Posted on 03/03/2025 8:27:37 AM PST by davikkm
For months, the talk has been about weapons, aid, and financial support. Now, NATO countries are openly discussing sending troops into Ukraine, bypassing the U.S. in the process. If that happens, and Russia responds? Article 5 gets invoked. Suddenly, it’s not just Ukraine’s war anymore—it’s World War 3.
British PM Keir Starmer has already announced that the UK is preparing to put boots on the ground. This isn’t speculation—it’s happening. Western troops are about to be thrown into the fight, and no one is stopping to ask if this is a good idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenwatchreport.com ...
BTTT
Umm, the war has already started. Remember that Russia violated international law and its treaty with Ukraine.
Uh, I don’t believe Article V promises mutual aid when you occupy a non-NATO country to take offensive action against a third party.
This morning I saw a pie chart showing a pie chart with the segments indicating the percentage each country pays. USA was over 70%.
We just need to excuse ourselves forever, and let the remaining -30% stew in their own juice.
NATO is talking about sending troops to Ukraine—this is how world wars start
—
Recent world wars started through appeasement ( deals made in willful ignorance, arrogance ), bad foreign policy, and misunderstandings. Not through sending troops into an on-going war.
The US is batting 3 for 3 so far.
Yes, no one has said anything like that.
Firstt alex jones and now this guy are outright lying.
Without US troops, I’m guessing not even peacekeeping forces are put into Ukraine
I’d be surprised if all of these European nations could collectively come up with 100,000 military personnel to staff a global “Toys for Tots” campaign for three days.
I saw a pie chart showing a pie chart
—
Pie charts, bastions of accuracy, made by anonymous people are always truthful and accurate.
> ...peacekeeping troops... Oxymoron, isn’t it? <
Yep. Starmer has certainly not thought this thing through. I suspect that he’s doing all this to keep up the pretense that the UK is still a great power whose actions matter.
But here’s the thing. Starmer talked about using British troops as part of a peacekeeping force, once a peace treaty is in place. The article makes it sound as if he wants British troops to be immediately used as a combat force.
The article is deliberately misleading. Just to get clicks, I suppose.
NATO is dangerous. I’m thinking we need to gtf out.
Idiots.
Yes. Mutual defense, not offense. Besides, my understanding is that the US already told the Europeans we’re not going to recognize Art 5 if they on their own put people in harm’s way.
If the US isn’t talking about sending in troops, then NATO isn’t talking about sending in troops. Anything else is click-bait.
...and I don’t think the US is talking that way.
“Europe conducted two suicidal wars in the 20th century.
The third time will be their final downfall.
Am glad we won’t be part of this one. Thank God for Donald Trump.”
Do you really think the US would not be impacted if a nuclear war broke out over Ukraine? And you have to know, with these European idiots in charge, it would go nuclear. That is “why” Trump is trying to avoid it, at all costs.
Actually, the invasion that prompted NATO to respond is what starts the world wars.
My understanding is that Article 5 if not enacted if NATO countries’ soldiers are killed in Ukraine, and if the offense happens from any involved country, even their defense is potentially on them.
Send in UN soldiers to do what they do so well in so many countries.
The U.S. could block NATO intervention in Ukraine by vetoing it in the NAC, withholding its significant financial and military contributions, and even threatening to withdraw from the alliance. Given NATO’s reliance on U.S. resources, such actions would effectively prevent a NATO-led mission in Ukraine.
> The U.S. could block NATO intervention in Ukraine by vetoing it… <
As I mentioned elsewhere, the article is misleading. And I suspect deliberately so. NATO is not considering sending combat troops to Ukraine.
A NATO country (the UK) is talking about sending peacekeeping troops, once a peace treaty has been signed.
As others have noted, that can be dangerous business. But it’s a far cry from what the article is implying.
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.