The old paleo-conservative Buchanan is 100% right in his assessment. He tactfully doesn't mention the fact that Biden&Son Crime Family, Inc. have long-established crooked financial dealings in Ukraine and are most likely being blackmailed about all the details - which I personally believe are more shocking than any of us know - to be released.Friday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “NATO never promised not to admit new members; it could not and would not.”
But this is nonsense. There is no requirement that the U.S. admit to NATO any or all nations that apply for admission.
For whatever reasons we choose, we can veto any applicant. And avoiding war with Russia might constitute one of those reasons.
With NATO’s continuous post-Cold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe, America has to ask: If the risk of war with Russia grows with each new member on its borders admitted to NATO, why are we doing this? Is there no red line of Putin’s Russia we will not cross?
Do we believe Putin will indefinitely accept the encirclement and containment of his country by nations united in an alliance created to keep Russia surrounded?
Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan disagreed often but did agree on this: U.S.-NATO war guarantees stopped at the Elbe. Beyond the river in Germany, we battled the USSR with weapons of diplomacy, politics and economics, not weapons of war.
How would we have reacted if, after losing the Cold War, we were treated to Russian warships on Lake Ontario and Moscow giving Canada war guarantees?
I've thought of the same scenario as Buchanan brings up. Just consider the mirror image of this situation and what our response would rightfully be.
Say that Canada disintegrated; Ontario and Quebec became independent countries and were invited by Russia, et al, to establish WATO - Western Atlantic Treaty Organization. Furthermore, Russia would arm Ontario with "defensive" ballistic missiles which could be re-armed to attack Chicago, New York, Washington, DC- pretty much anywhere in the region. If Ontario had been bribing the Russian president for the past 10 years or so, they would have leverage on him.
So the US might call up 100,000 troops along the border (the Great Lakes wouldn't be very helpful in this scenario but they'd be akin to the Black Sea in what's actually happening) and demand that Ontario and Quebec not join WATO. Russian diplomats would be spouting nonsense that the whole situation was being sparked by the US' "offensive actions" and hawkish idiots in Russia (being prodded by their neo-cons and military-industrial complex) would be instigating that Russia defend Ontario.
Would the US just simply stand by and allow itself to be strategically weakened? Consider the incredible logistics that Russia would have to overcome to defend Ontario - pretty much the same as us joining a Ukrainian fight. How likely would it be that kinetic action could quickly escalate to the canned sunshine scenario?
Now back to reality, so the situation as it presently is - the clown show in DC has got to come to its senses and quit spouting this "This is all Russia's fault" crap, but the real risk is that Biden's crimes will be aired out by Ukraine in response to them not being "defended". So the choice is nukes vs. truth when it comes down to it. And I don't have a lot of confidence in truth coming out on top with Bai-Den at the helm.
Ask yourself this. In what possible way is Ukraine strategically important to the US, or for that matter, Europe? The EU is already having to financially subsidize recently-joined EU/NATO members like Bulgaria. How in the world did we allow an invitation to an already-bankrupt Ukraine to join NATO to even see the light of day?
Last edited: