Russia Never Said Anything About Invading Ukraine

Russia Never Said Anything About Invading Ukraine

NATO wants to make Ukraine a member state to thumb its nose at Russia. Ukraine spends too much time and money wanting to increase its military prowess to appeal to NATO, then NATO keeps raising the bar – it’s all about Russia ultimately and Crimea as a means to an end. 

Meanwhile the people of Ukraine suffer from deficits created by trying to please NATO. That’s what terrorists do. Bleed you dry.

That was the USA and NATO and Britain. 

Hey Britain, what’s going on in Palestine? Hm?

NATO only wants member countries with long standing established militaries. 

Strange how Britain has lots to say about Ukraine, but nothing to say about Palestine.

NATO is just another morphed form of colonialism. They’re the colonizers.

If I were a non-member or non-partner of NATO I would be concerned that NATO would have to prove their reason for continued existence by causing trouble for those non-member or non-partner nation states.

But you have to qualify and the demands are steep. Once a member, the USA and other important member states will require the new member to be totally transparent in all their military dealings including governmental entities and operations to prove their loyalty and gain their trust. In essence Ukraine would lose their military autonomy plus their governmental autonomy.

Not all member states are treated or regarded the same. It’s a truth based on a lie. Sure, members of congress all have an equal opportunity to vote on all bills put before congress. But who devises the original written issue put before members of NATO? And what kind of majority do they seek? Or maybe nothing is in writing, thus an absence of record keeping. ‘All members have their say’ is too vague when talking military action or non-action.

Do you see how complicated this gets? As complicated as it needs to be, most likely would be their response. 

Do you see how the operational status of NATO is too nation-like for comfort? Does each country represent separate parties within NATO, like they do in their respective countries? A dictator country in the nation state represents a dictator state in NATO? A democratic or socialist state, are they represented differently? How is it, that governing styles among nations differ, yet the governing style of NATO doesn’t?

From what governing style does NATO draw to govern member and partner states? That word ‘partner’ makes it look more important than the word ‘member’. Was that intentional? Their response probably would be, it was not unintentional.

A global nation of nations with nuclear weaponry. Who gets the veto power? The information on NATO provided on their website leaves too many unanswered questions.

“What is NATO?

NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance between countries in North America and Europe. NATO was formed following World War II. Its founding treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., in 1949 by a dozen European and North American countries. The NATO alliance was formed to respond to the threat posed after the Second World War by the Soviet Union. NATO's purpose was to protect democratic nations against the spread of communism in Europe. NATO’s website states: "It commits the Allies to democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, as well as to peaceful resolution of disputes. Importantly, the treaty sets out the idea of collective defense, meaning that an attack against one Ally is considered an attack against all Allies."/

Word War II is over. NATO is a dinosaur kicking up trouble to maintain its status as relevant. Communism is no longer a threat. The biggest threats stem from consumerism, unfair competition, unfair trade practices and who controls what the world makes, stores for future, distributes and buys. Political ideology is all over the board. The world is connected now. 

It sounds like NATO was built to preserve democracy. Democratic governments coalesced after World War II to protect each other from the ‘evils’ of non-democratic nations. The contradiction and hypocrisy is that in not allowing other forms of government to exist, then democracy becomes a dictator-style form of governance, not just within a nation but more importantly for NATO among nations.

NATO IS A DYING INSTITUTION. Any need for loyalty among nations to join military forces to repel or invade shouldn’t exist. There’s too much room for error and faulty judgments. Too many differing styles of governance and differing forms of democracy and certainly too many egos.

Many members don’t pay their dues/share, which means that debt payment is forever over the head of the member states in arrears, which is not a solid place to be in this dictator-styled organization.

Does NATO assassinate people, under their cloak of secrecy? Stating the job description or the mission statement of NATO is never a good answer. Policy vs practice also not a good answer.

Judging by where NATO came from and where the world stands today, it’s probably not a good idea for any country not a member to seek membership status, or for partner countries to seek member status. 

If you think you don’t have enough protection now being independent, you won’t have it after becoming dependent on NATO.

To whom does NATO answer? Who or what oversees NATO?

Russia Never Said Anything About Invading Ukraine

NATO was and continues to be the aggressor.

NATO pits family against family.

NATO creates chaos whatever they do or wherever they go.

Divide and conquer is no longer an acceptable strategy for peace. It clearly never was.

Setting up an organization of ‘us against ‘them is discriminatory at its core, which means next stop enslavement.

Making peace does not require a military.

NATO no longer exists.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---