I wish the U.S. were not in NATO, but . . .

[Seymour Flops]

. . . the U.S. is in NATO, so that is the reality we have to deal with.

Ukraine should have been admitted to NATO the same day they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia gave Ukraine "security guarantees," and then pressured them to go non-nuclear.

Now, NATO and the world know that the U.S. and the Russian guarantees were equally worthless.

Best thing for the U.S. is to stay out of Europe altogether. Like every mutual defense alliance, which is intended to prevent war, this one will sooner or later ensure that war is not contained between two countries.

But since we insist on clinging to that foolishness, we should never have made it more difficult for a non-NATO country to defend itself, while excluding that country from NATO.

 

[struth]

i agree we should withdrawal all our troops from europe after this nightmare. Trump was right to call out europe for not paying their share, and germany for undermine nato by partnering with putin

obviously europe doesn’t care…

 

[kyzr]

i agree we should withdrawal all our troops from europe after this nightmare. Trump was right to call out europe for not paying their share, and germany for undermine nato by partnering with putin

obviously europe doesn’t care…

Stay tuned, that was yesterday, today they "came to Jesus" and promised to pay up and get on-board with sanctions. We'll see if they walk the walk after talking the talk.

 

[Seymour Flops]

i agree we should withdrawal all our troops from europe after this nightmare. Trump was right to call out europe for not paying their share, and germany for undermine nato by partnering with putin

obviously europe doesn’t care…

I don't believe that western Europe gives a crap about Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.

 

[Rigby5]

. . . the U.S. is in NATO, so that is the reality we have to deal with.

Ukraine should have been admitted to NATO the same day they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia gave Ukraine "security guarantees," and then pressured them to go non-nuclear.

Now, NATO and the world know that the U.S. and the Russian guarantees were equally worthless.

Best thing for the U.S. is to stay out of Europe altogether. Like every mutual defense alliance, which is intended to prevent war, this one will sooner or later ensure that war is not contained between two countries.

But since we insist on clinging to that foolishness, we should never have made it more difficult for a non-NATO country to defend itself, while excluding that country from NATO.

Wrong.
Those nukes did not belong to NATO, but were Russian nukes that just happened to be stationed in the Ukraine.
And Russia had the right to remove them.
The Ukraine was promised integrity in return, but that was before the Ukraine started stealing oil, abusing ethic Russians, trying to join NATO and other things that violated treaties.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I wish the UN was in europe

 

[Markle]

. . . the U.S. is in NATO, so that is the reality we have to deal with.

Ukraine should have been admitted to NATO the same day they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia gave Ukraine "security guarantees," and then pressured them to go non-nuclear.

Now, NATO and the world know that the U.S. and the Russian guarantees were equally worthless.

Best thing for the U.S. is to stay out of Europe altogether. Like every mutual defense alliance, which is intended to prevent war, this one will sooner or later ensure that war is not contained between two countries.

But since we insist on clinging to that foolishness, we should never have made it more difficult for a non-NATO country to defend itself, while excluding that country from NATO.

Since the beginning of WW II, staying out of Europe was impossible. Adolph Hitler was able to reach out with his submarines and sink over 600 of our ships on the East Coast. There were ships sunk in the Gulf of Mexico with one near the mouth of the Mississippi River.

We also live in a world economy. Isolation is not an option.

Freedom isn't free and that doesn't just refer to treasure.

 

[para bellum]

Wrong.
Those nukes did not belong to NATO, but were Russian nukes that just happened to be stationed in the Ukraine.
And Russia had the right to remove them.

No, those were Soviet nukes. Along with the rest of the weapons and infrastructure of the USSR, they belonged to the country that was holding them.

There were 4 former Soviet republics that had nukes. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia. They first tried a joint control arrangement, but that didn't work for various reasons. We wanted Russia to take them all- we didn't want to have to deal with 4 nuclear countries, we wanted to deal with 1.

Kazakhstan and Belarus gave them up voluntarily, but Ukraine wanted to hang onto them. We threatened Ukraine with sanctions and offered them cash and a security agreement to give them up, which they finally did.

Most of those warheads had a service life that ended in 1997, and Russia told Ukraine that they wouldn't take anything after that. Those nukes were really more of a liability than an asset, and we spent a lot of money paying to dismantle them.

The Ukraine was promised integrity in return, but that was before the Ukraine started stealing oil, abusing ethic Russians, trying to join NATO and other things that violated treaties.

Wanting to join NATO isn't a treaty violation. In fact, there is a treaty called the Nato-Russia Founding Act that says all States have the "inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security". That was 1997.

Even if the NATO expansion was belligerent or didn't respect legitimate Russian concerns, it was still not a treaty violation.

 

[struth]

No, those were Soviet nukes. Along with the rest of the weapons and infrastructure of the USSR, they belonged to the country that was holding them.

There were 4 former Soviet republics that had nukes. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia. They first tried a joint control arrangement, but that didn't work for various reasons. We wanted Russia to take them all- we didn't want to have to deal with 4 nuclear countries, we wanted to deal with 1.

Kazakhstan and Belarus gave them up voluntarily, but Ukraine wanted to hang onto them. We threatened Ukraine with sanctions and offered them cash and a security agreement to give them up, which they finally did.

Wanting to join NATO isn't a treaty violation. In fact, there is a treaty called the Nato-Russia Founding Act that says all States have the "inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security". That was 1997.

Even if the NATO expansion was belligerent or didn't respect legitimate Russian concerns, it was still not a treaty violation.

um the country holding them was ukraine…the USSR was at the time a failed concept.

when the Roman Empire failed did italy get back their castles across europe?

 

[para bellum]

um the country holding them was ukraine…the USSR was at the time a failed concept.

Yes. The nukes became Ukrainian property when the USSR dissolved. The post I was replying to was saying they were Russian nukes and Russia had the right to claim them. That's not how it worked.

The problem for Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus was that they didn't really have control over them. The launch codes were held by the central strategic command in Russia. They tried to setup a joint command, but no one really liked it, and ultimately Russia and the US decided that it all had to go to Russia.

when the Roman Empire failed did italy get back their castles across europe?

Same principle. The bases and ports and aircraft and everything else remains. Dispose of it as they wish. Germany sold East Germany's MiG-29 fleet to Poland for $1.

 

[elektra]

sadly, since the collapse of the USSR, the Ukraine has been pretty much a corrupt mess, politically.

Not all countries are ready and able to govern themselves, hell, we are hardly a just country, with democrat leadership and or democrats in general.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

um the country holding them was ukraine…the USSR was at the time a failed concept.

when the Roman Empire failed did italy get back their castles across europe?

That's exactly the point he's making.

 

[Lakhota]