Did britain even let its colonies have armies? If I recall my 6th grade history class... they weren't real happy with ours back in the day. And if I recall my 9th grade class... Burma and Singapore didn't fare real well in WW2. I doubt they were Nato equivalents... but whadda I know.
The Europeans, up till now punted on Ukrains admission to Nato for one reason and one reason only. They're scared of Putin. Call a spade a spade. Where the dust settles now is anyone's guess, but I say stop the monster now, end the bloodshed, and put Ukraine in Nato to ensure it will never be attacked again.
When the US fights a war, do we ever call NATO for help? No, why should we? We're strong enough fight on our own. We have the strongest military in the world (even if we aren't, we at least have more war experience than any other country since WW2). 100 years ago, it was the British empire that ruled with an iron first. She certainly didn't need NATO in order to defend her empire. And she could have easily crushed Hitler at the outset but it was right after the World War 1. Everyone was tired and demoralized, and Chamberlain was a pacifist with a weak character. It wasn't until it was too damn late when people voted to replace him for Churchill. Anyway, I digress.
Putin invaded Ukraine to see how the West will react. Now he knows they're just a bunch of pussies, especially NATO. So he will not hesitate to grab more land for himself. Putin waited until Trump was inaugurated to reach a peace deal to see how the US government would react. Now he knows the US is only interested in carving out Ukraine amongst themselves. So he will not stop with Ukraine. He will invade all former Soviet Bloc with impunity because he knows the US has no resolve to stop him as long as he shares in the loot. But who's the bigger menace that will do more damage to the democratic values of the West, Putin or Trump? Like I already stated above, Trump is out to destabilize Europe, even if that means collaborating with a dictator like Putin. Pay close attention in the coming years. He might just be the bigger devil.
Trump, Rubio and Hegseth have already said no way, it's not happening, NATO admission can only happen after a unanimous vote. In war (WWI, WWII, etc.) it is the aggressor that pays - after they lose. The US position for (checks notes)... the last *6 weeks* is that Ukraine is responsible for the war, Russia had no other choice, Zelensky is a dictator and Putin is not. Russia has said it's going to pay nothing because they're winning anyway. Not a word from the US or Russia about the Ukrainian children removed to Russia. Or compensation for the civilians raped, mutilated or murdered. Trump has repeatedly refused to provide this very thing: security guarantees. This was the deal breaker for the minerals agreement. "Game on and he gets destroyed?" Oh, so we let him get away with it this time, but pinky swear if he does it again it's WW3? Me no comprende the logic here. *Every* (ahem) military *strategist* (double ahem) agreed that Ukraine wouldn't last 3 days... it's resisted 3 years, taken back most of Russia's early gains as well as a bit of Russia. It seems fair to say that Ukraine cannot win without external help, as Putin and Trump (Putrump? Trumptin?) know too well. I sure hope as well. Let's not hold our breath, just in case Agree 100% Churchill didn't have the US behind him and still declared war on Germany. Hitler broke every single agreement he had (also with the USSR). So did Stalin. So has Putin. Many feel so will Trump (remember Nafta?). In his first term, Trump explicitly refused several times to assure Poland and the Baltic states that the US would defend them from Russian aggression. And this was when Poland had a President that Trump "liked". The tacit agreement was: we (Europeans) buy your oil and gas, we all keep Ukraine as a neutral buffer and you (Russia) behave and don't break our balls too much. Putin broke the agreement in 2014 already, but as you point out, yes, people in Europe are afraid of war, just check the casualties from WW2 and compare those of European countries to those of the US and you'll understand why. And yet, scared as we may be of fighting Putin, we're even more scared of letting him win, because we've watched this movie before - too many times. You don't need to call us, we volunteer. Right fter 9/11, NATO countries invoked Article 5 (mutual assistance), the only time it has been invoked, also more than 100 countries (all NATO, plus many others) offered to help the US, without asking for anything in return. Agreed, many thanks to B1S2 for the finest thread on EliteTrader
I'm afraid those days will never return, thanks to that narcissist in the oval office and his spineless cronies. What NATO needs to do is restructure and the first thing they can do is kick the US out of the pact and take charge.
If Ukraine was in Nato, which was the context of my statement, Trump is bound by Article V of the Nato agreement. When Trump remarked "It was Zelenski... blah blah blah..." he was doing what he often does, talk in hyperbolies. He was referring to the 2022 peace agreement shortly after the war began that the Biden Administration for whatever reason, told Zelinski not to sign. WHICH...he was going to sign. Note that Trump blames Biden too. Edit: Here. From NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html