METO Guido

Irrational to imagine you can see yourself through the eyes of others. The best one can really do is attempt to relate how it feels. We’re into another war here. Nothing subtle about it. You back the cry for high risk intervention I believe undermining the best interest of all concerned. I also respect your carefully laid out justifications for protecting those in harms way. How it ‘feels’ me talking to you. https://youtu.be/Cr4KHgNuxcA

SonicFlyer

Unfulfilled promises or just outright deception... yeah no wonder they don't trust NATO.



Right, because expanding, getting involved in conflicts outside of their charter, and saber rattling would never give anyone that idea.


NATO has outlived its usefulness and should have been abolished at the same time the Warsaw Pact was in order to help maintain the balance of power. Short of that, there is absolutely ZERO reason the US government has any legitimate involvement over there including being a part of NATO.


Obviously those things are a factor, but he doesn't want an enemy organization on his doorstep any more than the US would tolerate a Chinese outpost in Mexico or Canada.



Incorrect. Now, here I'm the expert. The 10th Amendment comes AFTER the previous language and thus supersedes anything before it in the document. The Congress cannot pass a law contrary to the Constitution. And since the Constitution does not authorize the US government to give aid or protection to other governments, anything of that nature is blatantly unconstitutional because the 10th Amendment says so. Any action the US government takes must be authorized in the Constitution or it is unconstitutional on its face.




Unnecessary. It has already been well established that the President can make war in very limited and immediate circumstances when Congress is not in session. The problem is that unless the US is attacked by Russia on US soil, then there is zero legitimate reason for the US government to be involved in any foreign conflict.

Can't speak to that, but the US government has operatives in Ukraine fighting against Russia. Last time I checked that can be considered provocation which is insanely stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible. And it wouldn't matter who is in the White House.

JBird

How do you know this? What’s the source?

SonicFlyer

If for no other reason (than the obvious) they admitted it with the deployment of the Patriot Missiles.

JBird

Just for arguments sake, let’s just say it is not as obvious to some as it might be to you.

So do you have a press release? Or can you cite a reputable news article? Are passing your assumptions off as a fact?

What exactly did they admit? U.S. military forces were deployed to Ukraine engaged in combat against russia?

rickair7777

Are you a Russian SM bot?

Where does it say they are manned by US personnel? Having been senior leadership in those kinds of endeavors I'd bet dollars to donuts that UR personnel are trained by US personnel in Poland (or the US), and then the hardware is deployed by Ukrainians.

Also dollars to donuts we have no offensive personnel in UR whatsoever, since all USG and DoD would tend to agree with you (and me) that it would be a risky provocation. I wouldn't be surprised if we have intel personnel on the ground to keep tabs on what's going on since we don't blindly trust anyone on such matters. The ones in UR might even be hard men who are capable of self-defense. But that's just life in the big city, we also have intel folks in Moscow, and RU has them in the US. Yawn.

rickair7777

Your worldview is seriously skewed off reality.

NATO cannot promise anything, they have no such authority. "NATO" is some senior military officers who follow orders from the national governments who make up up the alliance. I also do not recall anyone promising anything, other than the treaty I mentioned about hardware in Europe... USSR did not fold on the condition that NATO dissolve.

And as I've said before the natural close relationship between the North American and Western European powers wouldn't be going any with or without NATO.

There is no "NATO". NATO consists of a mutual defense treaty, and also some common protocols to ensure military interoperability should it be necessary. All "NATO" hardware and personnel are ultimately under the control of their parent nations.


Collective defense and regional stability is obviously well within their charter. And the governments who make up NATO can alter or expand that charter in any way they see fit. And they don't have to ask RU or the PRC before they do it

Apparently you're dead wrong because the red army has been invading it's neighbors on a regular basis for the last 15 years.

Dissolving NATO would not change the fact that all those western European countries are right there and will damn well remain armed.


No. That's a fringe interpretation.


The people are represented by congress, which has reasonably decided that certain conditions are sufficient to cause the US to enter a war. Nothing says congress has to wait until we're attacked first... in the modern era such a first attack could easily eliminate congress. That's why we have such triggers in the nuclear age.

Excargodog

My understanding is that all we have acknowledged is embassy assigned military supervising the distribution of military aid, although we have had military trainers on the ground in the Ukraine and joint exercises there even before the war.

https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-us...-/6232331.html

To my knowledge there are no current military combat troops.

The single Patriot battery being sent does raise interesting questions though. Patriot training usually requires about 30 weeks of training, and that is to provide the background knowledge to allow a new troop to integrate into an already functioning missile battery where most everybody else is experienced and can mentor the newbies on the parts academics didn’t cover:

https://sill-www.army.mil/30ada/ait.html

Unless those Ukrainians chosen to operate it are considerably brighter than most Army troops, or they have already been training on the Patriot for months in anticipation of getting a battery, it will be a number of months before this system could be operational - at least at anything like it’s potential capabilities. It could, I suppose, be operated under civilian contract with former/retired US Army air defense personnel as is done in Saudi Arabia, but even then, one battery can scarcely cover the whole country. Nor is shooting down $15,000 drones with multi million dollar missiles necessarily a winning strategy.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/...-experts-warn/

SonicFlyer

ExCargo Dog Explains it perfectly.... about the timing of the operation of the Patriot system.

SonicFlyer

If you think the US intelligence community is sitting around and not actively participating in the conflict behind the scenes, then you are exceptionally naïve (which I doubt).