If Ukraine wins war, it will consider whether it needs NATO

The White House National Security Communications Advisor is saying the right things. But the question remains: how do we win it? What does it mean to win?

If we are to defeat a country with the world's largest nuclear potential and a mobilization reserve of 25 million, a country that possesses the largest natural resources globally and has partners with virtually unlimited human resources, why do we need NATO?

"To train three of our pilots in two years?"

Why not simply say: "The world is deciding its future right now. There are two camps. In our camp, we certainly need a country whose army is holding back the biggest monster of our time without even using all its possible potential. Conventions don't matter - you're on our team. If a big mess starts, we're in this together. Or maybe it won't."

"Because Kirby's statement is like saying: "We will give you the Henri Delaunay Cup if you win the European Football Championship. If we win, we will take the cup ourselves, automatically." As Vakarchuk sang: "Words, words. Like a veil..." The only question is what's behind the veil? Isn't it some kind of disgusting face?"

P.S. On the positive side: The Kremlin's fools, especially the alcoholic Dimon and the horde of propagandists who scream about nuclear strikes every day, have finally provoked Washington, and the United States is initiating a nuclear arms race. This is exactly what once pushed the USSR out of the game, as it simply lacked the resources. We'll see. We're doing our part. Meanwhile, Putin is courting Kim Jong Un as a strategic partner: trading metal for electricity and nuclear technology. Maybe he'll even ask for more people. Kim has quite a few, 25 million, but who knows, perhaps he will. After all, it seems the United States isn't attacking from Honolulu yet...

Source

About the author. Vasyl Zyma, Espreso journalist.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.