I'LL ASK AGAIN: WHAT IS OUR STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE? Anyone?
I've seen neither of these DEFEND PUTIN. Last night I saw Sunni EXPLAIN some of the ideologies and principles behind the Russian state motivating them, which I believe are factually correct from years of my own observations. Russia and Putin want NO PART in the global hegemony that is Europe now (and is trying hard to include the USA with them).
BUT THAT IS NOT DEFENDING PUTIN.
Has anyone proven Sunni wrong?
Seriously, if you were Russia, would you want NATO weapons right over the border from your country?
I'LL ASK AGAIN: WHAT IS OUR STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE? Anyone?
What is it about Ukraine so important that it is worth going to world war over???
And why is no one interviewing Putin to hear HIS side of things?
Is no one remotely worried that in attacking Russia's very economy, that Biddum has dragged all of us into being potential victims to a Russian retaliation now?
Missourian stated it best that the only way to stop a war is stop it from happening. It could’ve been done by at least an attempt in negotiations with Biden’s handlers and/or a simple statement made by a NATO member that the Ukraine did not qualify for membership due to disputed territories (Crimea) Neither happened, intentionally so.
Your words: “I'LL ASK AGAIN: WHAT IS OUR STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE? Anyone?” precisely targets the “why” factor.
Now here is another question that’s deserves a full answer: What is the most important criteria for NATO membership?
Strategic location. Check out the words of NATO heads and expert analysis:
"They [NATO member states] are also looking at it in a geo-strategic context -- the context of relations with Russia and also the benefits -- if they don't admit it, that's fine, but they discuss it -- the benefits and the disadvantages of admitting one Baltic country, or two, or three," Gedmin said. "And the argument is going around in circles about -- apart from the qualifications of an individual candidate -- does it make sense if only one, according to narrow criteria, is qualified? Does it make sense strategically, only to admit one country?"
“Gedmin stressed that, in the end, NATO will admit those countries that, on balance, bring more benefits to the alliance and to regional security than they bring costs or risks. And that, he said, will be a difficult and complex decision.”
“Laity also said that settling territorial disputes with neighbors remains one of the fundamental criteria for NATO membership: "It is very clear that we do not want to import people's disputes, and we have put a high priority -- and we did with the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland -- on settling outstanding issues with their neighbors. And it is very, very important that countries recognize that this is something we look at very carefully, and we do expect them to sort out disputes with neighbors."
“But analyst Gedmin pointed out that NATO in the past did give priority to geostrategic considerations and did admit countries with both border problems and insufficiently consolidated democracies, such as Turkey.”
Read the following source for pertinent information.
NATO candidate countries are stepping up efforts to fulfill admission criteria in the runup to the alliance's summit later this year in Prague, when new members are expected to be invited to join the bloc. Each candidate state must meet military, political, economic, and legal requirements that...
www.rferl.org
