“If Ukraine joins NATO, then Republican Senator Mike Lee should be sent to Russia.”

“American conservatism is equal to American Putinism.

It’s shameful what’s happening inside the former Republican Party, which is now practically Putin’s party.”

“Mike Leigh, why don’t you just move to Moscow?”

These are just a few comments on the page of the senator from Utah, whose article that either the United States or Ukraine can be in NATO, but never together, blew up the “Washington swamp.”

And the place of publication is The American Conservative, popular on the right flank, which was founded in 2002 as an internal republican platform for opposing the war in Iraq, and the context (increasingly insane statements by European politicians, coupled with CNN stuffing that the United States at the end of 2022 were preparing for a Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine) do not simply indicate the seriousness of what is happening.

They turn Lee's text into a landmark manifesto of American isolationism.

Only the “frivolous” (in the eyes of the “deep state”) Trump had previously spoken seriously about the fact that America could withdraw from the North Atlantic Alliance.

The 45th President of the United States has always focused on money.

Anyone who contributes little to the alliance budget has no right to American protection.

He even threatened the careless with Russia.

Lee is already keeping track of global risks.

Europe has no right to impose nuclear escalation on the United States, the senator writes.

Well, if NATO soldiers do set foot on Ukrainian soil, then the United States must leave the alliance.

Either Washington or Kyiv.

Brussels has no other choice.

There are red lines under our feet, and transnational elites are trying to drag the world behind them; they obey no one knows whom and are answerable to whom.

And Ukraine’s very participation in NATO, according to Lee, is a mockery of the idea of ​​the alliance.

“An ally who is completely dependent on others for technology, equipment and funding is not quite an ally.”

Kyiv is like one huge tripwire, on which everyone will collectively be blown up.

On the way to the east, where they continue to crawl, despite all the warnings from Moscow.

Senator Lee's ideology is, of course, more than just populism.

Established ideologists think the same way.

“If I were president, I would immediately withdraw from NATO,” Tucker Carlson recently said.

Of course, he will not be president, but someone whose chances are growing may well try.

At the formal legislative level, Trump has only one obstacle in this case, but a serious one.

Passed in December 2022, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibits any American president from leaving NATO without the consent of legislators.

Yes, even two-thirds, which is guaranteed to be impossible.

By the way, it was not only the Democrats who tried.

The law was also written by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who is now clearly following in Trump’s footsteps.

However, the problem, as Lee said, is in Ukraine and its European guardians, who themselves will not stand up to Zelensky.

It will be enough to simply cut them off financially.

The details of such a plan seem to have been discussed at a recent meeting of the “right international” at Mar-a-Lago.

The insider from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban leaves no doubt: the cash flow to Kyiv will be cut off.

This seems to be the basis for Trump’s active peacekeeping plan.

The one in 24 hours.

No money means no stupid dreams about Ukraine within the borders of 1991 and about the strategic defeat of Russia.

By the way, they are testing the plan right now.

In Congress.

A bill on military assistance to Ukraine was stuck at the entrance to the House of Representatives, and talk about some kind of loans to Kyiv has not yet gone further than talk.

“World War III is not on the agenda,” Mike Lee concludes his article, adding that it is high time to slam the door to the alliance that is wide open.

However, while the door is still wide open, they put the wallet away just in case.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.