Zelensky's post on X: NATO is the most cost-effective option for preventing another war

X ^ | Feb 23 | Z-Man

[RandFan]

@ZelenskyyUa

NATO is the most cost-effective option for preventing another war. It is the simplest and most logical solution.

If Ukraine does not join NATO, we will have to create NATO within Ukraine, which means maintaining an army strong enough to repel aggression, financing it, producing and storing enough of our own weapons, and negotiating with our partners about their participation to deter Russia from starting another war.

That’s why we are talking about a comprehensive system of security guarantees—military, economic, and political. We need to weigh everything—what is cheaper, what is more realistic, and what can be done faster.

I am grateful to everyone who supports Ukraine in our work toward real security.

[Kazan]

If conservatives believe that we are safer with NATO in disarray and even with America withdrawn, then you must believe that America is safer in an isolated, defensive posture that in no way preserves its existence except by nuclear deterrence or, God forbid, nuclear war.

You're either posting propaganda or you're totally clueless about the real threat to this country -- the globalist elite that did everything they could to provoke this war and that, stupidly, wanted a proxy war with Russia.

It was our aggression and NATO's that caused this war.

We fomented an illegal coup in Ukraine and installed a government hostile to both Moscow and the ethnic Russian population in Ukraine. We, after promising Russia no eastward expansion of NATO, trained, funded and armed a 600,000 man army on its border. Then, we teased NATO membership for Ukraine.

There is NO chance we'd tolerate Russia or China doing something similar in Mexico.

The idea NATO is a defense organization is laughable. It's become as expansionist as the old Soviet Union.

And, the end result was pushing Russia into an alliance with China that is grave threat to our national security.

We were closer to WW III and nuclear war because of it all than we ever were during the Cold War.

The greedy globalist elite, which includes NATO, is the gravest threat to national security and world peace.

[vpintheak]

Sure… as soon as Europeans begin paying their proper amount; America should stay out of it altogether.

[ConservativeMind]

The original plan for NATO, as I recall, was for the US to leave it, decades ago.

The fact that we haven’t has allowed crazy countries like Germany to pursue climate and immigration policies that are pure nonsense. Instead, Germany has virtually never kept up with their required defense spending (NATO contract).

Germany and all the EU and England have had the US military welfare cover them, making them irresponsible and lazy.

The US is not here to save Europe from itself a third time.

The US leaving NATO would be a wholesome endeavor.

[nathanbedford]

the end result was pushing Russia into an alliance with China that is grave threat to our national security.

I quite agree, this war has pushed Russia into an alliance with China and that is a grave threat to our national security. From that I conclude that Russia is a grave threat to our national security. Therefore, we need NATO to defend against Russia.

It was our aggression and NATO's that caused this war.

Let's see, at the time of the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it was not Russia's invasion of Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea that "caused" this war, it was Ukraine's defense of its territory that had been conquered and occupied by Russia. It was Ukraine's seeking protection in NATO from Russia's already existing on the ground aggression that caused the war.

An interesting use of the word "aggression" to describe American efforts to persuade the people of Ukraine to align with the West and the use of the word "expansionist" to describe the old Soviet Union. The former was by way of persuasion at best and subversion at worst but the way of the Soviet Union, and Russia under Pugin today is the way of murder and war.

There is NO chance we'd tolerate Russia or China doing something similar in Mexico.

But we did tolerate short of war Russia doing something similar in Cuba. We did not invade Cuba merely quarantined the island and opened negotiations.

The idea NATO is a defense organization is laughable. It's become as expansionist as the old Soviet Union.

We have already considered how "expansionist" the old Soviet Union was and how we in NATO committed "aggression." All of the expansion of NATO was done on a voluntary basis by reasonably democratic nations that were scared to death of Russia and, prudently reacting to Russia's recent "expansions," remain terrified. The idea that Latvia, alone, could defend itself against Russia is absurd but it is not absurd to predict that Russia would take Latvia if it could-according to the stated desire of Putin concerning the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine. NATO deters.

We were closer to WW III and nuclear war because of it all than we ever were during the Cold War.

In my initial post I outlined how close we came to nuclear annihilation during the Cold War and I submit that we are nowhere near as close today. Whatever the risk today, and I do not for a moment think it should be dismissed or minimized, the question becomes whether it is better to confront the risk with deterrence or appeasement?

If you suggest that there is a third way, namely diplomacy, I would agree but that does not imply doing away with NATO, quite the contrary, though it might imply reforming NATO so that it is a credible deterrence to aid diplomacy.

The greedy globalist elite, which includes NATO, is the gravest threat to national security and world peace.

Surely you cannot exclude China with its belt and Road and Russia with its excursions into Africa and Syria from that group of globalists. So who exactly are the "elite" that represents such a grave threat if not Russia and China?

You say that reading globalists includes NATO but I fail to see how much greed is attached to NATO in forking over more money for the war in Ukraine than did the United States-despite Trump's misleading comments to the contrary.

Which globalists are we talking about? Nothing is penetrating my aluminum foil helmet. Globalists who want world trade and do not want it threatened by the breakup of NATO? American Globalists who want to trade with Russia and China at almost any cost to national security? Please tell me, who these dirty, rotten globalists are.

If as you say in alliance an alliance of Russia with China is a grave threat to our national security, are you not playing the role of a globalists who wants global trade continue?

I'm not trying to be cute with this banter, I am saying that there are two sides to every one of these issues but we have to be careful about broad conspiracy based theories when it comes to formulating foreign policy. I concede that withdrawing to fortress America is certainly not a globalists approach but it is one of the stupidest things we can do for national survival.