Ukraine in NATO

[TexasTiger 13,003]

I’ve strongly supported Ukraine in their defense of their nation against Russia. That said, I don’t support them joining NATO any year soon. They’ve got a long way to go to be a strong democracy. I’ll support those efforts, too. But for the foreseeable future they’re a tinder box and having our defense tied integrally to theirs seems most unwise. And while I respect Zelensky, his rhetoric against supporting countries not acceding to his every demand is growing thin.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/zelensky-slams-nato-over-no-clear-path-to-membership-despite-biden-unity-pitch/ar-AA1dIIsX

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The only reason for not bringing Ukraine into NATO now is,,, direct conflict with Russia and, what that would mean in terms of provoking a nuclear holocaust. 

[TexasTiger 13,003]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

The only reason for not bringing Ukraine into NATO now is,,, direct conflict with Russia and, what that would mean in terms of provoking a nuclear holocaust. 

Not the only reason— their governmental systems are not on par with most members— but a damn good one by itself.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

We sure did a good job of not expanding NATO '1 inch to the east' as we promised Russia in the 90's.

Reverse roles for a second. Pretend Russia is largely spearheading a giant multi country anti US coalition of countries that surround us, with Nukes right on our doorstep. And they're trying to recruit Mexico to join. They have a history of meddling in Mexico and being VERY involved in Mexican politics, even to the point that they've influenced who became president (reference the Victoria Nuland "**** the EU" phone call where she discusses who to put in as the new Ukranian president in 2014). I think we would be very much against that. To the point we might make a rash decision that could spark a very costly war. 

That's not a defense of Russia or its actions. But if you can't empathize with the position of your enemy, you can't really have peace. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by KansasTiger

[GoAU 1,600]

Stunned to say it, but agree with Biden on this one - now isn’t the time to even consider them joining NATO.  

[AU9377 5,026]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

We sure did a good job of not expanding NATO '1 inch to the east' as we promised Russia in the 90's.

Reverse roles for a second. Pretend Russia is largely spearheading a giant multi country anti US coalition of countries that surround us, with Nukes right on our doorstep. And they're trying to recruit Mexico to join. They have a history of meddling in Mexico and being VERY involved in Mexican politics, even to the point that they've influenced who became president (reference the Victoria Nuland "**** the EU" phone call where she discusses who to put in as the new Ukranian president in 2014). I think we would be very much against that. To the point we might make a rash decision that could spark a very costly war. 

That's not a defense of Russia or its actions. But if you can't empathize with the position of your enemy, you can't really have peace. 

Now is not the time for their membership in NATO.  I agree with that. 

There really is no excuse for Russia's invasion and the destruction and deaths that have resulted.  Their lies about needing to invade to remove Nazi influences makes it even more ridiculous.  I understand the comparison you make with Mexico, but I don't believe that our response would be some sort of invasion. 

Russia has achieved with their invasion the very thing they claimed to wanted to prevent.  The only good thing to come from this so far is that we can all see how weak the Russian military actually is and how unstable Putin can quickly become inside Russia. 

[KansasTiger 3,254]

33 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Now is not the time for their membership in NATO.  I agree with that. 

There really is no excuse for Russia's invasion and the destruction and deaths that have resulted.  Their lies about needing to invade to remove Nazi influences makes it even more ridiculous.  I understand the comparison you make with Mexico, but I don't believe that our response would be some sort of invasion. 

Russia has achieved with their invasion the very thing they claimed to wanted to prevent.  The only good thing to come from this so far is that we can all see how weak the Russian military actually is and how unstable Putin can quickly become inside Russia. 

Maybe. Maybe not. It's not like we have a history of invading or taking unilateral military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and probably a few I forgot. No they weren't all 'invasions'. And SOME had coalition efforts for whatever thats worth, but many did not. We don't have much high ground for saying what we would or wouldn't do militarily if we were in that position. We've carried out military action for less urgent reasons.

And thats not to mention many of our covert military ops closer to home.

Edited July 11, 2023 by KansasTiger

[auburnatl1 5,013]

Besides finalizing the war in Ukraine, Russia needs to be left alone and just fade away. Their economy is now the size of Brazil’s, their population is literally decreasing, and their military (because of economy and corruption) is a ghost of what it was. McCain was right - Russia is basically a gas station with nukes. 

Strategically, China is the ball.  

[TexasTiger 13,003]

49 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Besides finalizing the war in Ukraine, Russia needs to be left alone and just fade away. Their economy is now the size of Brazil’s, their population is literally decreasing, and their military (because of economy and corruption) is a ghost of what it was. McCain was right - Russia is basically a gas station with nukes. 

Strategically, China is the ball.  

Fade away with nukes?

[AU9377 5,026]

14 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Maybe. Maybe not. It's not like we have a history of invading or taking unilateral military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and probably a few I forgot. No they weren't all 'invasions'. And SOME had coalition efforts for whatever thats worth, but many did not. We don't have much high ground for saying what we would or wouldn't do militarily if we were in that position. We've carried out military action for less urgent reasons.

And thats not to mention many of our covert military ops closer to home.

No argument here.  Iraq was a monumental waste of American lives and money.

[AU9377 5,026]

14 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Besides finalizing the war in Ukraine, Russia needs to be left alone and just fade away. Their economy is now the size of Brazil’s, their population is literally decreasing, and their military (because of economy and corruption) is a ghost of what it was. McCain was right - Russia is basically a gas station with nukes. 

Strategically, China is the ball.  

If we can get some coordinated effort between American corporate enterprise and the government without it reaching the point of it having to be a forced cooperation, we can effectively use economic pressure to influence Chinese policy.  Without that joint effort, China understands the weak underbelly of America's elected government and how to manipulate things to their advantage.

Americans, overall, are spoiled and unwilling to sacrifice until forced to do so.

[CoffeeTiger 5,166]

17 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

We sure did a good job of not expanding NATO '1 inch to the east' as we promised Russia in the 90's.

 

Did we promise that? What official document or treaty did the West violate by moving westward? 

The fact is that there does not exist any written treaty, agreement, or promise by the US or Europe to not expand NATO Westward. Whether a diplomat ever verbally promised that is debated (even Gorbachev himself says the issue of NATO expansion into other countries was never brought up) , but if it was an important issue for the Soviets, then why did they not require it to be in the actual written agreements they signed? 

And how serious and legally binding is the violation of a verbal 'promise' that nobody can really agree was ever even made? 

 

It's in fact Russia who has repeatedly violated written treaties it made with Ukraine and the West guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and territorial sovereignty in order for Ukraine to give its nuclear arsenal over to Russia.  

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[AUApostle 7,651]

Ukraine War is a money laundering scheme…was needed after the Afghanistan money laundering effort was wrapped up.  The Rs and Ds love war.  I wonder when the last time we fought (or by proxy in this case) a necessary war was?

[auburnatl1 5,013]

5 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

Ukraine War is a money laundering scheme…was needed after the Afghanistan money laundering effort was wrapped up.  The Rs and Ds love war.  I wonder when the last time we fought (or by proxy in this case) a necessary war was?

There are undoubtedly corporations making money with this  (and all wars). But I’m not sure Putin called Raytheon and Boeing to pull this one together. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

23 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I’ve strongly supported Ukraine in their defense of their nation against Russia. That said, I don’t support them joining NATO any year soon. They’ve got a long way to go to be a strong democracy. I’ll support those efforts, too. But for the foreseeable future they’re a tinder box and having our defense tied integrally to theirs seems most unwise. And while I respect Zelensky, his rhetoric against supporting countries not acceding to his every demand is growing thin.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/zelensky-slams-nato-over-no-clear-path-to-membership-despite-biden-unity-pitch/ar-AA1dIIsX

I think that Zelensky's calculus is correct...even if Ukraine repels Russia this time, it won't be the end of it.  They'll just lick their wounds, rebuild better, learn new tactics, and gear up for another go at it ten years from now or so.  The only thing that would stop them from doing so would be if Ukraine is in NATO before the next time happens.

So obviously we can't admit them right now and instantaneously rope all of NATO into armed combat with Russia.  But a few years from now once this invasion is done, absolutely.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

19 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

We sure did a good job of not expanding NATO '1 inch to the east' as we promised Russia in the 90's.

Reverse roles for a second. Pretend Russia is largely spearheading a giant multi country anti US coalition of countries that surround us, with Nukes right on our doorstep. And they're trying to recruit Mexico to join. They have a history of meddling in Mexico and being VERY involved in Mexican politics, even to the point that they've influenced who became president (reference the Victoria Nuland "**** the EU" phone call where she discusses who to put in as the new Ukranian president in 2014). I think we would be very much against that. To the point we might make a rash decision that could spark a very costly war. 

That's not a defense of Russia or its actions. But if you can't empathize with the position of your enemy, you can't really have peace. 

The difference is, the US/NATO have demonstrated zero interest in empire building or invading Russian territory.  NATO has always been about one thing - preventing the USSR/Russia from expanding further into Europe and the West.  Russia on the other hand has demonstrated the exact opposite - a voracious desire for more territory and power.  

Russia using NATO as some bogeyman for them being invaded is hogwash and everyone knows it, including Putin himself.  The only reason NATO expands is because countries closer to Russia know the fox is drooling outside the henhouse.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

36 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

Ukraine War is a money laundering scheme…was needed after the Afghanistan money laundering effort was wrapped up.  The Rs and Ds love war.  I wonder when the last time we fought (or by proxy in this case) a necessary war was?

It's a noble but futile effort you're undertaking. 

[TexasTiger 13,003]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think that Zelensky's calculus is correct...even if Ukraine repels Russia this time, it won't be the end of it.  They'll just lick their wounds, rebuild better, learn new tactics, and gear up for another go at it ten years from now or so.  The only thing that would stop them from doing so would be if Ukraine is in NATO before the next time happens.

So obviously we can't admit them right now and instantaneously rope all of NATO into armed combat with Russia.  But a few years from now once this invasion is done, absolutely.

“Absolutely?” Any conditions/requirements?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Absolutely?” Any conditions/requirements?

Sure.  Ukraine would be incentivized to make some changes that make sense for NATO.  But I think you absolutely get it done if you don't want a repeat of this same s*** in another decade.

[AUApostle 7,651]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Sure.  Ukraine would be incentivized to make some changes that make sense for NATO.  But I think you absolutely get it done if you don't want a repeat of this same s*** in another decade.

They do want a repeat of this…over and over and over….how is that not clear?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

3 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

They do want a repeat of this…over and over and over….how is that not clear?

ok

[TexasTiger 13,003]

12 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

They do want a repeat of this…over and over and over….how is that not clear?

Put down the pipe.

[AU9377 5,026]

15 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

They do want a repeat of this…over and over and over….how is that not clear?

In what world do people want their infrastructure destroyed, their sons and husbands killed in combat and their resources stolen by their neighboring country that is ruled by an autocrat with little regard for human life?  Youtube world?

[KansasTiger 3,254]

[icanthearyou 4,463]

29 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

They do want a repeat of this…over and over and over….how is that not clear?

The demonization of "communism" serves many purposes.  Capitalism is our religion.  We will crusade.