The alliance also pledges more aid to Ukraine, but China warns it to stop "provoking confrontation".

Nato members have pledged their support for an “irreversible path” to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.

While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance’s 32 members said they had “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s war effort.

Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine’s military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.

The bloc’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest.”

  • KedlyEnglish
    253·
    4 months ago

    I wonder why? What happened recently to get all these nations lining up to join Nato?

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        4 months ago

        Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, many former Warsaw Pact and post-Soviet states sought to join NATO.

        Weird that the nations previously under authoritarian rule suddenly wanted to be part of a defensive pact once they had their freedom. That’s such an unforeseen outcome.

        I mean, can you believe fucking NATO man? They were such assholes to check notes expand by allowing countries in who wanted to be in NATO to protect themselves. NATO really should have just dissolved instead of expanding and giving former Soviet block states protection from Russia.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
          38·
          4 months ago

          Yes. NATO should have dissolved, or at least decommissioned a large part of their forces. It was formed to defend against the USSR. When that republic ceased to exist, it only continued because it was militarily and financially advantageous to do so.

          If your neighbor sets up sniper nests on their roof, and sets up sandbags and barbed wire on the fence line while claiming that it is purely defensive ; would you take them at their word. Or, would you see that as a threat of violent escalation?

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
            71·
            4 months ago

            And yet here we have Russia, the successor nation showing that NATO needs to be kept around so they don’t invade another neighbor. Remember, Crimea wasn’t the first time this century they’ve done that.

            To your example, my neighbor would be within their rights to do that if I have a history of kicking down doors. But I guess violence only matters from one direction, nevermind that so many former client states actively sought protection from this shit happening, especially when Russia can’t be taken at their word to leave neighbors alone.