Ben Harnwell

All America or any NATO member needs to do if another NATO member is attacked is send a fax saying,

and say, we're studying, we are monitoring the situation, and we believe our monitoring of that situation fulfills our obligations, right?

Security guarantees are far more binding on who's signing on the other side.

Look at the First World War.

You are setting yourselves up here for a position which you are never going to escape from.

And by the way, Steve, by the way, Steve's, it is even worse than that.

Denver, would you kindly put up my first article, which I sent through, the quote from Axios.

I'm going to hand back to you guys on this point.

This is one of the most dangerous things I've ever read in my life, right?

Because it is not simply security guarantees for Ukraine, according to what we know of this 28-point plan, which isn't the fullness of it.

It's security guarantees for Ukraine and Europe.

That's one of the biggest buried leads I've ever read in my life.

And that's what Axios says.

Security guarantees for Ukraine and Europe.

Good luck with that, folks.

This is anywhere but America first.

Of course it is, because Article 5 is simply a legal mechanism for you to start warring with another nation that hasn't directly attacked you without you suffering any obligations under international law.

Security guarantees bind you into doing something.

Steve Cortez.

At Steve Cortez, I will respond saying, let me know.