment has been avoided, with leaders like U.S. President Biden ruling it out due to nuclear escalation risks highlighted by Russian threats and rhetoric.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.worldEnglish
    291·
    11 days ago

    If not for nukes, Poland probably would have rolled Russia by themselves. The rest of NATO could just be emotional support.

    • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      10 days ago

      If it was just Poland they wouldn’t mind getting nuked if it means getting rid of Moscow. Ironically it’s being in NATO that’s holding them back.

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        10 days ago

        Very true, and if the nuclear threat goes away, it’ll look like a pack of junk yard dogs let loose on a kitten.

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 days ago

        Poland’s military is about half again larger than Ukraine prior to the war, large portions of it are very well trained, and their equipment is significantly better. If they decided to march to Moscow, nothing Russia has, short of nukes, would slow them down. And Poland would really like to discuss with them, some of the things that happened in WW2, in an up front and personal way.

  • Troy@lemmy.caEnglish
    232·
    11 days ago

    All this shows is that other countries (China, etc.) will have carte blanche if they have nukes. If they don’t, they’ll get them. Imagine a nuclear armed Venezuela going after their neighbours because conventional intervention is too risky suddenly. Blah.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
    191·
    10 days ago

    It’s nice to see this war proving that nuclear disarmament is unwise both for peaceful nations wishing to maintain stable borders and for aggressor nations seeking to invade the neighbors who gave up their nukes.

    Like, given Ukrainian history it’s kinda shocking they gave them up, even with all the assurances they were given.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
      7·
      10 days ago

      They were barely given any assurances. They were given a pinky promise to be independent, pinky promise to not get nuked and UNSC provided assistance ONLY IF nuclear weapons are used against them.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      101·
      10 days ago

      Imagine thinking it’s a “very good thing” that any nation has nuclear weapons. Let alone the 5,580 nuclear warheads in Russia’s stockpile.

      And yes, before you whatabout, I don’t think it’s a “very good thing” that the U.S. has them either. I certainly don’t think it’s a “very good thing” that Israel and North Korea have them.

      I doubt you will, but I would recommend you read this book to find out why it is absolutely not a “very good thing.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_(book)

    • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
      82·
      10 days ago

      No, because they are using them as a shield to commit atrocities.

    • Diva (she/her)English
      11·
      10 days ago

      Rules for life (abbreviated):

      • Never go to a second location

      • Always get the interior ministry post

      • Never get in a helicopter

      • If someone with a gun enters your car, they’re gonna kill you

      • If someone tells you they’re not going to kill you, they’re calming you down to kill you later

      • Never give up your nukes