He's trying to pass a resolution urging Ukraine's admission into NATO. His GOP colleagues are dumping on him for good reason. He's been a loon for a long time but now seems to be approaching Joe Bidet territory regarding being wrong on every foreign policy issue.

Quote:Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is facing rebuke from Republicans in the House and Senate after he touted his effort to pass a bipartisan resolution pushing for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO amid its war with Russia.

Discussing the effort in a tweet, Graham said he believes there's "overwhelming" support for the proposal in the Senate and claimed that Ukrainian membership in NATO is "vital to the future security of Europe and the world."

"I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO," Graham said of the effort. "The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars."

"Ukrainian NATO membership is vital to the future security of Europe and the world. I believe there is an overwhelming majority of Senators supporting this proposition," he added.

He's wrong, of course.

Quote:The senator also drew backlash from House Republicans, including Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., who wrote in a tweet: "I'm sure Lindsey Graham knows this, but this would mean American troops on the ground in Ukraine."

"The American people will not stand by and allow our troops to go die in someone else's war," the congresswoman added.

Quote:Echoing Massie, Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke out against the proposal and insisted that "America doesn’t support" the senator's proposal.

"This is madness. Everyone in Washington should be urging peace and stopping the war in Ukraine. Not bringing us to the brink of World War 3," Greene wrote in a tweet. "The Ukraine war is destabilizing Europe and changing the world’s economies. America doesn’t support this."

Weighing in on the proposal, Ohio GOP Rep. Warren Davidson claimed that the effort being pushed by Graham is "essentially a declaration of war."

"HARD NO. Russia’s invasion is unjust, but including Ukraine as a member of NATO is essentially a declaration of war," Davidson wrote in response to Graham. "America cannot even agree on a mission statement in Ukraine, and NATO won’t fully fund their own defense. Epically bad idea. Low zero."

Quote:Other conservatives were also quick to highlight issues with the South Carolina Republican's proposal, including Mollie Hemingway, a Fox News contributor who serves as editor-in-chief of The Federalist.

"Dangerous rhetoric from warmonger Graham, whose foreign policy track record means you'd be well advised to do the opposite of what he proposes," Hemingway said in a tweet.

I love Molly and how she can cut right to the heart of the matter. Good strategy advice, too.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/absolut...ssion-nato

No way Ukraine gets added to NATO while its still involved in a war. Thats just stupid. Is it possible NATO membership is given to Ukraine as part of some sort of multi-lateral peace deal in Ukraine that offers Ukraine real national security commitments in exchange for letting go of some lands they probably cant win back anyway (at least not without way too many additional unnecessary casualties). Yeah---not only do I think that is possible---I think thats probably what will happen---even though Zelensky says something different in public. To be fair, it would not be wise for Zelensky to negotiate away his biggest demand when Putin continues to maintain that Ukraine cannot join NATO and NATO must return to its 1997 borders. That said---I think most people understand that this is going to eventually end with a negotiated settlement where Russia gets some Ukrainian territory they did not have prior to 2014 and Ukraine gets solid Article 5 level security commitments (which probably means NATO membership).

Frick miss lindsay

Frick russia

And

Frick ukraine

(07-09-2023 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No way Ukraine gets added to NATO while its still involved in a war. Thats just stupid. Is it possible NATO membership is given to Ukraine as part of some sort of multi-lateral peace deal in Ukraine that offers Ukraine real national security commitments in exchange for letting go of some lands they probably cant win back anyway (at least not without way too many additional unnecessary casualties). Yeah---not only do I think that is possible---I think thats probably what will happen---even though Zelensky says something different in public. To be fair, it would not be wise for Zelensky to negotiate away his biggest demand when Putin continues to maintain that Ukraine cannot join NATO and NATO must return to its 1997 borders. That said---I think most people understand that this is going to eventually end with a negotiated settlement where Ukraine trades some territory for solid Article 5 level security commitments (which probably means NATO membership).

I believe the Rus goal is for a demilitarized western Ukraine and obviously control of the Eastern section which is primarily ethnic Rus with the majority of the resources.

Zelinsky realistic goal is just NATO for whatever is left although he spouts taking back everything including Crimea.

The true key question is what is the U.S. goal? No one seems to know including confusion with Ally’s and adversaries….maybe you can enlighten because Biden nor the admin have been clear while the above two have been.

(07-09-2023 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No way Ukraine gets added to NATO while its still involved in a war. Thats just stupid. Is it possible NATO membership is given to Ukraine as part of some sort of multi-lateral peace deal in Ukraine that offers Ukraine real national security commitments in exchange for letting go of some lands they probably cant win back anyway (at least not without way too many additional unnecessary casualties). Yeah---not only do I think that is possible---I think thats probably what will happen---even though Zelensky says something different in public. To be fair, it would not be wise for Zelensky to negotiate away his biggest demand when Putin continues to maintain that Ukraine cannot join NATO and NATO must return to its 1997 borders. That said---I think most people understand that this is going to eventually end with a negotiated settlement where Russia gets some Ukrainian territory they did not have prior to 2014 and Ukraine gets solid Article 5 level security commitments (which probably means NATO membership).

The leader of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg has been making noises that members are agreeable to admitting Ukraine. But no timetable has been mentioned. I suspect that a sane US leadership would say - NO WAY. Even Biden has said not at this time (but I suspect he would let them in).
However, the US could say to those who want to admit them that they need to PAY UP, as we are paying the Lion''s share of NATO expenses.

I really wish that this cold war relic had been disbanded years ago. It's as useful as rotary dial telephones or analog dial channel changers on the TV.

(07-09-2023 12:55 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No way Ukraine gets added to NATO while its still involved in a war. Thats just stupid. Is it possible NATO membership is given to Ukraine as part of some sort of multi-lateral peace deal in Ukraine that offers Ukraine real national security commitments in exchange for letting go of some lands they probably cant win back anyway (at least not without way too many additional unnecessary casualties). Yeah---not only do I think that is possible---I think thats probably what will happen---even though Zelensky says something different in public. To be fair, it would not be wise for Zelensky to negotiate away his biggest demand when Putin continues to maintain that Ukraine cannot join NATO and NATO must return to its 1997 borders. That said---I think most people understand that this is going to eventually end with a negotiated settlement where Russia gets some Ukrainian territory they did not have prior to 2014 and Ukraine gets solid Article 5 level security commitments (which probably means NATO membership).

The leader of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg has been making noises that members are agreeable to admitting Ukraine. But no timetable has been mentioned. I suspect that a sane US leadership would say - NO WAY. Even Biden has said not at this time (but I suspect he would let them in).
However, the US could say to those who want to admit them that they need to PAY UP, as we are paying the Lion''s share of NATO expenses.

I really wish that this cold war relic had been disbanded years ago. It's as useful as rotary dial telephones or analog dial channel changers on the TV.

Honestly---it depends on the goal. Peter Zehein says we never decided what we wanted to do after the cold war ended. To an extent, he was right. NATO and the American Rules Based Order were both tools to scare up an alliance to win the Cold War. However, the reality is that American Rules Based Order--on the whole---was actually incredibly successful in creating a world where secure borders and trade routes allowed every nation---regardless of size and power---to specialize in what they did well and import what they needed to survive. Most everyone who obeyed the rules did better in that world. So---does America want that world to continue? Does America wish to continue on with the burden of enforcing the American Rules Based Orders (which is the main reason why our currency is the world reserve currency)---or do we want to retreat into our fortified zone where we are largely self sufficient (in which case our currency will simply be one of many that compete for international use in a multipolar world of regional empires---like it always had been in the world prior to 1945)? I think we can be ok either way.

That said---if we want to maintain the current order---its clear its too expensive for us to continue to largely do it on our own. If we want to the dollar to remain the world currency---then we need to maintain the current status quo---but we need to do two things. One---we need to create a level playing field for the US in all trade deals (thats what Trump was doing) and two---we need to off load more of the enforcement duties to our allies (which Trump was also trying to do with his tough talk on the 2% NATO requirement). Point is---where Ziehan is wrong---is his basic theme is the Cold War is over. Clearly---the old Cold War is over---but new peer threats have now appeared that have basically recreated the same old Cold War dynamic The truth is our foreign policy has been running on inertia since the 1990's. Its decision time.

If we want the current American Rules Based World Order to remain---we need allies. If we, as a nation---decide we dont care about the American Rules Based World Order or being the reserve currency of the world---then we retreat into the western hemisphere and let the chips fall where they may. Like I said----I think we will be fine either way....but its clearly time to make a decision one way or the other.

Frick NATO

I left that one out

Frick NATO

Cause it needs to be said twice.

(07-09-2023 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No way Ukraine gets added to NATO while its still involved in a war. Thats just stupid. Is it possible NATO membership is given to Ukraine as part of some sort of multi-lateral peace deal in Ukraine that offers Ukraine real national security commitments in exchange for letting go of some lands they probably cant win back anyway (at least not without way too many additional unnecessary casualties). Yeah---not only do I think that is possible---I think thats probably what will happen---even though Zelensky says something different in public. To be fair, it would not be wise for Zelensky to negotiate away his biggest demand when Putin continues to maintain that Ukraine cannot join NATO and NATO must return to its 1997 borders. That said---I think most people understand that this is going to eventually end with a negotiated settlement where Russia gets some Ukrainian territory they did not have prior to 2014 and Ukraine gets solid Article 5 level security commitments (which probably means NATO membership).

Exactly what was on my mind. Give the Ruskies what little territory they've won and allow Ukraine into Nato.

The other nato nations need to come up with their end of the deal money. It's not right...at all.

There have been a few exceptions here and there. But Graham has made himself useless (or worse) for most of his 28+ years in Washington. The power of incumbency, and a dormant Democrat party in South Carolina, has shielded Graham from any meaningful consequences. But I think (hope) his political luck will run out in the ’26 primary. We’ll see.

(07-09-2023 02:05 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No way Ukraine gets added to NATO while its still involved in a war. Thats just stupid. Is it possible NATO membership is given to Ukraine as part of some sort of multi-lateral peace deal in Ukraine that offers Ukraine real national security commitments in exchange for letting go of some lands they probably cant win back anyway (at least not without way too many additional unnecessary casualties). Yeah---not only do I think that is possible---I think thats probably what will happen---even though Zelensky says something different in public. To be fair, it would not be wise for Zelensky to negotiate away his biggest demand when Putin continues to maintain that Ukraine cannot join NATO and NATO must return to its 1997 borders. That said---I think most people understand that this is going to eventually end with a negotiated settlement where Russia gets some Ukrainian territory they did not have prior to 2014 and Ukraine gets solid Article 5 level security commitments (which probably means NATO membership).

Exactly what was on my mind. Give the Ruskies what little territory they've won and allow Ukraine into Nato.

The other nato nations need to come up with their end of the deal money. It's not right...at all.

Yup that seems logical and the likely outcome. Both Ukes and Rus give in, in that arrangement.

Unfortunately one party won’t negotiate. Even the chinks basically gave up for the time being. Hail proxy wars! And yes screw NATO.

Note: 20-22% is not little especially the resource rich area, but also Rus have been clear about NATO so they would be giving in a lot as well.

(07-09-2023 12:43 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Frick miss lindsay

Frick russia

And

Frick ukraine

All of this and then another frick for all of them.

(07-09-2023 12:43 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Frick miss lindsay

Frick russia

And

Frick ukraine

Don’t forget “frick the world!”

What will we do when China starts parking missiles in Cuba?

(07-09-2023 08:48 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 12:43 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Frick miss lindsay

Frick russia

And

Frick ukraine

Don’t forget “frick the world!”

What will we do when China starts parking missiles in Cuba?

Biden* will apologize

And yeah, frick the world