Biden says war with Russia must end before NATO can consider membership for Ukraine

[EastBayRay]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You think this is unexpected news? 

If that is what I thought, that is what I would have written. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, EastBayRay said:

If that is what I thought, that is what I would have written. 

Then why the criticism? You think it's sensible for Biden to propose something that would be opposed by many other members of NATO? You think now is a good time to create disunity?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He didn't say "not now". He said not until the war ends. 

 

There is a huge gap between allowing membership "right now" and ruling it out "until the war is over".

 

He could have played his hand much more effectively had he taken a more sophisticated approach. A more thoughtful approach. A more intelligent approach. A more strategic approach.

 

If Biden was a poker player he'd either fold every hand immediately or go all in with a grin on his face. And the grin wouldn't be a bluff either  ????. 

 

I'd say Biden is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess but I think that would be giving him far too much credit. 

There's no chance that most other NATO members will opt to allow Ukraine entry into NATO whilst the war in ongoing. What's the point of creating disunity or even uncertainty about this issue? It's a nonstarter. Better to reassure NATO members that the US has no intention of pushing for this.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Accession to NATO requires that there be no territorial disputes involving the applicant.

 

This would mean that not only would the war with Russia have to end, but any claims by Russia over the Donbas or Crimea would have to be withdrawn or a negotiated settlement reached. I don't see this happening any time soon even if hostilities end.

[onthedarkside]

A number of off topic posts about Bidens health have been removed along with numerous replies that led off it. The topic here is:

 

Biden says war with Russia must end before NATO can consider membership for Ukraine

 

Not any unsubstantiated "condition" he has.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

He didn't say "not now". He said not until the war ends. 

 

There is a huge gap between allowing membership "right now" and ruling it out "until the war is over".

 

He could have played his hand much more effectively had he taken a more sophisticated approach. A more thoughtful approach. A more intelligent approach. A more strategic approach.

 

If Biden was a poker player he'd either fold every hand immediately or go all in with a grin on his face. And the grin wouldn't be a bluff either  ????. 

 

I'd say Biden is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess but I think that would be giving him far too much credit. 

Geez....

 

President Biden stated the obvious for the benefit of those who haven't grasped the obvious.  No member of NATO would have gone along with accepting Ukraine as a member while it is at war with Russia. 

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Geez....

 

President Biden stated the obvious for the benefit of those who haven't grasped the obvious.  No member of NATO would have gone along with accepting Ukraine as a member while it is at war with Russia. 

So maybe keeping his mouth shut would have been the most diplomatic course of action?

 

Some people just can't help themselves I guess.

[sirineou]

On 7/10/2023 at 8:30 AM, LosLobo said:

I watched the full Fareed Zakaria/Joe Biden last night and I was impressed with Joe Biden's  performance in explaining his position on Ukraine, China and Israel.

So did I, I changed station after Zakaria asked about the US sending cluster bombs to Ukraine, Biden gave a BS answer, and Fareed failed to follow up with a "Year but did you not call Russia's alleged use of such weapons a war crime"?  I voted for Biden but will not make that mistake again,(well Idid not really vote for Biden as much as I  voted against trump)

If he is the democratic candidate, I will simply not vote, and I am sure I will not be the only one. Wouldn't it funny if he pulls a Hillary, and trump wins again. 

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, sirineou said:

So did I, I changed station after Zakaria asked about the US sending cluster bombs to Ukraine, Biden gave a BS answer, and Fareed failed to follow up with a "Year but did you not call Russia's alleged use of such weapons a war crime"?  I voted for Biden but will not make that mistake again,(well Idid not really vote for Biden as much as I  voted against trump)

If he is the democratic candidate, I will simply not vote, and I am sure I will not be the only one. Wouldn't it funny if he pulls a Hillary, and trump wins again. 

It would be the end of American democracy.

[Jingthing]

30 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So maybe keeping his mouth shut would have been the most diplomatic course of action?

 

Some people just can't help themselves I guess.

Yeah I've noticed that on this very forum.

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

He didn't say "not now". He said not until the war ends. 

 

There is a huge gap between allowing membership "right now" and ruling it out "until the war is over".

 

He could have played his hand much more effectively had he taken a more sophisticated approach. A more thoughtful approach. A more intelligent approach. A more strategic approach.

 

If Biden was a poker player he'd either fold every hand immediately or go all in with a grin on his face. And the grin wouldn't be a bluff either  ????. 

 

I'd say Biden is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess but I think that would be giving him far too much credit. 

Maybe Biden hasn't read the 'Art of Deal' as you have.

 

This playbook doesn't seem to be helping the author with his problems at the moment though.

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Accession to NATO requires that there be no territorial disputes involving the applicant.

 

This would mean that not only would the war with Russia have to end, but any claims by Russia over the Donbas or Crimea would have to be withdrawn or a negotiated settlement reached. I don't see this happening any time soon even if hostilities end.

They could potentially craft a custom security deal for Ukraine even if Russia still held occupied lands that the west doesn't recognize. They might have more flexibility than you think.

[heybruce]

52 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So maybe keeping his mouth shut would have been the most diplomatic course of action?

 

Some people just can't help themselves I guess.

"So maybe keeping his mouth shut would have been the most diplomatic course of action?"

 

Why?  As I stated, some people can't grasp the obvious.  What benefit is there in allowing them to speculate about something that isn't going to happen?

 

"Some people just can't help themselves I guess."

 

That's obvious from reading some of the posts here.

[heybruce]

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

So did I, I changed station after Zakaria asked about the US sending cluster bombs to Ukraine, Biden gave a BS answer, and Fareed failed to follow up with a "Year but did you not call Russia's alleged use of such weapons a war crime"?  I voted for Biden but will not make that mistake again,(well Idid not really vote for Biden as much as I  voted against trump)

If he is the democratic candidate, I will simply not vote, and I am sure I will not be the only one. Wouldn't it funny if he pulls a Hillary, and trump wins again. 

How is helping Trump win a good thing?

 

I can't recall ever being enthusiastic about my vote.  I routinely vote for the lesser of the two evils.  Until the US has rank choice voting that is the only responsible thing to do.

[JonnyF]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why?  As I stated, some people can't grasp the obvious.  What benefit is there in allowing them to speculate about something that isn't going to happen?

Who was speculating? 

 

Who appointed Joe to clear up the issue on behalf of Nato?

[JonnyF]

39 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah I've noticed that on this very forum.

How ironic that you are the one pointing that out ????.

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Who was speculating? 

 

Who appointed Joe to clear up the issue on behalf of Nato?

Judging by the headlines to date, it appears a lot of people were speculating.

 

Since any NATO member can veto a new applicant, any NATO member is free to clear up the issue.  However when it comes from NATO's largest economy and greatest military power, it carries more weight.

 

Why do you think it is wrong for President Biden to state the obvious?

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Judging by the headlines to date, it appears a lot of people were speculating.

 

Since any NATO member can veto a new applicant, any NATO member is free to clear up the issue.  However when it comes from NATO's largest economy and greatest military power, it carries more weight.

 

Why do you think it is wrong for President Biden to state the obvious?

1. It was unnecessary.

2. He could have played his hand much smarter.

[sirineou]

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It would be the end of American democracy.

Or a wake up call. 

There are those who could argue that it died a long time ago if it ever existed. 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

How is helping Trump win a good thing?

 

I can't recall ever being enthusiastic about my vote.  I routinely vote for the lesser of the two evils.  Until the US has rank choice voting that is the only responsible thing to do.

No, I don't think trump is a good thing, 

but I also don't think that voting for an admitted war criminal is a good thing also.

So I obtain. 

I do the right thing and if bad things happen because of them , it is not on me , it is on them. 

I am 66 years old and have seen this crap all my life. I had enough, I don't want to be an anti. any more, I want to be for something. 

I know get off your high horse you might think, and you might be right, but I like it up here, the weather is fine ????

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

No, I don't think trump is a good thing, 

but I also don't think that voting for an admitted war criminal is a good thing also.

So I obtain. 

I do the right thing and if bad things happen because of them , it is not on me , it is on them. 

I am 66 years old and have seen this crap all my life. I had enough, I don't want to be an anti. any more, I want to be for something. 

I know get off your high horse you might think, and you might be right, but I like it up here, the weather is fine ????

Abstaining is two votes for the side you like least. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Abstaining is two votes for the side you like least. 

Abstains is one vote, voting with the opposition is two votes in their favor.

[heybruce]

50 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

1. It was unnecessary.

2. He could have played his hand much smarter.

1.  It eliminates distracting background noise and speculation.

2.  He knows much more about these matters and how to play these games than you ever will.

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Or a wake up call. 

There are those who could argue that it died a long time ago if it ever existed. 

They might argue, but they never present any credible evidence.

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, sirineou said:

No, I don't think trump is a good thing, 

but I also don't think that voting for an admitted war criminal is a good thing also.

So I obtain. 

I do the right thing and if bad things happen because of them , it is not on me , it is on them. 

I am 66 years old and have seen this crap all my life. I had enough, I don't want to be an anti. any more, I want to be for something. 

I know get off your high horse you might think, and you might be right, but I like it up here, the weather is fine ????

He's not a war criminal; use of cluster bombs by both sides, but by the Russians against purely civilian targets, has made it legal under established rules of war.

 

I'm 65 and have participated in this crap much of my adult life.  When doing the least bad thing is the best option, it is the correct thing to do.

 

I'm not ready to abandon adult responsibilities.

[sirineou]

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

He's not a war criminal; use of cluster bombs by both sides, but by the Russians against purely civilian targets, has made it legal under established rules of war.

Two wrongs has never made a right.

When it was alleged that Russia used them the Biden administration said that Putin was a war criminal for using them, (See vid below first 30 seconds) Now Biden wants to participate in their use. 

  "He did it first" never worked with my mom when I was a kid and I am sure did not work with yours. , And it certainly does not work now, 

 

[billd766]

On 7/10/2023 at 1:42 PM, billd766 said:

Who is 'we'?

 

You are speaking for yourself and NOT for anybody else, especially you are NOT speaking for me.

 

As usual he rants on using the term "we all know..." 

[sirineou]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They might argue, but they never present any credible evidence.

The evidence is that congress acts against public opinion a large percentage of the time. 

That the winner of the popular vote loses the election 

That special interests have more power than the public ect. 

 

[onthedarkside]

Another off topic post attempting to hijack the thread has been removed along with a reply. Carry on and a warning will be issued

[LosLobo]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

So did I, I changed station after Zakaria asked about the US sending cluster bombs to Ukraine, Biden gave a BS answer, and Fareed failed to follow up with a "Year but did you not call Russia's alleged use of such weapons a war crime"?  I voted for Biden but will not make that mistake again,(well Idid not really vote for Biden as much as I  voted against trump)

If he is the democratic candidate, I will simply not vote, and I am sure I will not be the only one. Wouldn't it funny if he pulls a Hillary, and trump wins again. 

I suggest Biden is between a rock and a hard place on this issue. Bi-partisan hawks think Biden should have acted earlier and bi-partisan doves disagree with the supply.

 

President Lincoln: “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time”