Ukraine has been treated as such because NATO was looking to add them. There is no obligation for us to send them billions if we weren't in on it. The usual civilian progressive will not even consider it. Despite ideological and governmental differences,its no different then the bay of pigs. Russia pre-empted Ukraines NATO invitation.
In my opinion the US was never serious about adding Ukraine to NATO. It was a dangle used to get Ukraine to come over to “our” side and encourage the Ukronazis to fight. EU membership was dangled as well.
The US neocons and deep state never thought Ukraine could beat Russia. They thought their sanctions would collapse Russia and the war would provide justification for the “mother of all” sanctions.
If Ukraine somehow pulled the miracle of defeating the Russians militarily they might have been offered entry but even then it’s likely the west would have just looted them as well as Russia. The whole thing is shameful and should never have happened but not one bit of it is anywhere near invoking Article 5.
I would agree with that assessment too. Either way it’s obvious who the war machine is ran by now. Edit: more like who is willing to be puppets for the war machine
You mean of section 6? Ukraine was under Soviet control when the treaty went into force in '49. And again, the real clincher is in section 5: "such action as it deems necessary".
NATO was always a bit of a fig-leaf to cover the uncomfortable fact that the US was not going to start a nuclear war and destroy itself over the Soviets invading Germany. Even our conventional forces numbered around 400k at the height of the Cold War. Not enough to really stop the Soviets from rolling over Europe if they'd wanted to. Of course they didn't because they had their hands full already with the nations they'd absorbed during the war.
Remember that most Americans were heartily sick of Europe's wars already when WWII broke out. It was only our generals like Curtis LeMay and the Joint Chiefs who were gung-ho to start nuclear wars against small states. Even Truman didn't drop the bomb on Korea (though he did everything but). They were reined in by Eisenhower and Kennedy before Johnson finally capitulated on Vietnam (knowing full well that JFK was shot for his peacenik tendencies). Still no nukes were used.
No, this: "or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
I understand perfectly what you are saying about Article 5. I watched the US military deep six one entire prong of the second invasion of Iraq because NATO ally Turkey decided at the last minute not to permit the US to cross its soil. I knew then that Article 5 was worthless. But then, all "international agreements" are worthless if one or more of the parties decides they are (cf. US diplomatic history).
Those clauses refer to islands and sea boundaries of the agreement. If you look at the Tropic of Cancer, it includes the Atlantic starting at the very northern part of Africa. In other words, not the south Atlantic Ocean. It doesn't mean "all land masses north of the Tropic of Cancer".
That makes sense as well. Otherwise there would be no true sovereignty for any NATO country.
That being said, many European countries are trying to scare their populations into believing, "The Russians are coming!"
Now that the US is backing down on funding foreign defense, and other money laundering schemes, those [elites] in Europe are going to have to start stealing from their own people.
Well done bro.
Thanks man.
Ukraine has been treated as such because NATO was looking to add them. There is no obligation for us to send them billions if we weren't in on it. The usual civilian progressive will not even consider it. Despite ideological and governmental differences,its no different then the bay of pigs. Russia pre-empted Ukraines NATO invitation.
In my opinion the US was never serious about adding Ukraine to NATO. It was a dangle used to get Ukraine to come over to “our” side and encourage the Ukronazis to fight. EU membership was dangled as well.
The US neocons and deep state never thought Ukraine could beat Russia. They thought their sanctions would collapse Russia and the war would provide justification for the “mother of all” sanctions.
If Ukraine somehow pulled the miracle of defeating the Russians militarily they might have been offered entry but even then it’s likely the west would have just looted them as well as Russia. The whole thing is shameful and should never have happened but not one bit of it is anywhere near invoking Article 5.
I would agree with that assessment too. Either way it’s obvious who the war machine is ran by now. Edit: more like who is willing to be puppets for the war machine
That last paragraph doesn't seem all that clear-cut.
You mean of section 6? Ukraine was under Soviet control when the treaty went into force in '49. And again, the real clincher is in section 5: "such action as it deems necessary".
NATO was always a bit of a fig-leaf to cover the uncomfortable fact that the US was not going to start a nuclear war and destroy itself over the Soviets invading Germany. Even our conventional forces numbered around 400k at the height of the Cold War. Not enough to really stop the Soviets from rolling over Europe if they'd wanted to. Of course they didn't because they had their hands full already with the nations they'd absorbed during the war.
Remember that most Americans were heartily sick of Europe's wars already when WWII broke out. It was only our generals like Curtis LeMay and the Joint Chiefs who were gung-ho to start nuclear wars against small states. Even Truman didn't drop the bomb on Korea (though he did everything but). They were reined in by Eisenhower and Kennedy before Johnson finally capitulated on Vietnam (knowing full well that JFK was shot for his peacenik tendencies). Still no nukes were used.
Europe now may not even have the fig-leaf.
No, this: "or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
I understand perfectly what you are saying about Article 5. I watched the US military deep six one entire prong of the second invasion of Iraq because NATO ally Turkey decided at the last minute not to permit the US to cross its soil. I knew then that Article 5 was worthless. But then, all "international agreements" are worthless if one or more of the parties decides they are (cf. US diplomatic history).
But that ocean-going stuff seems murky to me.
Those clauses refer to islands and sea boundaries of the agreement. If you look at the Tropic of Cancer, it includes the Atlantic starting at the very northern part of Africa. In other words, not the south Atlantic Ocean. It doesn't mean "all land masses north of the Tropic of Cancer".
Excellent breakdown!
That makes sense as well. Otherwise there would be no true sovereignty for any NATO country.
That being said, many European countries are trying to scare their populations into believing, "The Russians are coming!"
Now that the US is backing down on funding foreign defense, and other money laundering schemes, those [elites] in Europe are going to have to start stealing from their own people.