Posted on 07/10/2024 6:23:39 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Ukraine is on an “irreversible” path to NATO membership, the 32 members of the alliance affirmed in a joint communique released Wednesday on the second day of the summit being held in Washington.
Allies had negotiated for months over what language would be published in the joint communique, but discussions on specific words — including “irreversible” — had continued in D.C. throughout the first days of the summit.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If we keep putzing around in Ukraine we won't be able to stop the Chicoms in Taiwan. Ukraine is of no strategic importance but Taiwan is our Semiconductor factory. We offshored all our top level semiconductor manufacturing to them.
If Ukraine completely falls to Russia guess what we save money. We won't have to rebuild Ukraine with American tax dollars. That will be Russia's problem. Life will go on in the USA as if nothing ever happened.
Lose Taiwan to the Chicoms our Economy will be in the toilet. Lives will be lost because we won't be able to replace technology need to run hospitals. It won't be a pretty sight.
Russia would go back to pre-war borders if they knew Ukraine would honestly stay neutral and that NATO and the war-mongers would back off attempting to get so close to Moscow.
The US would do the same as Russia if an Axis power attempted to get that close to Washington, DC.
Given what just happened in UK and France our allies are no longer our allies.
War with Russia has been a staple of the left since Obama was president.
Remember his BS “red lines” in Syria?
I’ve never considered you smug Romney types to be conservative anything...your neo-liberals and always have been.
This is the stupidest idea I have seen in a long time.
There is no better way to ensure Russia fights on and refuses any peace agreement.
“NATO: Ukraine on ‘irreversible’ path to membership”
I should have caught on sooner, but now it’s OBVIOUS to me that the reason for these constant statements is to keep Ukraine fighting through our election, since piles of dead Ukrainians is of little or no political cost in the US, but being thrown flat on our faces by Putin BEFORE the election will absolutely DESTROY the Democrats (and funny how some here don’t want that to happen...hmmm).
*If Ukraine completely falls to Russia guess what we save money. We won’t have to rebuild Ukraine with American tax dollars. That will be Russia’s problem. Life will go on in the USA as if nothing ever happened.*
Never thought of that. Congrats.
The only parts of Ukraine that will be part of NATO are the parts absorbed into Poland, Romania or Hungary.
*Lose Taiwan to the Chicoms our Economy will be in the toilet. Lives will be lost because we won’t be able to replace technology need to run hospitals. It won’t be a pretty sight.*
Taiwan-more difficult. Asians are crazy. Just look at the Japanese in WW2.
*We won’t have to rebuild Ukraine with American tax dollars. That will be Russia’s problem.*
There’s more. Rebuilding Ukraine should be a European problem right?
Palestine is an Arab problem-wrong?
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled NATO: Ukraine on ‘irreversible’ path to membership, Freest Republican wrote: Another irreversible path is President Trump is going to win and abandoning Ukraine is not going to be part of his legacy.
Eventually MAGA oil will impoverish Iran/Russia back to broke fleas on the rear end of civilization and end all war.
A gap is going to exist.He already said that Ukraine’s survival was important to us.
Even if he didn’t say that, he is not the type of guy that walks away from a fight.
The already rickety, barely staying on the rails off most of the time, commie KGB stooge patrol is headed for a train wreck.
I believe Trump made the assertion that the Ukraine's survival is important to highlight the fact that NATO doesn't care about the survival of Ukrainians. NATO won't spend its own money, and refuses to end the dying by negotiating. Trump says, "Why does the US care more than you do?" That isn't an endorsement for the actions of Zelensky or NATO - in fact it's the opposite. Trump is against NATO and Zelensky, and the corruption in the Ukraine.
Trump said he would end the war and if he were president, it never would have started, which means he's against NATO and Ukraine's engagement in 'irreversable NATO membership,' the overthrow of the Ukraine by the CIA, NATO's equipping and positioning of the Ukraine to provoke this proxy war, and Zelensky's/NATO's refusal to negotiate. Trump has also said that 'you want to help the Ukrainian people, but the country is among the most corrupt in the world.' The US recently said the Ukraine is not ready for NATO membership because it is too corrupt. So cherry picking 'Trump said Ukraine is important' doesn't endorse NATO's proxy war and the Ukraine's participation.
Trump would not have used the CIA to overthrow the Ukraine in the first place - which is the genesis of this war. Trump confirms (see below) the US was behind the Maidan Uprising ('revolution') in the Ukraine (2013/2014).
CIA's Nuland is on tape planning US coup in the Ukraine (see below).
Many FReepers seem unaware that our CIA helped overthrow Ukrainian leadership in preparation for NATO to weaponize the Ukraine and intentionally provoke Putin's national security concerns.
2 days after the CIA's overthrow of the Ukraine began, Putin annexed part of the Crimea. Ukraine's apologists always act there's no provocation, no reason at all, which provoked Russia to respond. If China overthrew Mexico and installed weapons and built an army there, the US would 'object', just as Russia objects to NATO's intentions to force regime change in Russia.
In 2010, the Ukraine's "parliament passed a law banning Ukraine from joining any military bloc, effectively banning it from entering NATO though maintaining opportunities for cooperation. According to a poll conducted by Pew Research Center the fall before, just over half of Ukrainians disapproved of NATO and the idea Ukraine might try to join, while just 28% approved." source
ransomnote: Since the Ukraine moved to prevent NATO membership, the US CIA overthrew the Ukrainian government (start of that 'revolution' was February 18, 2014). With (CIA) help, NATO was now in control of the Ukraine, Russia responded by annexing part of Crimea Feb 20, 2014 – Mar 21, 2014.
Two monthls later in May, two more reagions of the Crimea voted for independence to escape NATO's overthrow of the Ukraine, at which point NATO/CIA controlled Western Ukraine began shelling Eastern Ukraine. Nobody likes to talk about Eastern Ukraine shelling western Ukraine; they prefer to repeatedly claim Russia acted without reason and will attack other nations at will once it wins the war in the Ukraine. Those people simply have no objection to the government of the Ukraine shelling its own citizens.
Trump would force negotiations and end the war - that will be his legacy.
Then their plan is working.
Wrong.
You all are looking at this in far too shallow a manner.
NATO is only a threat to Moscow in that NATO gets in the way of Russian expansionism and Moscow’s response to the real threats to Russia that can damage it.
First and most important is the cultural threat. The under 40’s in particular, in Ukraine, have been swinging more and more pro-West. The cultural side of that is very dangerous to Russia, or should I say WAS very dangerous to Russia, because of the formerly many close ties between the two countries. Unless rejected violently (see: radical Islam), Western culture, both its good and bad points, can be very -— invasive. Certainly the usual Russian leadership tradition, centuries old, cannot survive in a heavily “Westernized” culture.
Second is resource control. Russia does not need Ukraine’s mineral, petroleum, and other natural resources. But, for example, cheap Ukrainian petroleum products over the next 20 years or so could be extremely difficult competition for Russia. Russia would do almost anything to keep those resources off the market and / or control them.
Oh, boy. You miss the fundamental reason behind NATO’s structure, with the US as the biggest muscle:
Even Europe for the most part understands its history, and what happens if it is well armed. Only THIS next go round, if it happened, with the US faded away, would be with nukes.
Don’t you think the European countries should be paying more? Why are we the one paying for their defense and then they treat us poorly in business and so forth. They are not war ravaged countries like early on. They are just as financially fit as we are, probably better as they’ve been using the money diverted from defense into social programs and infrastructure.
To accomplish that they'll have to kill off or run off most of the Ukies under 40 or so.
Isn't that a good definition of "genocide"?
Yes, but they’ll be even stronger in support of Ukraine.
Nonsense statements, right from the start. Euro countries have forked over far more money in support of Ukraine than has the US, and they are in a worse position to do so.
yep
Strong Delusion will come in the Last Days and it comes, surprisingly, from God, not from the Devil.
I submit some part of it, an early version, may have already started.
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.
