Zelensky slams Americans who don't want to give more to Ukraine

The Biden administration just promised another $10 billion in economic aid to Ukraine, bringing the to-date sum up around $200 billion, with more likely to roll out in the coming months. But for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenksy, that's just not enough, and he has harsh words for Americans who'd like to keep their tax dollars here at home as opposed to using them to line Ukraine's war chest. The one year anniversary of Russia's invasion of their neighbor Ukraine fell this week.

"I would like to thank the American people," Zelensky began, in his sweatshirt emblazoned with a small Ukranian flag, "I would like to thank all of the American people who are supporting Ukraine. The Congress, the president, the TV channels, the journalists, and everyone that has been supporting us.

What an absurd bunch we have here.

Zelenskyy is not threatening us. Does he say or even imply anything Ukraine could or would do to us?

Am I threatening you if I advise you that you’d better turn your wheels and set the parking brake if you park on a slope? Am I threatening you if I warn you of the consequences of inadequate construction in an earthquake prone area?

Truth is, Zelenskyy’s words fail to fully advise the danger. Our own officials use phrases like “breakdown of global security structure”, without ever really explaining what that means. Well, here it is, less the negative economic consequences involved as things evolve:

I advise you do some serious study of Europe, past and present. Beneath that thin veneer of NATO cooperation, cooperation, cooperation, as most absurdly expressed by Olaf Scholz, to the point of gross inefficiency, the real glue that holds the NATO security guarantee together is the USA. If the USA pukes out here, Article 5 isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, no matter how much Joe Biden huffs and puffs. It’s already in serious doubt. The Poles know this, look at the US political landscape (who comes after Biden?), and are arming to the teeth. My goodness, they ordered more HIMARS (500!) than the entire US stock. Just for starters.

With the US discredited, Russia will be able to fracture NATO further*, and then you are basically back to Europe prior to WW1, except now there are these things called nukes. Welcome to the most dangerous place on the planet. It may not matter if Russia (or the US) instigate anything or not.

*Not so far back, I’d have thought, like Trump, that Europe could / would simply band together. But the more I study Europe... that’s just wish-casting. Maybe with another generation of solid security and no real threats, the centuries of rifts and back and forth would finally fade for good. But smaller countries still resent German dominance. Germany fears encirclement by the Poles and Central Europeans. France is, well, France. Hungary is off in it’s own orbit. Most of the EU thinks the Italians are going full fascist. (Not true - I like Maroni — but perceptions count a lot.) Russia is on a revanchist warpath. Without a strong US to hold things together and act as an arms stockpile...

In the Pacific, the SE Asian nations’ arms race with China punches the accelerator. But, would S. Koreans die for Japan? (Are you kidding?) Would Japanese die for Vietnam? And so on. So, again the only “safety” is in nukes: everybody who can (not that difficult) nukes up.
This is a lesser risk than Europe, but still considerable. And we know where the winds go.

Then we have the ME, again with the US in a diminished role. Iran gets it’s nukes and SA buys some from Pak or pacts with them. Israel beefs up further and Turkey will join in too (also ties in with Europe). With time, others follow. This one is a guaranteed eventual blow-up. The only question is how big and how much it spreads.

Now, in any given potential confrontation (many still unforeseen), one can argue fear of MAD still holds. (An argument that holds little water with pro-Russians in the present confrontation!) But, even if fear of mutual destruction seems most likely to prevail, that likelihood gets multiplied by the number of potential conflicts. So (way oversimplifying), let’s say MAD logic holds the odds at 92% chance on average of nukes NOT actually being eventually used by someone, and pick a low number of countries with nukes. Say, 30. The odds of nukes not being used are then 0.92^30. The risk of an exchange going global is lower, but still considerable.

If you want something to REALLY “half mother” about, you’ve got it. Sorry if you don’t like the advice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.