Search the Community

The actual key question is "Why is this war still going on, when ending it was supposed to be really, really easy and simple?" Hurray for Xitter narratives though? This is because European countries are losing faith in NATO Article 5, and fear Russia will duplicate the salami tactics it used in Ukraine, on them.

So stupid. Read the Klain quote. He said Biden seemed more interested in how his decisions would be received in Europe rather than the political implications in the US. The comment about "thinks he president of NATO" was snark.

Frightened, no. Maybe you should read the small print in the big beautiful bill. Nov 26 is on jeopardy. War against NATO because of Greenland and Canada is real. Trade with Russia is close.. I want to be wrong, but I am not. Watch this trade judicial thing. By next week those judges will be household names, ridiculed , threatened. There is no organization left in government to stop him....no impeachment, no arrest capability, no judge, no congress, no rule of law.

Seems Rubio made leaving NATO difficult. If we don't have a few moderate R's that vote against it, were f'ed. no hope for the country. https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-wants-leave-nato-thanks-191326505.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

In what universe did the EU put up more money than the us for Ukraine? And nato is a sham, that wastes us dollars.

Not sure where I first saw it, but just found this on the Austin American-Statesman: NATO had to walk back a false confirmation of the solders' death after Secretary General Mark Rutte spoke in Poland.

Frankly, it would give him these two simultaneous actions, 1. We need Canada as 51 and use more than economic pressure 2. Emergency actions, emergency powers (if fentanyl is a good excuse then war is better) to postpone 2026 election cycle. He has purposely been harming friends and NATO economically, and helping dictators. Within a month of today, he will be offering trade deals with Russia to help with cease fire..then you will know his true intentions.

Russia can't take much of anything else at this point. It's been an empty concern/threat since a few months into the war, when it was apparent Russia had their hands full with a non-NATO country. I believe that Article 5 doesn't apply to troops being attacked in a non-NATO country.

An empty promise. He's not the reason Putin doesn't want Ukraine in NATO.

It's up to the Ukrainians. does Eastern europe include Ukraine? If so, they might agree. Should the US leave NATO?

No NATO membership was the starting point for Russia.

Unfortunately, that isn't currently possible. There is no such coalition available or foreseeable. The US Navy is the only force dealing with freedom of navigation in international waters, just as the US military is the only force behind NATO, and footing the bill, and just as the US industrial base is footing countless foreign tariffs aimed against us, by allies and enemies. That is the reality.

So you're negotiating strategy to reach a peace treaty is to demand an unconditional surrender from Russia? They would refuse to do that but might agree to that under certain conditions. They might agree to those terms if say European countries agree to remove all offensive weapons systems from their borders with Russia and then dissolve NATO. Because they'll insist that the existence of NATO as an offesnsive alliance is a threat to peace. And NATO would say no. The idea of a negotiation is for each party to give and get something of importance to them. You want them to withdraw but likely are wiling to conceded nothing in return. Or are you?

You think that there is any chance that, after all this, Russia just says “OK, you get all of your country back except for Crimeaand you just don’t get to get into NATO”? Come on man.

Ya, we should feel better with drunk Hegseth in charge and dumb Donnie who cares not for "suckers and losers" Biden and Hillary were patriots far above those two evil clowns I went on what NATO said at first.

The deal has to make sense to Ukraine. They should not cede an inch of territory and should, ideally, earn NATO membership.

Canada has a sizable and affluent economy, but it’s still just one-thirteenth the size of the US. To meet NATO’s 2% threshold, Canada would need to increase its defense spending by roughly US $15.7 billion annually - no small lift for a country of 41 million. And before Trump started threatening to make them the 51st state, how much do you think Canadians were spending in the U.S. each year? Now ask yourself how much they’ll be spending over the next 3.5 years. Do you think WNY will take a hit if Canadians stop coming over to spend money? Regardless, none of this changes the fact that Canadians are good neighbors and good people. Anyone trashing the country or its people is just showing how ignorant and absolutely pathetic they really are.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touched a nerve in Europe this week, dividing the continent into what he called "old Europe" and "new Europe." Reaction from France and Germany -- which Rumsfeld put squarely in the "old" category -- was swift and harsh. But the U.S. official's underlying point cannot be denied. On Iraq, divisions in Europe appear to run deep, with the main fault line falling between NATO's "older" European members and its new ones. Prague, 24 January 2003 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week put his finger on an uncomfortable division in Europe with his comment that the continent could be broken into "old" and "new" categories -- at least with respect to its thinking on Iraq. Rumsfeld, responding to a reporter's question on 22 January about "European" opposition to the use of force in Iraq, said the reporter meant France and Germany, which were part of "old" Europe. He contrasted them with the vitality of the "new" Europe -- made up in large part of NATO's new, formerly communist, inductees. "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's 'old Europe.' If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the East. And there are a lot of new members. And if you just take the list of all the members of NATO and all of those who have been invited in recently -- what is it, 26, something like that? [But] you're right. Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem. https://www.rferl.org/amp/1102012.html

The world would be at no more risk than it is now. Which is to say, none. Russia has proven it can barely handle a corrupt country with minimal NATO assistance like Ukraine. They have no chance against a NATO country.

yeah, not really how it works (article 5 only gets triggered if a member is attacked) but I think the US remaining in NATO will be a requirement for a peace deal.

They should do a lot of things, but they don't, because they rely on the massive US military capability. That's why they don't support NATO to agreed upon levels, and allowed their capability to be so pathetic as the Russians invaded Ukraine. Regarding this issue specifically, there is no way "Europe" is going to defend Israel. Look at the criticism and protests over the Israelis eliminating Hamas from that group. As long as the US does what it does, the govs of the EU, ex the UK, will never step in with any significant effort.

but Franco Depuy on FBN (fascist boys net) said everything written, including vance telling everyone how much he despised bailing out the europeans, was unclassified. everyone already knows trump wants out of NATO, so no big secret news...,

Agreed. Which is why I've never understood both of these propositions are not clearly in America's best interests: 1. Iran is run by a theocratic regime committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of of new caliphate, such that allowing it to acquire a nuclear weapon is a threat to the region and, in turn, to the United States and global security. 2. Russia is run by a dictator who has openly and repeatedly stated his desire to reconstitute - by any means necessary - the former Russian/Soviet Empire, such that contesting Russian aggression, particularly in Europe, is a threat to NATO, to the United States, and to global security. I see no reasonable argument to the contrary, nor do I see any way to find (1) is true while denying that (2) is true.

Most American's couldn't tell you the name of the Prime Minister of Canada, the major import/exports, the political structure, political parties, the make up of their parliament, the GDP, contributions to NATO, the largest city, ethnic makeup, history of indigenous people, their approach to immigration, or who Tim Horton was. Liekwise, most Canadians likely know very little about the US and how everything operates. That's not apathy, or indifference, it's just that most people live their lives on a local level. Certainly, most would hope for the best for our neighbors to the north, and I certainly do. Like many in WNY, I spent many summers across the bridge with Canadian family members, travelled and camped in Ontario, and got the obligatory car tossing on the way to a concert in Toronto one year at the PB. We'll get through it, we always do.

NEW: NYT’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro *repeatedly* asks NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte anti-Trump questions — he doesn’t bite🚨 RUTTE: "Let's face what is happening: There were 7 or 8 countries in Europe not at 2%. So now it’s 5% — a new benchmark." "Do we really think that we would have been able last week in The Hague to agree to that 5% if Trump would not have been reelected as President of the United States?" "So I think when somebody deserves praise, that praise should be given. And President Trump deserves all the praise." "Because without his leadership, without him being reelected President of the United States, the 2% this year and the 5% in 2035 — we would never, ever, ever have been able to achieve agreement on this."