Certain people in this comments section will be most displeased.
For myself, I wish we had taken the opportunity in the '90s to bring Russia into NATO, but that ship has sailed, and Putin has thrown in his lot with Beijing. An understandable choice from his perspective, but one that places him at odds with us.
My question is whether the NATO nations are willing to commit the resources necessary to arm the Ukrainians and rearm themselves for the decade or so necessary to do so.
NATO isn't going to last a "decade or so" at the rate WESTERN European economies are cratering (kiss your "rearming" goodbye) and their populations are Islamizing (and "the enemy" is under, um, redefinition). And where exactly are "fronts" and "flanks" when the enemy is within?
Even by the most pessimistic projections, the "Islamization" of Western Europe will take more than a decade--in no country do even non-Europeans as a whole, much less the Islamic ones, come even close to being even 20% of the population.
Again, you're missing something. You need to look at WHERE Islamic immigrants congregate. Sweden is a good example. Very low numbers overall, but in the city of Malmo, they are a majority and have taken over the political apparatus. You won't find Muslims in farming villages, so an immigrant population of say, 5%-10% overall, but concentrated in just a few major cities, makes all the difference. See Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan for the details. Same story all over WESTERN Europe.
Oh please. Michigan went for Trump in 2016 and 2024, Gretchen Whitmer is definitely left-of-center but is not anti-Israel, there are 7 GOP and 6 Democratic reps in the House for the state, and while Democrats control the state Senate Republicans control the state House. And this, by the way, is after Michigan voted Democrat for decades.
About the only point of evidence in your favor is Rashida Tlaib, and Detroit, like most blue cities, elected weird crackpots for decades before the "Islamic hordes" came along.
Sorry, I'm not the one who leaned too far out over my skis here. Maybe get information from somewhere other than ragebait websites.
Mark Steyn, who, 20 years ago in "America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It" warned of the demographic destruction of the West we can now clearly see all around us, is back from a coma(!) and reprises and updates his analysis as well as answering listener questions. It was recorded beginning 3pm EDT 7/8/26 and is well worth your time (about an hour).
But, Islam is also actively growing in Russia. Driven by higher birth rates in indigenous Muslim-majority regions (such as Chechnya and Dagestan) and steady immigration from Central Asian countries, the country's Muslim population of roughly 15 to 20 million is projected to account for nearly a third of Russia's total population by around 2050.
If they could rebuild Grozny from the rubble, there's no stopping the Muslims in that part of the world. The takeover couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
I don't think Russia, even just after the USSR collapse, would have joined NATO. The Russian psyche and the West are too far apart. A non-aggression treaty perhaps would have worked, but not admittance to NATO. As for the NATO nations strategy, it would appear they have been committed to forcing Russia into a forever war to bleed it dry, rather than giving Ukraine enough of the needed weapons for a decisive victory. At this point, whichever side does get "victory" will have to content itself with a Pyrrhic victory. Both countries will be rebuilding whatever they have for decades.
Rather, I wish that *we* had *left* NATO. Put up a nice "Mission Accomplished" banner after the fall of the Soviet Union, hand the keys to NATO to Europe, and tell them not to drink and drive or get their girlfriend pregnant in the back seat. Then... just stop being a part of that.
Yes, I realize that's an even more ridiculous fantasy that would have never happened.
I don't think it would have. I suspect that a fair part of the reason Russia got so heated over Ukraine is roughly analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis. If we weren't a part of NATO any longer, I doubt they would have cared nearly as much about NATO inviting Ukraine in. If that even happened. I kind of doubt that the EU would have taken good care and maintenance of it. And it would have placed *us* on far better footing to actually *focus* on China.
IMO, of course, and obviously, historical counterfactuals are always speculative.
So i guess my question is if winning is existential for Putin and he starts actually loosing at what point does he decide he dosent have anything to lose and simply uses a couple dozen nukes in Ukraine and that ends it. Sure the rest of the world would be rather unhappy but they are unlikely to go to war with russia over it
It might be existential for Putin, but not for Russia.
I could see the order to fire the nukes being followed by a series of gunshots, then "Dmitri, call the Americans, tell them we're under new management and willing to talk."
Quite possible, but it only takes one to make the point and there are enough solid patriotic Russian soldiers to obey.
Like Navy ships who at one time had Marines aboard to ensure a strike went out by force of arms. If some members of the crew objected to an end of the world scenario. It was called Surety.
Trump tends to double down on bad decisions. We shall see if he swings in Ukraine’s favor, or continue to kiss Putin’s . . . ring, and flail at a non-sensical goal of taking Greenland.
"President Trump said he supported Ukraine striking *targets deep inside Russian territory*, calling it an escalation that could help end the war." [my emphasis]
Given that Putin "actual" seems to be the major obstacle to a settlement, I wonder if that tacitly implies that decapitating strikes are on the menu?
I think Putin would accept a restriction on NATO. Maybe promise no entry for Ukraine and restricted US troops near their border. If we are retreating anyway maybe we can get something for it.
As I recall from periodic trips to the school "bomb shelter" (raw concrete, minimal lighting, low space where taller kids had to crawl in to sit), EVERYWHERE was either a "target" or treated like one, at least in the early 1960s.
That is true, but sitting on the deck of a Navy ship in the Med and watching a Bear Bomber come in at high speed, low drag, low altitude knowing there is a AS-4 nuclear missile that it can carry makes one think about what happens when or if the balloon goes up.
I tend to think of the cold war as 50s to 70s primarily, perhaps 80s, but until the 90s, Ukraine was part of the CCCP. The men that I knew that were alive when things started heating up in 2014 saw it as largely an internal issue.
This isn't very helpful, but I would suggest asking Victoria Nuland, The Atlantic Council, The ISW, maybe The Council on Foreign relations, Ben Rhoades, Samantha Powers, Crazy Fiona, all those well credentialed midwits, what we should do and DO THE OPPOSITE.
I am surprised Russia hasn't been more decisive in capturing Western Donetsk. Maybe Putin thinks another couple of years of grinding will get him what he wants and the risk of internal upheaval is minimal.
We're looking at years more of grinding the IRGC down until something snaps. So who knows?
We have strategic interests in Europe on cultural, diplomatic, economic and defense bases that we do not have in Botswana or anywhere else in Africa (or indeed most of the world). Moreover, the NATO treaty really is a big deal as it forms part of the US Constitution (see Article VI).
Jeebers. Every clusterfumble we have gotten into in my lifetime seem to have been based on our "strategic interests". What, precisely, are these "strategic interests" ?
NATO as it stands today is nothing but welfare for the EU. Which feeds their "socialism".
Since NATO and the US are actually responsible for the aggravations that prodded russia into attacking ukraine some thought should be given to actually bring russia into the world economy. Eliminating the threat. We in the US need to focus on putting the commi dsa down.
Cultural: Western Civilization (literature, arts and sciences), shared languages, shared history, shared heritages, shared religions. The very idea of a modern nation state was born in Europe, as well as the concept of individual liberty and the philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Most of the US, and indeed North America, was built by people from, or descended from, Europeans.
Diplomatic: numerous treaties, trade agreements, etc.
Defense: Beyond the NATO Treaty, we have other agreements with European. And I posit forward defense is better than fighting any enemy in the US.
The word bases is the plural of the word basis here, but the bases are important to. Isolationism did not work in the 1930s and will not work now. You may take no interest in the world, but the world may well take an interest in you.
Article VI United States Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Reread this part: “… and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States … .” The NATO Treaty was ratified by the US Senate July 25, 1949.
The monsters, some named Putin but most not, are there whether you wish it or not.
That’s nonsense. The treaty is at best Federal law and utterly at the discretion of our President not to condign to oblige and completely abrogate at will. The precedents exist and the courts already have declined to interfere. This President alone has abrogated the TPP trade accords, the Paris Climate accords and the Iran Deal- just off the top of my head. The text of Article VI of course refers specifically only to treaties made under the Confederation (The Articles of Confederation) as being honored. We may of course and often do remind others of our sovereignty and European nations should do the same.
None of those went to the Senate for ratification and certainly form no part of the Constitution or Federal Law. The NATO Treaty is different because it was ratified by the Senate. Moreover, the Confederation is referred to only with respect to debts, not treaties. If you cannot see the differences I am highlighting that is really sad.
We are not bound to foreigners or their *agents*, nor to the UN and SCOTUS has ruled on this repeatedly. BTW are you American? You show considerable cheek on this matter. It’s difficult to tell. If you are an American you may want to declare with FARA, and given the inability to read the American room return the money. Good evening.
Define "strategic interest". How is having cultural commonalities, or any of the things you mention, a "strategic interest" of the US?
"Isolationism did not work in the 1930s..."
Our so-called "isolationism" is a myth propagated by those who think the US should stick its nose into every nook and cranny in the world. To paraphrase, "not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without the US having a strategic interest in the outcome ."
That’s neither justification for nuclear war nor correct Constitutional law as SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly. NATO is at best Federal Law and we are sworn to one nation only.
Ukraine looks poised to retake Crimea which might be a better goal than Donbas at this point. Getting Putin out of Transnistria and Crimea would be a feasible trade in the long run for Ukraine.
The bottom line appears to be that as long as Ukraine's people; i.e. the average Ukrainian on the street -- not necessarily just Ukraine's current leadership -- clearly have the will and the determination to resist the Russian invasion, President Trump will not abandon them at the negotiating table.
Which means the war will continue indefinitely, lasting as long, or longer, than the Vietnam War did.
If Putin and his leadership cabal won't negotiate, they have the choice of either letting this war slog on near endlessly, or else to fully mobilize the Russian nation and then pay whatever price in human and material casualties must be paid in order to achieve a clear victory.
Reported elsewhere by David Axe, "[on the order of a half dozen] Ukrainian [FP-1 (ER)] drones motored more than 2,500 km on Monday to strike, for the first time, a refinery in Omsk in western Russia. It was one of the deepest Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian soil in the 53 months since Russia widened its war on Ukraine. The Omsk refinery is one of the 11 biggest refineries in Russia. The *daytime* [my emphasis] drone raid damaged two distillation units at the sprawling facility that process a combined 50,000 tons of oil every day. On Tuesday, the Omsk facility suspended sales on the Saint Petersburg International Mercantile Exchange."
Ukraine's FP-1 (ER) has a range of 3,400km (1,835nm). That puts a whole new batch of targets in the crosshairs.
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
Apparently there’s a lot of that going around. Russia for instance has many weapons that can range America. 6000 nuclear weapons for instance. However George Washington was speaking of interests in particular those that have nothing to do with America’s. He wasn’t playing a wargame, George Washington never played video games either, he did however understand war.
The trap that Ukraine is bait for and NATO the snare ~ Europeans are reduced to petty ruiners of their own and wish to ensnare us 🇺🇸 in their ruin. The Third Act of their self destruction, the Third World War taking Russia with us. Then the Death Cult that is the EU , the Jonestown of the Left will have balance. Mutti Merkel didn’t just open Europe’s borders to the southern dregs, the EU set a trap for us all at Minsk. The answer is NO.
Europe can kill itself without our help. Grow a spine at last and stop trying to drag us all down, do it yourself.
To paraphrase Bismarck, Europe is not worth the bones of Florida Man. US involvement in WWI and II was justified at the time on the grounds that the fate of Europe would determine the fate of the world. No one could make a comparable argument today. The loss of empire and industry makes Europe irrelevant. No point risking nuclear annihilation to rule over a vast welfare sink that has received the surplus population of the Global South. If the US longs for world-improvement/adventure there is an abundance of opportunity in Latin America, Canada, the Caribbean. Plenty of people there are tired of cartels and oligarchs and are potential allies.
“Putin cannot compromise and is not inclined to compromise. Anything but victory is a death sentence for him personally and the entire structure that supports him. He knows it. His grip on power is firm, but brittle.”
Indeed as Putin is a man riding a tiger, a very hungry tiger. As long as he stays in control, all is well, but if he loses control, he will be devoured, as will his family and supporters. Victory, or something he can sell as that, is essential, especially after the huge losses in people, equipment and resources Russia has suffered.
The West has seemed content 'til now to exhort Ukraine to do more, but while keeping the needed weapons to a less than ideal pace for them to do so. This seems to follow the old strategy of slowly bleeding your primary enemy by having them continually conduct war on their boundary.
Certain people in this comments section will be most displeased.
For myself, I wish we had taken the opportunity in the '90s to bring Russia into NATO, but that ship has sailed, and Putin has thrown in his lot with Beijing. An understandable choice from his perspective, but one that places him at odds with us.
My question is whether the NATO nations are willing to commit the resources necessary to arm the Ukrainians and rearm themselves for the decade or so necessary to do so.
NATO isn't going to last a "decade or so" at the rate WESTERN European economies are cratering (kiss your "rearming" goodbye) and their populations are Islamizing (and "the enemy" is under, um, redefinition). And where exactly are "fronts" and "flanks" when the enemy is within?
Even by the most pessimistic projections, the "Islamization" of Western Europe will take more than a decade--in no country do even non-Europeans as a whole, much less the Islamic ones, come even close to being even 20% of the population.
I smell motivated reasoning.
Again, you're missing something. You need to look at WHERE Islamic immigrants congregate. Sweden is a good example. Very low numbers overall, but in the city of Malmo, they are a majority and have taken over the political apparatus. You won't find Muslims in farming villages, so an immigrant population of say, 5%-10% overall, but concentrated in just a few major cities, makes all the difference. See Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan for the details. Same story all over WESTERN Europe.
Yes, let's look at Dearborn and Hamtramck. Have those cities been affected? Certainly.
However, there is no sign that Michigan politics have been significantly affected at all.
Now you're just making a fool of yourself.
Oh please. Michigan went for Trump in 2016 and 2024, Gretchen Whitmer is definitely left-of-center but is not anti-Israel, there are 7 GOP and 6 Democratic reps in the House for the state, and while Democrats control the state Senate Republicans control the state House. And this, by the way, is after Michigan voted Democrat for decades.
About the only point of evidence in your favor is Rashida Tlaib, and Detroit, like most blue cities, elected weird crackpots for decades before the "Islamic hordes" came along.
Sorry, I'm not the one who leaned too far out over my skis here. Maybe get information from somewhere other than ragebait websites.
have a look at the current population stats in London itself.
Another "motivated reasoner"? They're coming out of the woodwork...
Mark Steyn, who, 20 years ago in "America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It" warned of the demographic destruction of the West we can now clearly see all around us, is back from a coma(!) and reprises and updates his analysis as well as answering listener questions. It was recorded beginning 3pm EDT 7/8/26 and is well worth your time (about an hour).
https://www.steynonline.com/16299/that-demography
But, Islam is also actively growing in Russia. Driven by higher birth rates in indigenous Muslim-majority regions (such as Chechnya and Dagestan) and steady immigration from Central Asian countries, the country's Muslim population of roughly 15 to 20 million is projected to account for nearly a third of Russia's total population by around 2050.
If they could rebuild Grozny from the rubble, there's no stopping the Muslims in that part of the world. The takeover couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
I don't think Russia, even just after the USSR collapse, would have joined NATO. The Russian psyche and the West are too far apart. A non-aggression treaty perhaps would have worked, but not admittance to NATO. As for the NATO nations strategy, it would appear they have been committed to forcing Russia into a forever war to bleed it dry, rather than giving Ukraine enough of the needed weapons for a decisive victory. At this point, whichever side does get "victory" will have to content itself with a Pyrrhic victory. Both countries will be rebuilding whatever they have for decades.
Admitting Russia into NATO would have caused the collapse of the military industrial complex, which is why it didn't happen.
This👆
And yet they did try and Clinton slapped away the hand.
I'm no fan of Clinton, but I've read he was initially open to discussion of the idea, and CIA and/or State immediately noped it.
I can see as credible. The same may have happened with Bush 43.
Rather, I wish that *we* had *left* NATO. Put up a nice "Mission Accomplished" banner after the fall of the Soviet Union, hand the keys to NATO to Europe, and tell them not to drink and drive or get their girlfriend pregnant in the back seat. Then... just stop being a part of that.
Yes, I realize that's an even more ridiculous fantasy that would have never happened.
I'm a fan of NATO, mostly because I would rather not the current World War duology become a trilogy.
I don't think it would have. I suspect that a fair part of the reason Russia got so heated over Ukraine is roughly analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis. If we weren't a part of NATO any longer, I doubt they would have cared nearly as much about NATO inviting Ukraine in. If that even happened. I kind of doubt that the EU would have taken good care and maintenance of it. And it would have placed *us* on far better footing to actually *focus* on China.
IMO, of course, and obviously, historical counterfactuals are always speculative.
So i guess my question is if winning is existential for Putin and he starts actually loosing at what point does he decide he dosent have anything to lose and simply uses a couple dozen nukes in Ukraine and that ends it. Sure the rest of the world would be rather unhappy but they are unlikely to go to war with russia over it
It might be existential for Putin, but not for Russia.
I could see the order to fire the nukes being followed by a series of gunshots, then "Dmitri, call the Americans, tell them we're under new management and willing to talk."
Quite possible, but it only takes one to make the point and there are enough solid patriotic Russian soldiers to obey.
Like Navy ships who at one time had Marines aboard to ensure a strike went out by force of arms. If some members of the crew objected to an end of the world scenario. It was called Surety.
I have little doubt that among the rank and file of the Russian military there would be many who would launch if ordered.
I am less than convinced that the order would actually reach them.
Aye, there is that and a good point as well.
Oh? That’s one big casual bet.
As is the idea that this is all Putin and not about Russia. Well it’s about Russia to the Russians.
That’s an obvious question that the Schoolteacher applying pain can’t answer.
We surely have some Mk50s ready for refit we could give Ukraine. A little reprogramming, and just the thing for crippling Russian tankers.
"Massive missile and drone attack kills 6 and injures almost a dozen."
This one's got plenty of air left in the tires...
Trump tends to double down on bad decisions. We shall see if he swings in Ukraine’s favor, or continue to kiss Putin’s . . . ring, and flail at a non-sensical goal of taking Greenland.
"President Trump said he supported Ukraine striking *targets deep inside Russian territory*, calling it an escalation that could help end the war." [my emphasis]
Given that Putin "actual" seems to be the major obstacle to a settlement, I wonder if that tacitly implies that decapitating strikes are on the menu?
I think Putin would accept a restriction on NATO. Maybe promise no entry for Ukraine and restricted US troops near their border. If we are retreating anyway maybe we can get something for it.
I wonder what the Cold Warriors here will say to this. I'm guessing they'll be somewhat cool to the idea...
The cold war was quite scary for people in the military. And the civilians in the know.
Yeah, I read all it about somewhere. Saw the movie as well.
LOL Sitting on a floating target bored stiff during the cold war was quite a trip!
As I recall from periodic trips to the school "bomb shelter" (raw concrete, minimal lighting, low space where taller kids had to crawl in to sit), EVERYWHERE was either a "target" or treated like one, at least in the early 1960s.
That is true, but sitting on the deck of a Navy ship in the Med and watching a Bear Bomber come in at high speed, low drag, low altitude knowing there is a AS-4 nuclear missile that it can carry makes one think about what happens when or if the balloon goes up.
I tend to think of the cold war as 50s to 70s primarily, perhaps 80s, but until the 90s, Ukraine was part of the CCCP. The men that I knew that were alive when things started heating up in 2014 saw it as largely an internal issue.
Victoria Nuland begs to differ with those gentlemen...
Putin has been very clear what his goals are.
This isn't very helpful, but I would suggest asking Victoria Nuland, The Atlantic Council, The ISW, maybe The Council on Foreign relations, Ben Rhoades, Samantha Powers, Crazy Fiona, all those well credentialed midwits, what we should do and DO THE OPPOSITE.
I am surprised Russia hasn't been more decisive in capturing Western Donetsk. Maybe Putin thinks another couple of years of grinding will get him what he wants and the risk of internal upheaval is minimal.
We're looking at years more of grinding the IRGC down until something snaps. So who knows?
"grinding the IRGC down"😅
Yup
Can anyone explain to me why we care what happens to Ukraine or for that matter Europe?
Russia is not the USSR.
Europe is no longer an ally as they have so recently and loudly demonstrated over Greenland and the Middle East.
Explain how a victory for Putin in Ukraine is good for the US or NATO. He will not just sit still.
It’s neither good nor bad. It’s as irrelevant to us as if Botswana invaded Zimbabwe.
When I see Russian battleships off Cape Ann I will become concerned.
We have strategic interests in Europe on cultural, diplomatic, economic and defense bases that we do not have in Botswana or anywhere else in Africa (or indeed most of the world). Moreover, the NATO treaty really is a big deal as it forms part of the US Constitution (see Article VI).
No we don't. Not even the Europeans care about those things.
Please elaborate on those interests.
I am most curious to learn what they are.
As I recall the Constitution was ratified in 1789 and NATO didn’t appear until 1948.
I do recall GW warning against entangling alliances.
Also strategic interests should come before bases not the other way around.
Nice reach for the Constitution. Denied. It’s just a treaty with foreign powers and not part of the Constitution. Nor is Ukraine part of NATO.
Now justify nuclear war, since we’re all so hot to escalate.
"We have strategic interests ..."
Jeebers. Every clusterfumble we have gotten into in my lifetime seem to have been based on our "strategic interests". What, precisely, are these "strategic interests" ?
Justify war with a nuclear power. What is the American interest worth the risk? And we’re not at war with Putin, we’re at war with Russia.
NATO as it stands today is nothing but welfare for the EU. Which feeds their "socialism".
Since NATO and the US are actually responsible for the aggravations that prodded russia into attacking ukraine some thought should be given to actually bring russia into the world economy. Eliminating the threat. We in the US need to focus on putting the commi dsa down.
Cultural: Western Civilization (literature, arts and sciences), shared languages, shared history, shared heritages, shared religions. The very idea of a modern nation state was born in Europe, as well as the concept of individual liberty and the philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Most of the US, and indeed North America, was built by people from, or descended from, Europeans.
Diplomatic: numerous treaties, trade agreements, etc.
Economic: “U.S. goods and services trade with European Union totaled an estimated $1.5 trillion in 2024.” Office of the United States Trade Representative https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union
Defense: Beyond the NATO Treaty, we have other agreements with European. And I posit forward defense is better than fighting any enemy in the US.
The word bases is the plural of the word basis here, but the bases are important to. Isolationism did not work in the 1930s and will not work now. You may take no interest in the world, but the world may well take an interest in you.
Article VI United States Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I didn’t see NATO mentioned in Article VI.
I think John Adams said it best about not looking for monsters.
Reread this part: “… and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States … .” The NATO Treaty was ratified by the US Senate July 25, 1949.
The monsters, some named Putin but most not, are there whether you wish it or not.
You’re hopeless.
I answer with history, facts and a reasoned discussion thereof to your bald assertions and I’m hopeless? Look in a mirror dude.
No you don’t.
You are preaching and you have no idea what you are talking about.
A treaty means whatever the president thinks it means.
You are boring me.
How about answering with a reasoned explanation why all those are "strategic interests"?
That doesn’t make a treaty part of our constitution. FAIL.
That’s nonsense. The treaty is at best Federal law and utterly at the discretion of our President not to condign to oblige and completely abrogate at will. The precedents exist and the courts already have declined to interfere. This President alone has abrogated the TPP trade accords, the Paris Climate accords and the Iran Deal- just off the top of my head. The text of Article VI of course refers specifically only to treaties made under the Confederation (The Articles of Confederation) as being honored. We may of course and often do remind others of our sovereignty and European nations should do the same.
None of those went to the Senate for ratification and certainly form no part of the Constitution or Federal Law. The NATO Treaty is different because it was ratified by the Senate. Moreover, the Confederation is referred to only with respect to debts, not treaties. If you cannot see the differences I am highlighting that is really sad.
We are not bound to foreigners or their *agents*, nor to the UN and SCOTUS has ruled on this repeatedly. BTW are you American? You show considerable cheek on this matter. It’s difficult to tell. If you are an American you may want to declare with FARA, and given the inability to read the American room return the money. Good evening.
Define "strategic interest". How is having cultural commonalities, or any of the things you mention, a "strategic interest" of the US?
"Isolationism did not work in the 1930s..."
Our so-called "isolationism" is a myth propagated by those who think the US should stick its nose into every nook and cranny in the world. To paraphrase, "not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without the US having a strategic interest in the outcome ."
It is more than cultural, just read what I wrote.
I did. One thing at a time. Start with cultural.
That’s neither justification for nuclear war nor correct Constitutional law as SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly. NATO is at best Federal Law and we are sworn to one nation only.
Not At The Office
Not After Two O’clock
Great duty if you can get it like I did - twice.
Ukraine looks poised to retake Crimea which might be a better goal than Donbas at this point. Getting Putin out of Transnistria and Crimea would be a feasible trade in the long run for Ukraine.
It would be interesting to see UKR pull an IRN and start charging "insurance" to RUS shipping transiting the Kerch Strait.
Whatever you read to lead you to this comical conclusion, put it down.
May one inquire Ukraine’s poise that is about to take Crimea? With what?
"May one inquire ..."
No. One must accept and obey.
The bottom line appears to be that as long as Ukraine's people; i.e. the average Ukrainian on the street -- not necessarily just Ukraine's current leadership -- clearly have the will and the determination to resist the Russian invasion, President Trump will not abandon them at the negotiating table.
Which means the war will continue indefinitely, lasting as long, or longer, than the Vietnam War did.
If Putin and his leadership cabal won't negotiate, they have the choice of either letting this war slog on near endlessly, or else to fully mobilize the Russian nation and then pay whatever price in human and material casualties must be paid in order to achieve a clear victory.
Reported elsewhere by David Axe, "[on the order of a half dozen] Ukrainian [FP-1 (ER)] drones motored more than 2,500 km on Monday to strike, for the first time, a refinery in Omsk in western Russia. It was one of the deepest Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian soil in the 53 months since Russia widened its war on Ukraine. The Omsk refinery is one of the 11 biggest refineries in Russia. The *daytime* [my emphasis] drone raid damaged two distillation units at the sprawling facility that process a combined 50,000 tons of oil every day. On Tuesday, the Omsk facility suspended sales on the Saint Petersburg International Mercantile Exchange."
Ukraine's FP-1 (ER) has a range of 3,400km (1,835nm). That puts a whole new batch of targets in the crosshairs.
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
– George Washington, in his farewell address
It is a noble thought. However, George would not have imagined the military reach of nations today.
Apparently there’s a lot of that going around. Russia for instance has many weapons that can range America. 6000 nuclear weapons for instance. However George Washington was speaking of interests in particular those that have nothing to do with America’s. He wasn’t playing a wargame, George Washington never played video games either, he did however understand war.
"Commercial relations" you say? Abandon ITAR and release the MIC!
The trap that Ukraine is bait for and NATO the snare ~ Europeans are reduced to petty ruiners of their own and wish to ensnare us 🇺🇸 in their ruin. The Third Act of their self destruction, the Third World War taking Russia with us. Then the Death Cult that is the EU , the Jonestown of the Left will have balance. Mutti Merkel didn’t just open Europe’s borders to the southern dregs, the EU set a trap for us all at Minsk. The answer is NO.
Europe can kill itself without our help. Grow a spine at last and stop trying to drag us all down, do it yourself.
To paraphrase Bismarck, Europe is not worth the bones of Florida Man. US involvement in WWI and II was justified at the time on the grounds that the fate of Europe would determine the fate of the world. No one could make a comparable argument today. The loss of empire and industry makes Europe irrelevant. No point risking nuclear annihilation to rule over a vast welfare sink that has received the surplus population of the Global South. If the US longs for world-improvement/adventure there is an abundance of opportunity in Latin America, Canada, the Caribbean. Plenty of people there are tired of cartels and oligarchs and are potential allies.
“Putin cannot compromise and is not inclined to compromise. Anything but victory is a death sentence for him personally and the entire structure that supports him. He knows it. His grip on power is firm, but brittle.”
Indeed as Putin is a man riding a tiger, a very hungry tiger. As long as he stays in control, all is well, but if he loses control, he will be devoured, as will his family and supporters. Victory, or something he can sell as that, is essential, especially after the huge losses in people, equipment and resources Russia has suffered.
The West has seemed content 'til now to exhort Ukraine to do more, but while keeping the needed weapons to a less than ideal pace for them to do so. This seems to follow the old strategy of slowly bleeding your primary enemy by having them continually conduct war on their boundary.
Not our war. Pivot to E. Asia. For now that means shoring up actual allies. Europe is useless at best and tending towards hostility.