whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

You can be sure that Ukraine is not what Russia wants to be compared with. That's why they're taking steps to make sure they don't meet the same fate.

---

The West made every accomodations to incorporate Russia into a modern 1st world economic and political Nation. They included them on Coucils that they were not qualified.

But Russia could not get around having a learning curve and resorted right back to the same Tsarist/Politboro strongman form of Govt using military to force what they wanted. In Russias mind missiles and tanks outweigh economy and trade. They shouldn't have to catch up to the West. Why should they when they can just threaten, assisnate and invade to get what they want.

---

Bingo.

Russian history is cycle of expansion, collapse, restructuring, expansion, etc.... Included in the "restructuring" phase is an acute awareness of the need to adopt "western reforms" in order that Russia may achieve its full potential, rightful place among nations, etc..... But the reforms never get very far. They require elites to give up more power than they are willing to do. So there's just a little improvement, then back to the old ways.

There's about 1500 years of those cycles......

I

---

Cyclical history is a poor substitute for understanding the mechanisms -- natural, cultural, industrial, etc. -- that drive historical change. Scratch the surface of your theory, and what mechanisms do we find? Crude, borderline racist assumptions based on shallow understanding at best. That's all you've got. But it's not the worst part. The worst part is that many of your assumptions are being disproven daily. You assured us that the Russians would be defeated in Ukraine because of what you consider their inherent corruption, rigidity, and lack of innovation. No doubt you'll stick to this mythology even as they march through Kiev, but by now most people can see reality.

Like most cyclical analyses, yours stretches some facts and omits others. You could take any number of European countries and force-fit them into the same box. It's a lazy exercise which ultimately proves nothing. And it fails for the same reason your military analysis has failed so spectacularly. The two are not unrelated.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

---

How were they exploited? They were giving a seat at the table. They are a 100% commodity based economy. Still are. But, hey I am sure the Chinese agreement and their dealings with Crimea, the Stans and Georgia will create a record economic boom.

Those moves seem so much better than a Free Market economy trading with the EU and North America. Funny thing about Free Market exploitation, everyone usually ends up with a higher standard of living.

---

The "loosely confederated Russia", that [Zbigniew] Brzezinski imagines, would be a toothless, dependent nation that could not defend its own borders or sovereignty. It would not be able to prevent more powerful countries from invading, occupying and establishing military bases on its soil. Nor would it be able to unify its disparate people beneath a single banner or pursue a positive "unified" vision for the future of the country. A confederal Russia --fragmented into a myriad of smaller parts -- would allow the US to maintain its dominant role in the region without threat of challenge or interference. And that appears to be Brzezinski's real goal as he pointed out in this passage in his magnum opus The Grand Chessboard....

Brzezinski sums up US imperial ambitions succinctly. Washington plans to establish its primacy in the world's most prosperous and populous region, Eurasia. And -- in order to do so -- Russia must be decimated and partitioned, its leaders must be toppled and replaced, and its vast resources must be transferred to the iron grip of global transnationals who will use them to perpetuate the flow of wealth from east to west. In other words, Moscow must accept its humble role in the new order as America's de-facto Gas and Mining Company.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/03112022-washingtons-plan-to-break-up-russia-oped/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

You are quoting his book. Seemed you were in favor of his views. I am not.

I do not think we should help Ukraine because of any grand strategy. I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

I also do not think Russia is a victim or the US was part of some grand plan to keep them down or exploit them. Russia has brought stuff on them through actions.

---

None of this is about helping Ukraine. Their people are being sent to battle with practically no training, sometimes to die within days of being conscripted. They're being sacrificed to buy time and to save what little is left of Biden's popularity. If we wanted to help them, we'd tell them to negotiate an end to the war. We won't do that because we think America would lose face.

---

That's what happens in wars of attrition - people being sent into battle as cannon fodder.

And yes, we are doing it to help Ukraine. That it also helps us does not mean it does not help Ukraine. The Ukrainians are willing to die to save their country. As long as they are willing to do so, we should send ammo. Because their survival as a country is a good thing for us. because their victory over Russia is a good thing for us.

---

That's what happens in a war of attrition when you're losing. Their survival as a country is precisely why they should be negotiating an end to the war, even if it means giving up some land.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia.

---

You're missing a very important point. We're not consulting with Russia at all. We've even stood in the way when Zelensky tried to do so. The fact that Biden hasn't talked to Putin since the war started is a travesty.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and its not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

yes, we expanded. Thru indigenous stone-age cultures that were going to be subsumed by someone if not us. And we did it without building a culture of engaging in wars with great powers. (or even minor powers).

Not so with Russia. They have marched armies across borders of every country that touches them, in some case a half-dozen countries away, over and over and over. Not against steppe nomad tribes either. They've done it to the greatest powers of the day over the boundaries of empire. Over and over and over.....

---

I must have missed those two wars with the UK...and the threat on multiple occasions to fight another war with them again over the Pacific Northwest and even annex Canada.

Or when the USA threated France and Spain to get off our continent and either the sell the land or get run over.

Or the time we steam rolled over Mexico and annex 1/3rd of their country.

(none of these am I complaining about for the record)

You have a very rosy colored pictured of how DC reacts to rivals in North America...and eventually the whole hemisphere.

Has Russia ever declared all Europe and Asia its private zone of influence? Well the USA did with the entire freaking Western Hemisphere

[The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States' exclusive sphere of interest.]

---

Yes, the Monroe Doctrine is real, and it prevented European intrigues from creating problems in our neighborhood, an enforced neutrality, if you will. It worked splendidly.

Have you ever looked at the present footprint of Russia? It's quite a bit larger than ours. And still they are not happy. Still they are expanding. Expanding is what they do...... We, on the other hand, were quite comfortable to stop at the Pacific shore, except for a handful of Pacific island territories that help defend our Pacific shores. No country in history with the power we enjoy has done less than we have w/r/t imperial expansion.

You are cherry picking history to make the USA a bad guy and Russia a good guy. Not impressive.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.
Nothing moralist about it. Native American cultures were going to be rolled up by somebody. Better us than some other power with imperial ambitions.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR
you continue to presume, quite illogically, that the USSR was only an expansionist totalitarian empire regime in Russian history. It was not. Such is the only model Russia has ever had.

Neither the USA or Russia are "bad" in wanting to expand their territory historically (brings security and land for settlers)
There you go again - assigning moral equivalence between imperial autarky and constitutional republic.

Russia expanded into the East into basically nothing....no real population centers from the Ural mountains to the Pacific...
Ditto for USA moving west. Almost the same kind of demography...scattered stone age cultures engaged in hunter/gatherer existence.
In the West they faced the Poles (and others) also interested in expansion and fought wars with them.
to dominate them into a Russian empire......

The USA as you said was lucky to face stone age tribes as it expanded across the continent and was able to buy off and intimidate other European powers who did not yet have a strong presence.

America is a super power because it expanded across a continent. (by war, intimidation, and negotiation)

Russia is a regional power because it did the same.
but what do they do with their power? We do not do what Russia does. Never have.

Both exist...and you have to explain today why its right for us to fight proxy wars around the borderlands of Russia...while explaining how that would be wrong if Moscow did it to us in Canada or Mexico.

---

Russia of 2024 might as well be the Russia of 1724 - seeing itself as the rightful hegemon of everything between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Wall of China.

---

This is barely believable enough for a video game, much less a premise for real world policy.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

---

1. Well your polices are bad....20 years of foreign policy failures has no effect on your world view.

2. Your policies in this certain case could lead to a wider European war and possible world war that could even go nuclear. Its legitimate to ask if you are planning to get out of your house and head over to fight or just advocate for others to do it.

Its especially legitimate to ask while you accuse everyone of being a "pro-russian" asset.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

---

1. Well your polices are bad....20 years of foreign policy failures has no effect on your world view.

2. Your policies in this certain case could lead to a wider European war and possible world war that could even go nuclear. Its legitimate to ask if you are planning to get out of your house and head over to fight or just advocate for others to do it.

Its especially legitimate to ask while you accuse of being a "pro-russian" asset.

---

Asset? You can be pro-Russia without being an "Asset". For all I know your Grandparents are from there and believe Ukraine is Russian. Hell, my Grandmother was Ukrainian. Doesn't make me an asset ...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

---

1. Well your polices are bad....20 years of foreign policy failures has no effect on your world view.

2. Your policies in this certain case could lead to a wider European war and possible world war that could even go nuclear. Its legitimate to ask if you are planning to get out of your house and head over to fight or just advocate for others to do it.

Its especially legitimate to ask while you accuse of being a "pro-russian" asset.

---

Asset? You can be pro-Russia without being an "Asset". For all I know your Grandparents are from there and believe Ukraine is Russian. Hell, my Grandmother was Ukrainian. Doesn't make me an asset ...

---

Oh really...interesting.

Another ethnic grudge fest playing out here on American shores is it?

Well regardless pro-russian would be wanting to help or support Russia. Not wanting to get into a costly and foolish proxy war over a local border state is very different.

Wanting to avoid a proxy war with China over Mongolia would be wise and NOT the same thing as being pro-Chinese

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Putin has been avoiding the NATO countries like the plague. Meanwhile they are trying to Article V him at every turn. https://t.co/zw4TbxShYW

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) June 4, 2024

---

I follow the RHL and like her work, but her take here is just plumb goofy.

what the hell is an alliance for if not to prepare for war?
is it not clear in the article that Nato is NOT preparing to deploy combat units on the Russian border?
isn't public war planning a good way to demonstrate resolve and build deterrence?

My daughter, btw, will be in command of the major logistics node on one of those blue arrows.

---

She follows me on X. We're just worried that this war is going to get uglier and become another forever war.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and it's not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

Russia did not need to invade Ukraine to remain secure. It could have played the long game and wait for pro-Russian people/parties to get elected into power.

---

And immediately overthrown with our help. Pro-Russian people and parties are one of the main grievances we cite in order to justify intervention.

---

Sigh. We did not overthrow the Yanukovich government. The Ukrainian people did.

---

Spare us the propaganda.

Sam Lowry said:

---

We're not consulting with Russia at all. We've even stood in the way when Zelensky tried to do so. The fact that Biden hasn't talked to Putin since the war started is a travesty.

---

Absolutely. Even at the height of the Cold War, Eisenhower invited Kruschev for a visit to ease tensions.

Mature adults bend over backwards to avoid a nuclear holocaust.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia.

---

You're missing a very important point. We're not consulting with Russia at all. We've even stood in the way when Zelensky tried to do so. The fact that Biden hasn't talked to Putin since the war started is a travesty.

---

We agree here 100%. Problem is we can't let Putin speak to Biden one on one, it will be a green light to take Alaska too while at it! Biden is not capable of sitting with Putin. That is a problem.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

---

I have sent $ to Ukraine. I have skin in the game. We had an exchange student for 2 yrs from Ukraine . When the Ruski's stated this crap, Alika's family had to flea Kiev and the family home to move in with her in Warsaw. House demolished. And, yes, I fly a Ukrainian Flag off my 20th floor balcony for all Dallas to see. I see 4 others .

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

---

I have sent $ to Ukraine. I have skin in the game. We had an exchange student for 2 yrs from Ukraine . When the Ruski's stated this crap, Alika's family had to flea Kiev and the family home to move in with her in Warsaw. House demolished. And, yes, I fly a Ukrainian Flag off my 20th floor balcony for all Dallas to see. I see 4 others .

---

That is great. I have no issue with supporting anything. More power to you I helped a Ukrainian consultant get their citizenship and grandmother out. I applaud you caring enough.

My post is geared to that only people that volunteer to fight have a right to comment on policy. Or only combat infantry vets can discuss foreign policy, that is a juvenile concept. Public policy is just that public, we all have a right to voice our opinions.

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

---

I have sent $ to Ukraine. I have skin in the game. We had an exchange student for 2 yrs from Ukraine . When the Ruski's stated this crap, Alika's family had to flea Kiev and the family home to move in with her in Warsaw. House demolished. And, yes, I fly a Ukrainian Flag off my 20th floor balcony for all Dallas to see. I see 4 others .

---

My post is geared to that only people that volunteer to fight have a right to comment on policy. Or only combat infantry vets can discuss foreign policy, that is a juvenile concept. Public policy is just that public, we all have a right to voice our opinions.

---

And yet you call anyone who voices criticism of our aggressive and interventionist foreign policy establishment a "pro-Russian"

Combat vets might not make policy but at this point maybe we should let them…they can't do any worse than the people we have in DC who have led us into disaster after disaster over the past 25 years.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not

---

The tired arguements of send your personal money or go yourself when talking policy.

Grow up. We are talking policy.

---

1. Well your polices are bad....20 years of foreign policy failures has no effect on your world view.

2. Your policies in this certain case could lead to a wider European war and possible world war that could even go nuclear. Its legitimate to ask if you are planning to get out of your house and head over to fight or just advocate for others to do it.

Its especially legitimate to ask while you accuse of being a "pro-russian" asset.

---

Asset? You can be pro-Russia without being an "Asset". For all I know your Grandparents are from there and believe Ukraine is Russian. Hell, my Grandmother was Ukrainian. Doesn't make me an asset ...

---

Oh really...interesting.

Another ethnic grudge fest playing out here on American shores is it?

Well regardless pro-russian would be wanting to help or support Russia. Not wanting to get into a costly and foolish proxy war over a local border state is very different.

Wanting to avoid a proxy war with China over Mongolia would be wise and NOT the same thing as being pro-Chinese

---

Nah, I didn't learn she was Ukrainian until she was 94. Funny story, Putin was speaking Russian on the news and my brother said I wish I knew what he was really saying. And she translated, we were shocked. Didn't know she spoke Russian. She said, no one ever asked. Turns out that she was Ukranian. So, technically yes, she was Ukranian. I didn't know until I was in my 40's. It was never a big deal.

“If today, thinking it over calmly, we wonder why Europe went to war in 1914, there is not one sensible reason to be found, nor even any real occasion for the war."

- Stefan Zweig, 1942 https://t.co/gahv5YEPL8

— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) June 5, 2024

BREAKING: Putin Plans to deliver arms to countries at odds with the West.. -Inside Paper

This is escalating quickly. https://t.co/Ob6vh2CAwM

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 5, 2024

https://visitukraine.today/blog/1797/how-to-join-the-international-legion-of-defense-of-ukraine-detailed-instructions-for-foreigners

For anyone that is interested in volunteering to go over there and kick some Russian butt. It's for Ukraine guys, come on. I'm sure the war will be over by Christmas. Go over there and defend my freedom.

https://www.newsweek.com/ethan-hertweck-us-volunteer-mercenary-killed-ukraine-avdiivka-1854042

I respect this guy for actually going over there and fighting for this cause that he demonstrated his belief for. He didn't argue for further escalation of the conflict at the cost of his fellow Americans lives on a message board, he actually went over there and did it. People like this have set the standard, and everything else is coffeehouse neckbeard talk

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

Both points misfire:

1) They THOUGHT they could take Ukraine with hardly a shot. They THOUGHT the Ukrainians would welcome them, would put up token resistance. Huge miscalculation. Tyrannical regimes are prone to do that...miscalculate, because free thinking and debate are very, very risky things. Compliance is the key to survival. So.........extrapolate that forward to how Russia might mis-assess Nato reaction to mischief in the Baltics, or elsewhere, and then calculate the consequences of Nato gearing up to give Russia a thorough thrashing (the inevitable outcome).

2) Doesn't matter what is happening in the Ukraine ecosphere. Adding 29m or 39m or 19m Ukrainians is a huge positive jolt to the Russian ecosphere. If you cannot grow your own economy, you grow by stealing someone else's. That is what drove most wars in Europe for 2000 years. The one thing Russia assessed correctly is that adding Ukraine to the Russian ecosphere would be a massive win for Russia.

Look how Russia is building its army in Ukraine - heavily emphasizing recruiting soldiers from outlying provinces full of ethnic non-Russians. If Russia takes all of Ukraine, it will gain several MILLION pieces of cannon fodder. Russian ethnics will not be fighting in the front lines in any future war with Nato. They will be scouring Ukrainian villages for Ukrainians to throw into the meat grinder. Buryatia (pop 350k) natives have a casualty rate 12x that of ethnic Russians (113m) in the Ukraine War, despite Russians outnumbering Buryatians over 30-1. Imagine what Russia could do with 30m Ukrainians to play with.

THAT is the way Russia thinks. They would quite happily liquidate all the non-Russian ethnics, as it would give lebensraum for Russian nationals....ethnically Russify currently non-Russian oblasts. Where did Russia send all the Ukrainians "evacuated" from Russian occupied Ukraine?.......mostly to non-Russian oblasts in the east. If they don't have enough Russians to do all the backfill, they can always use white slavic Russian speakers (who have more in common with Russians than with Buryatians)....

Ethnic cleansing, genocite, etc....it's all part of how Russia "manages Russia for the benefit of Russians.
And the Ukrainians?
What should Nato do with them?
Better to use them killing Russians trying to save their own country, rather than having to use your own troops to kill Ukrainians wearing Russian unforms.
That is the choice, in one sense, you know.....

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“If today, thinking it over calmly, we wonder why Europe went to war in 1914, there is not one sensible reason to be found, nor even any real occasion for the war."

- Stefan Zweig, 1942 https://t.co/gahv5YEPL8

— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) June 5, 2024

BREAKING: Putin Plans to deliver arms to countries at odds with the West.. -Inside Paper

This is escalating quickly. https://t.co/Ob6vh2CAwM

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 5, 2024

---

How is this a change? Russians and Chinese have helped Iran, N Korea, Cuba, and others for decades. Don't see the change in policy here.

---

Just more McGregor milking his 10 minutes of fame.

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious = Russia is fully mobilized and senses weakness in the west (thanks in no small part due to blather like yours) and trying to send enough ammo to Ukraine to stop Russia in Ukraine (rather than letting Russia roll right up to Nato borders).

Our generals are telling field and company grade officers "We are going to war! Get ready for it. NOW!" Best way to stop that from happening is to send ammo to Ukraine.

whiterock said:

---

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious =

---

Just that we should keep moving NATO's borders closer and closer to the Russian state while ripping local border states out of the russian orbit....via coups, color revolutions, bribes (NGO grants), and popular street protests.

Surely a strategy for lasting peace and with no change for blow back.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

“If today, thinking it over calmly, we wonder why Europe went to war in 1914, there is not one sensible reason to be found, nor even any real occasion for the war."

- Stefan Zweig, 1942 https://t.co/gahv5YEPL8

— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) June 5, 2024

BREAKING: Putin Plans to deliver arms to countries at odds with the West.. -Inside Paper

This is escalating quickly. https://t.co/Ob6vh2CAwM

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 5, 2024

---

How is this a change? Russians and Chinese have helped Iran, N Korea, Cuba, and others for decades. Don't see the change in policy here.

---

Maybe.

However, Iran under the Shah and the Monarchy was pro-Western....and Islamic revolutionary Iran was often at odds with the Atheist and communist USSR and China.

Things have now changed. Russia, Iran, China all seems to playing nice with each other.

N. Korea as well was historically a Stalinist hermit kingdom only really supported by Mao's communist China.

Again things seem to be changing.

The policy geniuses in DC seem to have a knack of getting mutual hostile States to start working together.....seems bad

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious =

---

Just that we should keep moving NATO's borders closer and closer to the Russian state while ripping local border states out of the russian orbit....via coups, color revolutions, bribes (NGO grants), and popular street protests.

Surely a strategy for lasting peace and with no change for blow back.

---

And the people of these Nations, whole nation not one small area, want to go back to being under Russia? This is all the US forcing Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Hungary, baltics, Czech/Slovakia, etc to join the West, but they would really rather be part of the Russian sphere. They all broke away, celebrated and now say we miss Moscow?

Yeah...

Just like the Iranian people prefer the Ayotollah to freedom?

Redbrickbear said:

---

“If today, thinking it over calmly, we wonder why Europe went to war in 1914, there is not one sensible reason to be found, nor even any real occasion for the war."

- Stefan Zweig, 1942 https://t.co/gahv5YEPL8

— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) June 5, 2024

BREAKING: Putin Plans to deliver arms to countries at odds with the West.. -Inside Paper

This is escalating quickly. https://t.co/Ob6vh2CAwM

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 5, 2024

---

What's new?

Edit: FL and WHiterock beat me to it

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious =

---

Just that we should keep moving NATO's borders closer and closer to the Russian state while ripping local border states out of the russian orbit....via coups, color revolutions, bribes (NGO grants), and popular street protests.

Surely a strategy for lasting peace and with no change for blow back.

---

And the people of these Nations, whole nation not one small area, want to go back to being under Russia? This is all the US forcing Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Hungary, baltics, Czech/Slovakia, etc to join the West, but they would really rather be part of the Russian sphere. They all broke away, celebrated and now say we miss Moscow?

Yeah...

Just like the Iranian people prefer the Ayotollah to freedom?

---

They put the Ayatollahs in power to begin with bud...now if the youth of Iran want to over throw the regime that is up to them.

But having the USA get involved inside Iran would probably be a disaster and if anything harm the more pro-Western camp.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious =

---

Just that we should keep moving NATO's borders closer and closer to the Russian state while ripping local border states out of the russian orbit....via coups, color revolutions, bribes (NGO grants), and popular street protests.

Surely a strategy for lasting peace and with no change for blow back.

---

This is all the US forcing Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Hungary, baltics, Czech/Slovakia, etc to join the West, but they would really rather be part of the Russian sphere. They all broke away, celebrated and now say we miss Moscow?

---

You are confusing countries that have never really been part of the Russian sphere of influence (Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, etc)

With countries long apart of Russia's traditional sphere of influence for hundreds of years or were in some cases actually part of the Russian empire itself (Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia)

The communist USSR of course was NOT Russia and its control over central Europe was not sustainable, not historic, and only the result of a unique set of temporary circumstances (German defeat in WWII and FDR and Churchill selling out central Europe to Stalin)

Modern Russia has not been moving into new places toward the West....the USA & NATO of course have been moving East.

And in fact far from being hyper aggressive... Russia has even allowed the Baltic States & Finland (all once part of the Russian empire) to enter into a Western economic-military orientation with no Russian military response whatsoever. That could not have been to the liking of Moscow but they did not do anything more than log a weak voice protest. It has almost cut them off from the Baltic but they did nothing about it.

Ukraine remains a different animal entirely.

whiterock said:

---

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious = Russia is fully mobilized and senses weakness in the west (thanks in no small part due to blather like yours) and trying to send enough ammo to Ukraine to stop Russia in Ukraine (rather than letting Russia roll right up to Nato borders).

Our generals are telling field and company grade officers "We are going to war! Get ready for it. NOW!" Best way to stop that from happening is to send ammo to Ukraine.

---

NATO would love to go to war with Russia. The current administration would love it as well.

WW3 benefits everything about the current neoliberal establishment and all the pieces are coming together to make it a reality.

Jeffrey Sachs with probably the smartest and most accurate assessment of the Ukraine war, and American foreign policy more broadly, ever caught on tape.

(20:17) Why did America push for Ukraine to Join NATO?
(58:34) What is a Neocon?
(1:25:28) Regime Change Never Works
(1:36:27)… pic.twitter.com/uNzzDDzn1L

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) May 28, 2024