Pat is right.
We managed to live through the Cold War without giving security guarantees to any of these countries. None of these countries and especially Ukraine are a vital interest of the United States.
“During 40 years of Cold War, America remained secure while East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were all under Moscow’s control.
These nations are all free today as a result of the West’s victory in the Cold War. But why do all these nations have war guarantees from the United States when none of them, as the Cold War demonstrated, is a vital interest of the USA?
Why, after the Cold War ended in 1991, did we agree to fight a war with Russia, including a nuclear war, on their behalf when 40 years of Cold War demonstrated they were not essential to our security?
Today, by our refusal to intervene militarily in Ukraine, to slow or halt this Russian invasion, we are sending a message to the world.
That message?
Ukraine’s independence is not vital to the United States. While a desirable goal, it is not worth our fighting a war with Russia to preserve. …”
Pat Buchanan got everything right in the 1990s and 2000s: the culture war, free trade and globalization, illegal immigration, Iraq, Russia and NATO expansion, etc.
“Will NATO Draw Us Into War With Russia?”
Buchanan is wrong. He could improve his sentence to read: “Will the U.S drag NATO into war with Russia?” But that would still be wrong, misleading, because the U.S. HAS dragged NATO member countries into its decades-long-running war against (against, not “with”) Russia.
Buchanan the Catholic conservative is also absolutely wrong that “These nations are all free today….”
The flaw with this article is the claim that Ukraine has ever been independent or “free” (and the implication that the west was/is “free” is also flawed, obviously). Same with the nonsensical claim that these other Warsaw pact countries are now “free” as a result of liberal democracy’s victory in the cold war. Claiming that Ukraine was “free and independent,” rather than what it truly was, an American puppet state, plays right into American propaganda.
The big problem with paleocons is that they want to keep this cold war mythology, that the west represented the “free world” and the good guys, but they don’t want the consequences that emerge from this line of thinking. If fighting for “freedom” was good in the cold war, then why is it not good now? If fighting the USSR all over the world was good, why is fighting Islamism or the current Russian federation not good? There isn’t a huge difference between what the USA was doing then and what it is doing now (except with lower competency in the ruling class today and the added social media fuelled histrionics). Honestly, the neocons are more consistent in their viewpoint.
“None of these countries and especially Ukraine are a vital interest of the United States.”
Wtf?? Ukraine is absolutely crucial to the interests of the (((United States))), Ned. What the rabble think doesn’t matter.
All the NATO countries including the US refuses to get directly involved in Ukraine except supplying military weaponry and humanitarian aid. Al of the NATO countries have run down their military capabilities and Europe itself is leaderless without the US. The US has bene trying to pull out of Europe but the weakness and frankly cowardice of Europe’s leaders has made hat difficult.
The west has betrayed Ukraine the EU and others encouraged them and then deserted them. Without help Ukraine will die and hundreds f thousands of ordinary people will die. Best to give up now, do some kind fo deal with Putin and live for another day. The effete west is hardly worth joining. Who knows Putin may use some of the hundreds of billions oil money to rebuild Ukraine.
“US leadership” is nothing but cancer for Europe. They haven’t been “trying to pull out”. The Empire must maintain globohomoschlomo control over its puppets.