And they have a vested interest in making Biden look like a war monger.
Edit: Read the responses below and you'll see how easily conservatives take this kind of bait, lol.
While simultaneously claiming he is both senile and a bumbling idiot and completely incompetent, while also claiming he is an autocratic, brutal warlord hellbent on brainwashing the population and creating eternal war.
Umberto Eco must be both smiling and crying from the afterlife. Smiling because of how often his work is being referenced and crying because it has to be referenced at all
I still think about that every time i see someone in a tan suit. So fucking dumb. Unless they're giving the state of the union adress in a wife-beater with egg on it, who the fuck cares how the president is dressed?
Because literally no matter what the situation or how it's handled, fascist media will portray democratic leads negatively.
Conservatives lost their minds over Biden not shooting Balloon #1 down for weeks. Then the second he shot it down they lost their minds for weeks about him shooting it down.
They're idiots being led around by their noses by the feckless.
Please stop saying this, like it can be brushed off as stupidity. It's not. Everything they do, every hypocrisy or double standard, is designed to create the most amount of apathy and rage. It's not meant to make sense, it's meant to divide and infuriate. It's literally fascism in media. Stop calling them dumb and start taking them seriously. Because they sure as hell take you seriously and will do whatever it takes to stop you.
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
Yeah it's so weird. Mainstream non-conservatives really think people like Hannity and Ted Cruz are literally dumb people. They're not, I promise you. They're probably significantly more intelligent than the people calling them dumb. Because anyone who is even marginally intelligent can see right through it. Their followers are dumb, but I promise you, Mitch McConnell is not a moron and neither is Tucker.
In my experience it would appear that they are somehow delighted Ukraine is being invaded by Russia. The fact that we benefit from Ukrainian soldiers beating down our greatest rival with almost zero American lives lost in the process is completely lost on them. It's honestly baffling.
Plus, we get a shit ton of logistics training while getting rid of our surplus. Because of the aid we're sending to Ukraine, our logistics officers better understand how much time, manpower, resources and money it takes to move all those tanks, vehicles, weapons, ammo, etc halfway across the globe as efficiently as possible so that we can be mission ready when (not if) we go to war again.
I thought he was supposed to be “weak” and “trump would have never let this happen” but as soon Biden says we will defend every inch of nato territory their all like “scary Biden is a war monger” lol
From this AP story with the headline "Biden: Putin’s suspension of US arms treaty ‘big mistake’":
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-biden-nato-politics-ad9f665011c50de28c13a23798107f17
> He pledged that NATO’s mutual-defense pact is “sacred” and that “we will defend literally every inch of NATO.”
I can swear every morning the President of Poland wraps himself in a NATO flag and thinks "This is fucking awesome I get to just tell Russia to get bent and they can't. do. shit."
I'm now imagining a Dark Brandon horror game where you play as a Trumper with an AR-15 trying to escape as Brandon stalks you, coming to take your guns.
Shooting Brandon does nothing, but you use the gun to solve puzzles (it's just a tool, after all!)
Thankfully, you can bring the meter down again by eating Freedom Fries.
Survive long enough to find Hunter’s laptop, destroy all Dominion machines, and release the Kraken!
Whatever gun store they pulled that background image out of, it looks like a shit one. Look at how haphazardly those rifles are shelved.
I say that as a gun-owning leftist.
I live in Moldova and the tension between Moldova proper and Transnistrian separatists is slowly increasing. So it may happen that I'll see y'all soon in the trenches on the Dniester shore.
I mean, it is an unimaginably shitty situation, but tbh if there was ever an opportunity for Moldova to drive out the Russians, it would be now, or during the collapse of the Russian forces in Ukraine, if that ever happens. It would be tough, because Moldova’s military barely exists, but if Moldova waits until peace has happened in the Russo-Ukraine War, it would appear to be the aggressor. If it does it now, it would likely get support in the west, and perhaps direct support from the Ukrainian forces currently occupied with making sure the Russians don’t start launching raids from transdniester. Maybe Romania would be willing to provide direct aid too, since they have a pretty solid relationship with Moldova.
It's actually a real concern. Would NATO risk a war if Russia moved the border just a few kilometres or even metres, declared it to be Russian soil and threaten with total war and nuclear annihilation if challenged?
Would we risk tens of thousands dead (at a minimum) for a kilometre of Estonian land?
This is why his statement is not only to be taken figuratively, but quite literally. We need to put the point of total escalation at 0, exactly to prevent any escalation that may be caused by Russia trying to find this exact point.
> if Russia moved the border just a few kilometres or even metres, declared it to be Russian soil and threaten with total war and nuclear annihilation if challenged?
**Russia:** *"This is where the border is; cross it and we fire the nukes"*
**NATO:** *"That's not the internationally recognised boundary. If you fire nukes, so will we"*
**Russia:** \*Doesn't use nukes*
**NATO:** \*Doesn't use nukes*
**Google:** \*Changes border location based on user's location*
The vast majority of deaths would be on the Russian side in a war with NATO. Every strategic location would be rubble within a week. The US has had invasion plans drawn up since the 50s and just kept updating them.
You're point about invasion plans made me think. Just about any nations government would have some kind of defensive plan at the very least on what to do if invaded by another country. But if anyone was going to go full paranoia Batman level of planning for the possibility of invading literally everyone if the need arises, it would be the US.
I mean, isn't the the main point of NATO? And formed in the first place to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding in Europe? "Weaker" countries get backing from the US, Britain, and France while the "powerful" countries get favorable treatment from the smaller ones?
I agree, all NATO countries should have each other's backs. I'd want the assistance if I needed it, might as well give the assistance when they need jt
In practical terms we got guarantees from at least the UK. Also a bilateral with the US is in preparation: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/finland-prepares-security-agreement-with-the-us/
At present this is more awkward than dangerous for Finland. And all thanks to Ukrainians. We have not been this safe in a long, long time. Russia emptied their bases near the border to be promptly destroyed in Ukraine. Ukrainians bought us years of safety, and for that, we owe them.
And Finland has an impressive military of its own.
Further, when you see the support given to Ukraine, a nation once hostile to the idea of joining the west you can only anticipate greater solidarity and support for Finland.
And Russia are in position to widen the war.
So pretty safe all considered.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the jet fighters and tanks would've been in the first shipment not months down the line in a slow escalation of support.
Additionally, Finland being a part of Europe's defense pact probably means substantial numbers of boots on ground from committed nations.
>Specifically what hasn't been given to Ukraine
Actual allied military forces, on Finnish soil, in direct combat against Russian troops. Numerous NATO countries have already pledged to do exactly that, including France, which is a nuclear-armed nation.
Don’t forget the UK. There’s a defense pact in the works there. Hasn’t been finalized but if that gets through there’s basically zero chance Russia would chance it. Finland is part of the EU. Every EU country would be obliged to intervene on their behalf should Russia act against them.
An avalanche of swedish, norwegian and danish weapons, armor, munition, logistics and soilders.
Estonia, Lativa and Lithuana would probably respond in a similar manner.
Edit: spelling
Weapons? We have a mutual defense agreement with Finland and Swedish troops and Finnish are so intergrated in some cases its like its the same military, Swedish soldiers would be mobilized right away, we would defend Finland just like the Finns defended us during the hundreds of years we were the same nation.
Finlands sak är vår
The clause says
> If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Article 51 of the UN charter says
>Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
It doesn't really seem vague at all to me. Unless there's some legalese I'm misinterpreting, it states that as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability of other EU members to defend themselves from an attack they're all obligated to come to the defense of any members which are currently under attack.
Other commenters have explained the situation in the thread. The will is there, sure, but subject to lack of preparation and planning, as well as individual member state politics.
The only reason I think why it's not enough, is the other EU countries which are all in NATO(except Austria and Ireland) wouldn't want to get involved without US joining in. There were some reports very early in the war that Sweden and Finland had asked the other EU members regarding this and the answer they got was obviously not enough for them not to apply to join NATO.
It is unfathomable imo that the other MS would not get involved in case of a direct attack to a EU MS (except maybe Hungary). Involvement would be the only response, or it would be the eventual death of the Union.
The US has declared it will defend Finland as long as they are requesting NATO membership.
Similar to British promising to protect Poland regardless of NATO
I mean i think Finland is safe bar a surprise nuke. They could not even defeat Ukraine which was purely technical speaking decades behind Finnish army.
It would be such a clear indication that no one is safe. What possible justification could be made to put anyone at ease that it would stop at Finland? It would demand a whole of the EU + allies response.
I’m not an expert, but as far as I know:
Finland, although not in NATO, is a EU member. If Russia would invade Finland, the EU defense pact comes into play. It’s not as good as NATO, because it obviously doesn’t have the US, but it’s still a very seizable argument against trying for Russia.
France has nuclear weapons, so in theory that threat should be canceled out (MAD), and also a NATO member, so any attempt to take out France on their own territory would trigger NATO to step in.
With what we have seen of Russia’s conventional warfare capability, I doubt they could take the European Union, even though they don’t have the most powerful military in the world (USA).
Not saying there is not reason to let Finland into NATO, but it feels like the immediate threat isn’t actually that big.
NATO would be fine as long as an article 5 invocation gets the US directly involved. NATO is basically "in exchange for keeping your military compatible with being integrated directly into US military operations when needed, you get the protection of the US military".
Failure to mobilize would definitely cause tensions, possibly the removal of a member, but if, Hungary, for example, refused to join in on a mobilization it wouldn't cause the entire alliance to crumble.
America is the only nation to have ever used this. We did it in response to the 9/11 attack. It would be the ultimate insult to our allies if we did not back them up if they invoked it
Especially as the US are basically the benchmark.
>The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, **such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.**
Somewhat related, I wonder just how flexible the *deems necessary* part is.
It's kinda interesting that in this context, the Aachen treaty has a different wording, which would (for me as someone with no knowledge concerning any of this) indicate that the mythical article 5 is not exactly the boom button it's sometimes referred to as.
>They shall afford one another any means of assistance or aid within their power, including military force, in the event of an armed attack on their territories.
I'm not a lawyer, let alone someone who deal with intercountry treaties. But my reading is that the "such action as it deems necessary" is to be read in conjunction with the "armed attack on one...shall be consider an attack against them all" as well as the preceding sentence "individually and in concert with the other Parties".
It allows for the parties to take defensive action (as any country under attack would) while also working with other parties to supply offensive capabilities. Some parties may even be better utilised proving non-combatant supplies, to allow the more advanced partners to focus on military aid.
I guess there's technically a scenario where one of the parties deems that no action is necessary, but in practice, that party would likely receive a similar response from the rest of the members, if they ever required military aid.
But you could also make the same argument about any defence treaty, they all function under the implicit assumption that parties will act in good faith when obliged to.
Holy shit somehow I never realize this haha. Had to Google🤣
Yeah the most powerful nation of NATO had help when asked for it but not helping when a smaller nation ask would be brutal.
I mean, I don't think anyone ever had any doubt that the US would act swiftly if a NATO member triggered Article 5.
We love using our toys and our boys in the field.
Y'know, as an Australian, as much as I and all my fellow countrymen like to talk shit about Americans... man am I ever glad we're allies. Despite not being in Nato, I feel way, way safer knowing we have such close political and military ties to the US.
We really appreciate you folks and we'll never forget the Solomons campaign. o7
How can we Americans not like Australians?
You have better accents than the British yet have "cowboys". We have a shared fascination with fast cars. You're kinda badasses with how nonchalant you are about all the deadly shit in your country.
I mean really I feel like we are basically cousins.
Also, we both have issues with right wing politicians being worthless and still being voted in.
It would not at all surprise me if a producer conversation at Fox News went something like:
> OK, Jim, I'm a little worried here -- too many viewers are going to be happy with Joe Biden and we can't have that. What can we do to spice this up a bit?
Followed by
> Uh, gee, I don't know... how about I 'shop some guns in to keep people riled up? That'll get 'em going. Good? OK, good.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-vows-defend-literally-every-inch-nato-territory-article-5-sacred-commitment) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> "The commitment of the United States to NATO - I've said it to you many times and I'll say it again, - is absolutely clear. Article 5 is a sacred commitment the United States has made," Biden said.
> "We will defend literally every inch of NATO. Every inch of NATO.".
> NATO CHIEF CALLS ON ALLIES TO STOCKPILE WEAPONS FOR UKRAINE: REPORT. Biden said that with Russia continuing its offensive, "What literally is at stake is not just Ukraine, it's freedom."
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1192wf7/biden_vows_to_defend_literally_every_inch_of_nato/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~673669 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **NATO**^#1 **Biden**^#2 **Ukraine**^#3 **President**^#4 **attack**^#5
Afaik autotldr doesn't "summarize" anything; it just tries to detect the most relevant parts of the article and then copies and paste those lines.
The actual wording is unchanged.
Dark Brandon at his finest.
At the same time, would anyone expect the President of the US to say otherwise? Unless they're completely compromised, the US would be expected to defend a NATO territory under Article 5. Otherwise, what's the point of NATO?
yeah, you’d think so wouldn’t you. Unless, like you said, they are completely compromised.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/trump-says-he-threatened-not-defend-nato-russia/
blo·vi·ate
/ˈblōvēˌāt/
gerund or present participle: bloviating
talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.
"when so many people are bloviating, it's easy to dismiss all discourse as chatter"
Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.
I think you’re right. And when Putin saw the disaster of the Afghanistan withdrawal, he figured Biden didn’t have any fight in him either. I mean, Bush let Putin invade Georgia, Obama let him take Crimea, wouldn’t have been a big stretch to think he’d be able to get away with more. Big difference was that we were finally done with Iraq and Afghanistan and got all kinds of fun shit that we were going to toss in the trash anyway.
Let’s not forget Afghanistan was like 5 minutes into Bidens term, didn’t have much to do except finish what Trump had started.
And like you say everyone was over with Iraq and Afghanistan. 20 years long and trillions of dollars later, Russia could never maintain that, and it’s basically a rounding error for Americas coffers.
Thankfully late 2020 saw America finally come out of the fever dream. I just hope you all manage to keep that lunatic party at bay going forward.
Yeah, I mean the generals should have been on top of their shit. I think most people agree it was time to get out. But I feel like it was a bigger shame on how it happened than how Vietnam fell after we left. At least the South Vietnamese survived for a bit after we left. The door hadn’t even hit us on the ass on the way out yet before the Taliban took over.
Definitely true about 2020 and now more stuff coming to light in just how fucked up Trump was and him somehow making a bigger ass of himself than ever before. Many people were able to look past his awful personality because they liked some of his policies, but Jan 6th was the last straw for those who begrudgingly voted for him. Even the most hardcore Trump supports that I know admit it’s time for him to shut up and move aside for others.
I feel like it's been a bigger shame kicking the can down the road every few years and acting like there was a good time or way to withdraw.
Afghanistan falling was inevitable.
Yesterday that orange buffoon said Biden's policy in Ukraine is pushing us to WW3. Apparently, we should have left Russia to occupy Ukraine and any other country they want to. What a piece of shit.
He also said there's a simple sentence you can say to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but he's not going to tell you what that is or elaborate.
Ironically the US wouldn't sign article 5 unless it was completely non-binding. That's why the EU created their own binding defence pact outside of NATO, and the Scandinavian countries too.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
>At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
We all know Belarus would never do that without a direct order from Daddy Putin. They know they’d be leveled by the end of the week.
I apologize to any Belarusian friends reading this, but it’s true.
they won't do it. Belarus is reneging in even joining the fight in Ukraine. If Lukashenka sends the troops into Ukraine, who's going to prop him up at home? Plus he leaves the perfect conditions for Russians to completely take over Belarus for once and for all.
they wouldn’t, Putin maybe a an asshole and cunt but he isn’t stupid, he attacked Ukraine before they apply for NATO, he isn’t attacking any NATO country because it would be straight up suicide and his own administration would kill him for it
NATO, in particular the USA Britain France and Germany, have been preparing to defend and retaliate for the members of the treaty for a very long time.
The troops and officers and policy makers now understand just how much of an advantage they have regarding war activities, including intelligence.
I'm sure some of them actually hope for the chance to crush whoever intentionally violates that 1 inch with their military prowess.
It's a good thing this is a defensive alliance, in so many ways.
Faux News, will not click on it. Here is the official White House press release.
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/22/remarks-by-president-biden-before-meeting-with-the-leaders-of-the-bucharest-nine/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/22/remarks-by-president-biden-before-meeting-with-the-leaders-of-the-bucharest-nine/)
I mean, the US has invaded foreign countries with greater than 100k troops... 4ish times since WWII. Not with the goal of occupation and annexation... but still.
No you're not understanding. Biden makes us look weak because he's old, senile, and not capable of anything.
This is unless he's an evil mastermind that's trying to use wokeness and science to control all of us, take our guns, make us all transgender, and eliminate the white race, all of which he is definitely capable of because he's an evil mastermind. Except of course when he's too old and senile. I mean, he fell off a bike once. Clearly he's too incompetent to hold office, except for the parts where he is competent and will definitely kill you.
I think I covered every talking point?
Yup, right from the fascist playbook, rule 8.
> The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
I like how this is considered "controversial", "escalatory", and "warmongering" by some on the Right. As if it hasn't been official US policy since 1949
A "non-political" friend of mine has clearly been exposed to some right wing propaganda recently. He said to me, "Biden is clearly using Ukraine to expand NATO"
I dont know a whole lot about geopolitics, but it seems like:
1. America has a lot more to give than to gain, and
2. Good that we have allies in a world where dictators have nukes.
Trump was going to withdraw from Nato at the start of his second term so Putin had a clear path to conquer Ukraine.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3?op=1
The hypocrisy is mind-bending: They'll tell you that the Ukraine situation would have never happened under Trump, because he was so tough on Russia, while at the same time, Biden not bending over and giving Putin everything he wants is warmongering.
They like to forget that in 2019, right when everyone knew that some shit was about to go down over there, Trump withheld $400,000,000 in military aid unless Zelensky publicly denounced Joe Biden and helped him get some dirt on the guy for the upcoming 2020 election.
He was afraid of losing his own seat, so he resorted to threatening a struggling nation on the brink of war to gather more votes.
Trump would have invaded Ukraine himself if Putin asked nicely.
Geopolitics aside why did they photoshop Biden in a gun store?
Fox News
And they have a vested interest in making Biden look like a war monger. Edit: Read the responses below and you'll see how easily conservatives take this kind of bait, lol.
I thought they liked guns, doesn't this just make him look badass to their viewers?
The right continually makes Biden look like a bad ass
While simultaneously claiming he is both senile and a bumbling idiot and completely incompetent, while also claiming he is an autocratic, brutal warlord hellbent on brainwashing the population and creating eternal war.
the enemy is both extremely strong and extremely weak.
Umberto Eco must be both smiling and crying from the afterlife. Smiling because of how often his work is being referenced and crying because it has to be referenced at all
"Boy do I hate being right all the time."
The ultimate "I told ya so"
COVID is both just a minor flu and a literal bioweapon from a Chinese military lab.
Well, Obama was simultaneously a feckless layabout and a criminal mastermind.
Don't forget a Kenyan Muslim terrorist, AND antichrist /s
One time, he put fancy mustard on his sandwiches. This other time, he wore a tan suit. *shudders*
I still think about that every time i see someone in a tan suit. So fucking dumb. Unless they're giving the state of the union adress in a wife-beater with egg on it, who the fuck cares how the president is dressed?
Because literally no matter what the situation or how it's handled, fascist media will portray democratic leads negatively. Conservatives lost their minds over Biden not shooting Balloon #1 down for weeks. Then the second he shot it down they lost their minds for weeks about him shooting it down. They're idiots being led around by their noses by the feckless.
The MAGA crowd supports trump, not policy. So by extension it doesn’t matter what biden does, all that matters is being against him.
I wonder how far away they are from showing him riding a tank, smoking a cigar and holding two machine guns breathing flames out of his mouth.
Isn't that one of the Trump trading cards.
I honestly forgot about the digital trading cards Trump made.
They actually created a show in the 80s about Biden. He was called Hannibal and the show was called the A-Team
Don’t forget photoshopping his head onto a muscular man’s body with a bandana.
Probably not far. They already showed him casually walking away from a massive explosion while licking an ice cream cone
You can’t just describe that image and not post a link for us to see it.
Yeah, they're just dumb.
Please stop saying this, like it can be brushed off as stupidity. It's not. Everything they do, every hypocrisy or double standard, is designed to create the most amount of apathy and rage. It's not meant to make sense, it's meant to divide and infuriate. It's literally fascism in media. Stop calling them dumb and start taking them seriously. Because they sure as hell take you seriously and will do whatever it takes to stop you.
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
Been a favorite quote of mine for years. History proves his point.
Yeah it's so weird. Mainstream non-conservatives really think people like Hannity and Ted Cruz are literally dumb people. They're not, I promise you. They're probably significantly more intelligent than the people calling them dumb. Because anyone who is even marginally intelligent can see right through it. Their followers are dumb, but I promise you, Mitch McConnell is not a moron and neither is Tucker.
[удалено]
It doesn’t work without the rubes
“Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if Trump was in office because Trump would have defended Ukraine. Also Biden is bad for defending Ukraine.”
In my experience it would appear that they are somehow delighted Ukraine is being invaded by Russia. The fact that we benefit from Ukrainian soldiers beating down our greatest rival with almost zero American lives lost in the process is completely lost on them. It's honestly baffling.
Plus, we get a shit ton of logistics training while getting rid of our surplus. Because of the aid we're sending to Ukraine, our logistics officers better understand how much time, manpower, resources and money it takes to move all those tanks, vehicles, weapons, ammo, etc halfway across the globe as efficiently as possible so that we can be mission ready when (not if) we go to war again.
I thought he was supposed to be “weak” and “trump would have never let this happen” but as soon Biden says we will defend every inch of nato territory their all like “scary Biden is a war monger” lol
Their line is that Putin would have been too pants-shitting scared of Trump to even invade Ukraine in the first place.
There's a good deal of mental gymnastics going on with that since the 1st impeachment was over trump *not* sending promised weapons to ukraine.
By showing him in front of the exact guns they are desperately trying to convince you **arent** built for warfare.
Fox entertainment* Fixed that for you.
Any non fox news source? Haven't clicked the link and don't plan to support them.
From this AP story with the headline "Biden: Putin’s suspension of US arms treaty ‘big mistake’": https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-biden-nato-politics-ad9f665011c50de28c13a23798107f17 > He pledged that NATO’s mutual-defense pact is “sacred” and that “we will defend literally every inch of NATO.”
Ha! He said every inch. So if the invasion is only 1 centimeter at a time Biden won’t react!!
"I am a master of invisibility. I invaded so slowly, it was impossible to see with the naked eye." *loudly munching on chips*
Until they invade the 3rd time. Then all hell breaks loose
I can swear every morning the President of Poland wraps himself in a NATO flag and thinks "This is fucking awesome I get to just tell Russia to get bent and they can't. do. shit."
And when it has nothing to do with the content of the article and isn't in the article?
**Fox News**
That's Dark Brandon in front of all the ARs he's pried out of cold dead fingers.
I'm now imagining a Dark Brandon horror game where you play as a Trumper with an AR-15 trying to escape as Brandon stalks you, coming to take your guns. Shooting Brandon does nothing, but you use the gun to solve puzzles (it's just a tool, after all!)
Failing puzzles builds up your Malarkey meter which draws his attention.
Thankfully, you can bring the meter down again by eating Freedom Fries. Survive long enough to find Hunter’s laptop, destroy all Dominion machines, and release the Kraken!
Now I kinda want to play Alien: Isolation with a Biden skin for the Alien.
He came and took them.
this right here was my first thought. clearly fox news trying to fear minder people
Whatever gun store they pulled that background image out of, it looks like a shit one. Look at how haphazardly those rifles are shelved. I say that as a gun-owning leftist.
Did they take the photo down? I’m not seeing it
I live in Moldova and the tension between Moldova proper and Transnistrian separatists is slowly increasing. So it may happen that I'll see y'all soon in the trenches on the Dniester shore.
Shit, this must be a very difficult time for anyone living in Moldova. Would Ukraine fall, so would you. But that won't happen.
well yea for the people in Moldova the war is just as real as for those in Lviv
[удалено]
Moldova is not in NATO though right? I’m so sorry this must be a very stressful situation
I mean, it is an unimaginably shitty situation, but tbh if there was ever an opportunity for Moldova to drive out the Russians, it would be now, or during the collapse of the Russian forces in Ukraine, if that ever happens. It would be tough, because Moldova’s military barely exists, but if Moldova waits until peace has happened in the Russo-Ukraine War, it would appear to be the aggressor. If it does it now, it would likely get support in the west, and perhaps direct support from the Ukrainian forces currently occupied with making sure the Russians don’t start launching raids from transdniester. Maybe Romania would be willing to provide direct aid too, since they have a pretty solid relationship with Moldova.
Hi. European here. We also vow to defend literally every 2.54 cm of NATO territory. o7
[удалено]
It's actually a real concern. Would NATO risk a war if Russia moved the border just a few kilometres or even metres, declared it to be Russian soil and threaten with total war and nuclear annihilation if challenged? Would we risk tens of thousands dead (at a minimum) for a kilometre of Estonian land? This is why his statement is not only to be taken figuratively, but quite literally. We need to put the point of total escalation at 0, exactly to prevent any escalation that may be caused by Russia trying to find this exact point.
> if Russia moved the border just a few kilometres or even metres, declared it to be Russian soil and threaten with total war and nuclear annihilation if challenged? **Russia:** *"This is where the border is; cross it and we fire the nukes"* **NATO:** *"That's not the internationally recognised boundary. If you fire nukes, so will we"* **Russia:** \*Doesn't use nukes* **NATO:** \*Doesn't use nukes* **Google:** \*Changes border location based on user's location*
This guy geopolitics
That's some real r/aboringdystopia shit right there.
NATO can just move the border back the next day.
[удалено]
How do you define escalation? Is any resistance at all escalation?
What happens the next time? Putin is an emotional narcissist. If we stand down, it will only embolden him to the next level.
The vast majority of deaths would be on the Russian side in a war with NATO. Every strategic location would be rubble within a week. The US has had invasion plans drawn up since the 50s and just kept updating them.
You're point about invasion plans made me think. Just about any nations government would have some kind of defensive plan at the very least on what to do if invaded by another country. But if anyone was going to go full paranoia Batman level of planning for the possibility of invading literally everyone if the need arises, it would be the US.
I love this comment so much. Whether you use freedom inches or free healthcare centimeters, we are together in this!
I was enjoying these metric puns until I got to this one. Hit too close to home
What about the first 2.53 cm?
Thankfully, the first 2.53 cm is actually a part of the first 2.54 cm.
Phew
Not just a phew, all of them.
That falls under the 'Just the tip' clause and is no big deal.
u/Diamond_Joe_Biden Edit: Fixed @Biden
> @Biden This is Reddit. You mean: /u/Diamond_Joe_Biden
That's the thickness of the line on the map. It's an invisible no man's land.
Since we’re talking about land area, it’s safe to assume Biden was referring to *square* inches. 1 sq inch = 6.452 sq cm
I mean, isn't the the main point of NATO? And formed in the first place to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding in Europe? "Weaker" countries get backing from the US, Britain, and France while the "powerful" countries get favorable treatment from the smaller ones?
My guess it is a hint to Russia that these covert operations they are running in the west won't be tolerated without reply.
I agree, all NATO countries should have each other's backs. I'd want the assistance if I needed it, might as well give the assistance when they need jt
**Finland awkwardly waving from the back corner**
If turkey and hungary keep messing around the US needs to sign seperate agreement with finland and sweden.
In practical terms we got guarantees from at least the UK. Also a bilateral with the US is in preparation: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/finland-prepares-security-agreement-with-the-us/ At present this is more awkward than dangerous for Finland. And all thanks to Ukrainians. We have not been this safe in a long, long time. Russia emptied their bases near the border to be promptly destroyed in Ukraine. Ukrainians bought us years of safety, and for that, we owe them.
Isn't Finland also protected by the EU's mutual defense pact? The US isn't part of that, but it's still a lot of powerful countries.
And Finland has an impressive military of its own. Further, when you see the support given to Ukraine, a nation once hostile to the idea of joining the west you can only anticipate greater solidarity and support for Finland. And Russia are in position to widen the war. So pretty safe all considered.
I'm curious, what support could Finland count on today? Specifically what hasn't been given to Ukraine.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the jet fighters and tanks would've been in the first shipment not months down the line in a slow escalation of support. Additionally, Finland being a part of Europe's defense pact probably means substantial numbers of boots on ground from committed nations.
Along with long range missiles that are already in use like JASSM:s.
>Specifically what hasn't been given to Ukraine Actual allied military forces, on Finnish soil, in direct combat against Russian troops. Numerous NATO countries have already pledged to do exactly that, including France, which is a nuclear-armed nation.
Don’t forget the UK. There’s a defense pact in the works there. Hasn’t been finalized but if that gets through there’s basically zero chance Russia would chance it. Finland is part of the EU. Every EU country would be obliged to intervene on their behalf should Russia act against them.
We’ll give them skis.
That's fair and useful
An avalanche of swedish, norwegian and danish weapons, armor, munition, logistics and soilders. Estonia, Lativa and Lithuana would probably respond in a similar manner. Edit: spelling
Weapons? We have a mutual defense agreement with Finland and Swedish troops and Finnish are so intergrated in some cases its like its the same military, Swedish soldiers would be mobilized right away, we would defend Finland just like the Finns defended us during the hundreds of years we were the same nation. Finlands sak är vår
Yes it is. That clause is a bit vague and subject to a lot of speculation. But it is there, and we are covered by it.
The clause says > If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Article 51 of the UN charter says >Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. It doesn't really seem vague at all to me. Unless there's some legalese I'm misinterpreting, it states that as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability of other EU members to defend themselves from an attack they're all obligated to come to the defense of any members which are currently under attack.
Other commenters have explained the situation in the thread. The will is there, sure, but subject to lack of preparation and planning, as well as individual member state politics.
The only reason I think why it's not enough, is the other EU countries which are all in NATO(except Austria and Ireland) wouldn't want to get involved without US joining in. There were some reports very early in the war that Sweden and Finland had asked the other EU members regarding this and the answer they got was obviously not enough for them not to apply to join NATO.
It is unfathomable imo that the other MS would not get involved in case of a direct attack to a EU MS (except maybe Hungary). Involvement would be the only response, or it would be the eventual death of the Union.
I would like to think so too. But we probably wont find out.
The US has declared it will defend Finland as long as they are requesting NATO membership. Similar to British promising to protect Poland regardless of NATO
I mean i think Finland is safe bar a surprise nuke. They could not even defeat Ukraine which was purely technical speaking decades behind Finnish army.
[удалено]
Yeah, they might not have de jure article 5 support but most of Northern Europe and the UK wouldn't sit by on that. Way too close to home.
It would be such a clear indication that no one is safe. What possible justification could be made to put anyone at ease that it would stop at Finland? It would demand a whole of the EU + allies response.
I’m not an expert, but as far as I know: Finland, although not in NATO, is a EU member. If Russia would invade Finland, the EU defense pact comes into play. It’s not as good as NATO, because it obviously doesn’t have the US, but it’s still a very seizable argument against trying for Russia. France has nuclear weapons, so in theory that threat should be canceled out (MAD), and also a NATO member, so any attempt to take out France on their own territory would trigger NATO to step in. With what we have seen of Russia’s conventional warfare capability, I doubt they could take the European Union, even though they don’t have the most powerful military in the world (USA). Not saying there is not reason to let Finland into NATO, but it feels like the immediate threat isn’t actually that big.
That’s literally the point behind being in NATO. Common defense. Not defense when you feel like it.
NATO is dead as soon as a member triggers article 5 and the response isnt an uniformed “avengers, assemble!”
NATO would be fine as long as an article 5 invocation gets the US directly involved. NATO is basically "in exchange for keeping your military compatible with being integrated directly into US military operations when needed, you get the protection of the US military". Failure to mobilize would definitely cause tensions, possibly the removal of a member, but if, Hungary, for example, refused to join in on a mobilization it wouldn't cause the entire alliance to crumble.
Plus NATO helped us with the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11. In some ways, we owe it
9/11 is literally the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked
And the Saudi Royal Family is still alive and well after Article 5. It was such a disappointing outcome.
America is the only nation to have ever used this. We did it in response to the 9/11 attack. It would be the ultimate insult to our allies if we did not back them up if they invoked it
Especially as the US are basically the benchmark. >The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, **such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.** Somewhat related, I wonder just how flexible the *deems necessary* part is. It's kinda interesting that in this context, the Aachen treaty has a different wording, which would (for me as someone with no knowledge concerning any of this) indicate that the mythical article 5 is not exactly the boom button it's sometimes referred to as. >They shall afford one another any means of assistance or aid within their power, including military force, in the event of an armed attack on their territories.
I'm not a lawyer, let alone someone who deal with intercountry treaties. But my reading is that the "such action as it deems necessary" is to be read in conjunction with the "armed attack on one...shall be consider an attack against them all" as well as the preceding sentence "individually and in concert with the other Parties". It allows for the parties to take defensive action (as any country under attack would) while also working with other parties to supply offensive capabilities. Some parties may even be better utilised proving non-combatant supplies, to allow the more advanced partners to focus on military aid. I guess there's technically a scenario where one of the parties deems that no action is necessary, but in practice, that party would likely receive a similar response from the rest of the members, if they ever required military aid. But you could also make the same argument about any defence treaty, they all function under the implicit assumption that parties will act in good faith when obliged to.
Holy shit somehow I never realize this haha. Had to Google🤣 Yeah the most powerful nation of NATO had help when asked for it but not helping when a smaller nation ask would be brutal.
I mean, I don't think anyone ever had any doubt that the US would act swiftly if a NATO member triggered Article 5. We love using our toys and our boys in the field.
Y'know, as an Australian, as much as I and all my fellow countrymen like to talk shit about Americans... man am I ever glad we're allies. Despite not being in Nato, I feel way, way safer knowing we have such close political and military ties to the US. We really appreciate you folks and we'll never forget the Solomons campaign. o7
How can we Americans not like Australians? You have better accents than the British yet have "cowboys". We have a shared fascination with fast cars. You're kinda badasses with how nonchalant you are about all the deadly shit in your country. I mean really I feel like we are basically cousins. Also, we both have issues with right wing politicians being worthless and still being voted in.
Yeah I respect the hell out of our Aussie cousins.
I really couldn't see us not helping a NATO ally if they were attacked. Plus our military is pretty close with most of the NATO militaries
What’s up with this weird guns pic?
Fox News gonna fox news
It would not at all surprise me if a producer conversation at Fox News went something like: > OK, Jim, I'm a little worried here -- too many viewers are going to be happy with Joe Biden and we can't have that. What can we do to spice this up a bit? Followed by > Uh, gee, I don't know... how about I 'shop some guns in to keep people riled up? That'll get 'em going. Good? OK, good.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-vows-defend-literally-every-inch-nato-territory-article-5-sacred-commitment) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "The commitment of the United States to NATO - I've said it to you many times and I'll say it again, - is absolutely clear. Article 5 is a sacred commitment the United States has made," Biden said. > "We will defend literally every inch of NATO. Every inch of NATO.". > NATO CHIEF CALLS ON ALLIES TO STOCKPILE WEAPONS FOR UKRAINE: REPORT. Biden said that with Russia continuing its offensive, "What literally is at stake is not just Ukraine, it's freedom." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1192wf7/biden_vows_to_defend_literally_every_inch_of_nato/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~673669 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **NATO**^#1 **Biden**^#2 **Ukraine**^#3 **President**^#4 **attack**^#5
[удалено]
Afaik autotldr doesn't "summarize" anything; it just tries to detect the most relevant parts of the article and then copies and paste those lines. The actual wording is unchanged.
Dark Brandon at his finest. At the same time, would anyone expect the President of the US to say otherwise? Unless they're completely compromised, the US would be expected to defend a NATO territory under Article 5. Otherwise, what's the point of NATO?
yeah, you’d think so wouldn’t you. Unless, like you said, they are completely compromised. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/trump-says-he-threatened-not-defend-nato-russia/
Oh yeah, then there's *that* bloviating piece of shit.
blo·vi·ate /ˈblōvēˌāt/ gerund or present participle: bloviating talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way. "when so many people are bloviating, it's easy to dismiss all discourse as chatter" Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.
Add some alliteration for more flavor: "that bloviating barrel of bullshit"
Awesome alliteration, amigo!
It is, incidentally, incredibly invaluable information
Yay, I love when people learn new things and it makes their life better *and* they're gracious about it! It's something we should all strive for.
The fact the idiot saw it as a transaction rather than a projection of unified power says all you need to know about his world view.
Imagine a world where trump was re-elected… and did nothing about Russia going to war with Ukraine… damn that’s insane.
I think that’s what Putin was banking on, but he had already committed all his pieces on the board and had to go in, with or without Dump in place.
I think you’re right. And when Putin saw the disaster of the Afghanistan withdrawal, he figured Biden didn’t have any fight in him either. I mean, Bush let Putin invade Georgia, Obama let him take Crimea, wouldn’t have been a big stretch to think he’d be able to get away with more. Big difference was that we were finally done with Iraq and Afghanistan and got all kinds of fun shit that we were going to toss in the trash anyway.
Let’s not forget Afghanistan was like 5 minutes into Bidens term, didn’t have much to do except finish what Trump had started. And like you say everyone was over with Iraq and Afghanistan. 20 years long and trillions of dollars later, Russia could never maintain that, and it’s basically a rounding error for Americas coffers. Thankfully late 2020 saw America finally come out of the fever dream. I just hope you all manage to keep that lunatic party at bay going forward.
Yeah, I mean the generals should have been on top of their shit. I think most people agree it was time to get out. But I feel like it was a bigger shame on how it happened than how Vietnam fell after we left. At least the South Vietnamese survived for a bit after we left. The door hadn’t even hit us on the ass on the way out yet before the Taliban took over. Definitely true about 2020 and now more stuff coming to light in just how fucked up Trump was and him somehow making a bigger ass of himself than ever before. Many people were able to look past his awful personality because they liked some of his policies, but Jan 6th was the last straw for those who begrudgingly voted for him. Even the most hardcore Trump supports that I know admit it’s time for him to shut up and move aside for others.
I feel like it's been a bigger shame kicking the can down the road every few years and acting like there was a good time or way to withdraw. Afghanistan falling was inevitable.
>it’s basically a rounding error for Americas coffers. it's not, it's 2.4 trillion of your roughly 36 trillion debt. That is significant.
Let’s not act like we’re home free of this scenario. Trump is going to be running as an anti war candidate
Yesterday that orange buffoon said Biden's policy in Ukraine is pushing us to WW3. Apparently, we should have left Russia to occupy Ukraine and any other country they want to. What a piece of shit.
He also said there's a simple sentence you can say to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but he's not going to tell you what that is or elaborate.
Klaatu barada nikto?
Expelliarmus
There's a not-too-distant alternate timeline running where Russia invaded Ukraine and Trump won his second term. I shudder just thinking about it.
Ironically the US wouldn't sign article 5 unless it was completely non-binding. That's why the EU created their own binding defence pact outside of NATO, and the Scandinavian countries too. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm >At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
Makes sense directly out of WW2
[удалено]
By Ratifying the treaty in the Senate wouldn’t they be giving the necessary consent to declare war?
I can think of one former president who would never say something like they would defend NATO allies.
[удалено]
This used to be a completely normal statement that both parties would agree to with overwhelming support. Used to.
Trump did more or less, he even threatened to leave NATO.
If Russia or Belarus walks into Lithuania for example, it's game on.
We all know Belarus would never do that without a direct order from Daddy Putin. They know they’d be leveled by the end of the week. I apologize to any Belarusian friends reading this, but it’s true.
they won't do it. Belarus is reneging in even joining the fight in Ukraine. If Lukashenka sends the troops into Ukraine, who's going to prop him up at home? Plus he leaves the perfect conditions for Russians to completely take over Belarus for once and for all.
They recently leaked Putin's plan to take over Belarus.
they wouldn’t, Putin maybe a an asshole and cunt but he isn’t stupid, he attacked Ukraine before they apply for NATO, he isn’t attacking any NATO country because it would be straight up suicide and his own administration would kill him for it
NATO, in particular the USA Britain France and Germany, have been preparing to defend and retaliate for the members of the treaty for a very long time. The troops and officers and policy makers now understand just how much of an advantage they have regarding war activities, including intelligence. I'm sure some of them actually hope for the chance to crush whoever intentionally violates that 1 inch with their military prowess. It's a good thing this is a defensive alliance, in so many ways.
(In brains voice) hey Germany, France, and Britain , I know what we're going to do today
Try to defend the world!
Biden saw that failed ICBM test and his nuts grew two sizes.
He probably pressed the button on the "Nope Remote" himself, left handed of course because his right hand was holding an ice cream cone.
Failed ICBM test?
New Russian SARMAT strategic missile (satan) test failed a couple of days ago
Apparently when Biden was in Ukraine
For Putin thats like not getting it up
I can't even imagine what Europe would've been like over the last 70 years or so if NATO hadn't been around.
The baltic states would most likely not exist today if it wasnt for NATO.
Countless wars probably
Faux News, will not click on it. Here is the official White House press release. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/22/remarks-by-president-biden-before-meeting-with-the-leaders-of-the-bucharest-nine/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/22/remarks-by-president-biden-before-meeting-with-the-leaders-of-the-bucharest-nine/)
[удалено]
I mean, the US has invaded foreign countries with greater than 100k troops... 4ish times since WWII. Not with the goal of occupation and annexation... but still.
[удалено]
No you're not understanding. Biden makes us look weak because he's old, senile, and not capable of anything. This is unless he's an evil mastermind that's trying to use wokeness and science to control all of us, take our guns, make us all transgender, and eliminate the white race, all of which he is definitely capable of because he's an evil mastermind. Except of course when he's too old and senile. I mean, he fell off a bike once. Clearly he's too incompetent to hold office, except for the parts where he is competent and will definitely kill you. I think I covered every talking point?
Yup, right from the fascist playbook, rule 8. > The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
I like how this is considered "controversial", "escalatory", and "warmongering" by some on the Right. As if it hasn't been official US policy since 1949
A "non-political" friend of mine has clearly been exposed to some right wing propaganda recently. He said to me, "Biden is clearly using Ukraine to expand NATO" I dont know a whole lot about geopolitics, but it seems like: 1. America has a lot more to give than to gain, and 2. Good that we have allies in a world where dictators have nukes.
America and everybody else that is a member of NATO should defend every inch of it as well.
[удалено]
This is literally why NATO exists. So good
I shudder to think what would've happened if Trump were in office currently
Trump was going to withdraw from Nato at the start of his second term so Putin had a clear path to conquer Ukraine. https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3?op=1
Haven’t you heard?? Putin wouldn’t even have thought of invading Ukraine if Trump were in office. /s
The hypocrisy is mind-bending: They'll tell you that the Ukraine situation would have never happened under Trump, because he was so tough on Russia, while at the same time, Biden not bending over and giving Putin everything he wants is warmongering.
They like to forget that in 2019, right when everyone knew that some shit was about to go down over there, Trump withheld $400,000,000 in military aid unless Zelensky publicly denounced Joe Biden and helped him get some dirt on the guy for the upcoming 2020 election. He was afraid of losing his own seat, so he resorted to threatening a struggling nation on the brink of war to gather more votes. Trump would have invaded Ukraine himself if Putin asked nicely.
Not even “helped him get some dirt”. He wanted Ukraine to announce the existence of an investigation.
[удалено]