Mikk w Clermont

If Hakeem and Schumer remain, I really see no point in backing dems in 2028; it'll be obvious the US has no intention to change the course. Unless something radically changes or both these men put international law before special interests, nothing will be truly fixed.

Russia's security demands could force NATO to reverse nearly 30 years of European defence arrangements. A return to NATO's pre-1997 military positions would restrict allied troops, bases and military infrastructure in Poland and the Baltic states, potentially limit deployments in Finland and Sweden, and reduce NATO's military presence across Eastern Europe, weakening regional deterrence. This would weaken NATO's ability to defend its members and respond rapidly to a military crisis. Countries bordering Russia would become more vulnerable to military intimidation, coercion and potential aggression. Restrictions on NATO's forward deployments could delay reinforcements during an attack, giving Russian forces a strategic advantage. There is also a fundamental question of national sovereignty. Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and other European countries have the right to determine their own security arrangements. Accepting Russia's demands would give the Russian government influence over the defence decisions of sovereign nations, despite those countries being NATO members. It would also establish a dangerous precedent. Russia invaded Ukraine, occupied its territory and continues to demand further territorial and political concessions. Allowing Russia to obtain major changes to Europe's security arrangements through negotiations following that invasion could demonstrate that military aggression can produce strategic gains. Most importantly, NATO would be accepting restrictions on its defensive capabilities without necessarily securing equivalent, enforceable restrictions on Russia's military forces. Russia could retain substantial military capabilities near NATO territory while allied countries face limitations on the forces and infrastructure intended to protect them. The issue is not whether Ukraine receives a ceasefire. It is whether an agreement intended to end one war could leave much of Europe more vulnerable to another.