If NATO is going to serve as a guarantor, then let us be exactly that-guarantors in a real sense, not simply signatories on a document filled with flowery verbiage.

Makes sense to me.

If this is what Zelenskyy wants. Talks between Putin and the Felon (or, really, anyone) that don't include Zelenskyy are pointless. But if he's on-board with giving up territory for a NATO presence (including US troops), then OK. Otherwise, keep him supplied so he can forestall the conquest of his country until the aggressor has to give up and go home.

In all this time, Zelenskyy has been asking for help (i.e. supplies). Some on the right didn't want to give him that help. I (and many others) did, not only because it helped his country, but as a bonus, it helped ours. If he is now asking for a NATO presence to ensure a peace deal, I'm OK with that, too. It's his country. I'm not OK with outside forces imposing their will on him.

I would be shocked if Putin actually agreed to this. One of his reasons for invading was he didn't want Ukraine to join NATO. Having NATO troops in Ukraine without NATO membership isn't that much different.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.