History Will Remember Today As The Day America Abandoned All We Stand For
Liz Cheney -
“Generations of American patriots, from our revolution onward, have fought for the principles Zelenskyy is risking his life to defend. But today, Donald Trump and JD Vance attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine. History will remember this day— when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
There was a guest on MSNBC a little while ago who put his finger on the base of all this. Years ago Trump believed an insane conspiracy theory that Ukraine was hiding Hillary Clintons computer to keep it out of the hands of investigators. Trump became convinced Ukraine had conspired against him in 2016, which was known Russian disinformation. Now our asshole in chief is getting his revenge, and abetting the deaths of thousands of people OR the surrender of Ukraine to the invading war criminal. To Trump it is always about HIS GRIEVANCES.
What do we stand for? Surely not some ungrateful, disrespectful asshole comedian trying to set the terms of the agreement
We and other countries have sent all kinds of aid to Ukraine and Zelensky is no closer to winning this war since the day it started
Ukraine is of no strategic interest to the US. It's Europe's problem, let them handle it.
Just their minerals ... @!@
and the nukes they say they no longer have, but can't prove it.
That's the same thing Trump thinks about the rest of Europe.
Ungrateful how , exactly?
Ukraine’s President Zelensky says ‘Thank you America’ after Oval Office spat with Trump, Vance
We weren't talking about Trump.
Russia has a long history of "sending in the tanks" to Eastern Europe, more recently Chechnya, Georgia and Azerbaijan to grab key states and grant them sovereignty and Russian Protection. The fact that Russia has only been able to nail down 20% of the Ukraine border speaks volumes for the Ukranian's grit and determination Especially since Russia grabbed the Crimea 11 years ago.
Maybe so, and all it costs us is our world standing and leadership which until this morning had lasted 80 years.
Festung Amerika
I can't say I remember my history correctly, but didn't Germany invade Ukraine first on its was to Russia during WWII?
I don't think so. The direct route from Berlin to Moscow doesn't go through Ukraine. Belarus, more likely. All three - Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine - were parts of the USSR, of course.
Ok....but I thought they attacked Stalingrad before Moscow
They certainly occupied Ukraine, with the usual atrocities. After Belarus.
Yes, one thing Germany was after was the oil in Ukraine and the oppressed Ukrainians originally welcomed the Germans and they made it through the soft under belly of the Ukraine wheat fields towards the city of Kursk in southern Russia with relative ease.
A few months after the German defeat and winter retreat from Stalingrad the Russians attacked Kursk along a thousand mile front with 6,000 tanks, 2 million soldiers and 4,000 aircraft in the largest land battle in recorded history.
Many of the names are still in todays daily news from the Ukranian incursion north into the Kursk Obast down to
Prokhorovka
the site of a pivotal tank battle which turned the German flank.
I agree!
But while Trump has done a lot of damage to Americans, i wonder if its totally appropriate to call him a "ungrateful, disrespectful asshole comedian trying to set the terms of the agreement".
That's definitely "food for thought'.
How do other people here feel about calling Trump an "ungrateful. disrespectful asshole comedian?"
Let's be accurate please!
We haven't sent him "all kinds"!!!
For starters, we never sent him nukes!
Patriot Missiles? The Iron Dome?
Submarines? Aircraft carriers?
Poison Gas?
Well, IIRC, from the start Trump has said America in no ways needs Ukraine's strategic rare Earth Minerals, So you are correct-- in no way does Trump want them (and he never has!!!)
I had no idea what Festung America (#FestungAmerica?). But I voted it up anyway because it sounded appropriate here.
And it is!
I don't think "asshole" is ever appropriate for a President. That's an evaluation of character. It may be accurate - I personally think it is - but is inappropriate for the office.
Evaluations of behavior - from "crook" to "fascist", OTOH, are accurate and appropriate.
After WWII, George C Marshall devised a strategy that was the basis of American diplomacy for forty years, ultimately succeeding in bringing down the USSR. "Containment". It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination - Vietnam was not good - but it was constant, and in the end, successful.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has had no constant strategy/diplomacy.
Perhaps President Musk intends a realignment, with Russia and the US as allies. Two fascist dictatorships working together.
Of course, that would force an EU/China alliance... but who looks that far ahead?
Not quite. Russia was first invaded from German occupied Poland. Ukraine was also invaded for its mineral and agricultural resources. The German military wanted to capture Moscow as fast as possible. Funny thing about those Russian winters and waves of soldiers though
"Ukraine is of no strategic interest to the US"
As long as they are hurting Russia they are a strategic advantage to the US
Containment was devised by George Kennan.
nce the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has had no constant strategy/diplomacy.
Russia is not the USSR. It's a rump state that lacks the power. It's a regional power, not a global one.
Two fascist dictatorships working together.
Lol. Hard to imagine anyone lighting their credibility on fire any quicker than this with this sort of hyperbolic, anti-American nonsense.
would force an EU/China alliance.
China, which actually is a fascist dictatorship, is already supplying with Russia with aid. It's Russia's most important ally.
It's a perfect example of the fantasy world we see on the extreme left. China literally supports Russia and makes the onogin invasion of Ukraine possible. But since the extreme left hates America and supports anyone who opposes them (Hamas, China etc) they have to pretend it's America who's send billions to Russia and that Europe must turn to China because America is too pro-Russia, literally as Ukrainians are killed by Russia with China's assistance.
Broken brained stuff.
This is what George Kennan, the author of the containment strategy, wrote in 1997:
Thanks, Bob. It's good to ask people who know their history
Letting Russia do whatever they want or giving in to their interests certainly isn't in the interests of the US.
Maybe back in 1997 there was a chance for Russia to rebuild as a democracy, but that ship sailed long ago. What we should have done as soon as we realized Putin was never going to allow Russia to have free and fair elections was to ramp up NATO operations and invite more western and eastern European countries to join. If we had done that Putin would have tucked his tail and been playing hockey by himself in Siberia right now. Instead, we tried to appease the little Russian pissant bitch which of course just emboldens those short Napoleon complex authoritarian scum bags.
Kennan's point, which you seem to have missed, was that expanding NATO would kill the chance of Russia developing into a democracy. In 1997, he predicted expanding that NATO expansion would turn Russia into the aggressive, nationalistic Russia you see today.
What we should have done as soon as we realized Putin was never going to allow Russia to have free and fair elections was to ramp up NATO operations and invite more western and eastern European countries to join
So the exact opposite of what the author of the containment strategy and America's leading foreign policy expert of the second half of the 20th century counseled.
NATO has nothing to do with the Russian government. Russia has always been militaristic and expansionist. The Russian invasion of Ukraine only further affirms this. Expanding NATO helps keep Russia in check.
NATO has nothing to do with the Russian government.
I guess the author of the containment doctrine doesn’t know anything about foreign policy then
When has NATO dictated Russian politics or doctrine? NATO has historically kept Russia in check. A larger, stronger NATO means greater security against Russian threats.
That's what I fought a cold war for
Thank you for your service. And yet, there are those that want to see or actually support Russian aggressive like what is playing out in Ukraine. The very thing we as a country & as a part of NATO fought against for over 40 years.
NATO expanded due to Russia's aggression towards its European neighbors. Without Russian provocations and invasions of its neighbors NATO might not even be needed. It was originally created in 1949 to provide collective security for the US and our allies in Europe against the Soviet Union. If Russia had actually embraced democracy after the iron curtain fell NATO would likely have faded into irrelevance. Sadly, Putin made sure western democracies will continue to need collective security agreements. Putin is one of the greatest threats to life, liberty and freedom in the world and all those sucking up to him and his lap dog dirty Donald are traitors to the ideals our founders put their lives on the line to create and defend. Our founders would be rolling in their graves if they could see the bigoted spray tanned sexist convicted felon and accused rapist shit all over our constitution as he attempts to destroy our nation from within all while selling out our nation and democratic ideals all because he's desperate to join the ranks of Putin's oligarchs.
You're worth it
These people are my age. They remember the scary times we lived thru in the 70's. Russia aka the Soviet Union still has nasty bombs and the guy in charge is no different than the guy in charge in 1976. They've been brainwashed by a narcissistic, egotistical, maniacal, tyrant and they think he's the Greatest of All Time (GOAT). They worship him
This is common sense. There is a cause and effect between what NATO actions and what Russian responses and vice versa Neither operates in a vacuum. It's like arguing Soviet actions had no effect on American politics because it didn't "dictate" our response.
Our nation's foremost expert on Russia predicted how Russia would respond to NATO expansion and tie has proven him correct. That you don't like it doesn't change that.
. A larger, stronger NATO means greater security against Russian threats.
Lol. As we are witnessing our first land war in Europe with Russia and after creating a larger, stronger NATO. Might want to think that through.
As I said, Russia has always been expansionistic, regardless of NATO membership. No one seems to be lining up to join Russia. And following in that, Russia once again invades a sovereign nation. It seems you're just making excuses for Russia.
NATO expanded before Putin took over. By 97, just after Yeltsin was reselected, NATO began the accession process for Poland and others.
freedom in the world and all those sucking up to him and his lap dog dirty Donald are traitors to the ideals our founders put their lives on the line to create and defend. Our founders would be rolling in their graves if they could see the bigoted spray tanned sexist convicted felon and.
Umm. Take a deep breath there.
Hmmm....after the fall of the USSR and the break up of the Warsaw Pact....none of those countries went crawling back to Russia. They all embraced their freedom from the USSR
Lol. I'm explaining what the russian expert who designed our foreign policy for half a century who was cited in the parent post predicted. That he was correct isn't an "excuse." Its reality. Dealing with the world as it is, not how your partisan needs of the moment want it to be, is how you think critically.
Putin was already running the FSB and was part of Yeltsin's cabinet by then and became Prime minister in '99 and was already clearly steering Russia away from western democracy and towards authoritarianism with himself in the seat of power.
And I'm explaining it's irrelevant and doesn't change the facts Putin was always authoritative and expasionistic. Diminishing NATO would not have changed that. It would just make us weaker. Or is capitulation before an aggressor the tactic of choice now?
It's funny how some people are not only ok with that and Putin, but actually support his position over America. Or at least make excuses on behalf of Russia.
Not only that, some joined NATO. That's speaks volumes right there.
It's patriotic! /sarcasm
Excellent observation
The decision to expand NATO occurred in 1997.
Lol. Sure..
facts Putin was always authoritative and expasionistic.
And Putin came to power after NATO expanded so all that does is prove Kennan's point.
It would just make us weaker.
how would a democratic russia that isn't hostile to its neighbors have made us weaker? That doesn't make any sense.
Or is capitulation before an aggressor the tactic of choice now?
Ge that strawman!
Although the funny part is the overlap between the people making that claim now and who also started demanding Israel enter into a ceasefire is probably 100%
All Putin did is continue the same policy Russia has been engaged in throughout the Cold War. It's hardly ever been a bastion of democracy and certainly not to the extent of America. It's silly to think otherwise. The only strawman here is you bringing up Israel.
Well, you know what they say: 1. "Pissant" (so that is how one spells the word!).
2. "If I could turn back the hands of time" - Tryone Davis version.)
But remember if we could turn back the hands of time. . . so would the little Russian pissant!
A discussion which took place on Laura Coates - CNN: (of interest statement in blue)
For the first time in this I can see Trump's position: That is, if the United States is mining the country of Ukraine that Russia would not be free to escalate or continue his assault of all parts of the country. It is an indirect approach to giving Ukraine a "security guarantee."
What say you?
Followed by an equally insane conspiracy theory....
I'm guessing the irony is unintentional.
This is what the magas voted for.
And when the rest of the world turn their backs on us then can we say we told you so?
Under the Trump regime the U.S. is turning its back on the free world.
cult members living the rest of their lives in absolute terror after their leader expires is my comforting thought.
As opposed to a [✘] who couldn't string a three word sentence together, not so bad.
What a stupid fucking comment. Pathetic. Idiotic.
That's exactly how i feel about yours.
Another trash comment.
And not only [✘]-- let's not forget [Y] and [Z]!!!
Today was the first day I believed that Trump is actually capable of starting world war three.
With who John? Surely not Putin so who the fuck is he going to start WW3 with?
What Trump is capable of is expressing solidarity with his closest partner and ally Putin.
Whoops! he just extended sanctions on Russia.
The sanctions haven't affected Putin's actions against the Ukraine since 2014, in fact he invaded in 2022 despite the sanctions.
The sanction extension may look like Trump putting lipstick on the Pig, but in reality, given Trump's tariff goals,
reducing or relaxing the sanctions would only hurt the US energy industry that Trump is trying to supercharge.
trump had no other option.
Yet if Trump were, in fact, Putin's "closest ally" he'd have removed them as well as the sanctions Biden put in place, don't you think?
Please do not assign other people's words to me.
I already wrote what I think.
Trump had no other option than to protect our own oil industry and extending the tariffs at this point just looks like the WH scrambling to put a good spin on today's diplomatic clusterfuck.
Meanwhile Zelinsky is on FOX NEWS with Bret Mair sounding like the reasonable adult about today's White House meeting.
Don't answer him John-- its a trap!
I wonder if that will affect our economy-- given that we're already boycotting them?
(Or did Trump end the sanctions-- so he could then impose a tariff?)
Trump doesn't remove tariffs-- quite the opposite!
For some strange reason, he's got this obsession with tariffs. In fact it seems like he thinks tariffs can solve any problem.
(I wonder why? Maybe this obsession with tariffs developed because he had some sort of bad experience in childhood?)
But that's just a guess...
Thread 2.2 locked for slap fighting.
No shame. Absolutely none.
We are dead broke. We've spent more money on Ukraine than we did on the entirety of Europe in the Marshall Plan (in today's dollars) even though we were running an actual budget surplus when we started that program. We have to borrow every single dollar we give to Ukraine, penalizing our posterity and endangering our own security. Russia, which is a shadow of it's former self (literally) has a small economy and presents no actual danger to American interests. There's no strategic reason to bankrupt ourselves over a third rate regional power.
Yet the left wants to throw billions more with no end in sight. They have no plan for victory. They don't even care. Just borrow, borrow, borrow because Putin their best buddy during the Obama years double crossed them by not supporting Hillary. That's all this is. Democrats sure didn't want to support Ukraine when Obama refused to give them arms in 2014. It's all anger over 2016.
[✘]
is this diplomacy ?
is this showing the world that we are the world leader ?
or is this the child in chief, that good grief people, what more does one need to see besides Trump blaming one leading and fighting for free people as the cause of WWIII, instead of his hero Putin, the aggressor and head of the invading forces ?
How much money and how much American blood do you need? I’m willing to send every federal dollar that is currently being spent in Blue states to Ukraine. Do you support that?
Thought Trump had that all worked out.
Trump ALWAYS has an angle that is overlooked by the obtuse, the obtuse that was let loose by propagandists who play the populace so they remain in their ‘right’ place irregardless of how damn wrong
We actually spend it on ourselves. Ukraine gets our old weapons, and the money goes to Americans weapons manufacturers to build new ones for us.
(1) That's not true. (2) and arguing "we are just paying double for the same amount of equipment" isn't much of an argument.
Really?
Is that the reason we had to get munitions from South Korea to cover our own military needs?
So much for that money staying in the US.
Is that the reason the pentagon had a 10 billion short fall to replace weapons it sent to Ukraine?
What Ukraine really needs is bodies for the Russian meat grinder. What are all those supporting Zelensky still doing here? The country you really love needs you now!
It is true.
What the U.S. Has to Gain from Supporting Ukraine
But hey, if this country decides it no longer wants to help Ukraine from being absorbed back into a growing Russian empire, that’s cool. Don’t help if you don’t want to. But there is no justification for the lies Trump has been telling or the bullying we saw from him and his vp today at the White House.
See 5.2.3.
So it's literally not true. It's gone from we spend it all on ourselves to well, we spend 90% (disputed, depending on who you ask) of a category of aid in America. Just ignore the other billions.
Find where I said we spend it all on ourselves. And meanwhile, you’re just going to ignore the link to 90%.
And there it is: What does not 'kill' Russia will make it stronger. There is a song about it. Ukraine would be good nutrition for a grow-spurt in Russia! (It's ' brain-food ' too! If Russia can get it!
)
Nope!
Of course they have a plan for victory.
(But certainly you don't expect them to reveal what it is on a public site like Newstalkers!!!)
But apparently you're forgetting-- they have nukes!
There is that...
Ukraine gave up the nukes it inherited from the USSR.
So Zelensky is a prideful fool who sacrificed the needs of his country in order to look tough? Tough look for Zelensky.
or perhaps a man of principle
Your personal philosophy is might makes right. There was a time when most people didn't think that way, but now we have Trump and the expectation that people must grovel to him. Good job Sean.
Alexander Vindman has a new book coming out titled The Folly Of Realism. I am looking forward to seeing it.
I'm sure principle will come in more handy than billions in military aid when the Russian offensive resumes.
It has nothing to do with "right". It's about looking at the world as it actually is, rather than how you wish it to be. Wouldn't it be great if Ukraine kicked Russia out and Russia paid to rebuild Ukraine is a nice daydream? Sure. But "Wouldn't it be great if" is what led to Iraq and 20 years in Afghanistan. "If you just get rid of the evil dictators and let people vote everything will be fine" was a beautiful sentiment, but reality smacked us in the face.
Thats what might makes right means.
The only way the "free world" will go along with us now is out of fear of Donald Trump. What a hell is coming for the next four years.
a realistic view of what's happening from a "pro-Ukraine expert" per Jack Tapper
Why was Trump, a proven coward, attacking a man who has been at war alongside his countrymen for three years. Why cant Trump keep his fucking mouth shut and do this "diplomacy" behind doors?
Because he's mentally ill. You think the fall of Ukraine will be the end of this?
Lol. That's the question you should be asking Zelensky. His mouth just cost him billions in aid.
What is Trump been defending for the past 3 years besides stop the steal lies?
The reason Putin invaded Ukraine hasn’t changed one bit throughout this war. Giving a single inch of territory will only embolden future repeat invasions from Russia to “reclaim” what Putin falsely thinks belongs to Russia. Ukraine is just the first of many territories that Putin considers to be part of Russia. How will you feel when it happens a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th time?
Russia has a rapidly aging population that is dying off with a birth rate so low its faces demographic collapse. It's poor and getting poorer, despite China propping it up. It will likely collapse on its own within a decade or so. Putin's fantasies about restoring the Russian empire are just that.
Russia can't even conquer Ukraine. The only reason it remains relevant is its nuclear capability. It is not the USSR and it's silly to pretend it presents that type of threat after three years of being bogged down in Ukraine. It's just a fading power expending the last of its conventional capabilities.
Are we at war? Do you really want to be that badly?
Try answering the question
Then the smart thing for the USA is to apply more pressure, everything we can do short of US troops. The results will be worth the costs.
How much money is enough? At some point, America is going to need to actually borrow money to deal with an emergency here. Borrowing tens of billions forever when we already have a trillion dollar deficit is suicidal.
the other interesting question is what is Ukraine's long term strategy. If they keep fighting this war of attrition they will lose a generation and the war has caused a large scale fleeing of the population. Who knows how many would want to come back to a war ravaged land.
Will there even be a Ukrainian nationality left in 50 or 75 years? 3 times as many Ukrainians died as were born last year. It's fertility rate is less than one. There simply aren't going to be any Ukrainians left to live in Ukraine if this keeps up.
Or it might just make Putin go nuclear. Then the whole planet loses.
But keep poking the Russian bear. It is what got us into this mess in the first place with NATO flipping former Soviet satellite states like flap jacks until it was literally at Russia back door.
I am sure Putin is bluffing.
We are going to be going up against Russia for a long time if we don't stop them now. How much money will we need to spend to deal with Russia if they win in Ukraine and have time to build back up.
Give Ukraine the money to bleed the Enemy while they have been weakened. It will be cheaper in long run and the casualties won't be our troops
Give Ukraine enough to keep hurting Russia badly and it will end Putin
I don't see them as much of a threat over the short to medium term. They are reduced to using a lot of cold war era equipment (outside drones) and have lost troops they simply can't replace. They aren't the USSR with uncounted masses anymore. They used to have a massive population advantage. Now Russians are sick, aging and not replacing themselves. It's a failing society and Putin isn't going to be around forever. Outside of nukes, Russia's day has passed. Russia is no longer the threat we have to worry about.
So let Ukraine knock them all the way down. Don't let them get up
Apeasement, apeasement, apeasement.....
You remember the Cold War well, charger
I think you may be a bit confused-- because what you just mentioned is actually Trump-- not Zalensky.
(Or perhaps it was a typo-- or...??? I think we should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a typo
)
Are you aware of the fact that we have not gotten rid of the dictators?
Are you sure he understands the word?
Are you not aware we did get rid of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people voted and the country did not turn into a tolerant, pluralistic democracy?
Hmm..
The World Is Aghast!
World class melodrama.
Argentine soccer players aren't this good.
If only we were all libertarian what a paradise earth would be. /S
I'm sure from the socialist perspective, we all must look libertarian.
What an insult! That was totally uncalled for!
(Its a good thing I'm not an Argentinian soccer player, because if I were...well let's just say I resemble that remark!)
You'll now need to roll around on the ground in pretend agony clutching some part of your body that could not realistically have been touched while keeping one eye on the referee.
Oh, an opinion piece from a Trump-hater.
I was hoping for a factual based seed.
You mean someone who can see things clearly.
Your hero is deranged.
I totally agree!
The actual facts are of paramount importance!
???
Like his.
I know, right?
????
Start the "Let's go to War with Russia" campaign for 2028.
???
Well, MAGA is shameless so they have that to fall back on
let's start out with the russian collaborators here first ...
It’s entertaining to see our MAGA members defending a hillbilly and a deranged narcicist.. desperate times for them I guess.
”I don’t need a ride I need ammo.” President Zelensky.
g to see our MAGA members defending a hillbilly
Can't win on substance, go to the slurs....
Says the member who’s idea of substance is slurs. Amazing transition your trying, Sean.
Arvo...oh for someone who can shoot straight in America...
We call it as we see it...
In what you have as a so called leader....
God help America, but even he would have enough brains to know, Trump is a lost cause when he sees it...
problem with thoughts like that ? look who is next in line for the seat , i thought the same about Putin , but have no clue who would replace him , chances are likely to be worse .
i thought it would take a lot to be embarrassed about the executive branch after Nixon or Clinton was in office , but ( mark this on the calendar) I was wrong .
.
the orange menace spews bullshit and zelensky counters. vance jumps in to deflect and change the subject to respect and litigating the dispute in the media. then the orange menace tries to re-litigate the 2016 and 2020 elections. then some asswipe maga twit complains that zelensky isn't wearing a suit in the oval office, forgetting that the orange felon lets elon wear tee shirts in the white house.
And a ball cap.
John
Seldom do you and I agree 100% on anything
But you have hit the nail on the head here - today I am ashamed of the President of the United States and those that cling to and support him.
I served my country and we fought for others all over the world - today Trump turned his back on those people and the world.
The POTUS is no longer the "leader of the free world" in the eyes of many people.
Should they ever have been ?
If you do not know and accept that the POTUS has been the leader of the free world for a very long time then you have little understanding of history.
The U.S. has always "stepped up" when others needed assistance, it looks like Trump's ambition is to "step aside" and try to extort countries in their time of need.
Oh I understand it Robert , and that has been the case for the last 80 years or so since the end of WW2.
But as you yourself pointed out , POTUS is in the eyes of many , not the leader of the free world any longer .
So my question is most likely in the minds of the people that dont see the POTUS, no matter who holds the office , as said leader , and likely are also asking not only should the POTUS be said leader , but how and why was the title even started.to be just handed to the POTUS.
I think the answers to that is as many as there are that care to answer those questions. And my answers will be different than the next persons .
And my answer may sound very much like the Jeff Daniels bit about , "what makes America the greatest country in the world "
This isn't about defending anything. This is about naked aggression by a fascist dictatorship.
And about a would-be fascist dictator assisting that aggression.
Thanx for your opinion Bob .
Just sharing:
And that is how it is recorded as "happened". . . .
Actually, since a little after WWI
POTUS is in the eyes of many , not the leader of the free world any longer
Because he is proving himself unworthy of that respect and responsibility
The POTUS became seen as the "leader of the free world" because for around a century, the U.S. has cared about and for the "little guy" battling oppression sometimes at the expense of the lives and money of this country - because it is the right thing to do.
The "right thing to do" matters not at all to the current POTUS
"Should they ever have been?"
Is it worth being the leader if the others won't do their part?
Is the leader the one who does most of the work, pays most of the bills, gets most of the blame and criticism and little of the credit and help?
Is the leader the one who does most of the work, pays most of the bills, gets most of the blame and criticism and little of the credit and help?
YES!
Art Of A Deal or Fart Of A Steal?
Zelensky is a man who is familiar with war and is hardened by fighting and death around him. He has seen it. Clearly he is principled, and could not abide that strange feeling that must have assailed him as he sat there watching these. . . men trying to take his 'balls' from him through verbal castration—planned or 'in the moment.'
We should support Ukraine to a win ; otherwise all we have spent has been wasted.
Trump's behavior in the meeting with Zelensky can best be summed up by a quote from "Dear Abby" in Abigil Van Buren's Book "The Best of Dear Abby".
"The best index to a person's character is (a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can't fight back."
That would make the index of Trump's character a "0" (zero)
Zelensky has no interest in peace, he only wants the means to continue this war, under the delusion he will win. He deserved the smackdown he got. The current reality is that Russia holds all the cards. Trump has given him a possible solution and Zelensky rejected it. He will come crawling back before long and the mineral deal will go through.
Hypotehtical
If the EU comes to the rescue of Ukraine, will Trump honor Article 5 and join the fight?
Or will he choose to leave NATO and slink away to be Putin's partner after the war
Article 5 only applies if a member of NATO is attacked, not if NATO members go to war in another country.
Hypothetical
If we try to restore SEATO and put Taiwan, Japan, Australia and the Philippines into the middle of it, how many democrats will be in favor of it?
Will he be hearing about defending a key ally?
Will we still hear tough talk?
Or will they stay in bed with Xi?
Sean
Should the EU members of NATO actively support Ukraine on the battlefield, you can be assured that Putin will retaliate against the bordering NATO countries and Article 5 will most definitely apply.
Vic
The way Trump treats allies, no one is going to want to join an organization in which he is a key member.
Or will they stay in bed with Xi?
You mean the way Trump is ready to perform in Putin's bed?
(1) That's a different scenario and not necessarily true at all.
(2) Article 5, even if properly invoked, doesn't require an armed response. The US could simply send aid in response and be in compliance with its treaty obligations
In the Ukraine deal he was acting as the negotiator & arbiter. Zelensky told Bret Baier that he didn't want Trump sitting between him and Putin, he wanted Trump sitting next to him. We may view Ukraine as the injured party and an ally, but you can't negotiate a deal with anyone if you are also representing one side.
Did you notice that Zelensky said security guarantees must be a condition for a cease fire? The deal called for a cease fire to begin negotiations.
You want Trump to be an ally? Fine we will root for Ukraine to win the war.
You mean the way Trump is ready to perform in Putin's bed?
You just lost objective status with me.
You just lost objective status with me.
I am crushed
From COPILOT
Article 5 is the most important article of the NATO charter. It states that an "armed attack" against one member is an attack against all and sets in motion the possibility of collective self-defense. This means that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. NATO has only invoked Article 5 once in its history—in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The other members of NATO came to our aid when we needed it and like you say Trump would likely look for a way to weasel out of the responsibility to fight and protect NATO.
Robert, are you trying to say that if a NATO ally purposely send troops into war with Russia provoking them to act in return that Trump is now responsible for their actions? You are willing to kill how many Americans to satisfy a TDS blood lust? Just a round number will do.
No
President Trump has already put on the table that what Russia holds of Ukrainian property is apportioned to Russia to gain a stated peace (to be defined). What President Zelensky and the Ukraine people are stating is this: verifiable peace that can be sustained indefinitely using DEFINITE MEASURES, not something that can/will be transitory depending on whom is in the presidency of the United States and can be revisited time and time again. After-all, it is not as if Ukraine can up and 'move' from near/by Russia's 'armpit.'
... as the russian shill trumpski is.
... like the russian shill trumpski is.
gee, I wonder how well respected those ukranian mineral rights will be when putin invades again ...
There is no responsibility to fight under Article 5. Read it.
If Trump's administration refuses to commit to lead NATO under 'any' reasonable expectation of circumstances, then Trump's United States must get the hell out of the 'way.' Plain and simple. Straddling the fence at this moment is a 'no confidence' position. The United States can not lead from behind and in isolation.
I hope we can agree.
As I have no intention of being overlong with the obvious. If we are just going to 'that country' that wants it way or the 'highway' then we need to put the world of FULL-ALERT (and watch what happens to other countries that 'buy-in' to fill the vacuum created by our full-on departure from the leader slot/scene.
Sure, the United States needs to get its house in order, but using oppressive tactics and strategies to accomplish new ways and means of attitudes and actions around the world comes with serious consequences as only the international level can deliver. Namely, more acts of aggression, unease (in settled lands), and internal state conflicts which can unsettle - settled markets. As a result disrupting global markets and productions.
I read it and I understand it - I served under NATO command so I know what is expected and required.
Trump is showing his true colors -
The US could simply say here are the keys to all the supply depots across the alliance and say , here is our part and have filled their Art 5 commitment .
Art 5 does not require boots on the ground or armed response , something others think it requires .
also the NATO charter , is very different from the EU charter , the way you worded your question , If a member of the EU .... the US is not a member of the EU and has no obligations under that charter .
Now some countries are members of both , if one of those should act in an aggressive manner , such as send troops , then they could be told they are on their own and no assistance is required under art 5 of NATO. .
... you mean like trump and musk are now?
that's too horrific to think about. I joined the military because I saw the USSR as a big bully and wanted to punch them in the nose if they went too far
BTW, Russian expansionism is the spread of authoritarianism. GOPers and MAGA have aligned themselves with the SENTIMENT.
MAGAs complain about communism, but want AUTHORITARISM to flourish and fester (as long as it is them controlling the levers). We must continue to SHAME the SHAMELESS!