ANALYSIS: What Does NATO Have To Do With The Ukraine-Russia Crisis?

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
This article isn't considered "Breaking News" but is an analysis, and after reading it found it to be worth placing it here in the Chat forum to get feedback from everyone as to what you think about this analysis. Good points to ponder considering how questionable the Russia/Ukraine standoff is for why the US and NATO has gotten involved when it's apparent that while the Biden regime has claimed it's about Ukraine's sovereignty they also have made it clear they have no intentions to actually give military assistance in a combat sense, yet troops have been deployed, but not to protect Ukraine's interests, rather to protect NATO's interests.

Note this quote:
"Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “We are ready, capable, and prepared to uphold our obligation under treaty to NATO. An attack against one NATO ally is an attack against all.”
https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-troops-nato-europe-ukraine

Notice he only refers to NATO allies, and Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

Here is the article.
By Ian Haworth
Feb 4, 2022 DailyWire.com

In the midst of an increasing buildup of Russian military forces along its border with Ukraine, Western nations are concerned that Russia could soon invade. In addition to various attempts to reduce tensions through diplomatic means, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have been sending troops and other supplies to nearby member states.

Moreover, with the threat of a looming Russian invasion, the long-standing debate over whether Ukraine should join NATO has also been reinvigorated.

Here’s everything you need to know about the role of NATO in the current military crisis brewing in Eastern Europe.

What is NATO?

Read further:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-does-nato-have-to-do-with-the-ukraine-russia-crisis
 
Last edited:

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
The Ukraine was a potential future member of NATO, and Russia doesn't want that. Russia doesn't want to see any more eastward expansion of NATO, and I don't think that's unreasonable. It would be like Russia putting nukes in Cuba or Venezuela, which is very possible given the weak administration that we currently have.
 

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
The Ukraine was a potential future member of NATO, and Russia doesn't want that. Russia doesn't want to see any more eastward expansion of NATO, and I don't think that's unreasonable. It would be like Russia putting nukes in Cuba or Venezuela, which is very possible given the weak administration that we currently have.
Funny you would say that about Russia putting nukes in Cuba or Venezuela. Here's a recent article just on that topic. I tell you Russia is all over the place.

Russia won’t rule out military deployment to Cuba, Venezuela
https://abc17news.com/news/ap-natio...le-out-military-deployment-to-cuba-venezuela/
 

Channah

Well-Known Member
The Ukraine was a potential future member of NATO, and Russia doesn't want that. Russia doesn't want to see any more eastward expansion of NATO, and I don't think that's unreasonable. It would be like Russia putting nukes in Cuba or Venezuela, which is very possible given the weak administration that we currently have.
We owe them. The treaty that Clinton signed in 1994 promised them support along with NATO that if they disarmed we would help them. It's coming back to bite us now. Of course if a war happens (I pray not) then we have the worst president to lead us. I think I'm going crazy with all these thoughts in my mind. Taiwan controls the chips, the world is too busy with political chaos, maybe it was intended to to weaken people, European forces, at least to me are useless, the Italian military is too small, the French are too busy selling their weaponry to whoever has any money, the Spanish military/coast guard are too small and too busy picking people up along the Mediterranean coast, the German military can't be relied upon, Japan is too busy locking down and keeping an eye on China (I know that even though they are not supposed to be military oriented) they have been busy technologically and we are mightily going to rely on them.

I think the invasion of Ukraine will happen after the Olympics (surmising only). The war in the Middle East will be like a walk in the park compared to going against the Russians and Chinese.

So much chaos in the world.

Hawaii is feuding with the military. Some want them gone because of the fuel storage underground (the US learned their lesson after WWII so they build many UST storing fuel (underground storage tanks). It's a huge deal here now and the Federal Government is suing the state because of it. How quickly the generations forget that Hawaii is so far away that they need this fuel, but no, political correctness is far more important. If there's a war, of course NK will be looking towards Hawaii and then what?

When the US and the UK created their secret alliance and eventually became the Five Eyes we angered the rest of Europe so they formed Nine Eyes and Fourteen Eyes. Forget the rest of Europe, our only true friends are the Five Eyes Alliances, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom (UK's commonwealths) and the US. I read that is who the US is really training with nowadays on maneuvers. I believe that was a major cause of BREXIT too because the anger that the Nine Eyes and Fourteen Eyes had against the UK.

I, for one, don't want any more of our sons and daughters dying in another war but the fact remains that a treaty was signed in 1994 by a democratic president.

Oh, and Israel found that Chinese shell companies were being formed in Israel to spy on Israel's military industrial tech (Source: DEBKA).

Netanyahu gone, Israeli spies caught spying for Iran, Chinese spying in Israel's own backyard, etc. Trump gone, no one is afraid It's a free for all.
 
Last edited:

Footsteps

Well-Known Member
We owe them. The treaty that Clinton signed in 1994 promised them support along with NATO that if they disarmed we would help them. It's coming back to bite us now. Of course if a war happens (I pray not) then we have the worst president to lead us. I think I'm going crazy with all these thoughts in my mind. Taiwan controls the chips, the world is too busy with political chaos, maybe it was intended to to weaken people, European forces, at least to me are useless, the Italian military is too small, the French are too busy selling their weaponry to whoever has any money, the Spanish military/coast guard are too small and too busy picking people up along the Mediterranean coast, the German military can't be relied upon, Japan is too busy locking down and keeping an eye on China (I know that even though they are not supposed to be military oriented) they have been busy technologically and we are mightily going to rely on them.

I think the invasion of Ukraine will happen after the Olympics (surmising only). The war in the Middle East will be like a walk in the park compared to going against the Russians and Chinese.

So much chaos in the world.

Hawaii is feuding with the military. Some want them gone because of the fuel storage underground (the US learned their lesson after WWII so they build many UST storing fuel (underground storage tanks). It's a huge deal here now and the Federal Government is suing the state because of it. How quickly the generations forget that Hawaii is so far away that they need this fuel, but no, political correctness is far more important. If there's a war, of course NK will be looking towards Hawaii and then what?

When the US and the UK created their secret alliance and eventually became the Five Eyes we angered the rest of Europe so they formed Nine Eyes and Fourteen Eyes. Forget the rest of Europe, our only true friends are the Five Eyes Alliances, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom (UK's commonwealths) and the US. I read that is who the US is really training with nowadays on maneuvers. I believe that was a major cause of BREXIT too because the anger that the Nine Eyes and Fourteen Eyes had against the UK.

I, for one, don't want any more of our sons and daughters dying in another war but the fact remains that a treaty was signed in 1994 by a democratic president.

Oh, and Israel found that Chinese shell companies were being formed in Israel to spy on Israel's military industrial tech (Source: DEBKA).

Netanyahu gone, Israeli spies caught spying for Iran, Chinese spying in Israel's own backyard, etc. Trump gone, no one is afraid It's a free for all.
We not only have the worst President to lead us, we have a President that makes me wonder whose side he/his handlers are on. Our worst enemy could not have done a better job destroying our position as leader of the free world. Our abandonment of Bagram left us without surveillance capability in a wide area that includes Russia. Our stupid, panic-based withdrawal from Afghanistan which left Americans and allies behind made us a laughingstock. In 2019 a Russian warship that carried cruise missiles capable of striking Florida docked in Havana. We don’t know exactly where all Russia’s submarines are, but they continue to maneuver closer to our east and west coasts. Our President is constantly gifting Russia and China by making concessions to each of them. Imagine the glee when Xi and Putin watch Biden speak, saying ridiculous, dementia-based things and having to be led away from reporters before he does more damage. He flies unvetted aliens into our cities
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
This article isn't considered "Breaking News" but is an analysis, and after reading it found it to be worth placing it here in the Chat forum to get feedback from everyone as to what you think about this analysis. Good points to ponder considering how questionable the Russia/Ukraine standoff is for why the US and NATO has gotten involved when it's apparent that while the Biden regime has claimed it's about Ukraine's sovereignty they also have made it clear they have no intentions to actually give military assistance in a combat sense, yet troops have been deployed, but not to protect Ukraine's interests, rather to protect NATO's interests.

Note this quote:
"Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “We are ready, capable, and prepared to uphold our obligation under treaty to NATO. An attack against one NATO ally is an attack against all.”
https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-troops-nato-europe-ukraine

Notice he only refers to NATO allies, and Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

Here is the article.
By Ian Haworth
Feb 4, 2022 DailyWire.com

In the midst of an increasing buildup of Russian military forces along its border with Ukraine, Western nations are concerned that Russia could soon invade. In addition to various attempts to reduce tensions through diplomatic means, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have been sending troops and other supplies to nearby member states.

Moreover, with the threat of a looming Russian invasion, the long-standing debate over whether Ukraine should join NATO has also been reinvigorated.

Here’s everything you need to know about the role of NATO in the current military crisis brewing in Eastern Europe.

What is NATO?

Read further:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-does-nato-have-to-do-with-the-ukraine-russia-crisis
The article states that NATO is interested in supporting "democracy and the rule of law". One wonders why NATO isn't supporting the "rule of law" in the United States--where leftists actively violate the rule of law and judicial orders, routinely.

Russia is very unlikely to invade. Massing troops on the Russian border with Ukraine is a statement that, "You will go this far and no further--we will fight to defend the mother-land." Those in Europe and N. America, who are clamoring for war, are interested in regime change, as a way of overthrowing the traditional nation-state system. That is why our globalist "betters" carp and complain about "populism" (a code word for nationalism) and why they hate leaders like Trump. He was a definite fly in their "ointment" of global governance (don't you ever wonder why dictatorial pronouncements hit every Western nation at the same time?). They also hate Orban of Hungary, Bolsonaro of Brazil and Putin (among others) for the same reason, (and manipulate the world's media against them). If they were really interested in "human rights" they would, at the very least, scold Xi and the CCP for their clear violations of the "human rights" of their own citizens (as well as customarily violating the human rights of Westerners who are silly enough to go there). Ask the Western Olympic athletes how they feel about the imposition of "anal swab" sampling being substituted for the less-invasive oral swabs. It is all about humiliation and subjugation--the Chinese communists begin with that but it ends in genocide. They started a campaign of humiliation and subjugation of the Uyghurs well before they began jailing them and harvesting their organs in genocide. If NATO was really interested in the global "rule of law" they would have spoken out about those atrocities--yet, nary a peep. Shouldn't we wonder why?

"Global governance" is a code phrase that sounds good (especially to Democrat-appointed, idiotic military leaders now at the top of the U.S. military establishment) but, once it is fully in place, would result in massive increasing corruption and greatly enriching the oligarchs at the expense of the freedom and sustenance of the masses of people who would be affected. The "global governors" have made no secret of their desire to depopulate, restrict human freedom and strip ordinary citizens of their private property. They have announced it in advance as, "You will own nothing and be happy." Hard to be happy if one is completely dominated by the unelected bureaucrats such as the U.N. and other globalist bodies. All you have to do is examine the record of massive corruption at the U.N (see the "Oil-for Food" program--for just one example) in order to understand that the more centralized power becomes, the more the ordinary folk suffer.

Those who fancy themselves as "global governors" are determined to effect their plans. Those global governors are either the "Ten Kings" of world government made manifest, or the forerunners of the Ten Kings. They could rise before the Rapture of the Church and the entrance of Antichrist onto the world stage. Even though the Antichrist is not yet revealed, he could be directing the Ten Kings behind the scenes already.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
Even though the Antichrist is not yet revealed, he could be directing the Ten Kings behind the scenes already.

Probably not. From the description of how he arises, it seems that he's a lesser bureaucrat of some kind until his moment comes when he takes his place in the world. It's more certain that the antichrist's master is giving some direction to the current "kings" of this world.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Probably not. From the description of how he arises, it seems that he's a lesser bureaucrat of some kind until his moment comes when he takes his place in the world. It's more certain that the antichrist's master is giving some direction to the current "kings" of this world.
Undoubtedly. Since they are spiritual dunces, the "kings" don't understand how they are being affected by the powers of the spiritual forces of evil.
 

GEOINTAnalyst

Well-Known Member
I don't believe the 1994 Budapest treaty requires the US to come to the aid of The Ukraine. Here's an article at American Thinker that discusses this: https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._obligate_the_us_to_intervene_in_ukraine.html
That is correct, however It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. So is it legal? It is a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn't mean it has any means of enforcement, since that was never written into it. Basically it has no teeth
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
That is correct, however It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. So is it legal? It is a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn't mean it has any means of enforcement, since that was never written into it. Basically it has no teeth

I came across that article when I was searching to see if Congress had ratified anything related to The Ukraine and denuclearization. I couldn't find anything indicating that Congress had ratified anything...
 

GEOINTAnalyst

Well-Known Member
I couldn't find anything indicating that Congress had ratified anything...
That is because it is not a treaty and therefore Congress does not get involved - which is legally an understanding but not a binding agreement Here is the agreement
------------------------------------------------------------

Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Budapest, 5 December 1994

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:

  1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
  2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
  3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
  4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
  5. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
  6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.


Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.
 

Channah

Well-Known Member
That is correct, however It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. So is it legal? It is a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn't mean it has any means of enforcement, since that was never written into it. Basically it has no teeth
Why is Ukraine important?
 

Joseph The Carpenter

Well-Known Member
Black Sea port in Crimea, Sevastopol it gave the Russian access to the Black Sea then through the Straights of Istanbul, then out through the Aegean, then the Mediterranean
Yes the number one reason is a land bridge to Russia's only warm water port and Gog's path to move his navy to the Middle East.
2. Oil and gas.
3. Wheat and grain.
 
Top