U.S. supports Ukraine against 'reckless' Russian moves: Blinken

Good. We need to help our allies against Russian aggression.

Ukrainians like to parade in the streets wearing Nazi uniforms and conduct genocide on ethic Russian-speaking citizens.

But I guess you aren’t allowed to say that with democratic false news censorship.

against Russian aggression

Ukraine is desperate to retain the Russian gas transit. Trading with enemy? Sure, thriving trade is the clearest sign of an "aggression".

Instead of talking nonsense Blinken should have pressed the Kiev neonazi regime to stop the bloodshed in the rebel-held regions.

U.S. officials calling Russian troop movements "reckless and aggressive" is the height of hypocrisy given the illegal American troop presence holding oil wells in Syria, not to mention the illegal U.S. wars against Iraq, Libya, Serbia, etc.

It is very clear what Ukraine gets by joining NATO.

It is less clear what NATO gains by this expansion.

Perhaps Russia would like to join NATO? Wouldn't the solve lots of problems?

theFu

It is very clear what Ukraine gets by joining NATO.

What the Ukraine gets by joining that organization is involvement in illegal foreign wars, such as Libya, Afghanistan, etc. And of course immediately becoming a massive threat to Russia. Is that so desirable?

I still do not understand what the argument is for NATOs continued existence. NATO was the counterpart to the Warsaw Pact during the cold war. That made sense.

But now the Warsaw Pact is gone, and so is the USSR. Why is NATO still there?

Why is NATO still there?

Russian forces took territory from Georgia and more recently Ukraine. They also sent forces to fight in Syria. The Russians make veiled threats to take "action" whatever that means if Finland were to join NATO. So the west keeps their counterweight to the Russians in the form of NATO. Twenty years ago the justification for NATO looked thin but no more and Russia has no one to blame but themselves.

It is less clear what NATO gains by this expansion.

It is not hard to understand. Neither Russia nor the EU can feed their populations from agricultural resources within their borders. Ukraine is the region's breadbasket. The EU would love to have Ukraine in the fold. It would greatly expand the EUs agricultural resources. NATO is less enthusiastic actually because NATO doesn't want to be drawn into a conflict with Russia by the Ukrainians over a disputed border. That dispute would have to be settled before Ukraine could join NATO, a point many seem to either be missing or they chose to ignore it.

Desert Tortoise

Russian forces took territory from Georgia and more recently Ukraine. They also sent forces to fight in Syria.

The conflict with Georgia and the protection of the Russian minority in Dombas and the securing of the Crimea with its naval base are very much internal conflicts of the ex Soviet states and not something for NATO to stick its nose in. And Russia is in Syria legally as a partner of the Syrian government and has done the heavy lifting in the fight against ISIS.

Very much in contrast to the illegal US support for their "vetted rebels" and "white helmets" in Syria and their warmongering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and more.

This is what Ukraine should join? Thanks for making my point.

Desert Tortoise

It is not hard to understand. Neither Russia nor the EU can feed their populations from agricultural resources within their borders. Ukraine is the region's breadbasket

Ah, so NATO should occupy it, much like the US is currently the Syrian grain and oil producing regions in the north east of the country?

Great. How do you spell illegal warmongering again?