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.
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.
Moreover, Trump needs to get his numbers right, or he's very vulnerable to a point he can't refute: Overall, Europe has spent and is budgeted to spend far more supporting Ukraine than has the US. We are just ahead in the weapons category, because we had a lot more laying around.
IN GENERAL, and beyond the present, Europe (and Canada) need to meet their NATO commitments. In the current situation I'd argue all NATO countries need to immediately go to 3% minimum for defense spending. The ironic thing is, YOU would most certainly not like the result.
