Historical NATO summit in Spain, will there be meaningful change in the West's approach to Ukraine?

Given that this war is tagged as being the precipitating factor in a global economic dead fall and food crises, it now pertains to every country to take a more leading roll in the matter.

As I'm sure we've read and seen, in response to this historical summit, autocrat Putin ordered missiles be fired upon non-military targets in the gradually repopulating capital Kyiv.

Until now, no-direct-intervention has been the mantra of the West and NATO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdLs2gcoTVA

Following this summit is it possible the strongest military alliance on earth today may step up and directly challenge the nuclear superpower?

If that 6 minute exert is anything to go on yes, it feels like the tide may turn.

Podge_irl

Following this summit is it possible the strongest military alliance on earth today may step up and directly challenge the nuclear superpower?

If you mean directly engage Russian forces, then absolutely not.

It's a defensive alliance and Ukraine aren't in it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119269147#Comment_119269147

Cool.

That indentation you did with the text, how did you do it?

Afghanistan were't in it either.

Nor was Iraq.

NATO countries are being attacked in ways other than outright force.

Economically, energy/food.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119269164#Comment_119269164

Iraq was not a NATO operation, it was an American-British operation.

Afghanistan was viewed as a response to 9/11 and thus a response to an attack on a NATO member

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFVYz5_4iJY

"Direct security threat.

The war is physically in Ukraine, but its effects are felt globally".

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119269158#Comment_119269158

Highlight a section of text; click the enter sign to the left of the text box, select the " and " again for the quote tag to be applied to the highlighted text.

As to the topic of the thread; I'm in agreement with Podge on this one. Nato will not start a war with Russia because quite frankly there's nothing to gain from doing so. A proxy war (CIA in Afghanistan anyone?) by shipping over weapons from their own manufacturers and then state aid to private companies in their country help rebuild (at a higher than usual rate due to risk/timeline/whatever) is the extent it will go..

 in agreement

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119269969#Comment_119269969

Well avoiding a western food and energy crises would be something to gain.

The Ukraine war is the primary factor in our encroaching economic nose dive/global recession.

There was nothing explicit mentioned at the most recent summit outside of increasing defense spending amongst NATO members, restationing american carriers in European military ports etc.

So they're clearly not coming out and saying it directly but let's face it, if Russia didn't have nuclear war heads, NATO allies would have been in there before the first shot was fired.

pixelburp

It would also be military intervention in a now EU Candidate country, further muddying the waters.

One doesn't war with Russia on a whim; the food and energy crisis is an increasingly prominent pressure point - but enough for NATO to strike on Russia forces?

The problem isn't whether NATO would win, Ukraine has shown the Russia army is badly managed and equipped; NATO forces could "easily" win a highly specific war within Ukrainian borders. The problem is:

1. What would Putin do in response?
2. What would his rivals in Moscow do if he's seen as weak, or wrong in that response?

IMO there's a non zero chance an ultra nationalist starts a coup, bumps Putin and escalates beyond sense. NATO is a defensive pact for a reason.