Posted on 07/18/2018 1:44:10 PM PDT by MountainWalker
If we're going to be serious about treaty commitments, then we have to be serious about all treaty commitments -- the commitments where there's an actual invasion going on that legally requires US action, now, and not just those more-fun-to-chat-about hypothetical future invasions.
Which are safer to discuss politically, of course, because no US troops are currently demanded for the cause.
In the meantime, the unchastened neocons choose to selectively forget that the United States made security guarantees to Ukraine, promising to protect it in case of Russian invasion, and we have chosen to ignore those obligations.
And I don't hear the neocons squawking much about that. Because, to honor those obligations would require immediate US entry into a war against Russia, which would be incredibly unpopular.
So instead they jerk themselves off about fantasy future hypotheticals about Montenegro.
How about talking about the obligations we're currently in default of honoring, neocons?
---
The US asked Ukraine to give up its huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that we would protect their independence and territorial integrity from Russian interference or invasion.
Russia has interfered and has, for all practical purposes, invaded.
So why aren't the neocons demanding a declaration of war against Russia?
Oh, for the usual reasons. They're not serious people. They like talking tough but they understand that their prescriptions are wildly unpopular, so they don't really push very hard for much action; they mostly just play the weakling's favorite game talking the toughest without actually trying to get into a fight.
---
Which other countries are we not willing to sacrifice the last non-DC-resident-life for? Any others? Or is it just Ukraine?
More: How About Turkey? Are We Willing to Really Go to War on Behalf of the Islamist Country and NATO Member Turkey?
(Excerpt) Read more at acecomments.mu.nu ...
How many American lives is Ukraine worth?
Ace always has has extremely long headlines - truncated as best as I could.
“The British people and Parliament were never asked their opinion (or consent) about going to war; they were just told that they were in it.“
But why would the British people have a role in such a decision? That’s not their system.
Wait a minute.
I’d give a pass to former eastern block nations.
They know what it’s like to be under Russian domination. If they don’t want that, they have every right to seek out the arms and alliances to prevent that.
I agree that if NATO or the EU promised Russia they wouldn’t move the Eastern nations under their umbrella... They shouldn’t.
However, national sovereignty allows a nation, even ones who formally belong to the Warsaw Pact, to decide their own foreign policy. They might get bit by the bear if they poke, but they do not owe him perpetual ass kissing.
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.