Washington Split on the Ukraine's Nato Bid.

[Donald H]

Washington split over Ukraine’s NATO bid – Politico

Zelensky’s unexpected demand to fast-track NATO membership talks has reportedly resulted in mixed feelings in Washington

www.rt.com

There has to be both pros and cons on this question. Can we make this an opportunity for a clean adult discussion?
I'm neutral on the question, as I don't see any relevance in Nato's article 5 any longer.

It might be that it never did have any relevance?

 

[1srelluc]

Get shed of Turkey and then perhaps we can talk about it.

 

[Moonglow]

NATO stands for peace for Europe and I'd rather have them allied compared to fighting each other.

 

[pknopp]

Our agreement was no NATO for Ukraine if Russia removed it's nukes. We need to live up to that agreement. If all had from the outset we very well may not have seen this stupid wasteful war to start with.

 

[Donald H]

Our agreement was no NATO for Ukraine if Russia removed it's nukes. We need to live up to that agreement. If all had from the outset we very well may not have seen this stupid wasteful war to start with.

Yes, Russia is on the side of being in the right on the war, but the propaganda blitz was preplanned by the US and has been very effective and convincing.

But as nuclear war threatens more, there are informed minds throughout the world that will look first to covering their asses and their countries' asses as their first priority.

Of course, one of the big questions still has to be on which side will blink first?

I don't consider Zelensky's opinion or positions to be relevant as his personally, but I see them are being all that 'is' relevant when they're considered to be America's positions.

Do you have any notion of how an easy peace can be found?

I think there's progress in that Nato's article 5 is now balanced by Russia's threat on the 4 new regions being claimed as parts of Russia.

Both sides now need to take the other side seriously!

 

[Sunni Man]

For a country to join NATO there must be a unanimous Yes vote by every member.
Personally, I don't see that happening.

 

[pknopp]

For a country to join NATO there must be a unanimous Yes vote by every member.
Personally, I don't see that happening.

Especially not now. I will never understand why we didn't state from the beginning that we would abide by our previous agreements.

 

[Concerned American]

Washington split over Ukraine’s NATO bid – Politico

Zelensky’s unexpected demand to fast-track NATO membership talks has reportedly resulted in mixed feelings in Washington

www.rt.com

There has to be both pros and cons on this question. Can we make this an opportunity for a clean adult discussion?
I'm neutral on the question, as I don't see any relevance in Nato's article 5 any longer.

It might be that it never did have any relevance?

Use a source other than Russian propaganda and you might get some takers, duck.

 

[Donald H]

Especially not now. I will never understand why we didn't state from the beginning that we would abide by our previous agreements.

Sunni Man and you are hitting on the head of the nail now. There is going to be very big opposition to new Nato members being requested by America.

European Nato countries understand that the situation is very delicate and their asses could be in the wringer.

The Ukraine won't become a Nato member as long as this war continues.

Maybe after the peace is reached and the US needs a way to restore the war's continuation?

America's course is set and it's as sure as the PNAC agenda has made it cast in stone.

Edit: Washington has blinked.

 

[Concerned American]

Sunni Man and you are hitting on the head of the nail now. There is going to be very big opposition to new Nato members being requested by America.

European Nato countries understand that the situation is very delicate and their asses could be in the wringer.

The Ukraine won't become a Nato member as long as this war continues.

Maybe after the peace is reached and the US needs a way to restore the war's continuation?

America's course is set and it's as sure as the PNAC agenda has made it cast in stone.

Edit: Washington has blinked.

The Canadian commie has spoken. LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[gipper]

NATO stands for peace for Europe and I'd rather have them allied compared to fighting each other.

Peace??? Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahhaha

 

[xyz]

At the moment, there isn't much of a chance of that happening. However, there are lots of stupid things Russia can do to start WWIII, besides attacking a NATO country.

1. Using a nuclear bomb or similar weapon of mass destruction.
2. Massive bombing of a Ukrainian city. Yes, they've hit residential buildings, but not on a huge scale.
3. Bombing a nuclear power station.
4. Destroying another gas pipeline. The last one was actually in Swedish waters.
5. Invading another country, for example Georgia or Moldova. Chances of that are slim at the moment.

and a couple other scenarios

 

[Donald H]

T??? Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahhaha

Some sort of peace, even if it becomes a Sitzkreig situation in which both sides sit and glare at each other.

With Putin's latest position on the 4 contested regions being a part of Russia, a lot has changed. Putin/Russia has in effect created it's won Article 5!

I don't think Russia is bluffing but I'm always open to a good argument to say otherwise.

And fwiw, I sense much indecision on the part of America's right.

 

[gipper]

At the moment, there isn't much of a chance of that happening. However, there are lots of stupid things Russia can do to start WWIII, besides attacking a NATO country.

1. Using a nuclear bomb or similar weapon of mass destruction.
2. Massive bombing of a Ukrainian city. Yes, they've hit residential buildings, but not on a huge scale.
3. Bombing a nuclear power station.
4. Destroying another gas pipeline. The last one was actually in Swedish waters.
5. Invading another country, for example Georgia or Moldova. Chances of that are slim at the moment.

and a couple other scenarios

You think Russia destroyed their pipeline. Hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha DUPE!

 

[Donald H]

At the moment, there isn't much of a chance of that happening. However, there are lots of stupid things Russia can do to start WWIII, besides attacking a NATO country.

1. Using a nuclear bomb or similar weapon of mass destruction.
2. Massive bombing of a Ukrainian city. Yes, they've hit residential buildings, but not on a huge scale.
3. Bombing a nuclear power station.
4. Destroying another gas pipeline. The last one was actually in Swedish waters.
5. Invading another country, for example Georgia or Moldova. Chances of that are slim at the moment.

and a couple other scenarios

It's bluster and false bravado to say that Russia's use of a nuclear weapon would start WW3.

The reason being is that the scenario needs to be imagined in which a war is ended by a huge nuclear strike on Russia brings victory.

You see, that is only the beginning!

Americans must begin to think in those terms now!

I can offer you an alternative: Russia blinks and accepts defeat.

 

[alexa]

Yes, Russia is on the side of being in the right on the war, but the propaganda blitz was preplanned by the US and has been very effective and convincing.

But as nuclear war threatens more, there are informed minds throughout the world that will look first to covering their asses and their countries' asses as their first priority.

Of course, one of the big questions still has to be on which side will blink first?

I don't consider Zelensky's opinion or positions to be relevant as his personally, but I see them are being all that 'is' relevant when they're considered to be America's positions.

Do you have any notion of how an easy peace can be found?

I think there's progress in that Nato's article 5 is now balanced by Russia's threat on the 4 new regions being claimed as parts of Russia.

Both sides now need to take the other side seriously!

Nato knows that an official bringing of Ukraine into Nato at this time unless Russia is totally against nuclear war would almost certainly bring it into being.

I notice Scott Ritter is saying on Consortium News 'We are literally on the eve of destruction'. He believes that Biden and Putin need to talk and see if there is a way out.

 

[Donald H]

You think Russia destroyed their pipeline. Hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha DUPE!

It would be a very smart tactical move by Russia, if then it's followed up with denial.

 

[Donald H]

Nato knows that an official bringing of Ukraine into Nato at this time unless Russia is totally against nuclear war would almost certainly bring it into being.

Yes, and the US/Nato would be demanding that Russia abide by Nato's article 5.

I notice Scott Ritter is saying on Consortium News 'We are literally on the eve of destruction'. He believes that Biden and Putin need to talk and see if there is a way out.

Ritter would be right IMO if he's thinking in the sense of Russia throwing down the gauntlet in regards to the 4 new pieces of Russian territory.

What is currently happening in the active regions of the war?
Is there an unspoken de-escalation happening yet?

Are Nato's European members suggesting that it's time for America to blink?

 

[xyz]

It's bluster and false bravado to say that Russia's use of a nuclear weapon would start WW3.

The reason being is that the scenario needs to be imagined in which a war is ended by a huge nuclear strike on Russia brings victory.

You see, that is only the beginning!

Americans must begin to think in those terms now!

I can offer you an alternative: Russia blinks and accepts defeat.

Trying to hide what side you're on?

 

[alexa]

Yes, and the US/Nato would be demanding that Russia abide by Nato's article 5.


Ritter would be right IMO if he's thinking in the sense of Russia throwing down the gauntlet in regards to the 4 new pieces of Russian territory.

What is currently happening in the active regions of the war?
Is there an unspoken de-escalation happening yet?

Are Nato's European members suggesting that it's time for America to blink?

Perhaps. I watched the head of Nato Jens someone talking about Nato and then asking if there was any questions. He took four questions. One was on Ukraine joining Nato to which as has been reported he did not really say yes or no. The other three were on whether the US would consider softening its view given what Putin has said re Nukes. Each time he replied that he would continue to encourage Ukraine to take back the territory. Regardless the next question asked the same as did the one after that. There seems to be no concept in the west of communication of toning down the rhetoric which is what they were talking about. I think they were mainly European but not sure. It was clear they all were taking the possibility of nukes far more seriously than the head of Nato. It has been so strange watching people finding the belief that anyone would use nukes as amusing and apparently wanting to humiliate Putin and Russia which if anything will bring nukes on.