Doc Holliday said:
whiterock said:
Doc Holliday said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thousands of Ukrainian civilians and solders dead .
Countryside burned , cities flattened , millions of refugees forced out of their homes into other countries .
Billions of US dollars spent while hundreds of thousands of our own mentally ill are living ( and dying ) on the streets .
But hey Ukraine officially applied for NATO membership !
All worth it .
US foreign policy continues to rock .
of course it's worth it. that's why Ukrainians are willing to die for it. Freedom does tend to inspire.
The "NATO started" it argument has some shocking faulty assumptions, chief among which is the notion that Ukrainians are stooge drones who are only fighting because Nato is making them do it.
The Ukranians want and are willing to fight for their own Nation. They returned all the nukes that were there in the 90's, which they helped pay for, in exchange for Soverignty. Russia agreed. Now to attack Crimea and Ukraine after Ukraine lived up to their end of deal is reprehensible.
I am partial, I helped get two Ukranian Nationals legally out and to the US and have spoken with them about the situation. It is horrific what the Russians do and how they operate. Ukraine has the ability to add positively to NATO and the EU, we have invested in a lit of nations with much less up side than Ukraine.
exchanged for sovereignty an assurances of assistance if invaded..... USA is making good on a pledge. The right pledge, the right place, in mostly the right ways.
Ukrainians have firmly decided as a peoples that they wish to become part of Europe rather than Eurasia. The American ethos is that peoples are entitled to decide and act on questions like that. We should continue to provide arms & ammo to Ukraine, until there are no more Ukrainians asking for arms and ammo. The dishonor would be to abandon them on the battlefield.
Should we do what Zelensky wants?
Zelensky can say whatever he wants for domestic or foreign purposes.
It doesn't obligate us to do anything.
And he knows that.
But would this be a good idea?
To say it? Yes!
To do it? No!
It is entirely fitting and proper to respond to Russian nuclear saber rattling with threats of something wildly unpalatable to Russia. And what purportedly scares them most? Ukr in Nato. So threaten them that continuing to invade Ukr is the surest way to have Ukr in Nato....that the best way to prevent that from happening is to sue for peace.
Never, ever, bend to pressure (unless you HAVE to).
MAKE THE OTHER GUY BEND. (particularly when you are the bigger dog in the fight).
It would be unwise to actually admit Ukr to Nato because of the risk of future political instability.....the scenario of a replay of events of UKR in 2014 only to our disfavor. We would have in our lap exactly the scenario that laid out before as justifying our current Ukr policy....a crisis INSIDE Nato threatening the collapse of the entire alliance.**
guys. the threat to admit Ukr to Nato is not the problem. It's the deterrence. We should be opening up talks with Armenia, and Georgia (again) about Nato membership. Ramp up the pressure. Russia cannot defend against all these threats. They will not nuke the world to stop diplomatic initiatives. But they might blink. They might offer to withdraw in exchange for.......(no Nato expansion).
THEN we can have peace talks.
But until then, keep cranking the wrenches.
And nothing lubricates power like strategic ambiguity.
We must make Putin fear that he is about to have a strategic loss from which Russia cannot recover in his lifetime.
(note Pelosi visited Armenia last month.....)
(Hell, I'd be willing to send a Nato delegation to Kazakhstan if they'd have us.)
**an alliance needs stability. Including members who cannot be counted upon to stay strongly committed to the alliance are a liability. Look at the conference realignment discussions on other forums here. Do not want to admit a university that would treat us as a placeholder until a better options came along, because the departure is an existential moment for the entire conference. So I'd like to see Ukr as a Nato member 20-30 years down the road, IF/WHEN we assess their traditions and societal institutions have developed to a point where they could be properly be considered an asset to the liberal order. I assess they have the right intentions, but boy do they have a of work to do over coming decades.
