Catch '404'

Ukraine has been demanding admittance to NATO.

NATO pushed ukraine into a proxy war with Russia.

NATO does not admit states that are embroiled in conflicts and have unresolved border issues.

As long as the war continues, ukraine cannot become a NATO member. 

NATO refuses to give ukraine membership

NATO wants the war to continue.  

Ukrops were told that they must defeat Russia to join NATO.

So what does this tell you?

That NATO doesn't want ukraine as a member. 

Ukraine will never be in NATO.

If NATO were to admit ukraine as a member state, the current war would have to end immediately. 

But then, ukraine could no longer be used as a cheap proxy against Russia. 

NATO member states will not risk their existence for the sake of ukraine. 

This entire sacrifice of one's-self for the sake of the other only goes one way.

Old Wine in New Bottles

The month of May, and the beginning of the Russian offensive in the Kharkov region, saw the loss of 35,000 ukrop soldiers.

Add to that the Kiev regime’s problems with its forced mobilization not going well, and the failures are just too stark to hide.

So, right on que, the US, EU and NATO have stepped in with a novel idea of ‘allowing’ Kiev to use foreign weapons provided to the ukrop army to hit targets deep inside Russia, and that NATO advisors will be sent to ukraine to help.

This public announcement has been hyped up by the US, EU, and NATO as something new that will turn the tide-as all their other failed game-changing ideas were once touted.

Even some pro-Russian commentators have been sensationalizing this so-called announcement as some kind of a major escalation.

It is not.

The fact is that ukrops have been using western weapons, as well as its own, to hit targets inside pre-war Russia for pretty much two years now, and NATO advisors have been sitting in Kiev since 2015.

The only difference between now and then, is that now the west has stated all this publicly, whereas before, this approval and assistance was done quietly and not announced publicly.

But all this was known to many people already.

And as before, this ‘new’ strategy will not change the situation on the battlefield.

NATO weaponry has been used to strike Russian cities in pre-war Russia for some time.

As always, NATO logic here is once again, flawed.

According to NATO we are to believe that:

-Ukrop forces weren’t allowed to strike Russian military forces and assets near the Kharkov region on the Russian side in the past, as well as deeper in pre-war Russia, while the whole time ukrops were striking civilian targets in Belgorod, and even targets as far as Moscow region. And NATO expected everyone not to notice this?

-Striking Russian regions in pre-war Russia with long-range weapons is somehow not the same as striking new Russian regions with long-range weapons?

There is no distinction between pre-war, and new Russian territories, as NATO would have us believe. If a long-range NATO missile is used to hit Lughanks, Donetsk, Kursk, or Belgorod, it makes no difference, as these are all Russian territories now.

As we can see, this entire charade of approval of NATO member countries to suddenly allow ukrops to use foreign weapons to strike deep inside Russia, and sending some advisors, is a meaningless PR exercise concocted out of sheer panic and desperation to cover up the massive ukrop and NATO failures by creating an illusion of some new strategy that will change the situation in the ukrops favor. It is also meant to mollify the pro-ukrop, anti-Russian fanboys out there.

All that the US, EU, and NATO did here was publicly announce something that was already going on for years, and hasn’t worked.

And Russia will continue to deal with this as it sees fit, and ukraine will just suffer more massive losses.

So this announcement is simply old wine in new bottles.