He should have stepped down 3 years ago
What is the difference in terms? A label? NATO terms but not quite NATO?
Because if the war continues, Zelensky will probably be assassinated by Ukrainian citizens, and if the war stops, he’ll be assassinated by azov remnants.
President Zelensky:
We’re not going to defend your country during the current Russian invasion, but if there’s another Russian invasion, we’ll come running, armed to the teeth.
Honest, cross our hearts and hope to die.
President Trump, Prime Minister Starmer, President Macron
************
Probably a more realistic thing to do is to have the US pay 27% of the salaries of Ukrainian military, the EU to pay 27% too, the UK to pay 6%, up to $12 billion a year, and up to $200 billion in total.
This would permit Ukraine to retain its battle-hardened fighters in its military and give Ukraine the financial flexibility to prepare against future Russian threats.
“The Anglo-French Guarantee of Polish Independence, March 31, 1939”
“Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power....”
[The whole document is not at the webpage]
https://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=53B1Z1YSCNHVFSR
“Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland, August 25, 1939.”
“ARTICLE I.
Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.
ARTICLE 2.
(1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces....”
Note the limitation: “any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties”
insane
we should not be involved after ending this proxy war.
Steve Witkoff told CNN it was agreed at the Alaska summit that the US and Europe could "effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee", referring to Nato's principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all.
NATO Artcle 5
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
Article 5The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Article 5 provides no guarantee of military action by anybody. It provides that each member nation will take such action as it deems necessary, and that may, or may not, include armed attack.