Matthew Le God

Answer can be found in this interview... https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/17/che-adams-interview-southampton-non-league-thurnby-lodge

When they signed up to NATO it was on the understanding they'd follow through with article 5. The whole purpose of signing up to NATO is for mutual self defence. If they aren't providing that then why are they still members?

Significant difference between defending a Nato member vs a non Nato member. Nato members have an obligation to defend Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc, they don't for Ukraine.

Manage Saints under new ownership!

Have there been sanctions put on Belarus? Allowng an invasion to be staged and then take place through your territory shouldn't go unpunished. Plus their president has today said they may contribute with forces later on.

Yet another sellout...

Putin's claim that he wants the denazification of the leadership of Ukraine is a strange one. Especially as President Zelensky is Jewish!

No I didn't. Why are you making up things I did not say?

Why would countries stay in Nato if it didn't act on the key purpose of mutual self defence? There is no point in article 5 if it isn't used in a scenario when it should be.

That didn't answer my question.

Do you think Nato would then disband?

Nonsense, I said Finland should be worried more than the Baltics and Poland. I didn't say the Baltics and Poland shouldn't be worried. However you cut that out of the quote!

Do you agree that article 5 is fundamental to the existence of Nato and a key reason why countries signed up to it? Without it being triggered after an attack on one of its members it may as well fold as mutual self defence is the key purpose of it.

You've cut me off mid sentence in the quote you just used, which takes what I said out of the context it was written. The West was never going to want to go to war over a non Nato member invaded by Russia. It is written into the Nato membership that countries have to defend other Nato countries, that is the deterrent for Russia.

Of course none of them want a war with Russia. But members joined Nato largely for self defence vs the USSR (and now Russia). May as well disband Nato if they don't follow through the key reason it was created for. Equally Russia is unlikely to want to attack any of them because it knows a war with one Nato member is a war with all of them.

If article 5 isn't triggered when a Nato member is attacked then there is no need to have Nato and it would disband. The whole purpose of Nato is for collective defence. That is what they signed up for and if they wouldn't follow through with article 5 they may as well not have signed up in the first place!

@Millbrook Saintsuggested Putin would be emboldened after the Ukraine and attack another country in a few years. I wondered which country, because really it would need to be a non Nato member, because the Russians would know they are likely to get away with it as it wouldn't trigger article 5. Perhaps it isn't the Nato member Baltic states and Poland who should be worried and more non Nato member Finland

All I did is say why attacking the Baltic states and Poland is significantly different to attacking the Ukraine. I was not complacent and did not say they shouldn't be prepared for it. Do you agree that attacking a Nato member like the Baltic states and Poland is vastly different to attacking Ukraine? Attacking a Nato member triggers article 5 and would automatically see Russia in a world war vs Western Europe and the USA.

Same as above, attacking them automatically triggers a world war and article 5. Attacking Lithuania is vastly different to attacking the Ukraine.

An attack on any of those counties is massively different to invading Ukraine. They are all in Nato and an attack on any of them triggers article 5 and would start a world war. That is not the case for non Nato Ukraine.

Which country would he attack next?

1) Buy back clauses don't allow the new club to turn an offer down from the first club. The player can of course turn down any move if they want. 2) He wouldn't currently start instead of Reece James, but he is better than every Man Utd right back.

Financial sanctions and providing weapons to the Ukraine is not 'nothing'. What else could they do? Sending soldiers creates a world war and possibly nuclear war. So that isn't going to happen. How would Trump being president now prevent an invasion?

What do you consider would count as 'public pressure' regarding this? 🤔

How about judging them over Forster's 150 games vs McCarthy's 116 games for Saints? 🤔😇