Guest Post by Pat Buchanan
Understandably, 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 contain us, and, if necessary, 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 declared that the U.S. will not become militarily involved should Russia invade Ukraine.
Biden is saying that, no matter our sentiments, our vital interests dictate staying out of a Russia-Ukraine war.
But why then does Secretary of State Antony Blinken continue to insist there is an “open door” for Ukraine to NATO membership — when that would require us to do what U.S. vital interests dictate we not do: fight a war with Russia for Ukraine?
NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10, which declares that NATO members, “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State … to accede to this Treaty.”
Moreover, membership is open to “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Note that NATO admission requires “unanimous” consent of all 30 present members.
Blinken has often stated this as U.S. policy: “From our perspective, NATO’s door is open and remains open, and that is our commitment.”
What Blinken is saying is this: While America will not fight for Ukraine today, America remains open to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, in which event we would have to fight for Ukraine tomorrow, were it attacked by Russia.
What the U.S. needs to do is to say with clarity that while Ukraine is free to apply to NATO, NATO is free to veto that application, and the enlargement of NATO beyond its present eastern frontiers is over, done.
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 exploded 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 original 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 shore.
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.
Clearly, this was a defensive alliance to prevent a Soviet invasion 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 threw the British off the continent at Dunkirk.
Nations that joined NATO during the Cold War were Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982.
But, with the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the overthrow of Soviet Communism, and the breakup of the USSR into 15 nations by 1991, NATO, its goal — the defense of Central and Western Europe — achieved, its job done, did not go out of business.
Instead, NATO added 14 new members and moved almost 1,000 miles east, into Russia’s front yard and then onto Russia’s front porch.
The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became NATO nations in 2004. Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020.
Understandably, 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 contain us, and, if necessary, fight a war against Mother Russia?
Alliances, which involve war guarantees, commitments to fight in defense of the allied nations, invariably carry costs and risks as well as rewards and benefits in terms of strengthened security.
But when we brought Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO, what benefits in added strength did we receive to justify the provocation this would be to Russia, and the risk it might entail if Moscow objected and, one fine day, walked back into these Baltic states?
If we will not fight for the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the second largest nation in Europe with a population of over 40 million people, why would we go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia, a tiny and almost indefensible nation with a population of 1.3 million?
Besides Ukraine, two nations have been considering membership 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?
Perhaps, instead of adding new nations on whose behalf we will go to war with a great power like Russia, we consider reducing the roster of NATO and restricting the number of nations for whom we must fight to those nations that are vital to our security and bring added strength to the alliance.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Anyone interested in an exhaustive (and frankly, exhausting) explanation of the history of the past 2000 years of the West, should read the three-volume work by Dr. E. Michael Jones “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its’ Impact on World History”–Fidelity Press 2020. WARNING: The books could have been improved by closer proofreading, but the central theme, that Jewish (not Israelite) rejection of Jesus as the long promised Messiah, and the continuous rebellion against all things Christian including subversion of the early Church and promotion of “protest” against what were admittedly egregious (because human) failures of leadership and practice, by Jewish “influencers” has resulted in todays’ new religions which Christ Himself called “The Synagogue of Satan”. Just my opinion, but the insane zealotry of todays’ Woke, Covidiot, antiracist, neoMarxist “Progressives” looks very much like a desperate attempted Final Solution by Jews against God and His Christ.
Against the Jewish God of Abraham and the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. Both worshiped by Jew haters everywhere.
Neither Abraham nor Christ was a jew and God himself was not a Jew. Jew is an Edomite construct and you are one of it’s ill informed victims repeating Propaganda funded by and distributed by Samuel Untermeyer in the employ of the Rothschilds in the early 1900’s.
Liability….look at their maintenance posture as well as their unit personnel (combat) fill status as you will see failure rates across the board. Let’s not get into training and ammunition stockage levels……….
NATO, like Roller Derby and the Ice Capades, is past it’s “sell by” date.
It was a good “shopping tdy” for a while. Nobody outdrank the NATO crew dogs.
That was 30 years ago.
European problems need to be solved by Europe. Time to end US babysitting duties; NATO won’t pay their “fair share” while outsourcing their energy needs to the one they claim is a danger – Germany especially.
AP, how can we believe anything you say about this when it’s a well established fact that you hate women and think they should be kept barefoot, pregnant and voteless?
Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Sorry AP, I thought you would get the sarc and the point. It’s just that easy to discredit anything you say about International Jewry. We have both seen that accusation leveled at you right here. Therefore, if you are against women’s lib you are a Jew bashing anti semite because it’s one of their best weapons against whites.
It does not have to make sense. Both male and female minds have been emasculated and reduced to the emotion of the moment and virtue signaling my hate toward white Nazis like you is so much easier than thinking for myself.
As long as I can prevent you from naming the Jew, you are permitted to say or do anything else that you please.
So long as whites keep believing the snakes and apples fable of what happened in Eden the seed of Lucifer as you say remains hidden from view behind the everyday Jew next door and free to work his money majik. The everyday Jew next door has been told his own bag of lies to keep him in fear of whitey and willing to pay protection money to the spawn of Lucifer who entered through Cain and are now the Biblical Tares sewn among us sheep and hidden from the spotlight.
Central Banking and their international taxation through usury is just Babylonian money majik in a new dress. It is essential to pay for liberalism which is not self supporting but necessary to destroy Northern White European civilization. Like the IJ it must have a host source of plasma. Without liberalism denigrating the roles of men and women they will be forced to rediscover the joyful burden of being responsible for their every word and action and the thrill of manhood and womanhood and just like that the Cabal would melt and cease to be a force of any consequence.
Large liability. Without being able to drag NATO “partners” into the conflict the US probably wouldn’t have gotten into most of the undeclared wars after WWII. NATO and terrorism are the safety blanket that enables congress and the president to never declare war again. Just send unlimited amounts of blood and treasure.
Covid control is wearing thin.
NATO is a very expensive ($3 billion office building in Brussels?) monstrosity that continually threatens the peace…It should have been wound down 30 years ago…
NATO = Industrial War Machine
Of course NATO should come to an end. In the meantime, at a minimum, couldn’t we require that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization abut – you know – the Atlantic Ocean?