Posted on 01/04/2024 10:33:26 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
As the fighting in Ukraine continues, some representatives in Congress, primarily Republicans, oppose additional financial and military support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s ongoing invasion.
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he has reservations about continued support for Ukraine because he believes that there is inadequate oversight on how the aid is spent and sees no strategy to win. Johnson also argued that America’s border problems should take priority, a preference shared by many on the right. Congress will take up the issue again this year, but the future of American aid to Ukraine is in serious doubt.
Four decades ago, a Republican president supported a different victim of Russian aggression, in a situation similar to the one that the United States faces today. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, President Jimmy Carter offered limited aid to the Afghani resistance. But it was a Republican who championed and dramatically expanded funding for the Afghan mujahedeen during most of the nine-year effort to compel a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. That leader was the icon of the GOP, Ronald Reagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I saw your post 57 and almost saved it as the stupidest post I had ever seen on freerepublic.
Good luck with your theories and visions.
It is flawed logic.
At the time, Reagan would not have supported Ukraine for the simple reason that Ukraine, Belarus and Russia (the triumvirate of Republics at the center of the USSR) were co-sponsors of the USSR, and jointly responsible for the existence of the Warsaw Pact. The USSR existed as long as all three countries willed it to exist, and the Warsaw Pact existed as long as the USSR existed.
So the USA would never have been asked by ANY of those three countries to provide security guarantees to the USSR based on “what if we all decided to abolish the USSR?”
In fact the very idea that the Soviets would’ve begged the USA to save the USSR if its own triumvirate of countries decided to abolish the USSR is just stark raving mad, isn’t it?
Right?
However, that is also the reason why the James Baker assurances were never anything more than face-saving PR for Moscow, and why the whole bogus narrative about broken promises is so completely, utterly, intergalactically retarded.
I mean, think about it. Was there ever a day where a powerful Supreme Soviet and its President would’ve EVER said to an American team of negotiators, “Look, comrades, we reckon our USSR is going to collapse very soon and we can’t do a single thing to stop it, so actually we’re about to dismantle it. Once that happens, we won’t be able to enforce the Warsaw Pact anymore... But, can you please please pretty please with sugar on top just keep on pretending that the USSR is still a superpower with an iron grip hold over eastern Europe, and promise never to let any of those countries join your Western clubs? Oh - and can you put that promise in writing?”
Gorbachev only went as far as asking for and getting a deal from NATO to not expand into East Germany as long as the Iron Curtain remained intact elsewhere. Asking the USA for anything more than that IN WRITING would’ve spooked the heck out of the old-school die-hard Soviet enthusiasts.
The “geopolitical reality” of the USSR was as follows: Warsaw Pact countries simply cannot even approach NATO; the USSR would never allow them to do so; the USSR was definitely strong enough to make sure this could never happen.
But the preamble of the Belovezha Accords made it abundantly clear that the “geopolitical reality” of the Soviet Union was dead, over, gone.
What many in the USA don’t really understand is the significance of Russia putting that explicit statement right at the top of the Accords. It was Moscow publicly admitting that nation states’ “sovereignty” and “independence” was the new geopolitical reality, and the old geopolitical reality of “the Soviet Union will not allow it!” was already dead.
This is correct. They keep using Reagan. He was not a warmonger. Ukraine would not have happened in the first place.
Biden and the neocons wanted it to further their NWO plans.
Ukes got used and this needs to end now.
I know.
But don’t expect the people emotionally invested in defending the laundromat to ever figure it out.
“The biggest mistake we made was in not inviting Russia and the soviet breakaway republics into NATO. “
Disbanding the whole racket would have been better. But Russia into NATO would be better than the situation now.
What on earth do you mean, “how did it turn out.”
Obviously, it turned out pretty damn good. It helped bring down the Soviet Union.
Funding Bin Laden et al. in Afghanistan was a big success ?
I’d like to see failure.
Hey Ivan, you always seem to support Russia. It looks to me like you are one of those trolls posting these posts from the basement of the FSB or what ever you call the KGB nowadays,
No.
But I am not interested in the NeoCon Globohomo Regime dragging NATO into another failed war.
And understanding the mistakes and failures of the past (including by St Reagan) is part of maybe avoiding them in the future.
One of the worst things that can happen to a free country is for it’s sheepdogs to stop protecting the sheep and start protecting each other.
Gosh, that was stupid.
Tell me your positon on the issue... it works better than just calling me names. I might see value in your beliefs if I knew them.
given the problems Russia has winning against Ukraine what on earth makes you think they would go to war with NATO? The only failed war would be by Russia. Oh, but then again you think Russia is wining against us “gobohomo” what evers.
“not inviting Russia and the soviet breakaway republics into NATO.”
You don’t bring an aggressive thug into NATO, and that is just exactly what Russia is.
“...given the problems Russia has winning against Ukraine what on earth makes you think they would go to war with NATO? “
Because NATO is going to stage a (Gulf of Tonkin) provocation in order to join this war.
Like the attempted Kaliningrad blockade or the Nordstream bombing, or the Kakhovka Dam breach, or the shelling of the Zaphorizhzhia Reactor...
“Because NATO is going to stage a (Gulf of Tonkin) provocation in order to join this war.”
What a stupid statement rev wrong. Most NATO countries are rather pacifist and would not go out and start a war. That is why they live in peace with their neighbors, unlike Russia. How many NATO countries invade others. Sometimes they act as peace keepers in situations that are low key. But, as far as starting serious wars, c’mon. You have to be a Russian troll to even say something like that.
“Most NATO countries are rather pacifist and would not go out and start a war. “
That’s true for most of them. But not true for UK/USA/Poland/Lithuania who have been trying to escalate this war since mid-2022.
That is the problem when you have an Alliance of THIRTY-TWO countries.
32 countries each with an out of control Deep State that might do something on it’s own.
So now we have a alliance monster with 64 entitites, each of which might stage an Article 5 / Gulf of Tonkin incident, and drag the rest of NATO in.
d you have anything to really base this fantasy on?
Current Regime “Official Story” about the Nordstream Bombing is that it was a “rogue” Ukraine operation. And Zelensky “didn’t know”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/
I cant read the story since I do not have an account. But, supposedly from what I could tell a Ukrainian helped bomb a pipeline. I don’t see how that could be official since Zelensky didn’t know. Does not sound official to me. Especially since it was called a rogue Operation.
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.