>

This feels like a weird article regarding the interview. It’s like saying “we’re not a nato member but we might be in the future.”. It just feels like so many other articles that don’t deliver any new information, just running the same things to generate clicks.
"De Facto" literally means not in accordance to law, but effectively the same.  Nearly every single NATO member is providing military assistance to Ukraine.  The effective difference between the aid they are retrieving and full NATO membership could be debatable since NATO doesn't require member nations to send ground forces or control airspace or even declare war with the invading nation. >


NATO doesn't require member nations to send ground forces or control airspace or even declare war with the invading nation.

What good is Article 5, then, if all member nations can decline to declare war? >

If article 5 is invoked all of the members of NATO will come to the attacked country’s defense with such action that they deem necessary. That have to contribute in one way or another but they are not all required to or expected to fully mobilize their militaries and send them to war because there are NATO members whose militaries are irrelevant.  Like… if NATO went to war with Russia a country like Croatia really has nothing meaningful to contribute militarily so they would find other ways to contribute. >

Okay, what's stopping the U.S. from sending "Thoughts and Prayers"? >

If somehow the U.S. congress and president justified to themselves that 'thoughts and prayers' were deemed 'necessary', then maybe.  Article 5 does say that member nations should act in sufficient capacity as if they were themselves attacked. >

In a capacity as if my own country were attacked would mean boots on the ground and planes in the sky. I can't imagine it would be much different for any nation. >

I would hope so, but the treaty allows a lot of wiggle room.   I guess it's better to allow a bit of slack than to break the treaty altogether? >

He said it just to troll Putin.  For the lulz! >

I mean, yeah, they're doing our dirty work, field testing the new toys. >

They haven’t tested anything much. Everything we’ve given is super old. Javelins are old. M777s are old. HIMARS are old. The only relatively new thing is the switchblade suicide drones. >

You forgot the air defense systems that have never been used in combat:
- Starstreak
- NASAMS
- IRIS-T >

They've all proven effective too, from what I've read. >

Sorry, no. But we really really want you to win. Russia’s invasion is an obscenity - horrific, unnecessary, unjustified, an affront to the modern world, society and people everywhere. >

Unfortunately, despite what a lot of western commentators/Reddit is saying, UKR is in a bit of a dire situation. Unless they get some serious firepower…last month, it’s going to be a pretty rough couple of months for them. >

They are definitely in a dire situation. They have a massive invasion on their country, infrastructure is being destroyed like crazy, millions of people have had to leave (and many were forced), the ones there have to survive with minimal services, often no electricity, gas, etc. - in winter... and there are many instances of torture, mass killings of civilians. The list goes on and on. >

Membership with NATO would mean the west would officially declare war on Russia and they’d be challenged on multiple fronts. 
I wish they were in NATO though. This slow meat grinder war does nobody (but Putin) any good. >

It actually only requires the other members assist in whatever manner they deem reasonable and are able, this can be anything from humanitarian aid to full blown declaration of war. Funny enough the EU has stronger military defense terms than NATO does. >


It actually only requires the other members assist in whatever manner they deem reasonable and are able, this can be anything from humanitarian aid to full blown declaration of war.

What's stopping every nation, then, from sending "Thoughts and Prayers"? >

Nothing >

Holy shit! >

In a way, one could argue Ukraine is protecting NATO instead of NATO protecting Ukraine…. >

Yep, hence why NATO countries are supporting Ukraine. They see the threat that Russia poses. It's good that helping Ukraine is aligned from both the strategic defense and moral points of view. >

True, but at the same time- by not allowing Ukraine to join NATO, it’s a bit like having your cake and eating it too. So maybe we award a gold star for strategy but half a gold star for that other thing. >

Ukraine is not an anything member of NATO and the fact that the Russian soldiers in Ukraine are still alive makes that obvious. Your application for NATO was rejected years ago, we are being nice and helping but don’t confuse this for something that it’s not. Not being a dick but we’re not friends with Ukraine we just really don’t like Russia >

When Germany and the UK give you a tank division to literally fight the menace that NATO was formed to oppose, yeah, you're pretty much in the alliance. >

This is just get embarrassing....like watching a guy chasing after a girl that has rejected him multiple times. >

That was pretty specific, experience? >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)


Ukraine has become a de facto member of the Nato military alliance, the Ukrainian defence minister says, as Western countries, once concerned that military assistance could be seen as an escalation by Russia, change their "Thinking approach".
In an interview with the BBC, Oleksii Reznikov said he was sure Ukraine would receive long-sought weapons, including tanks and fighter jets, as both Ukraine and Russia seemed to be preparing for new offensives in the spring.
"Ukraine as a country, and the armed forces of Ukraine, became [a] member of Nato. De facto, not de jure. Because we have weaponry, and the understanding of how to use it."


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Russian^#2 Reznikov^#3 Russia^#4 forces^#5 >

Shut up! Do NOT tell Putin!!!