Financial Times reported Thursday that the US is pushing back against an effort by some of its European allies to provide Ukraine with a “road map” toward NATO membership at an alliance summit this July that will be held in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius.
While NATO’s position is that Ukraine will eventually become a member, Kyiv has never been given a timeline on when it could join. Sources told Financial Times that some NATO countries, including Poland and the Baltic states, want to offer Kyiv deeper ties and clear statements on its future membership. Polish President Andrzej Duda has previously said that NATO should offer Ukraine post-war security guarantees.
The Financial Times report said the US, Germany, and Hungary are pushing back against these efforts, and NATO members are expected to be locked in negotiations on the issue until the summit is held. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned he would only attend the summit if Kyiv was presented with steps toward membership.
NATO first promised in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually join the alliance despite warnings from William Burns, who was the US ambassador to Russia at the time and now serves as the CIA director. Burns said in a 2008 cable later released by WikiLeaks that Ukrainian entry into NATO is “the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).”
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday that Ukraine must win the war against Russia and become more interoperable with the alliance to become a member. He did not offer a timeline on membership but said the work to make Ukraine more interoperable is a “long-term” project.
Sources told Financial Times that all NATO members agree that offering Ukraine full membership is not a “short-term” option since its currently engaged in a war with Russia, but a growing number of alliance members support offering a “political path.” Any sort of new guarantee from NATO would be highly provocative toward Russia as Ukraine’s alignment with NATO was one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s main motives for launching the invasion.
221 thoughts on “Report: US Pushing Back Against Giving Ukraine a ‘Road Map’ to NATO”
Why would NATO members want a country totally destroyed and in rubble? First they claimed it was all about the right of NATO membership, and they will fight for it until the last man standing, and now they are being told, no there is nothing but dust and rubble left of the country, Ukraine has nothing to offer, ruins, no economy, not army, no healthy well trained labor force left, most of the able bodies men have been KIA, families are broken, it is just another failed state like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria. NATO did what they always do, wreck the nation and walk away, the USA does it all the time, remember Vietnam and Afghanistan?
Why did NATO want Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – these were very poor and militarily extremely weak countries back when they joined (2004), moreover given their geographical location they were left in a particularly vulnerable position.
The answer likely was/is that NATO does not as such want some members, but it is difficult to explain why they would deny them the right to join (the Baltic states voted on working to join NATO back in 1994) – they also decided to work towards joining EU somewhere in the early 1990’ties.
They joined EU in 2003 – following that it became politically problematic to veto them joining NATO – if ‘we’ want to get people to invest in such ‘deprived’ areas (we basically meaning the west) then there is a need to provide security for these investments – otherwise only very profitable projects will get funding – the risk making the rest unviable.
This would be what would have left Ukraine out of NATO for a very long time if not for the SMO – the Dutch rejected an EU Ukrainian partnership program back in 2016.
But following the SMO the likelihood of Ukrainian NATO membership has gone very significantly up – it does however realistically remain low (if Sweden has issues joining then clearly it is not easy), but if we assume the following then there might be a path to membership:
1) Ukraine ends its territorial disputes with Russia and there is an internationally recognized peace agreement.
2) Ukraine demonstrates that it can treat minorities up to EU standards
3) Ukraine gets corruption under control (at least to Bulgarian levels i.e. less corrupt than Hungary)
4) Ukraine joins EU
If these 4 items are checked then it becomes very politically difficult for any NATO country to object to them Joining NATO – but then these 4 ‘demands’ represents a pretty tall order.
The Russians (if so then yes, but I’m not sure that is what you meant). If not the Russians then: I think the claim was that it was about being respected as a sovereign country – i.e. one that had the right to decide by itself whether to apply to join NATO (or EU).
“…, and they will fight for it until the last man standing,…” This has not been the stance of anyone AFAIK – if you have seen anyone claiming this I’d be interested to know who – at the current loss rates even going by the Russian MoD figures Ukraine could last in excess of 4 years and still not have lost a bigger share of its population than France did in WWI.
“…and now they are being told, no there is nothing but dust and rubble left of the country,…” Again it would be nice to know if this is officially believed in any of the NATO or EU countries. If so I would like to know which – Rheinmetall is in talks about opening a factory in Ukraine (even during the SMO!) – so clearly this is not what at least some industries believe. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rheinmetall-talks-building-tank-factory-ukraine-report-2023-03-04/
Simply not even close to the truth, if it was then the Russians would now be marching on Kyiv – particularly the absurd notion that having killed or severely wounded for sure less than 1 million Ukrainians (out of 44 million) there would be no healthy ones left – France took 4 million KIA out of about 40 million in total (there were more young people in France though).
“ families are broken, it is just another failed state like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria.” Again hyperbole – yes it has been very bad, but no Ukraine is not in the position of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria – not one of those states could fight the Russians to a standstill – and that is the current position – or are you implicitly claiming that Russia is also a failed state (if so I beg to differ).
NATO did not invade and NATO has not destroyed even one bit of Ukrainian infrastructure or killed any Ukrainian soldiers in any fights. So no – you can maximum claim that by dangling NATO membership and supporting the Ukrainians with arms they have allowed the Ukrainians to carry on with their fight at a much higher intensity than would otherwise have been the case.
“[I]f we assume the following then there might be a path to [NATO] membership:
1) Ukraine ends its territorial disputes with Russia and there is an internationally recognized peace agreement.
2) Ukraine demonstrates that it can treat minorities up to EU standards
3) Ukraine gets corruption under control (at least to Bulgarian levels i.e. less corrupt than Hungary)
4) Ukraine joins EU
If these 4 items are checked then it becomes very politically difficultfor any NATO country to object to them Joining NATO – but then these 4 ‘demands’ represents a pretty tall order.”
A pretty tall order — yes, you can say that twice. To meet even one of those criteria would be a monumental accomplishment for Ukraine. But I think your assessment of the requirements is pretty much accurate.
If Russia hadn’t launched the SMO, Western leaders would have found a way of getting Ukraine into Nato with or without Crimea. Unless Russia suffers a military defeat in Ukraine, the SMO has put an end to that possibility. Ukraine will not join Nato.
Theoretically, there is a possibility of Western Ukraine uniting with Poland, if the Poles have an appetite for swallowing a porcupine. But I doubt that the Russians would agree. Perhaps they agree, if the West accepts Russian control over the East and South of Ukraine. At this point in time, it’s hard to imagine that anybody would agree to that.
The only good solution to the conflict is to get rid of the Yanks and form an alliance between Europe and Russia, ie. Gorbachev’s “Common European Home”. That would have been an ideal solution for Europe, for Russia and for Ukraine, but not for the US since it would leave the Yanks out in the cold. Thus, the sad story is that, as long as the Americans are involved, we will not have peace in Europe. Europeans are doomed because they betrayed Gorbachev. Acts have consequences, now comes the time for Europe to face the consequences of its treachery.
It is long past time for the US to start minding their own business and fixing the faults and shortcomings of the American culture and society.There is no.profit in doing so,the result is the degradation of minorities and women in the US and wage slavery.The Empire has no.clothes and will fall sooner or later.
The stars you deserve for saying it, so true.
An alliance between Europe and Russia is the last thing the Anglo-Saxons would tolerate, to prevent that from happening they fought two WW and this may be the third one. The two WW marked the end of the British Empire and the beginning of the American Empire. Maybe now China will become the new World Empire with Russia #2. Who knows?
The end of NATO likely will be one of the consequences, a good one IMHO.
So true. But there is another thing which could solve the problem.
It looks like NATO is stressed out, it will likely disintegrate before the Nuland/Biden Russophobes know what hit them. The pipeline sabotage was really the cherry on the cake.
Other than the last one (I’m sure Ukraine would love to join the EU) none of the other 3 have a chance of realization. No corruption?
That’s one that will never happen
Their more radical militias (that involve the N word;-) won’t agree to that. They were the ones who broke all the agreements prior. Those crazy fascist militias won’t stop and they are the comedian’s friends so why would he disband them to neuter them?
The next one involving the treatment of minorities?
Remember those militias?
It’s the ability for these fascist militias to exist and be glorified within Ukraine is why minorities will always be un danger there.
In short order, the USA was in the process to encircle Russia, as was done against Germany before WWI when the British empire was dying and the Bismarck Germany was becoming an industrial and cultural world power and the USA was also a coming industrial power. That is the historic context of the first WW and the unconditional humiliatingly German surrender in Versailles.
Not entirely wrong, only why would it be a problem for Russia if their neighbors joined an alliance to protect them from Russian aggression/coercion?
It is not as if NATO ever had the notion that they could attack Russia – I mean you do know that there is a guarantee that any attack trying to actually take Moscow would result in a nuclear disaster which would more than erode any potential gains from being able to exploit the natural resources of Russia.
You also seem to understand that what ever NATO would be able to concur would be very destroyed and run down plus fairly radioactive – in short if as you put it, there is little in Ukraine to make it an attractive partner, there would be even less in Russia should NATO by some miracle not have been utterly destroyed in a war and thus capable of ‘governing’ a beaten Russai.
The USA could be destroyed and be radioactive, funny, you don’t even consider the possibility. Well, both Russia and China have ICBMs. The USA will be a target just like any other country, that is why they have nuclear weapons too, to retaliate. No nation can trust the USA, they have just ended all nuclear agreements, now we are back to MAD.
I deliberately left it out, because even if there was some fraction in the US who believed that they could somehow prevent all Russian and Chinese counter strikes, the argument I make is that they would have very little to gain from invading Russia.
I and I’d argue the US and all NATO country governments are very well aware of this – that just makes the argument that Russia feared a NATO invasion all the more absurd!
Because of Russia’s nuclear power NATO is using Ukraine as proxy. That is what the US is risking if they carry the war to the Europeans, Russia would be justified to attack the US with nuclear weapons too even if they have no American boots on the ground in Europe. Biden better put Poland and the Baltic states in their place. The US will not risk US soil so Poland gets a chunk of Ukraine. The three little Baltic states have nothing to offer, they are dirt poor.
That was only possible if the Russians obliged us by fighting the Ukrainians, and the Russians can still end that ploy simply by vacating Ukrainian territory – so not much of a NATO plan.
Not entirely clear what you mean by ‘if they carry the war to the Europeans‘ nor is it clear why the Russians would ever justified or not turn a potential defeat in Ukraine into a murder suicide event.
There is no risk of Poland invading Ukraine that is a Russian propaganda invention – so not an item I expect gets any attention at all in Biden’s staff.
NATO is not a peacekeeper, all wars they are involved in were wars of illegal aggression. Not once did a NATO member have to be defended.
Who threatens to attack the USA?
Not Russia and not China, so why did the government declare them adversaries?
You should try to argue with the points I make – I have not made the point that NATO kept the peace, only that it provided security for the members against Russian aggression.
Kind of demonstrating just how effective NATO is, though it is arguably wrong – Greece and Turkey have been at war with each other (both in NATO at the time) and UK, if you take a wide view of the issue, in need of being defended when the Argentines invaded the Falklands.
As I’m not aware that they have done so I’m not sure I can provide an answer which is close to the real reason that the US government did so. But if we try to analyze the situation then there are reasons that the US might have decided to do so:
1) declaring a foreign government as an adversary does not mean that they fear invasion it is several steps below
2) but likely it authorizes a different level of sanctions
3) it recognizes that the US government sees those foreign governments as working to counter US interests
Russia has likewise declared several governments (e.g. Australia’s) around the globe as hostile or ‘unfriendly’ which AFAIK does the same i.e. authorize a specific treatment – and I’m fairly sure they do not think Australia is threatening to attack.
Switching to history. Now that’s a desperate exit strategy. You are still stuck in your self made hole.
Ukraine is in no position and never was to fight Russia to a standstill. Without US meddling and provoking there would not have been a war. USA/NATO is using Ukraine for cannon fodder, that is all Ukraine is good for, as far as it goes.
The US needed Ukraine to attack Russia, the corrupt Ukrainian suckers fell for it as long as the money keeps coming.
Immaterial – your claim was that Ukraine was a failed state like Afghanistan (Libya, Iraq…) – and my argument is that the US could not support the Afghans to even hold the Taliban at bay. I.e. Ukraine is not a failed state, and in nowhere near as bad a situation, if it was then US assistance or not they would have failed even to hold the rebels in Donbas from taking Kyiv.
You could make this argument, but as long as the Ukrainians do not believe it – and they do not, otherwise they like the Afghans would just not put up as much resistance – it matters very little what you or I believe.
So are the Ukrainians directing the Russian military, because I distinctly remember that it was the Russian military which initiated this round (as well as the one in 2014) so, just what is it that you mean by this?
Michael just the fact that you have to work hard to justify and find explanations and excuses for the leaders should tell you it is wrong. Just dealing with the facts honestly is much easier, it is natural, you don’t have to fight for the truth.
bruh, don’t talk about honesty when you are filled with BS.
Your claim is baseless. And you just lost all credibility with your Kremlin propaganda here.
I don’t think you know what propaganda is and how it works to manipulate public opinion.
And you can’t manage a rational dialogue. Ad hominem is all you know.
I have not worked hard and you have provided no evidence that I had to work hard to justify or explain let alone excuse anything here.
You made the absurd claim that Ukraine was a failed state – I put that proposition well and truly to bed.
I did not have to justify and find explanations and excuses for the leaders of any country to do so – and it took me practically no time to do so.
I am the one that is just dealing with the facts – of the two of us here – you present me with the proposal that it is factually the case that Ukraine is a failed state on par with e.g. Afghanistan. I respond with the fact that the Afghans could not even with very generous US help and some 20 years for the US to train the Afghan forces stop even a very weak enemy (the Taliban) from taking Kabul.
Ukraine – could with far less assistance and much less training stop the Russians marching on Kyiv in early 2022.
If your proposition is that it is only after the fighting in 2022 that Ukraine has by now arrived at a failed state level, then you are the one who needs to deal with the facts, and explain why Russia still 4 months into 2023 have failed so pathetically in its winter offensive – taking very little territory and no major cities.
The regime change resulted in the shrinking of the Ukrainian economy and the war finished it, it now is a failed state no matter how you slice it.
In every way I slice it they come out head and shoulders above Places like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc. – just the fact that they can fight Russia to a standstill with only arms assistance from the west either means that Russia too according to you is a failed state or Ukraine most certainly is not.
no failed state can mobilize the will to resist any significant challenger – so back to the core question: is it that you think Russia so weak that it cannot fight a failed state or that you apply different standards to Ukraine than to Russia?
All nations destroyed by NATO, are you proud of that? Not mentioning the destructive brutal sanctions against civilian populations. I call it crimes against humanity. None of these nations did anything to the Americans. Not a single one threatened the USA or any NATO member.
You are totally confused, you don’t make sense at all.
No I argued against the Afghan venture – the Libyan one was not a NATO action, but a UK/French US action that NATO took over partial responsibility for part of, after it was already well on the way, Syria was also not a NATO action – but to be sure I argued against each of these actions but I only feel responsible for the Afghan one as a NATO action and the Iraq one because Danish forces participated (and you can be damn sure I also argued against that).
The Afghans sheltered Osama Bin Laden – who did attack the US – and that is the only NATO led action of the ones we are here debating.
Absolutely true which is why I argued against them all. You do know that a person can believe that NATO is completely wrong on a number of issues and still believe that Putin is the bad guy wrt Ukraine – and that it is even possible for this to be the actual truth?
Libya was attacked by three NATO members, what was the reason to bomb Libya on the African continent by three nuclear powers from two other continents, Europe and the USA in support of Muslim extremists? The wealthiest nation in Africa was destroyed by civil war and the extremely brutal killing of Ghadaffy, and until now they have not recovered, an oil-rich nation about as secular as an Islamic nation can be, it is a failed state now. But Libya has oil as does Iraq and Iran and Syria.
The US created Bin Laden he was a Taliban Muslim extremist, Afghan had nothing to do with the WTC. Bin Laden is no excuse for the 20 year war in Afghanistan and the punishment with sanctions because they won the war and embarrassing our senile president for the botched American retreat. Americans pick on the little guy only, to fight the big guy they get proxies like Ukraine.
These countries were also UN members – that does not mean that UN attacked Libya – NATO is not an alliance that prevents members form taking action independently or as sub groups it simply does not have that authority (it is intergovernmental).
I cannot tell you what they expected to get out of the action nor justify it in any way, to get those views you would have to find someone who actually at least at some point supported the action.
I 100% agree – and I think that consequently article 5 was abused in 2001.
No but they did refuse to hand Bin Laden over.
Again we agree – which is why I was against not only the usage of article 5 but also the invasion and occupation.
I do not think that it was wise to start them immediately, but to put them in place once the Taliban started mistreatment of their own people could used smartly perhaps be justified.
“Libya was attacked by three NATO members”
“These countries were also UN members – that does not mean that UN attacked Libya”
The UN, as an organization, did not vote to attack Libya. NATO, as an organization, did.
“Afghan had nothing to do with the WTC.”
“No but they did refuse to hand Bin Laden over.”
No, they didn’t. While there was no extradition treaty obliging them to do so, they offered to do so upon the presentation of evidence of his culpability in the 9/11 attacks. And Bush publicly refused that condition, demanding that the Afghan regime do what he said to do because he said to do it.
The Libyan action started on 19 March 2011, NATO got involved March 23. and actually only took over parts of the operation by 31 March – so no NATO as an organization did lead the intervention in Libya, and NATO did not lead us into that war – but yes NATO did end up being involved and I accept that NATO (and Denmark) has a conpletely different level of culpability than other countries.
So yes they refused to hand him over – that they did so perfectly in accordance with international law is an important point, but it does not alter the fact that they refused to hand him over. If you look at what I wrote, I specifically stated that them not handing him over did not excuse the invasion – had the US provided the evidence then it would at least to some degree have provided an excuse – though still not for 20 years of occupation.
All have oil, and another thing, the UN HAS NO ARMY, and also, the USA dominates the UN too. That is why the UN has no credibility left.
The point I was making is that these was much more a US (and in the case of Libya UK and France) led actions – it was not as if NATO got together and decided that they wanted to do this – NATO only really got enthusiastic about Afghanistan (and Kosovo before that) – the other actions it was rather reluctantly involved in.
Michael, for public relations it was enough, three nuclear powers in support of extremist orthodox ISLAM. The US did not need NATO in Afghanistan either, it was for public relations. German troops were supposed to provide potable water and such, and maybe they did, at least a little. The USA would look like a big troublemaker if it did it alone.
Why do the Danes allow themselves to be used for illegal NATO adventures? During the Iraq war the French and Germans were lucky they had good government when it was needed they had the courage to say no Bush.
We have been underfunding our military for years and by then had a change in attitude (1991) and a rightwing government so they were more than happy to say yes to Bush.
At no time since World War 2 has the US military not been over-funded (if “national defense” is the criterion) by at least a full order of magnitude.
That is absolutely true, only when I say our military, that is the Danish military – which very much had been underfunded 🙂
Ah — sorry, I lost the thread on that one.
Michael no nation spends more than the US on defense. No one threatens the USA, all US military adventures are on other continents thousands of miles away. The working people pay to fund the profits of the MIC.
Good government would clean up at home, our official travel at taxpayers expense around the world, what for? How much did the Pelosi trip to Taiwan cost the taxpayers, and after that the Republicans too needed a taxpayer paid vacation, Biden, when does he really work in the office? He takes care of the Turkey and Easter eggs what else?
I said our (I’m a Dane and the Danish defense forces were underfunded).
In this equation you are missing out on the fact that if the US did not act like it does then the US economy could very well be much smaller and the paychecks of the people so diminished that they might want to be in the position they are now.
That said yes there is wastage, but people forget the income side – the US earns a very substantial amount of its foreign income from weapons sales and from being the provider of much of the technology that it does through being the big bully – we could agree that it is evil, but forgetting what is earned on having that role is perhaps a bit naïve.
Michael, the Danes were not threatened by anyone, they had no need for a big military and they had no MIC wanting to make profits, they were doing just fine
One more thing, the USA deindustrialized its own country, look at the Rust Belt in the north of the US where the Steel and Auto industry used to be. They moved to China, South Korea and Mexico and other cheap labor markets and did nothing for the abandoned industrial population. Poverty took over.
Exactly my point of view until about 2008.
Many claim the same happened in EU when the east block countries were allowed to join – partially true, but we didn’t get poorer as we were able to shift our focus – also as the price of labor and other costs increased in those ex-Warsaw pact countries some industry is moving back.
The price of labor in China is rising rapidly as it is in much of the rest of Asia, the problem with the more general model of globalization (as opposed to EU allowing new members) is that in the general globalization the other countries need not e.g. play by the same environmental standards – and hence production can remain cheaper abroad.
If the Western countries apply e.g. a CO2 import tax then they may limit the ability of corporations to move production to lower standard countries – the idea of a unified corporate tax may also do something to shift production away from low tax areas.
They maintained and funded the war in Afghanistan for 20 years and never asked their boys in government where the money went, they did not even pay their people in uniform, Americans knew all about the corruption just as they do now.
We have a corrupt government, they only legalized their robbery of the people.
No they were there to fight the war – when they left the Afghan forces collapsed within less than half a year. Afghanistan is a failed state.
The government was so corrupt they did not even pay their soldiers, stop white washing corrupt governments.
The USA made it a failed state, it started with Carter, the US created the Taliban to fight the Russian leaning government, women had made much progress, they could even wear mini skirts and study which the orthodox Muslim did not like, the beginning of Al Queda funded by the USA.
As you should expect in failed states!
That is pretty close to how I see it too.
I posted “it is a failed state” Their economy went south after the regime change and it was not a prosperous country before. But they had an elected, and functioning government and a chance to grow. And now it is a failed state.
They could have been neutral and prosper, they had the chance.
Their economy went south because Russia started a war in Ukraine and occupied Crimea – no further explanation is needed. And no they did not have a chance of doing better than Russia under Yanukovych – they did otherwise!
We do know the economy was better before the regime change than after. That is a fact you can’t change.
So by that logic Maduro is what ails the Venezuelan economy!?
Ukraine could have been much richer pursuing integration with EU – think something like Romania but somewhat poorer – pursuing closer ties with Russia and they would not have had the potential to become richer than the Russians.
Don’t blame MADURO, SANCTIONS ARE MEANT TO DESTROY a nations ECONOMY, the USA is the guilty one. Ukraine economy was not in shape to compete in the EU market, but with neutrality like Austria they could have done business with the EU and Russia, Russia had offered better terms than the EU. There WAS NO NEED to be a NATO MEMBER, they blew it FOR RUBBLE AND SUFFERING IN RETURN.
That was my point.
EU was reluctant to admit Ukraine because it would be too much of a low wage competitor – so no the problem is not that Ukraine could not compete – like Romania EU companies would flock to Ukraine to place factories there to exploit the low wages – that is how it works.
Austria is neutral but it is in EU – however it does not border Russia and was not facing a border conflict with Russia – so no need for NATO. And for the record no Russia did not offer better terms and certainly not prospects than EU – Russia simply would not have the power o the EU countries to flood Ukraine with investments – no partner of Russia has experienced the same bump in economic growth that prospective EU countries have.
Not for me to judge – they stood up for their sovereignty if it is worth the price only they can tell and only in about a decades time I’d say.
Even a sovereign nation must deal with reality, a little dog does not start fighting a big dog. Ukrainians lost their sovereignty with the regime change, now Washington is in charge, Zelensky was told to end diplomatic negotiation in April 2022 and other times, Ukrainians depend on NATO to fund the war against Russia, Nuland/Biden set the policies not Zelensky he is the servant collecting money for the lives of Ukrainian men. W. Bush in 2008 started to push Ukrainians to become a NATO member. The Americans wanted it, knowing full well it was a bad idea and the Ukrainians did not need it. Ukraine is the sacrificial lamb for Biden/Nuland and American interests and the war profiteers.
There may be no Ukraine left, no EU, and no NATO when it is all done, and if it turns into a WWIII there may be nothing left.
Just the demographic recovery of the Ukrainian nation will take more than just one generation. Common sense is screaming for an end of the slaughter and Biden and his cabal refuses every effort, he wants unconditional surrender no less.
Ukraine did not start a fight and Ukraine did not lose its sovereignty when they ousted Yanukovych – and sovereignty means that they can apply for NATO membership if the people so desires – which they do, that they would not have been admitted before 2022, just means that other countries like Hungary also have a sovereign right to use their veto.
Ukraine cut diplomatic ties with Russia in February 2022, but it is true that the Ukrainians depend on Western aid to fund the defense against the Russian invasion. But the idea that Nuland/Biden sets policies is plainly absurd, had this been the case then Zelenskyy would not have responded positive to China’s peace proposal.
The point being that NATO had decided in 2014 that Ukraine could not become a member, and that while it had a border dispute with Russia it also could not become a member – finally the Hungarians would not have allowed them in so if Putin attacked to prevent Ukraine from becoming a NATO member he did the only thing that could actually change Ukraine’s prospects of becoming a member.
It would be by accident if this turns into WWIII – the Russians have very little incentives to use nukes (against anyone) the west has no incentives at all.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine is on track to recover from the loss of even 1 man – they along with China, Japan Europe are on track for major demographic collapse/decline. A war does not make it better, naturally, but so far the impact is quite small – as in very small if compared to the French losses in WWI.
Only the Ukrainians can decide when they do not want to fight any longer – that decision they have not even remotely shown willingness to take. Clear signs that they are about to or approaching that decision will be when we observe major defections or large scale surrenders before all other options have run out.
Don’t be naïve, after the regime change Washington was in charge, USA/NATO funded, armed, and trained the Ukrainian military to de facto NATO standards. They held combined Ukraine/NATO military exercises, some 10 exercises were scheduled 2022. You could read that in the Army Times. There was a civil war going against Russian speaking Ukrainians in Donbass for 8 years, all of that combined were provocations against Russia, which Ukraine alone could not have done. Before the Russian military response Biden in DEC. 2021 had been informed about the Russian border security concerns and also how the issue could be resolved. Autonomy for Russian Ukrainians, no Ukraine NATO membership and neutrality for Ukraine, very rational offers. Biden did not even bother to respond in a timely manner, he was eager to start a war with Russia. Interestingly the diplomatic contact was with Washington, Biden, not the sovereign Ukrainian President Zelensky.
So far, the Americans are raking in the profits, the MIC and the big oil concerns are the profiteers, no Americans come home in body bags, that is why Biden loves it and is opposed to peace.
When the US gets involved it spells trouble. Up to now Biden has blocked all diplomatic efforts, he has not made any effort to stop the slaughter of the Ukrainian/Russian people. At the expense of Ukrainians and Europeans he wants UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, nothing less. Why does he oppose peace, what does he expect to gain with all the Ukrainians KIA? Is that what the Ukrainian people want to pay for just to become a NATO MEMBER, FOR WHAT?
THE UKRAINIANS ALREADY LOST MORE THAN THEY CAN EVER HOPE TO GAIN. Biden decides how many more Ukrainians will have to die, not Zelensky or any Azov person.
YOU CAN’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE LIARS, REMEMBER IRAQ AND THE WMDs AND THE incubator babies?
So very far from the truth – Ukraine had very few NATO standard weapons even at the end of 2021, the regime change was a domestic affair all we have is indications that Nuland expressed the US’ preferred outcome – there is nothing that suggests that the US was actually in charge. Had they been then they would not have had their ‘agents’ agree to Yanukovych’s suggested solution – and leave it to a nobody from the protests to carry on the pressure until Yanukovych fled.
Yes – that is a very far cry from equipping the Ukrainian army with NATO standard weapons, it is training the Ukrainian army to operate with NATO forces – but not as NATO forces.
A civil war started by the Russians (their agents have admitted as much) – and what provocations, which Ukraine could not have done alone? The exercises in the border region with Poland?
You may think it rational, but the US did not think so and nor did most of the states bordering Russia – the US would have lost the last bit of credibility in negotiations as would UK and France – it would have been Munich 1938 all over again – political suicide for the western leaders as well as deeply unpopular in Ukraine and as indicated most Russian border states.
The profits from doing as Putin wanted would have been much larger – as all states with border issues with powerful neighbors would have dramatically increased their defense spending, even as is there has been dramatic increases in states which previously did not spend that much.
The US cannot block any of the efforts and has not done so – all the US has done is to say that they will not lift their sanctions and that they will keep up their assistance – Ukraine has had negotiations in Turkey and are currently exploring things via China. You interpret Biden and Johnson support for Zelenskyy as dictates – they do not have that power over him, otherwise he would have rejected China’s proposal like Biden did.
No he does not want surrender, the West will be fine with Russia withdrawing from Ukraine, back to the 1994 guaranteed borders – there is no indication that the US has any ambitions beyond that – if you have it link it here.
To the extent they want to become NATO members, it is to guarantee their sovereignty and geographical integrity – but if I remember correctly it was one of the things they were willing to compromise on in early 2022 (i.e. the NATO membership not the territorial integrity).
No the Ukrianians decide once they begin to desert or surrender in numbers the war is over.
I do not trust the US government or my own, I trust what I can observe – and that is a Ukrainian people very willing to fight for their independence and the government they had, unlike e.g. the Afghans.
“Ukraine is in no position and never was to fight Russia to a standstill.”
And yet it has done so for 14 months.
Without NATO help it would now be a neutral and prospering nation, it now is in ashes. The USA groomed the Ukrainians for provoked war with Russia. To use the Ukrainian young men for can*non f*o*d*d*e*r to die for American interests is E*v*i*l, Biden/Nuland and the neocon cabal are as e*v*i *l as it gets.
And if ifs and buts were cherries and nuts, it would be Christmas every day.
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
I agree that it’s evil to use young men for cannon fodder. Feel free to name a warring state that doesn’t do so.
As bad as it is, the worst is to use them for cannon fodder in a lost and hopeless cause, as is happening in Ukraine by a president who gets paid for keeping the war and the useless killings going. Zelensky makes no effort to protect the lives of Ukrainian young men, he throws their lives away like used toilet tissue and gets paid for doing it. Only criminal governments would do that. Military leaders with honor and a sense of morality would end the fighting and wasting young peoples lives for battles already lost. Your attitude is ignoring war crimes, not demand honor and responsibility from commanders. Would you accept this if it were your child? The Ukrainian young men are wasted in battles that are already lost, and the leaders know it.
“My attitude” is simply refusing to pretend that Putin is in any way different or morally superior just because you like him better.
But you have to admit that Putin is way smarter than anyone the West has.
I always thought so, until he sh*t the bed with an idiotic and incompetent invasion of Ukraine. After 14 months of continuing to double down on the failure, I’m not so sure anymore.
If you were intellectually honest you would know that the U.S. waged war on Russia back when Obama first put sanctions on Russia. Sanctions are an act of war.
The US has been waging war on Russia since 1918, with a short break for World War II after Stalin’s Nazi pals turned on him.
I guess the question comes down to “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Even earlier, when Bush pushed for NATO membership and later when Obama/Biden and Nuland and Sullivan funded and organized the regime change removing the duly elected president from office, starting a civil war against Russian speaking Ukrainians, the rest is history.
There is always a context, a history of provocations by NATO, ARMING, TRAINING AND FUNDING A DE FACTO NATO MEMBER.
Biden knows the history and provocation very well, he was actively involved in it.
What about Biden doubling down and sending more and more money to Zelensky without asking what he does with the money? How about asking Biden what his goal is, how much longer will he fund Zelensky? Is the nation just a bottomless pit or what? Why is he ending Medicaid expansion for some million people?? No money but money to destroy the Ukrainian people and their country, right?
Nothing wrong with that, all is hunky dory in Gods own country.
I was from the beginning, and remain, against the US sending any money to Zelenskyy at all.
That doesn’t require me to pretend that Putin is anything but the thug he is.
“Just because you like ___” cuts both ways here, apparently.
Zelensky is a fraud who is staying alive by carrying out the dictates of his masters. If the accounts I have read over the past years are remotely accurate, Zelensky abandoned any intent to treat the easterners with even a semblance of justice as soon as he was threatened with death by his Azov masters.
Ukraine is a cesspool of corruption, has been a cesspool of corruption for well over two decades, and has shown no sign of “reforming” itself whatsoever. People tend to forget the oligarchs who made Ukraine what it is (yes, Yanukovich as well). Drugs, money laundering still haunt that place.
The simple truth is that the breakup of the Soviet Union, like the breakup of many states made up of ethnically disparate populations provides fertile ground for the rise of internal hatred and persecution. Russia will face the same sometime in the coming years. Even the US is made up of potentially irreconcilable demographics, though of a different sort. Given these circumstances, the Human thing to do in the case of Ukraine and many other places is to peacefully allow divorce and separation to groups with irreconcilable cultural and linguistic differences.
My own opinion has long been – and remains – that nation states are outmoded and are standing in the way of human progress.
That seems to imply that I “like” Zelenskyy. I don’t. He’s like Putin’s (and Biden’s) brother from another mother.
Be honest, Zelensky and Putin have nothing in common, give credit where credit is due.
President Putin is a statesman with real accomplishments, he earned to be respected. The Russian people are the better judges, they lived life with Putin and can compare with Yeltsin the Clinton man.
Zelensky is a corrupt clown who is a traitor to his nation, he sold the Ukraine to American interests. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. What has Zelensky accomplished other than getting very rich.
“What has Zelensky accomplished other than getting very rich.”
Zelenskyy has accomplished the same thing Putin has — turning his country into an authoritarian hell-hole — and without the kind of formal training Putin received in that craft as a KGB officer.
Good one, Thomas 😉 Happy Easter.
And to you!
And I take the courage to add that he is a man with character and morals too. That is my impression of him based on public information.
Yes, I agree. Many years ago I realized that the American news media was trashing Putin every chance they got. The demonization of Putin was so intense that I started clipping articles out of the WSJ where they attacked Putin non stop. When Putin wrote an OP ED, regarding Syria, in the New York Times, about ten years ago, the Neocons went berserk with anger that the NYT would even publish Putin’s OP ED. I found his OP ED, and I thought it was wonderful and that Putin was trying to come to a peaceful resolution for Syria. He made perfect sense. But that is not what the Neocons wanted. They did not want the American people to hear first hand from Putin where he stated the truth. Instead they wanted the American people to be brainwashed into believing that Putin was an evil monster.
As someone else wrote, I can’t remember who it was, but Putin has balls of brass to go up against the U.S. and 30 plus NATO nations. I pray for him every day. He is David going up against Goliath.
I totally agree with you, it was and still is nonstop demonizing Putin and the Russian people.
Putin’s speeches are worth reading, they make sense. He is highly educated, an intellectual man IMO. He is a statesman and I believe that he will be honored in the history books. He has served the Russian people in more than difficult times, not one honest objective mention of it in our media whos’ job it is to inform the people.
They have deteriorated to cheap propaganda rags. They spend their time to demonize Putin while our country and the people are falling apart.
Biden has accomplished nothing in two year, not even raising the minimum wage by a Penney. Nothing to show for two years in office except writing checks for Zelensky, not even demanding accountability for all the millions he gave away and still does. After Afghanistan corruption nothing learned.
One thing I am convinced of, Putin has character, he is not wasting the lives of Russian young people in lost battles for lost causes. Zelensky is selling the lives of Ukrainians in service to American interests. When he attempted to end the slaughter diplomatically Biden and Johnson stopped him, he was told not to do it, and since he is a paid servant he did as told. And the European A**holes are too cowardly and without character to put an end to it.
My anger and disgust keeps growing, our government is morally the pits and stupid and arrogant on top of it.
NATO’s assistance to Ukraine has already been destroyed/taken out. Ukraine is fighting SOLO, that if all of the Kremlin statements in the last year are true. Which is pretty embarrassing given that Russia is fighting a small country with zero soldiers and a handful of fighters with sticks and stones and 30 western tanks (already destroyed too).
Russia hasn’t even taken Bakhmut, wtf?
How do you explain that?
Let’s see. Russia went into Ukraine with 190,000 troops. Ukraine had 600,000 NATO trained troops with $Billions in lethal military equipment from the West. Yet Russia has liberated about 20% of Ukraine. I am not seeing where Ukraine has been winning. Beam me up Donny!
Using figures from different time periods does not show evidence that you are even trying to argue your case, it only shows that you want to twist events to fit a narrative.
Maybe you should go and look at what the military experts like Scott Ritter and Col. Doug Macgregor have to say about troop numbers for both sides. You can get their interviews going all the way back to February of 2022 on Youtube. You might learn something.
Yes I’m sorry I do not take the numbers from these clearly biased sources, they have no backing for the numbers they throw about and they do not have the staff to do the estimates to arrive at believable numbers.
LOL! Any you think your sources aren’t biased?
I think my sources are bigger organizations with a longer history of gathering information on a well defined way, they have been doing so since long before the SMO and have their reputation staked on getting their information correct – you have two individual guys with already very tattered reputation – need I say more?
Yeah, the NEOCON Think Tanks have been around a long time.
So all organizations are neocon think tanks
You name me one reputable organization publishing figures on military strengths which has claimed that Ukraine has significantly above 200000 frontline soldiers.
Ukraine has at no point had 600,000 troops let alone 600,000 NATO trained ones.
Currently they have a total force of 500,000 but that figure compares to the Russian figure of 1,330,900 – if you want to know how many active soldiers they have the figure is only 200,000.
You just can’t face it if it does not fit your narrative. In July last year they had some 700 000 people in uniform and NATO kept training them and supplying them.
The real problem was the arrogant underestimation of Russia.
When Ukraine after regime change became a de facto NATO MEMBER, Russia read the writing on the wall and acted accordingly, build up their military and they did it well. They did not bother with Minsk agreements anymore, they did not need Merkel and Holland to tell them what was coming. The Putin team is smart and very well educated.
Look at the ignorance of the Biden team.
Open your eyes and your mind.
No they perhaps had 700000 in the armed forces total – are you really this ignorant of military matters that you think that the total number in the armed forces equal the number of soldiers that will be fighting at the front?
There are supply and maintenance staff there are training staff and then there are the planners the accountants etc. – for every man at the front line there is at least two usually far more in the supporting forces. So your 700000 is the number in the armed forces not the number equipped and trained for combat.
And for the record NATO could neither train as many nor equip or supply them – they have not even delivered enough to equip the 200000 that I say is actually the more realistic number of troops at the front.
NATO is nothing without article 5, having weapons supplied to a country will not provide for the will to fight as the Afghans so clearly demonstrates. Had the Russians not annexed Crimea then they would not have had to see writing on the wall.
Try applying a bit of logics and critical thinking and you may see why people might disagree with you.
There simply is nothing to support the notion that Ukraine was going to attack Russia – NATO had not supplied them with the weapons to do so and NATO had not ramped up weapons production to do so either – you are clearly wrong on this idea – I do not even know that the Russians seriously believed this – at most I’ve seen claims that they thought that the Ukrainians were preparing an effort in the Donbas, but that was only after the Russian build up for the SMO was already a known issue.
NATO HAD 8 YEARS TO TRAIN AND EQUIP THE UKRAINIANS.
And NATO kept the training and supply going, if it was not enough it is their own fault, they stupidly underestimated the Russians. Talk to the Pentagon professionals why they are such a failures, and of course the military intelligence, don’t they know better??
The US alone has the biggest military world wide, that is well known, you should know and stop making excuses for failed policies, stupidity all over USA/NATO.
JUST LISTEN TO THE BRIGHT STAR
the man really knows what he is talking about.
they had 20 years to train the Afghans – NATO did not start training the Ukrainian forces to any significant degree until after the start of the SMO – you know that people cannot keep secrets had we trained thousands of Ukrainians before we would have had soldiers bragging about it. So no while we did train some we did not train thousands of troops.
We also did not supply the heavy weapons systems or train them in the usage of such weapons – so what you have is that we supplied them antitank weapons and a few other light weapons systems in numbers.
No it is clear evidence that NATO did not train an attack dog, but a defense one – only a complete ignoramus would think that we were training the Ukrainians to attack Russia – or a person trying to fit very slender information to a narrative it cannot support.
No one in NATO has stated any thing to support your idea that Ukraine was trained to attack Russia – so I can listen to Stoltenberg to the end of days and still not hear any evidence of this.
Michael, NATO started immediately after the illegal regime change to fund, arm and train Ukrainian forces. The de facto Ukraine and NATO performed military exercises, putting NATO troops in Ukraine on a rotating basis. The US Army Times did report on that. For 2022 10 exercises had been scheduled per the Army Times if I remember correctly.
Sure – but that is one hell of a long way from training the Ukrainians to attack Russia – NATO and or the US have never been any good at occupation, but they have always been fairly good at invasions at least in my lifetime – the notion that they would try to use the Ukrainian army to invade Russia without having provided them with heavy weapons is simply laughable – and do not tell me that it is because we underestimated the Russians – we thought the Ukrainians would last less than a couple of weeks when the SMO started – i.e. we knew that the Russians had a very large conventional army and huge stockpiles of ammunition and weaponry.
Michael, NATO was created to fight Russia, it has been a long way to make it come true, proxy Ukraine is the key to open the door. NATO encircled Russia including American nuclear weapons.
Yes NATO was created to fight Russia, but only if pushed to do so – nearly all European countries (bar UK and France (Turkey and Greece – but them to fight each other) used their NATO membership to reduce their defense spending – there simply is nothing to support the notion that any European NATO country was planning or preparing to fight Russia especially not through a proxy like Ukraine.
Had that been the case we would have provided them with heavy weapons and ramped up shell production – neither of which we did before the SMO.
And while NATO did come to encompass more and more of Russia’ s border states it did so because they applied – and they applied because of Putin’s policies – and none of the new NATO members since 1991 have had US nukes or any other nukes stationed on their territories.
Looks like Julio and Schmidt are a tag-team.
Get real, from the start Ukraine was told there will be no NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, Ukraine will get funding and weapons but no troops on the ground.
The reason is the fact that Russia IS a Nuclear Super Power and it still is as it was 14 months ago.
The Nuland /Biden want a regime change and the cutup of the RF. Biden and Austin said so, they spilled the beans some time ago. That is not about to happen, the proxy is running out of cannon-fodder. Biden wants to get reelected and body-bags with American boys bodies would put an end to that.
And there is the European NATO and EU members. Biden sabotaged the pipeline with the help of another NATO member, demolishing the German industry and with it some 21 EU members which also are NATO members, that is more than NATO can take, regardless of what is said in public.
Biden/Nuland broke the back of NATO, it can’t be repaired. No NATO to fight in the Pacific against China.
My God, what a mess Biden and Nuland made in less than 2 years.
Yes, Biden/Nuland and the neocons are out of their mind, they would chance a nuclear war if they can limit it to Europe.
Russia destroyed the NATO assistance from an alliance of more than 30 nations? Russia, you know, the weak and incompetent Russian army destroyed the assistance of more than 30 nations and Ukraine could not win in more than a year?
I don’t get it, I repeated it, still I don’t get it. How is that possible????
At what cost to the Ukrainians?
NATO has done the fighting, Ukraine has merely supplied the spilled blood.
It’s just another disaster courtesy of the numbskulls who infest the department of state and the white house, the most clueless idiots this country can produce when it comes to serving the MIC.
People do have closed minds, it is like before the age of REASON, also known as the AGE of ENLIGHTENMENT.
“they claimed it was all about the right of NATO membership”
Only Putin claimed that. Fifteen months ago there was no way Ukraine could join NATO in the forseeable future. Even the US would not take in YUkraine until there was a permanent settlement of the Crimean issue. And the West European members of the alliance wanted engagement and detente with Russia, not confrontation.
“”Even the US would not take in YUkraine until there was a permanent settlement of the Crimean issue””
there already is a permanent settlement of the Crimea issue.
the Crimean people have already spoken.
uncle sam just refuses to acknowledge that.
Since Nato has armed and trained Ukraine for many years, Ukraine has already become a de facto Nato member. The Ukrainians are now pushing for a de jure recognition of de facto membership.
If they get to join Nato or not is irrelevant since the aim was to get the Ukrainians to fight against the Russians because Westerners are too sensitive about body bags coming home to do the fighting on their own.
Ukrainian nationalists knew that they had to fight a war against Russia as price for Nato membership, as explained by Zelensky’s former advisor Oleksiy Arestovych in 2019:
There is no way now either. All they had to do was to take up the diplomatic offer from Russia, but Biden wanted war, that is why he did not bother to respond promptly to the diplomatic note. And add to that undiplomatic behavior the fact that Putin could not trust Biden or his neocon cabal for anything. How the Fins and Swedes can trust the Americans beats me. American politicians have no integrity, their friendship is fatal, so said Kissinger he is one of them.
The Europeans rightly see Putin’s revanchism as a threat to their security and are acting accordingly. Putin responded to provocation in an irrational manner and his country is stuck in a forever war with a revitalized NATO backing a pissed off Ukraine while China is losing patience with its junior partner.
Dear Lord, Americans get hysterical if an American soldier gets killed in battle. They support the killings of millions of people by their government, taxpayer paid, as long as it is not at home and is on another continent.
Just remember the USA can not be trusted, they attack their own allies.
The West was trading with Russia for decades without any problems, it was the USA blocking it, the USA weaponized energy, not Russia. the USA removed the democratically elected Ukrainian president with a very bloody regime change, starting a civil war against the Russian speaking Ukrainians. and making Ukraine an American vassal state.
That is history, the USA started it, they armed and trained Ukrainians to fight against Russia, knowing they would not have a chance to win such a war.
“And the West European members of the alliance wanted engagement and detente with Russia, not confrontation.”
I seem to remember that Biden, Blinken and Nuland refused to even speak with the Russians about their security concerns with NATO expansion into Ukraine. If they wanted engagement and detente with Russia then why did they refuse to engage in talks with Russia? I believe Blinken said, “Things will remain unchanged,” as he blew off Lavrov’s and Putin’s pleas for discussions.
No matter it’s a smoking rubble, it would afford Washington the ‘legal’ basis for engaging all of NATO in a war with Russia. So the Washington demur is good news in the sense that it indicates they’re not going Strangelove.
“…they’re not going Strangelove,” unless they settle this following argument they’re relentlessly pursuing right now: Can the US win a nuclear war against Russia and China? I think many neocons/neolibs believe they can. The experts, who know better, are telling them we can’t. They decided to start the wars regardless until they get the answer they want. To be that evil requires you to be that stupid. I did the math on this already. Neocons/Neolibs: No US hegemony = no world.
You’re overlooking the immemorial besetting sin of Western man, Oedipal hubris. Russia yet retains the piety of self-knowledge, human limitation, and shrinks at the prospect of committing the ultimate obscenity.
I agree but at some point, to be determined soon, the math equation becomes: No Russia = No world.
Yes, maybe, … there’s Putin’s indelible response to Oliver Stone, “What good ‘s a world without Russia.”
At no time in all his life did Biden have enough intellect to come close to Putin.
… or integrity and humanity.
Some time ago Putin said, without Russia there will be no world.
If Biden heard it, did he understand it? He is demented, and it seems Nuland is in charge,but she wears Russophobe blinders and ear plugs and is high with power phobia on steroids. Runs in the Kagan family.
Maybe, but they are insane and not rational people? They keep digging the hole deeper and deeper and never look up and ask if it is deep enough and time to stop?
Yes, but like all gangsters they can’t just say the magic words, “oops, I’m sorry.” drop it and leave. And this is the entire political class (even Bernie and “the progressives”). They have to be stopped from the outside and entirely purged. My preference would be general strikes, boycott of the presidential election, military enlistment boycott, street demonstrations, teach-ins …. Neoliberalism and its evil twin have to go down.
I have decided to boycott elections, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, I want to vote FOR a candidate. If I can’t do that, I will stay home. 99% I will not vote.
I am writing in Col. Doug Macgregor’s name on my ballot for President. He’s so much smarter and wiser than any of the candidates that will be running that it isn’t even funny.
Great idea, maybe I will do the same, outside the parties there are able people. But the establishment will pick POS to serve their interests.
Ukraine is far from a failed state. You should’ve reviewed the meaning and criteria that determine a failed state and/or fragile state index before you stepped foot in this realm.
If you actually check, you’ll noticed that Russia has a higher fragile state index (72.6) compared to Ukraine (68.6), meaning Russia is closer to a failed state than Ukraine.
Even by these measurements, Russia has improved drastically in the past 17 years.
Oh wow, that means they have a lot of work to do moving forward.
And yet, they are still ahead of Ukraine on being closer to a failed state.
When I looked up Ukraine on Wikipedia, it sure sounded like Ukraine has a very sketchy past on self governance. I was unable to keep track of all the times Ukraine came under the governance of other nations.
I provided facts. Do you have facts to support you opinion?
Just look up Ukraine on Wikipedia and get a load of Ukraine’s history.
It already is a failed state, what will it take for you to open your eyes, they can only exist with USA/NATO funding, they have no functioning government.
The country is in ashes, millions of people left never to return and hundreds of thousands KIA. Not enough people to rebuild the country. Get real.
It looks like Nuland is in charge of the Biden administration.
Corrupt Zelensky collects a salary as long he has young men to sacrifice for Biden’s reelection and to keep the war and profits going. He has Zero authority to do anything. The neo-Nazis support the Biden war and they too get paid. They are not stupid, they do expect to get paid.
The USA provoked this war, the Europeans were and still are opposed to it but are too cowardly to kick the Biden criminals out of Europe.
Biden holds NATO together with extortions, like destroying their economies with sanctions and weaponized energy politics.
The USA/NATO alliance is governed by a bunch of people who are walking failures on steroid with generous paychecks. They have trails of failure and get promoted for failing. The most amazing part is the number of these incompetents’ are the ruthless female failures, starting with Nuland, apparently ruling the Biden cabinet. In Europe there is Baerbock and von der Leyen, and other women in PM positions, come and gone in UK, and Finland and other countries, not mentioning men like Boris Johnson and the woman before him May and Liz Truss after him. Then there is Freeland the deputy PM in Canada and Trudeau PM, and Scholz in Germany and one can go on and on, none of them is what one expects a states man or woman to be. They stand out because of their incompetence and really ruthlessness and lack of social conscience, they are evil people.
“Not enough people to rebuild the country.”
Oh, but BlackRock and J.P. Morgan have already entered into talks with Zelensky to rebuild Ukraine after the war. No Ukrainians will be necessary to rebuild because they won’t be owning the land.
And I’m sure you call yourself an antiwar activist.
Let me tell you a story, Ukraine will prevail, perhaps not its original form but it will come out on top. It will rebuild and get stronger, and your sh!t Russia army won’t dare to go for take 2. Ukraine will be a prosperous country and Russia will be hitting rock bottom all while watching Ukraine become a prolific state in front of their very eyes. Mark my words.
Oh, and I will be here cheerleading their progress.
I will mark your words. We shall see how prescient you are.
Try to get a good night’s rest Don. It will do wonders for your disposition.
So I responded to you with facts and your counter was just opinion based BS.
Then you take the discussion into a tangent.
Blah blah blah.
And you still picked up 3 likes from the Russia support team here.
Stay in la la land.
Still there is a difference between Asia and Europe. In the last 30 years population of Afghanistan increased twice. Population of Ukraine in the last 30 years reduced twice.
“NATO did what they always do, wreck the nation and walk away, the USA does it all the time, remember Vietnam and Afghanistan?”
If the Kiev Regime were allowed full, de jure NATO membership, then the USA and NATO could not walk away from it, not without their Article Four pledges being exposed as worthless. Clearly, the other nasty little ethno fascist, right wing regimes in the area (Poland, the Baltic States) want the big European powers and, even more so, the USA, tied down, as a matter of treaty-backed, international law, in the Ukraine, forever, for “as long as it takes.” But that’s not what they want!
Notice that in the two instances you refer to, Vietnam and Afghanistan, the USA NEVER had a binding treaty obligation to stay until the end, to pursue the war until “victory over the aggressors.” That’s the way the USA likes it. Maximalist rhetoric about this or that alleged principle involved; big mouth, tough guy, rah-rah war mongering, opponent-demonizing, statements; liberal use of proxy armies that minimize or obviate entirely the death of American soldiers, and big profits for its MIC. But no actual commitment of the USA to finish the job, to NOT bail and just walk away if and when the cost gets too high.
“other nasty little ethno fascist, right wing regimes” – all of those regimes were created by Americans and on American money. They called it “investment in the promotion of the democracy”.
“”just another failed state like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria””
what do these failed states all have in common?
i don’t know uncle sam, why don’t you tell me
edit = i hope that it doesn’t seem as if i was referring to Renate Littlejohn as uncle sam
Uncle Sam’s big boy Donald told it, he got the oil to pay for the war, what else do you want? He forgot to mention it is Lithium in Afghanistan.
Poland smells blood and is going to enter western Ukraine. All Duda is going to win is a nuclear bomb on his troops in western Ukraine. I’m so sad for all the blood shed in WWI and WWII, as millions but now billions will lose their lives in a nuclear war. There is no hope for a different outcome with corrupt Dudas running around full of idiocy and evil. Polish, Finnish, and Europeans happily cut their own throats for Victoria Nuland. I’m tired of arguing with people about how stupid is Duda and those Europeans. See you in hell, idiots. (Sarcasm alert)
Backing off of promises of membership is just another sign Ukraine’s neverending Western support is going to end soon.
What is going to end soon is your boy Putin and his BS invasion of Ukraine. Putin has humiliated and embarrassed the once highly feared and respected mighty red Army.
Thanks to Ukraine, Russia has been reduced to a country in possession of thousands of Nukes with a paranoid leader. He is a bully and that world is standing up to him.
Those Nazi battalions in Ukraine you are so proud of have not pushed back Putin by an inch.
No, you are the one proud of all the Nazis in Russia and within the Wagner group. Need I remind you that Russia has significantly more Neo Nazis than Ukraine? The entire de-nazification of Ukraine was BS and you should be ashamed of putting that here.
And by the way, I’m glad you are enjoying freedom of speech in this country’s internet. So take advantage of it while you are still can. Not something you have in Russia.
You actually believe I support one criminal over the other?
I know Russia is run by a crime boss but you seem to have problems realizing Ukraine is too.
Ukraine’s Nazi brigrades were well known before this war so your deniles are juvenile obuscations.
Ukraine and the West pushed this war and now Ukraine is going to lose territory because the G7 tried to push NATO to the border of Russia.
i will guess that somebody is salivating at the thought that Ukraine might be opened up to immigration of millions of african muslims just as much of europe and even the UK have been
Along with Ukraine being rubble, it would still be corrupt.
Tony Soprano would love the waste management contract after the war winds down.
Can you imagine the money that will be skimmed off of reconstruction?
Not to mention sweeping in and buying cheap land and the takeover of industries.
Like in the Yeltsin years, it couldn’t get better.
The Russian establishment picked Putin for president because he was known to be honest and competent, and Putin lived up to the promise. He was the right man for the right time in the right place.
Putin has served his people, he helped them to get back on their feet again.
Another Putin lover.
You are just campaigning here on behalf of your emperor.
Putin is getting thousands of your countrymen killed for his failed personal war.
If there is anything left to reconstruct.
In the East, nothing, Russia destroyed it all. And they won’t rebuilt jack. At least not over the next decade. Russia is already a broke state.
Probably not as much as Putin and its Generals take from their Defense budget annually. The reason the Russian army is so messed up and its shit pilots are so incompetent.
The entire region is run by modern day warlords/mafia types.
The USA/NATO an alliance of more than 30 nations are funding, arming, training is intel and more and they can’t beat the messed up Russians and its shit pilots? How is that possible?
You better believe that if and when the Russians need help, China will be right there to be the Russians back.
Don’t count on NATO, they are fed up and ready to implode, Biden is getting ready to light the fuse, Nuland makes him do it.
I don’t know what you are talking about, Russia has destroyed every piece of equipment supplied by the West, many of which were destroyed before they even arrived in Ukraine.
And don’t rely too much on China, they are just waiting on your Russia to collapse so they can take back Manchuria.
And why do you support and defend Russia so much? I take that you are not American. But that’s ok, this blog is mainly anti US and pro Russia.
NATO should have ended when the Cold War ended.
There is no, good reason for it’s existence now.
Russia cannot even conquer the corrupt mess that is Ukraine.
How the ‘f’ are they a threat to all of Europe?
It’s pretty obvious that the reason Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place was fears about NATO encroachment. The latter – back in the early 90’s – promised to never enter a former-Warsaw Pact nation. Let alone a former USSR republic (like Ukraine).
NATO should disband…now.
And especially America/Canada should leave. What goes on in Europe is none of their business, whatsoever.
The fact that Nato did not disband following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact proves that the aim of Nato never was to protect Europe against the Soviets. If that had been the aim, Nato would have been dissolved. The fact that it wasn’t dissolved proves that Nato always was about US hegemony and about nothing else. Instead of disbanding Nato, the Neocons used the disappearance of the former adversary to accelerate the drive for global US hegemony.
It’s time to scrap the fairy tale about the defensive Nato alliance. The US always used Nato for an offensive and not a defensive aim. The Soviets or Russians always had more to fear from the West than vice versa. The Soviets created the Warsaw Pact years after the US had created Nato and only after it became clear the US was going to use West Germany as a bulwark against the Soviets. The UK/US Empire has waged wars against Russia for at least 2 centuries.
Co operation of Germany with Russia was always a big NO NO for the Anglo Saxons.
NATO is destructive.
With hindsight NATO was never needed. Russia was down, a broken country and in no mood or position to go to war, they paid the price to win the war with blood, sweat and tears, and lots of money. Americans and UK had minor losses compared to Russia, American Bankers profited from Lend Lease Russia had to pay back. and like the man said
NATO is to keep Russia out, Germany down, and the USA in. Now we can freely talk about it, it worked, the USA is in control all over Europe including the EU and of course NATO. They are still the MACHTHABER in Europe. They refuse to give it up and make the Europeans even pay the costs in blood and money.
Be honest about it for a change. I grew up with the big lies and used to believe them.
Troy the only reason for NATO was to serve American interests, keep control over the continent and have them pay for the privilege.
The USA always ruled in American economic interests, the biggest fear they had and still have are socialists and communists.
WWI was to destroy the Bismarck Germany, the unconditional surrender in Versailles was all about that, WWII was the same reason and the present potential WWIII has the same reason, Japan’s economy was cut down to size during the late 80s it never completely recovered, now it is Germany’s and the EU’s turn and Russia, followed by China.
But it may NOT turn out as planed, Russia is stronger than expected and China has become an economic giant with India right behind and the Oil giants joining them. Too bad for Biden and the Kagan clan and PNAC. To destroy NATO along the way is really stupid politics and expect NATO to do the work in the Pacific against China is even more than stupid.
In the end, win or lose, Ukraine will be a pile of ashes, NATO most likely does not exist anymore, that leaves nothing to join, no NATO and no Ukraine.
Oh man, War r us and Donna Volatile will soon come in and put you in your place. They are antiwar fellas and don’t stand pro war statements like this from anybody.
The Russian MOD is fighting a very successful war of attrition disarming NATO (Ukraine was disarmed in March 2022), tank by tank, artillery by artillery, air defense by air defense. Russia now will fight NATO to the last European.
NATO overall has accumulated the following equipment losses;
406 Aircraft, 228 helicopters, 3695 UAV’s, 415 Anti Aircraft systems, 8563 tanks inc. APC’s, 1078 multiple rocket launchers, 4525 rocket launchers and 9334 military automotive equipment.
What the empire looses in the Ukraine, they loose for the final Russian attack on NATO. Remember Russia attacked Ukraine just as NATO was about to unleash in the Donbass. Russia has shown they will pre-emptively attack to defend the Motherland when the time is dictated by events on the ground.
The West’s Denial Strategy and the Surfacing Multipolar World. Authored by Phil Butler.
Should the US Remain Responsible for European Security?
Authored by Henry Kamens.
If I suggested 90 percent of Europeans don’t regard Russia as a security threat, how accurate would they regard my opinion?
The hardline Nazi’s in Kiev have again public threatened Zelenski with removal from office if he dares to negotiate with Russia. This statement was made after Zelenski indicated he might have to negotiate Crimea away to Russia for peace.
The US installed Nazi’s will not allow peace. It is not currently in the US interests to see peace in Europe. Or the middle east, the US is horrified that Iran and Saudi Arabia have negotiated an end to hostilities.
It seems that Poland and the Baltics have to choose between offering postwar security warranties toUkraine or offering security warranties to Russia. The choice should be obvious.
They aren’t going to “win” so membership is out.
In other news: the sky is still blue.
The US supports Ukraine in NATO.
Ukraine will ‘disappear’ – Medvedev
As long as others pay the USA is supporting it. Let the Europeans rebuild Ukraine when Europeans need to rebuild their economies if they can avoid conventional war on their soil. The US will give orders and cash in the profits. The Europeans too are no more than proxies to die for US interests. The USA alone caused this war and Biden/Nuland own this war. No one wanted this war more than Biden/Nuland and all the other neocons.
This is like a ‘friend’ giving you money to feed your gambling addiction.
Yet they refuse to invite you to their parties.
“…some NATO countries, including Poland and the Baltic states, want to offer Kyiv deeper ties and clear statements on its future membership. Polish President Andrzej Duda has previously said that NATO should offer Ukraine post-war security guarantees.”
Of course the Polish President would say that after Zelensky shared this:
“In the future, there will be no borders between our peoples: political, economic and, what is very important, historical. But for this you still need to win. To do this, you need to walk side by side a little more” Zelensky said. (RBC-Google translation- https://www.rbc.ru/politics/05/04/2023/642d6d3d9a7947d56840a99c)
The US cares nothing about Ukraine except for its proximity to Russia and to siphon money out of it for US business interests. I think most US leaders would say those are positives for American involvement. But whether it’s best for Ukraine isn’t the factor.
“Stoltenberg said…Ukraine must win the war against Russia and become more interoperable with the alliance to become a member. He did not offer a timeline on membership but said…interoperable is a ‘long-term’ project.”
‘Win…Interoperable’ – ie, the usual ‘as long as it takes’ forever war line, but crowned with a bit of military logistics-speak for blowing kids’ brains out to give it propriety.
Plus it’s also a revolting moral sleazebag lie because it’s misdirection – it’s a pretense that ‘interoperability’ is in any way salient to evaluating Stoltenberg’s dangerous declared goal of NATO ‘victory’ over a nuclear power.
Comments are closed.