Isn’t that the reason we have NATO…to protect the sovereignty of member countries? Why do we need to spend our fortunes protecting Ukraine, a country high on the corruption meter and with little strategic interest to the US other than political vendettas or other illogical reasons to hurt Putin? $40B is 5X the budget of ICE and could secure our border instead of Ukraine’s. $40B could entirely rebuild the infrastructure of struggling American cities like Baltimore or Newark. But let’s spend $40B…and counting… to overtly confront and directly fund a hot war against Russia. Shop of fools…
Ukraine is heavily in our strategic interests. Not only from the European great power sphere aspect but also the Black Sea, Dardanelles and all that. Plus invaded by a primary adversary that planted an asset and is trying to destroy us. An issue pops up in the news and suddenly everyone with no priors ingests a paragraph Full of context free talking points and they’re a strategist. And the border could not be secured with $400B or $4 trillion or more. These things don’t happen here or anywhere. I know it’s a popular concept, but it’s stupid. Other than possibly Israel, no nation “controls” it’s borders. It’s an impossibility. Nor would you want to. You would only hurt your own economy. It’s a sound bite, but makes no sense if you think about it even a bit. You want to build a 38th parallel DMZ across the whole Southern border? That’s a pretty secure border, though there were still the occasional tunnels. You want to choke off all movement, or delay it/Abbottize it? Have you thought about what that would do to the economy? Name the land border in the world that you think is the example.
Explain the bold. Just because a protected land border like US/Mexico doesn’t exist it doesn't mean it shouldn’t nor does it mean it can’t. It’s an outrageously false statement to say it can’t be secured for $400B or $4T. Simply laughable.
Fubar1, see message #292 for why NATO is involved. "In the prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, several NATO countries sent ground troops, warships and fighter aircraft to reinforce the alliance's eastern flank. The aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and its carrier strike group were placed under the command of Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO, marking the first time an entire US carrier group was placed under NATO command since the Cold War. Eight NATO countries—Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia—triggered Article 4 following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Article 4 can be triggered when one or more NATO members deem the “territorial integrity, political independence or security” of any of the member states to be threatened. I assume that these eight countries were concerned with Russian tanks moving west following the presumed defeat and occupation of Ukraine. Based on the previous centuries history between Russia and these 8 countries this was a valid concern.
We currently spend $26 billion per year on border patrol and ICE and people claim that is "open borders." How much would we need to spend not to consider it open borders?
Perhaps if Russia would not invade and threaten its neighbors there would not be such motivation to join NATO. Just a thought.....those who dare to object to Russia's aims are somehow the " aggressors".
Border Patrol's budget specifically is <$5B. So taking even just $5B from the Ukraine border control efforts would double our own. Good place to start....
Did you stop laughing long enough to identify a comparable land border in the world, even a smaller one, that you deem “controlled”?
If they were nato our f35s would be screaming over Ukraine along with direct engagement against Russia from other nato countries.
It is not a “proxy war.” Russia is fighting directly, having invaded a democratic neighbor. And freedom has a price. You should consider that the Russians were advancing and were on the outskirts of Kiev when they were stopped and retreated. The western aid had helped them. And, Ukraine is a major contributor to the wheat supply in the west as well as an emerging democracy. History teaches us that it is in our interests to support Ukraine and trim the Russians back. This isn’t about neo-conism. This is about our long standing commitment to freedom, democracy, a democratic Europe, and opposition to the expansion of dictatorships. Our only option to standing up to Russia is to concede to them whatever it wants. Not acceptable. And, Russia is not the preeminent nuclear power in the world. The US is.
They have a bit of a geography problem to attack Poland. And Poland is better equipped and ready for them.
Yes, Russia is the pre-eminent nuclear power in the world. Do your research. all that other blabber is right out of the neo-con playbook. As an example, John Bolton said the same about Iran and the hawks in our federal govt are always using dictatorships and threats to Democracy as excuses to get us directly entangled in foreign quagmires that only weaken the country but enrich the defense contractors and further bloat the military. Having to settle for a fight against Iraq or Iran is boring…a proxy or even direct conflict with Russia is simply every neo-cons’ wet dream. Save all the faux democracy babble and just admit you have a hard-on for Putin and don’t care what it costs us in treasure and even lives if necessary.
you just did. And I’m sure it’s a painful realization when you regurgitate the laymen’s version of the neo-con manifesto but claim you’re anything but…Enjoy your bunk mates.
