It is awfully long.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The end of NATO?
- Thread starter Waveoff
- Start date
Imagine being Lyndsey Graham...it's hard. Good pushback here.
Helluva staw-man there Griz. Not sure, without looking back through 50+ pages, that you're running into too many ardent Biden apologists here. Lots to criticize his administration for WRT the topic at hand (timeliness and volume of support circa 2022). Lots to criticize his administration for in other arenas as well, but "well, he was bad too," is a rather sophomoric response when the electorate was and has been told that this (define this as one wishes) is a better alternative.
An opinion piece from Kyiv, worth reading. Former foreign minister.
www.nytimes.com
Europeans understand, as the Trump administration appears not to, that Ukraine wants a peace deal — it just doesn’t want to end up destroyed by the peace terms. The obsession of Mr. Putin is all of Ukraine, nothing less. It is neither NATO nor a strip of Ukrainian land. If Ukraine is still independent and armed by the end of negotiations, Mr. Putin will not see that as the end. He will settle for a piece of Ukraine today only to come for the whole tomorrow.
If it were about NATO, then Mr. Putin would not have so meekly accepted Sweden and Finland’s accession in 2023. Today, NATO’s frontier is closer to St. Petersburg than Ukraine’s border is to Moscow.
Nor is the point to retain the roughly 20 percent of territory that Russia has managed to wrest from Ukraine so far in this war. Mr. Putin cannot tolerate an independent Ukraine because for the last 300 years almost none of his predecessors could. And because if Ukraine is successful as a democratic, Western democracy, it will pose a direct threat to the Russian people’s acceptance of Mr. Putin’s autocratic model.
Opinion | Ukraine Is Europe’s War Now
Ukraine wants a peace deal — it just doesn’t want to end up destroyed by peace’s terms.
Europeans understand, as the Trump administration appears not to, that Ukraine wants a peace deal — it just doesn’t want to end up destroyed by the peace terms. The obsession of Mr. Putin is all of Ukraine, nothing less. It is neither NATO nor a strip of Ukrainian land. If Ukraine is still independent and armed by the end of negotiations, Mr. Putin will not see that as the end. He will settle for a piece of Ukraine today only to come for the whole tomorrow.
If it were about NATO, then Mr. Putin would not have so meekly accepted Sweden and Finland’s accession in 2023. Today, NATO’s frontier is closer to St. Petersburg than Ukraine’s border is to Moscow.
Nor is the point to retain the roughly 20 percent of territory that Russia has managed to wrest from Ukraine so far in this war. Mr. Putin cannot tolerate an independent Ukraine because for the last 300 years almost none of his predecessors could. And because if Ukraine is successful as a democratic, Western democracy, it will pose a direct threat to the Russian people’s acceptance of Mr. Putin’s autocratic model.
Either you don’t know what a straw-man means or you lack reading comprehension. I recommend you carefully read the first sentence, to the end, and think a moment about what it actually says.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The key thing is that the staffers and secretaries that run his administration have read it, so the ideas contained within are being pitched to Trump and he generally finds them palatable.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
He's right on the Russian perspective... but if Zelenskyy were willing to do a genuine peace settlement that ceded some territory in the East in return for security guarantees for sovereignty, this would have already been negotiated with the previous Presidential administration.An opinion piece from Kyiv, worth reading. Former foreign minister.
Opinion | Ukraine Is Europe’s War Now
Ukraine wants a peace deal — it just doesn’t want to end up destroyed by peace’s terms.
Europeans understand, as the Trump administration appears not to, that Ukraine wants a peace deal — it just doesn’t want to end up destroyed by the peace terms. The obsession of Mr. Putin is all of Ukraine, nothing less. It is neither NATO nor a strip of Ukrainian land. If Ukraine is still independent and armed by the end of negotiations, Mr. Putin will not see that as the end. He will settle for a piece of Ukraine today only to come for the whole tomorrow.
If it were about NATO, then Mr. Putin would not have so meekly accepted Sweden and Finland’s accession in 2023. Today, NATO’s frontier is closer to St. Petersburg than Ukraine’s border is to Moscow.
Nor is the point to retain the roughly 20 percent of territory that Russia has managed to wrest from Ukraine so far in this war. Mr. Putin cannot tolerate an independent Ukraine because for the last 300 years almost none of his predecessors could. And because if Ukraine is successful as a democratic, Western democracy, it will pose a direct threat to the Russian people’s acceptance of Mr. Putin’s autocratic model.
This is not an indictment of Zelensky - I can't imagine any American president who would make those concessions if we had a domestic war over captured territory by a foreign aggressor.
Another interesting read.
www.theguardian.com
Is Europe misunderstanding Trump on Ukraine? | Stephen Wertheim
The new administration appears to be taking a position that Ukrainian and European leaders aren’t hearing — or are trying to alter
Good read.Another interesting read.
Is Europe misunderstanding Trump on Ukraine? | Stephen Wertheim
The new administration appears to be taking a position that Ukrainian and European leaders aren’t hearing — or are trying to alter
I have mentioned Michael Lind in the past, he has an interesting perspective grounded in history and realpolitik.
The roots of Trump’s realpolitik
unherd.com
Now that China is viewed as America’s greatest strategic rival, an American strategy of seeking to pry Beijing and Moscow apart, if possible, is only to be expected.
Good article that takes a quick stroll through history. I especially like the quote by Col. House.Good read.
I have mentioned Michael Lind in the past, he has an interesting perspective grounded in history and realpolitik.
The roots of Trump’s realpolitik
Now that China is viewed as America’s greatest strategic rival, an American strategy of seeking to pry Beijing and Moscow apart, if possible, is only to be expected.
The interesting part…Russia imagines it will be a “sphere of influence” in a great power world, but it won’t - especially if the EU arms up and gets serious about defense. Russia’s economy is far weaker and smaller than the EU and is principally a single source economy…petroleum.
Zooinks scoob
We’ll see how Europe acts now
We’ll see how Europe acts now
“President Trump has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well.”
Imagine for a second if any country in Europe said that to Bush after we were attacked on 9/11. “Just stop fighting it’s so obvious.” But no, NATO enacted Article V immediately and we lead a massive multi-national offensive.
Churchill said “if you’re going through hell, keep going.” But it’s no the official stance of the USA that Ukraine should go through their hell without us.
Imagine for a second if any country in Europe said that to Bush after we were attacked on 9/11. “Just stop fighting it’s so obvious.” But no, NATO enacted Article V immediately and we lead a massive multi-national offensive.
Churchill said “if you’re going through hell, keep going.” But it’s no the official stance of the USA that Ukraine should go through their hell without us.
Let's work with the second sentence, the one that mentions policy decisions? Is that fair game, or should we take a pedantic approach to it as well?
Was Churchill also directly funding the Nazis? Because that’s exactly what the Europeans are doing right now. They’ve spent more money importing Russian energy than they’ve given to Ukraine the last three years. Some commitment. If Europe isn’t taking it seriously why should the US?
Is the argument really that we should only do the right thing if everyone else is going to do it?