Posted on 02/01/2022 5:33:35 AM PST by Kaslin
Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine a cause worth America's fighting a war with Russia?
No, it is not. And this is why President Joe Biden has declared that the U.S. will not become militarily involved should Russia invade Ukraine.
Biden is saying that, no matter our sentiments, our vital interests dictate staying out of a Russia-Ukraine war.
But why then does Secretary of State Antony Blinken continue to insist there is an "open door" for Ukraine to NATO membership -- when that would require us to do what U.S. vital interests dictate we not do: fight a war with Russia for Ukraine?
NATO's "open door policy" is based on Article 10, which declares that NATO members, "may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State ... to accede to this Treaty."
Moreover, membership is open to "any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area."
Note that NATO admission requires "unanimous" consent of all 30 present members.
Blinken has often stated this as U.S. policy: "From our perspective, NATO's door is open and remains open, and that is our commitment."
What Blinken is saying is this: While America will not fight for Ukraine today, America remains open to Ukraine's accession to NATO, in which event we would have to fight for Ukraine tomorrow, were it attacked by Russia.
What the U.S. needs to do is to say with clarity that while Ukraine is free to apply to NATO, NATO is free to veto that application, and the enlargement of NATO beyond its present eastern frontiers is over, done.
In this crisis, we need to recall how and why NATO was created.
In 1949, the year China fell to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin exploded an atom bomb, we formed NATO as a defensive alliance to prevent a Russian drive west, from the Elbe to the Rhine to the Channel.
Of the original 12 members of NATO, the U.S. and Canada were on the western side of the Atlantic. Iceland and the U.K. were islands in the Atlantic. France and Portugal were on the Atlantic's eastern shore.
Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were astride the avenue of attack the Red Army would have to take to reach the Channel.
Norway was the lone original NATO nation that shared a border with the USSR itself. Italy was the 12th member.
Clearly, this was a defensive alliance to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe such as Hitler had executed in the spring of 1940, when Nazi Germany overran Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France, and threw the British off the continent at Dunkirk.
Nations that joined NATO during the Cold War were Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982.
But, with the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the overthrow of Soviet Communism, and the breakup of the USSR into 15 nations by 1991, NATO, its goal -- the defense of Central and Western Europe -- achieved, its job done, did not go out of business.
Instead, NATO added 14 new members and moved almost 1,000 miles east, into Russia's front yard and then onto Russia's front porch.
The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became NATO nations in 2004. Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020.
Understandably, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked himself: To what end, and for what beneficent purpose, was this doubling in size of an alliance that was formed to contain us, and, if necessary, fight a war against Mother Russia?
Alliances, which involve war guarantees, commitments to fight in defense of the allied nations, invariably carry costs and risks as well as rewards and benefits in terms of strengthened security.
But when we brought Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO, what benefits in added strength did we receive to justify the provocation this would be to Russia, and the risk it might entail if Moscow objected and, one fine day, walked back into these Baltic states?
If we will not fight for the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the second largest nation in Europe with a population of over 40 million people, why would we go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia, a tiny and almost indefensible nation with a population of 1.3 million?
Besides Ukraine, two nations have been considering membership in NATO: Finland and Georgia. Accession of either would put NATO on yet another border of Russia, with the usual U.S. bases and forces.
While this would enrage Russia, how would it make us stronger?
Perhaps, instead of adding new nations on whose behalf we will go to war with a great power like Russia, we consider reducing the roster of NATO and restricting the number of nations for whom we must fight to those nations that are vital to our security and bring added strength to the alliance.
Required. If we don’t help control them, someone else will.
Didn’t WW1 start largely because of alliances rather than a good reason to go to war?
Useless money pit like the UN
“Useless money pit like the UN”
Exactly. Right after WWII the MIC started banging the drum for money using the communist scare to do it. How did I know covid could get out of control and the people would allow the government to do the craziest things? The Cold War taught me that.
Damn straight.
We went downhill when the US choose Neocon Bush over Buchanan.
He is far too old now and in some ways (as you can see with the current administration) the US is sinking into the quagmire of socialism and might be a terminal case.
NATO wasn’t created to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. It was created to protect Europe from Germany, and to give the U.S. an excuse to have a permanent military presence in all of these member countries.
Heck — the USSR even wanted to join NATO back in its early days.
Corrupt U.S. and European politicians: we have to protect Democracy in Ukraine [even though oligarchs run the country]!
This is while they arm some very shady groups fighting in Syria and vote to arm corrupt Petro-dictatorships in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc, that repress democracy in their countries.
The Western socialists and neocons use NATO as a vehicle to advance their globalist dreams. NATO only weakens and debilitates the American nation by draining its treasure and blood. NATO is a huge liability for the American people. Its members can only draw them into war and would never aid America if it were truly in need.
Is NATO a strategic asset?
Right after WW II: Yes, it was.
By 1955: Maybe.
Now: No.
NATO agreed to not have unending expansion in Eastern Europe but that is what has occurred. NATO held war games in the Black Sea/Ukraine last year, and Crimea voted to join Russia.
The legally elected president of Ukraine was toppled in a coup in 2014 which was not opposed by the Obama administration (some saying it was funded by it) but was funded by sources outside of Ukraine.
Biden bungled and fled the frying pan of Afghanistan and now goes into the fire of Ukraine?
Biden won’t protect the U.S. southern border but wants to protect Ukraine’s border.
Ukraine isn’t a part of NATO and the U.S. isn’t obligated to defend it.
This would be quagmire 2.0. The U.S. spent $4 trillion in Bush’s Iraq War followed by Obama/Biden’s military interventionism wars in Syria, Yemen, NATO bombing Libya with the U.S. “leading from behind” (per Obama’s own words) over unproven allegations that Gadaffi was going to kill 10k of his own citizens, erc.
If the keyboard warriors are gung-ho to fight in Ukraine then they can parachute in instead of arguing for the U.S. to get involved in a war that’s not the problem of the U.S.
Buchanan arguing to turn over eastern Europe to Putin for the good of the US. What could possibly be the result?
Don't forget that Viet Nam, Korea, Middle East were all UN sanctioned wars. UN and Nato are deep state.
NATO was set up to counter the power of the USSR.
The USSR ceased to exist decades ago.
Today’s Russia has an economy a little larger than Italy... they are NOT a threat to the combined power of the following countries:
Albania (2009)
Belgium (1949)
Bulgaria (2004)
Canada (1949)
Croatia (2009)
Czech Republic (1999)
Denmark (1949)
Estonia (2004)
France (1949)
Germany (1955)
Greece (1952)
Hungary (1999)
Iceland (1949)
Italy (1949)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Luxembourg (1949)
Montenegro (2017)
Netherlands (1949)
North Macedonia (2020)
Norway (1949)
Poland (1999)
Portugal (1949)
Romania (2004)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)
Spain (1982)
Turkey (1952)
United Kingdom (1949)
United States (1949)
But the illusion Russia is a serious threat (outside their nuclear weapons) has damaged the sensibilities of the world’s free countries and is weakening our security. “Enemies” are moving targets... in today’s world ‘unified corrupt elites’ are one threat and China’s another...
Buchannon is old news and a bit of a dingbat. I read, “the death of the west”. Great book. Great research and facts. Many excellent conclusions. Completely wrong on this.
He’s a Chamberlain, wrapped in the flag.
When the Russian Bear stops invading countries and taking land, I’ll stop wishing for Russians to die.
*raises hand*
Liability.
LOL! Russians are on the march around the world.
In the meantime, let's list some of the DC neocons and Obama's globalist achievements
- promoted the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt. Nearly caused a genocide of Christian Copts - Turned Libya into a failed state. Opened the immigration floodgates to Europe - started a war in Syria using Islamist proxies. created the greatest refugee flow in Europe since WWII - Conducted coup in Ukraine in 2014, launching present war - Created BLM in America, as his political brownshirts, to bring race-based woke chaos to America's politics - weaponized American intelligence community to spy on political opponents - Biden carrying on his neocon wars, failed in Afghanistan
You keep chasing the Russian bogeyman. But America will be gone when you get back from your fantasy.
If the US becomes militarily involved in Ukraine, it opens the door for nuclear war. I keep thinking of the movie The Day After. Once a nuke is launched, there is no stopping the escalation.
"Threads" made The Day After look like a comedy.
“When the Russian Bear stops invading countries and taking land, I’ll stop wishing for Russians to die.”
Yep. Yep. Yep.
I don’t support war with Russia. But I support providing Ukraine with all the arms they need and then some. Let the Ukrainians fight for their freedom. In Afghanistan, the people didn’t want to fight the Taliban. So they have to live under the Taliban. Ukrainians get to decide if they want to live under the Russians or fight the Russians. If they fight, we supply arms.
The anti-NATO folks (Kaslin) have to ask themselves. Why do most of Russia’s neighbors hate Russia and want to join NATO?
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.