User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:53:09 PM EDT
[#1]
None of this bullshit matters. Arguing the semantics of how we got here doesn't change the situation on the ground, which is the most pressing issue as of right now.
If UKR doesn't get to the table and hammer out a peace deal, then they're screwed. Funding is drying up. Public sentiment has soured, or at best, moved on to the next conflict in the spotlight. UKR's days are numbered for being able to put up a defense. Even if funding were to kick in today, it would likely only mean more death, for both Russia and Ukraine. The lines haven't moved in a meaningful way in well over a year. It's a meat grinder. UKR can't win a war of attrition. Yet another reason for a peace deal. The only saving grace is that it would be practically impossible for Russia to take and hold the entire country. US assets have been instigators in many wars over the last century. There's tons of examples to use if you're looking to criticize, or justify, that behavior. This would simply be another tick on the sheet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:55:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: US assets have been instigators in many wars over the last century. There's tons of examples to use if you're looking to criticize, or justify, that behavior. This would simply be another tick on the sheet. Even the stuff they're going back and forth about on the last page. The concept of a vacation destination that doubled as a strategic naval base, subsequently having a referendum where 93% of the voters approve accession to the union/federation, and then screeching that the vote was not valid from a few smaller groups in the area. Fill in Hawaii or Crimea |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:56:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.  [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:58:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: May want to check out that or as well When was UKR Nuked? "or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:58:46 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you have a hard time reading "the ballot left open the possibilities for independence, separation or unity with Russia." It simply said leave Ukraine. Separatists in 2014 were not "Russian Agents" their initial goal was an independent country. When that didn't work out they turned to Russia. This is all history. Explain Turchynov  Feel free to explore Turchnyov to your heart's content. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:59:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even the stuff they're going back and forth about on the last page. The concept of a vacation destination that doubled as a strategic naval base, subsequently having a referendum where 93% of the voters approve accession to the union/federation, and then screeching that the vote was not valid from a few smaller groups in the area. Fill in Hawaii or Crimea Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: US assets have been instigators in many wars over the last century. There's tons of examples to use if you're looking to criticize, or justify, that behavior. This would simply be another tick on the sheet. Even the stuff they're going back and forth about on the last page. The concept of a vacation destination that doubled as a strategic naval base, subsequently having a referendum where 93% of the voters approve accession to the union/federation, and then screeching that the vote was not valid from a few smaller groups in the area. Fill in Hawaii or Crimea Not valid during an invasion...not difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:07:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I see you're doubling down on the 2014 sham; I'm just surprised you didn't include the 2022 "referendum" too. Don't forget to mention that Iraq voted for Saddam with 99% of the vote too! Here is a link to the referendum when they actually had a free choice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum ETA: I guess I misspoke in my earlier post: It was the original referendum if they wanted to be part of Ukraine in the first place (which ALL regions did). There was not a subsequent poll asking if they wanted to leave. The 12/1/1991 referendum was literally "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" I.E do you support what we already did. The Rada had already declared Independence from the USSR on 24 August 1991. They actually didn't have free choice. It was already a Fait Accompli |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:09:58 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullshit, the russbros were preaching it as fact, here and elsewhere. It wasn't some absurd 4D chess to expose anyone. Complete and utter nonsense. I don't even know who the fuck you are and care even less about your posting history. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know your motivation, that's why I asked. I do find it interesting though that you look down on those who debunk russian bullshit rather than those who post the bullshit in the first place. Speaking of assigning motivations, you may want to look in the mirror. I don't know of anyone who thinks debunking russian garbage is helping to kill russians. It's simply pushback against russian IO, and it's frustrating them. That's what the long post I quoted seemed to be saying. The yachts story has an impact on votes, votes have an impact on aid, and it ended by saying the aid is for killing more people in the war Good luck in the pushback against russian IO, in the same way I also hope to see more from the poster pushing back against satan in the thread about dungeons and dragons. I am sure the demons in their nearby area are also frustrated. Again, Russians wouldn't be writing articles crying about it if it wasn't having some effect on them. I'm still curious why you take issue with the push back, and not the original lies. Your insistence on constantly bringing it up in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Yachts or mansions is proof positive of the obsession Ukebros have. Now go find an old post of mine where I purposely stated something controversial so you can Hurr Durr the whole thing Bullshit, the russbros were preaching it as fact, here and elsewhere. It wasn't some absurd 4D chess to expose anyone. Complete and utter nonsense. I don't even know who the fuck you are and care even less about your posting history. You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:17:39 PM EDT
[#9]
By the way, I thought it was interesting that some of the people in this thread were speaking exactly the same as Vladimir Putin did today in his big annual press conference/Q&A session. He too was going on about historical origins of Ukraine, Russia, while completely ignoring the legal status of Ukraine as a sovereign nation with borders that Russia agreed to in the 1990s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:18:36 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial So you agree that ruskibros do in fact troll the forum in violation of CoC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:20:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You cut out the first part. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:21:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 12/1/1991 referendum was literally "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" I.E do you support what we already did. The Rada had already declared Independence from the USSR on 24 August 1991. They actually didn't have free choice. It was already a Fait Accompli So, as an expression of democracy it was as invalid as the 2014 "referendum" run by the Russians in Luhansk & Donetsk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:26:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Americas credibility is an important asset, no question. So why haven't we been serious about defending Ukraine? In or out, the "just the tip" strategy isn't going to work, obviously. Because Biden is absolutely terrible at foreign policy. <- literally this. He and the people that surround him are stuck in this "look like we are doing the right thing, but we are afraid of provoking Russia" Loop. They cannot fathom the concept of Strength bringing about peace. They cannot understand it at all. If you watch what they do, it becomes clear: Provide a little aid, stop and wait to see what Russia does, then when nothing happens, provide a little more. Always being careful not to provide anything too provocative. If they'd just commit and provide the arms without any strings attached, the war would be a lot different - and nobody would nuke anybody. The US would not have to put troops into UKR and it would be cheaper in the long run. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:27:30 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The alternative is nations begin to develop Nukes on their own as a failsafe. If Ukraine survives, they would be foolish not to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:27:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By the way, I thought it was interesting that some of the people in this thread were speaking exactly the same as Vladimir Putin did today in his big annual press conference/Q&A session. He too was going on about historical origins of Ukraine, Russia, while completely ignoring the legal status of Ukraine as a sovereign nation with borders that Russia agreed to in the 1990s. True history is true history. One cannot argue with facts. One might try to wrongly justify something based on a true history but it does not invalidate hhistorical fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:27:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Do you have a hard time reading "the ballot left open the possibilities for independence, separation or unity with Russia." It simply said leave Ukraine. Separatists in 2014 were not "Russian Agents" their initial goal was an independent country. When that didn't work out they turned to Russia. This is all history. Explain Turchynov Feel free to explore Turchnyov to your heart's content.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:29:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you agree that ruskibros do in fact troll the forum in violation of CoC. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial So you agree that ruskibros do in fact troll the forum in violation of CoC. Harassing another member over past threads or posts Continually following another member around the site to attack another member over posts they have made is considered harassment and will result in sanctions. The only exception to this rule is when the original referenced posts are related to the current thread's topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:34:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True history is true history. One cannot argue with facts. One might try to wrongly justify something based on a true history but it does not invalidate hhistorical fact. All beside the point. Trying to use "true history" to invalidate present legal facts is the key problem in question. That is what Putin and some GD posters do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:34:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know your motivation, that's why I asked. I do find it interesting though that you look down on those who debunk russian bullshit rather than those who post the bullshit in the first place. Speaking of assigning motivations, you may want to look in the mirror. I don't know of anyone who thinks debunking russian garbage is helping to kill russians. It's simply pushback against russian IO, and it's frustrating them. That's what the long post I quoted seemed to be saying. The yachts story has an impact on votes, votes have an impact on aid, and it ended by saying the aid is for killing more people in the war Good luck in the pushback against russian IO, in the same way I also hope to see more from the poster pushing back against satan in the thread about dungeons and dragons. I am sure the demons in their nearby area are also frustrated. Again, Russians wouldn't be writing articles crying about it if it wasn't having some effect on them. I'm still curious why you take issue with the push back, and not the original lies. Your insistence on constantly bringing it up in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Yachts or mansions is proof positive of the obsession Ukebros have. Now go find an old post of mine where I purposely stated something controversial so you can Hurr Durr the whole thing Bullshit, the russbros were preaching it as fact, here and elsewhere. It wasn't some absurd 4D chess to expose anyone. Complete and utter nonsense. I don't even know who the fuck you are and care even less about your posting history. You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial If you deny the true believer russbros you're a complete fool or a liar. Reread the thread and tell me I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:36:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:37:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Get back to me when your comrades don't follow me around like little children in violation of the CoC. Harassing another member over past threads or posts Continually following another member around the site to attack another member over posts they have made is considered harassment and will result in sanctions. The only exception to this rule is when the original referenced posts are related to the current thread's topic.    |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:38:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Get back to me when your comrades don't follow me around like little children in violation of the CoC. Harassing another member over past threads or posts Continually following another member around the site to attack another member over posts they have made is considered harassment and will result in sanctions. The only exception to this rule is when the original referenced posts are related to the current thread's topic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial So you agree that ruskibros do in fact troll the forum in violation of CoC. Harassing another member over past threads or posts Continually following another member around the site to attack another member over posts they have made is considered harassment and will result in sanctions. The only exception to this rule is when the original referenced posts are related to the current thread's topic. Stop playing the victim. Who the hell is following you and harassing you? You're the one that brought up previous posts of mine, I never mentioned yours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:41:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All beside the point. Trying to use "true history" to invalidate present legal facts is the key problem in question. That is what Putin and some GD posters do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: True history is true history. One cannot argue with facts. One might try to wrongly justify something based on a true history but it does not invalidate hhistorical fact. All beside the point. Trying to use "true history" to invalidate present legal facts is the key problem in question. That is what Putin and some GD posters do. ANd inversely, posters on the "Ukebro" side use historical arguments when they think it justifies their position and ignore history when it doesn't. It's dishonest to say the phenomenon is just regulated to one side of the debate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:48:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: None of this bullshit matters. Arguing the semantics of how we got here doesn't change the situation on the ground, which is the most pressing issue as of right now. If UKR doesn't get to the table and hammer out a peace deal, then they're screwed. Funding is drying up. Public sentiment has soured, or at best, moved on to the next conflict in the spotlight. UKR's days are numbered for being able to put up a defense. Even if funding were to kick in today, it would likely only mean more death, for both Russia and Ukraine. The lines haven't moved in a meaningful way in well over a year. It's a meat grinder. UKR can't win a war of attrition. Yet another reason for a peace deal. The only saving grace is that it would be practically impossible for Russia to take and hold the entire country. US assets have been instigators in many wars over the last century. There's tons of examples to use if you're looking to criticize, or justify, that behavior. This would simply be another tick on the sheet. Agreed, people need to get past the bullshit and see the writing on the wall here. There is the way we wish the world was and the way that it is and as conservative we always deal with the way that it is. There is untold carnage in this war. Men, real people with families are getting just mauled on both sides here with who knows how many civilians caught up in this mess. To just press for endless war of attrition with no realistic aims or viable strategy is frankly just sinful, like pure demonic sinful. What makes my skin crawl is that so many people are pretty much just calling for that to happen and yet they're doing so hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the carnage of it all with no will of their own to do anything other than post a Ukraine flag on their social media. I've seen disable veterans from the GWOT at the VA, spoken to them, and I've seen Ukraine guys getting limbs blown off in videos from the front. Guys dragging their wounded friends across muddy fields until some cheap drone you could probably buy at Best Buy swoops down on them. This is horrific crap and since there is no burning desire to start WW3 over Ukraine it's time to bring this conflict to a negotiated settlement, which is the only way short of WW3 it's ever going to end. Every war is won or lost before it even starts. Well, sadly that's the case here. There is a lot of blame to go around and I'm sure that will be discussed for some time at length, but the carnage has to stop. Ukraine's victory is that if it negotiates soon it has a good chance of surviving just like Finland did after the Winter War of 1939. Given the circumstances that's a Hell of a victory in and of itself, the Ukraine people can hold their heads high and end this war with Honor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:51:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you deny the true believer russbros you're a complete fool or a liar. Reread the thread and tell me I'm wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know your motivation, that's why I asked. I do find it interesting though that you look down on those who debunk russian bullshit rather than those who post the bullshit in the first place. Speaking of assigning motivations, you may want to look in the mirror. I don't know of anyone who thinks debunking russian garbage is helping to kill russians. It's simply pushback against russian IO, and it's frustrating them. That's what the long post I quoted seemed to be saying. The yachts story has an impact on votes, votes have an impact on aid, and it ended by saying the aid is for killing more people in the war Good luck in the pushback against russian IO, in the same way I also hope to see more from the poster pushing back against satan in the thread about dungeons and dragons. I am sure the demons in their nearby area are also frustrated. Again, Russians wouldn't be writing articles crying about it if it wasn't having some effect on them. I'm still curious why you take issue with the push back, and not the original lies. Your insistence on constantly bringing it up in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Yachts or mansions is proof positive of the obsession Ukebros have. Now go find an old post of mine where I purposely stated something controversial so you can Hurr Durr the whole thing Bullshit, the russbros were preaching it as fact, here and elsewhere. It wasn't some absurd 4D chess to expose anyone. Complete and utter nonsense. I don't even know who the fuck you are and care even less about your posting history. You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial If you deny the true believer russbros you're a complete fool or a liar. Reread the thread and tell me I'm wrong.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:54:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:55:49 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know your motivation, that's why I asked. I do find it interesting though that you look down on those who debunk russian bullshit rather than those who post the bullshit in the first place. Speaking of assigning motivations, you may want to look in the mirror. I don't know of anyone who thinks debunking russian garbage is helping to kill russians. It's simply pushback against russian IO, and it's frustrating them. That's what the long post I quoted seemed to be saying. The yachts story has an impact on votes, votes have an impact on aid, and it ended by saying the aid is for killing more people in the war Good luck in the pushback against russian IO, in the same way I also hope to see more from the poster pushing back against satan in the thread about dungeons and dragons. I am sure the demons in their nearby area are also frustrated. Again, Russians wouldn't be writing articles crying about it if it wasn't having some effect on them. I'm still curious why you take issue with the push back, and not the original lies. Your insistence on constantly bringing it up in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Yachts or mansions is proof positive of the obsession Ukebros have. Now go find an old post of mine where I purposely stated something controversial so you can Hurr Durr the whole thing Bullshit, the russbros were preaching it as fact, here and elsewhere. It wasn't some absurd 4D chess to expose anyone. Complete and utter nonsense. I don't even know who the fuck you are and care even less about your posting history. You and several others got totally punked by it. No wonder you're in denial If you deny the true believer russbros you're a complete fool or a liar. Reread the thread and tell me I'm wrong. https://i.imgflip.com/1fasq4.jpg lol Talk about denial |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:56:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stop playing the victim. Who the hell is following you and harassing you? You're the one that brought up previous posts of mine, I never mentioned yours Lieh-Tzu knows exactly what it was about and as usual responded like a child |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:56:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? And the part before the or: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 5:02:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the part before the or: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? And the part before the or: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression Security council action. Not US taxpayer or NATO, but the UN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 5:07:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why are Russians mad about it? “A member of the pro-Russian Party of Regions, his removal from the presidency via revolution in 2014 led to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Since then, he has lived in exile in Russia.” Hmm. But why? “In November 2013, Yanukovych made a sudden decision, amidst economic pressure from Russia,[10] to withdraw from signing an association agreement with the EU and instead accept a Russian trade deal and loan bailout. This sparked mass protests against him that ultimately led to his ousting as President.” So Russia lost their puppet, what happened afterwards? “The war began in April 2014 when armed Russian-backed separatists seized government buildings and the Ukrainian military launched an operation against them.[20][21] It continued until it was subsumed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.” Russia got big mad that the Ukrainians threw out their boy so they started the war God damn the Russians sound like Americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 5:14:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Security council action. Not US taxpayer or NATO, but the UN. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? And the part before the or: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression Security council action. Not US taxpayer or NATO, but the UN. And if a council member was the aggressor? Which everyone knew they would be. Just...too damn bad, shouldn't have given up your nukes? The council failed and the UN is useless. Assurances were given, and I think it's right to make good on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 5:17:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And if a council member was the aggressor? Which everyone knew they would be. Just...too damn bad, shouldn't have given up your nukes? The council failed and the UN is useless. Assurances were given, and I think it's right to make good on them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? And the part before the or: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression Security council action. Not US taxpayer or NATO, but the UN. And if a council member was the aggressor? Which everyone knew they would be. Just...too damn bad, shouldn't have given up your nukes? The council failed and the UN is useless. Assurances were given, and I think it's right to make good on them. That may be so, but it simply demonstrates that the accord did not obligate us to act. Sure, you may feel like we should but that accord did not make a binding treaty nor alliance for us. ANd, yes, they shouldn't have disarmed. It's a lesson for the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 5:28:16 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That may be so, but it simply demonstrates that the accord did not obligate us to act. Sure, you may feel like we should but that accord did not make a binding treaty nor alliance for us. ANd, yes, they shouldn't have disarmed. It's a lesson for the rest of the world. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? And the part before the or: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression Security council action. Not US taxpayer or NATO, but the UN. And if a council member was the aggressor? Which everyone knew they would be. Just...too damn bad, shouldn't have given up your nukes? The council failed and the UN is useless. Assurances were given, and I think it's right to make good on them. That may be so, but it simply demonstrates that the accord did not obligate us to act. Sure, you may feel like we should but that accord did not make a binding treaty nor alliance for us. ANd, yes, they shouldn't have disarmed. It's a lesson for the rest of the world. Agreed, they shouldn't have trusted us and they damn sure shouldn't have trusted Russia. It boils down to how you define assurances (not defined in the agreement) and what obligation it imposes to who. None of it is very clear, except to say we do know Ukraine interpreted it as a guarantee for some kind of support. Bottom line is those who say "we don't owe Ukraine shit" I think are over simplifying. There are a lot of other treaties/agreements on this topic as well, some specific to Ukraine like this one and others more general...I need to dig into those sometime, I don't know a lot about them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 5:58:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That may be so, but it simply demonstrates that the accord did not obligate us to act. Sure, you may feel like we should but that accord did not make a binding treaty nor alliance for us. ANd, yes, they shouldn't have disarmed. It's a lesson for the rest of the world. If there is a moral way to conduct a war, it's certainly required to conclude it as quickly as possible. If overwhelming force achieves that end, then it is the more moral path. I've been saying this for a year. In the face of potential nuclear exchange it requires courage, and maybe it's not the right thing to do for our country, I accept that, but what we have done in Ukraine is cruel. We have prolonged a war, to the point of stalemate. Where soldiers and innocents continue to die for no meaningful gain and now it will conclude with the aggressor still gaining ground. That must be the worst way to war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:07:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed, they shouldn't have trusted us and they damn sure shouldn't have trusted Russia. It boils down to how you define assurances (not defined in the agreement) and what obligation it imposes to who. None of it is very clear, except to say we do know Ukraine interpreted it as a guarantee for some kind of support. Bottom line is those who say "we don't owe Ukraine shit" I think are over simplifying. There are a lot of other treaties/agreements on this topic as well, some specific to Ukraine like this one and others more general...I need to dig into those sometime, I don't know a lot about them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Budapest memorandum, which is admittedly not very clear on what constitutes "security guarantees", but you can make a pretty good argument that support in the form of weapons and ammo probably fall under that, while (and this is just IMO) troops on deck do not. 1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4 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". 5 Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. [9][10]6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. As far as I know NO ONE has nuked Ukr It was never ratified as a treaty in the US so we have zero legal obligations under it. And under the agreement we'd have to ask Russia. That is never going to happen. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb You may want to check out that "or" in point #4. So yes, it does say such a thing. Sorry Plain English and reality says it doesn't. 4 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". You mean the part where Russia would just veto the whole thing? Or the part where "6 Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments." We did neither of those. So are you one of those second amendment guys who thinks only the national guard should have firearms? "To provide assistance" Do you really think Ukraine would have agreed to this if they really thought Russia could veto any assistance? Who was Ukraine mostly concerned with making them victims? Use some fucking common sense. Learn English "in which nuclear weapons are used". You are one of those "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means you can't have any guys? And the part before the or: Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression Security council action. Not US taxpayer or NATO, but the UN. And if a council member was the aggressor? Which everyone knew they would be. Just...too damn bad, shouldn't have given up your nukes? The council failed and the UN is useless. Assurances were given, and I think it's right to make good on them. That may be so, but it simply demonstrates that the accord did not obligate us to act. Sure, you may feel like we should but that accord did not make a binding treaty nor alliance for us. ANd, yes, they shouldn't have disarmed. It's a lesson for the rest of the world. Agreed, they shouldn't have trusted us and they damn sure shouldn't have trusted Russia. It boils down to how you define assurances (not defined in the agreement) and what obligation it imposes to who. None of it is very clear, except to say we do know Ukraine interpreted it as a guarantee for some kind of support. Bottom line is those who say "we don't owe Ukraine shit" I think are over simplifying. There are a lot of other treaties/agreements on this topic as well, some specific to Ukraine like this one and others more general...I need to dig into those sometime, I don't know a lot about them. It was never put forth to the US Senate for ratification because both Bush and Clinton knew it wouldn't pass. We have no treaty so by OUR laws no obligation to act. Ukraine really didn't have a choice at the time. They couldn't readily launch them and couldn't maintain them or afford them. At the time Russia and the US had just signed START 1 so the whole world thought it was a good idea. We made promises and gave them a shitload of money for "disposal" Like it has been said. They should have said fuck off and kept them but that ship has long ago sailed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:15:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ANd inversely, posters on the "Ukebro" side use historical arguments when they think it justifies their position and ignore history when it doesn't. It's dishonest to say the phenomenon is just regulated to one side of the debate. I agree. The pointless sideshow elements are tiresome. Both sides do it, either getting drawn into it or grasping at irrelevancies to buttress their positions. And I NEVER said that just one side does it. I find the ancient history aspect interesting in an academic sense, but totally irrelevant. Bottom line, Russia signed treaties with Ukraine, accepted international law views of Ukraine's borders, then launched hostile invasions anyway. As far as the history goes, arguing that Donetsk should be in Russia has no more validity than saying Rostov should be in Ukraine. (Rostov was part of the brief Ukrainian Republic era between the Russian Revolution and the establishment of the USSR.) Interesting, but pointless in contemporary context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:18:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 12/1/1991 referendum was literally "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" I.E do you support what we already did. The Rada had already declared Independence from the USSR on 24 August 1991. They actually didn't have free choice. It was already a Fait Accompli The two options in the 2014 Crimean referendum boiled down to 'join Russia or leave Ukraine' so..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:20:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That may be so, but it simply demonstrates that the accord did not obligate us to act. Sure, you may feel like we should but that accord did not make a binding treaty nor alliance for us. ANd, yes, they shouldn't have disarmed. It's a lesson for the rest of the world. In hindsight, Ukraine should never have agreed to such a completely toothless document, with absolutely no enforcement mechanism of any kind. They probably believed they could always count on their brothers in Moscow for protection. In 1994, did any of them imagine in their wildest dreams that Russia would be slaughtering them in an unprovoked invasion, raping their women, murdering civilians, kidnapping their children? If you went back in time and showed them news stories from this year, they would have denied it completely. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:24:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That wasn't meant for you. Lieh-Tzu knows exactly what it was about and as usual responded like a child You post like a child, you get a child's response. Bye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:27:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You post like a child, you get a child's response. Bye. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That wasn't meant for you. Lieh-Tzu knows exactly what it was about and as usual responded like a child You post like a child, you get a child's response. Bye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:37:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if it weren't for the "Ukebros" on this forum, the overwhelming sentiment here would be passive Ukraine support and not "F Ukraine". https://media1.giphy.com/media/21S35iv1C67ns2g458/giphy.gif |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:41:40 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By the way, I thought it was interesting that some of the people in this thread were speaking exactly the same as Vladimir Putin did today in his big annual press conference/Q&A session. He too was going on about historical origins of Ukraine, Russia, while completely ignoring the legal status of Ukraine as a sovereign nation with borders that Russia agreed to in the 1990s. It's interesting that like with the history example a few posts up, where Ukraine fans will geek out on history and 'we wuz kangs' when it fits the narrative, but ignore history that does not fit the narrative, the same thing happens with sacred unchangeable border arguments. Ukraine fans will act like borders in europe are sacred and can never change after 1990, and we should be willing to go to great lengths to stop it from happening. But the US, UK, Germany (not so much France and a few others) were willing to recognize post 1990 border changes as a result of the Yugoslavian conflict, because that wasn't in Russia's interest. This time, the border changes do not serve our interests so suddenly european borders are back to being landmarks of god, put in place in 1990 like a new set of joseph smith golden tablets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:46:34 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's interesting that like with the history example a few posts up, where Ukraine fans will geek out on history and 'we wuz kangs' when it fits the narrative, but ignore history that does not fit the narrative, the same thing happens with sacred unchangeable border arguments. Ukraine fans will act like borders in europe are sacred and can never change after 1990, and we should be willing to go to great lengths to stop it from happening. But the US, UK, Germany (not so much France and a few others) were willing to recognize post 1990 border changes as a result of the Yugoslavian conflict, because that wasn't in Russia's interest. This time, the border changes do not serve our interests so suddenly european borders are back to being landmarks of god, put in place in 1990 like a new set of joseph smith golden tablets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: By the way, I thought it was interesting that some of the people in this thread were speaking exactly the same as Vladimir Putin did today in his big annual press conference/Q&A session. He too was going on about historical origins of Ukraine, Russia, while completely ignoring the legal status of Ukraine as a sovereign nation with borders that Russia agreed to in the 1990s. It's interesting that like with the history example a few posts up, where Ukraine fans will geek out on history and 'we wuz kangs' when it fits the narrative, but ignore history that does not fit the narrative, the same thing happens with sacred unchangeable border arguments. Ukraine fans will act like borders in europe are sacred and can never change after 1990, and we should be willing to go to great lengths to stop it from happening. But the US, UK, Germany (not so much France and a few others) were willing to recognize post 1990 border changes as a result of the Yugoslavian conflict, because that wasn't in Russia's interest. This time, the border changes do not serve our interests so suddenly european borders are back to being landmarks of god, put in place in 1990 like a new set of joseph smith golden tablets. So in your world borders can be established, agreed upon by ALL parties (including Russia) then it's totally a-ok for Russia to launch an invasion breaking...at least 3 signed agreements/treaties because "borders change" Sorry, not buying it. Established borders agreed upon and respected by all parties help prevent wars. Note I didn't say PREVENT, but HELP to prevent. Essentially your argument is that national sovereignty is irrelevant. Again, I'm not buying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:54:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So in your world borders can be established, agreed upon by ALL parties (including Russia) then it's totally a-ok for Russia to launch an invasion breaking...at least 3 signed agreements/treaties because "borders change" Sorry, not buying it. Established borders agreed upon and respected by all parties help prevent wars. Note I didn't say PREVENT, but HELP to prevent. Essentially your argument is that national sovereignty is irrelevant. Again, I'm not buying it. Still trying to change everything into a right vs wrong, good guys vs bad guys dichotomy If its a question of how much its worth to the US to stop Ukraine's border from changing (i.e. the argument we cannot negotiate to end the conflict), just a blanket statement about borders not changing after 1990 doesn't cut it because we were willing to see Yugoslavia change, after 1990, at the negotiated end of a war |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:02:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Still trying to change everything into a right vs wrong, good guys vs bad guys dichotomy If its a question of how much its worth to the US to stop Ukraine's border from changing (i.e. the argument we cannot negotiate to end the conflict), just a blanket statement about borders not changing after 1990 doesn't cut it because we were willing to see Yugoslavia change, after 1990, at the negotiated end of a war Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So in your world borders can be established, agreed upon by ALL parties (including Russia) then it's totally a-ok for Russia to launch an invasion breaking...at least 3 signed agreements/treaties because "borders change" Sorry, not buying it. Established borders agreed upon and respected by all parties help prevent wars. Note I didn't say PREVENT, but HELP to prevent. Essentially your argument is that national sovereignty is irrelevant. Again, I'm not buying it. Still trying to change everything into a right vs wrong, good guys vs bad guys dichotomy If its a question of how much its worth to the US to stop Ukraine's border from changing (i.e. the argument we cannot negotiate to end the conflict), just a blanket statement about borders not changing after 1990 doesn't cut it because we were willing to see Yugoslavia change, after 1990, at the negotiated end of a war Pretty poor attempt to dodge the point I made. You think national sovereignty is irrelevant. I don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:11:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty poor attempt to dodge the point I made. You think national sovereignty is irrelevant. I don't. You could go to the sevastopol airport with a document from 1990 showing it was sovereign ukrainian territory, and refuse to go through russian passport control, and see how it works out. Not sure how to say sovereign citizen in russian. Sovereignty is of course relevant, but is a foreign country's sovereignty worth an unlimited amount to the US taxpayer? Is Ukraine's 30 year run at having sovereignty over donbas worth another hundred thousand losses? Shutting the whole discussion up with a term like "It's relevant" sounds like lefty argument style |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:12:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty poor attempt to dodge the point I made. You think national sovereignty is irrelevant. I don't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So in your world borders can be established, agreed upon by ALL parties (including Russia) then it's totally a-ok for Russia to launch an invasion breaking...at least 3 signed agreements/treaties because "borders change" Sorry, not buying it. Established borders agreed upon and respected by all parties help prevent wars. Note I didn't say PREVENT, but HELP to prevent. Essentially your argument is that national sovereignty is irrelevant. Again, I'm not buying it. Still trying to change everything into a right vs wrong, good guys vs bad guys dichotomy If its a question of how much its worth to the US to stop Ukraine's border from changing (i.e. the argument we cannot negotiate to end the conflict), just a blanket statement about borders not changing after 1990 doesn't cut it because we were willing to see Yugoslavia change, after 1990, at the negotiated end of a war Pretty poor attempt to dodge the point I made. You think national sovereignty is irrelevant. I don't. Where were you during Kosovo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:21:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could go to the sevastopol airport with a document from 1990 showing it was sovereign ukrainian territory, and refuse to go through russian passport control, and see how it works out. Not sure how to say sovereign citizen in russian. Sovereignty is of course relevant, but is a foreign country's sovereignty worth an unlimited amount to the US taxpayer? Is Ukraine's 30 year run at having sovereignty over donbas worth another hundred thousand losses? Shutting the whole discussion up with a term like "It's relevant" sounds like lefty argument style Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Pretty poor attempt to dodge the point I made. You think national sovereignty is irrelevant. I don't. You could go to the sevastopol airport with a document from 1990 showing it was sovereign ukrainian territory, and refuse to go through russian passport control, and see how it works out. Not sure how to say sovereign citizen in russian. Sovereignty is of course relevant, but is a foreign country's sovereignty worth an unlimited amount to the US taxpayer? Is Ukraine's 30 year run at having sovereignty over donbas worth another hundred thousand losses? Shutting the whole discussion up with a term like "It's relevant" sounds like lefty argument style Now accusing me of being lefty, meanwhile constantly changing your argument. Your "sovereign citizen" quip might share one word with my point, but it is indeed irrelevant. As far as the cost of lives, Ukraine seems to think it's worth it. Why aren't you asking if taking Ukrainian territory worth another hundred thousand Russian lives? Why are you putting it on Ukraine, the defending country? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:22:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not at all. More like your response is a pretty poor attempt at deflection. Where were you during Kosovo? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So in your world borders can be established, agreed upon by ALL parties (including Russia) then it's totally a-ok for Russia to launch an invasion breaking...at least 3 signed agreements/treaties because "borders change" Sorry, not buying it. Established borders agreed upon and respected by all parties help prevent wars. Note I didn't say PREVENT, but HELP to prevent. Essentially your argument is that national sovereignty is irrelevant. Again, I'm not buying it. Still trying to change everything into a right vs wrong, good guys vs bad guys dichotomy If its a question of how much its worth to the US to stop Ukraine's border from changing (i.e. the argument we cannot negotiate to end the conflict), just a blanket statement about borders not changing after 1990 doesn't cut it because we were willing to see Yugoslavia change, after 1990, at the negotiated end of a war Pretty poor attempt to dodge the point I made. You think national sovereignty is irrelevant. I don't. Where were you during Kosovo? "you're deflecting...where were you during Kosovo" gtfo  You guys are making arguments that national sovereignty doesn't matter. You're never going to convince me of this. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
