Make America Reconsider! – Share Pat’s Columns …
Understandably, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked himself: To what end, and for what beneficent function, was this doubling in size of an alliance that was formed to contain us, and, if required, fight a war against Mother Russia?
Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine a cause worth America’s fighting a war with Russia?
No, it is not. And this is why President Joe Biden has actually declared that the U.S. will not end up being militarily included ought to Russia attack Ukraine.
Biden is stating that, no matter our sentiments, our vital interests dictate avoiding of a Russia-Ukraine war.
However why then does Secretary of State Antony Blinken continue to firmly insist there is an “open door” for Ukraine to NATO membership– when that would need us to do what U.S. crucial interests dictate we refrain from doing: combat a war with Russia for Ukraine?
NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Post 10, which states that NATO members, “might, by consentaneous contract, invite any other European State … to accede to this Treaty.”
Furthermore, membership is open to “any other European State in a position to advance the principles of this Treaty and to add to the security of the North Atlantic location.”
Keep in mind that NATO admission needs “consentaneous” consent of all 30 present members.
Blinken has often specified this as U.S. policy: “From our perspective, NATO’s door is open and remains open, and that is our dedication.”
What Blinken is saying is this: While America will not fight for Ukraine today, America stays available to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, in which event we would need to defend Ukraine tomorrow, were it attacked by Russia.
What the U.S. needs to do is to say with clearness that while Ukraine is complimentary to use to NATO, NATO is complimentary to veto that application, and the augmentation of NATO beyond its present eastern frontiers is over, done.
Have something to say about this column?Visit Gab– The social media network that champions totally free speech– Comment without Censorship!Or see Pat’s FaceBook page and post your remarks … In this crisis, we need to recall how and why NATO was created.
In 1949, the year China fell to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin blew up an atom bomb, we formed NATO as a defensive alliance to prevent a Russian drive west, from the Elbe to the Rhine to the Channel.
Of the initial 12 members of NATO, the U.S. and Canada were on the western side of the Atlantic. Iceland and the U.K. were islands in the Atlantic. France and Portugal were on the Atlantic’s eastern coast. Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were astride the avenue of attack the Red Army would have to take to reach the Channel. Norway was the lone original NATO nation that shared a border with the USSR itself
. Italy was the 12th member. Plainly, this was a defensive alliance to prevent a Soviet intrusion of Western Europe such as Hitler had executed in
the spring of 1940, when Nazi Germany overran Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France, and tossed the British off the continent at Dunkirk. Countries that joined NATO during the Cold War were Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982. However, with the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the overthrow of Soviet Communism, and the separation
of the USSR into 15 nations by 1991, NATO, its objective– the defense of Central and Western Europe– attained, its job done, did not go out of business. Rather, NATO included 14 new members and moved practically 1,000 miles east, into Russia’s front backyard and after that onto Russia’s front porch. Watch the Latest Videos on Our Buchanan-Trump YouTube Playlist! The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland participated in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became NATO countries in 2004. Albania and Croatia participated 2009, Montenegro in 2017
, and North Macedonia in 2020. Not Surprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked himself: To what end, and for what beneficent purpose
, was this doubling in size of an alliance that was formed to include us, and, if necessary, fight a war versus Mom Russia? Alliances, which include war guarantees, dedications to fight in defense of the allied countries
, inevitably carry costs and threats along with rewards and benefits in regards to strengthened security. However when we brought Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO, what advantages in extra strength did we get to justify the justification this would be to Russia, and the threat it might involve if Moscow objected and, one great day, walked back into these Baltic states? If we will not fight for the independence and territorial integrity
of Ukraine, the second largest country in Europe with a population of over 40 million individuals, why would we fight with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia, a tiny and practically indefensible nation with a population of 1.3 million? Besides Ukraine, 2 countries have been thinking about subscription in NATO: Finland and Georgia. Accession of either would put NATO on yet another border of Russia, with the usual U.S. bases and forces. While this would enrage Russia, how would it make us stronger? Maybe, rather of adding brand-new nations
on whose behalf we will go to war with a terrific power like Russia, we consider reducing the lineup of NATO and restricting the number of nations for whom we should battle to those countries that are vital to our security and bring extra strength to the alliance. Do You Value Reading Our E-mails and Website?
Let us know how we are doing– Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!< img src= "https://i0.wp.com/buchanan.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/bar-28.png?resize=321%2C37 "alt ="-- divider bar
— “width=”321″height=”37 “/ > Image Source: Pisquels … Note: We are an Amazon Associate. Your purchases on Amazon.com via any of our links will help support Buchanan.org– at no extra expense to
you! Make America Smart Again-Share Pat’s Columns!Like this: Like Filling … Related Posts Make America Think Again!-Share Pat’s Columns …