You think we are helping a 'democracy'? Good one. That is the same myth Bob believes.
Immigration in Ohio
- Thread starter TheGunner
- Start date
Agree with you that Ukraine is not a democracy in the sense of the US or Canada.
Compared to Russia? They are far more aligned with our democratic institutions.
Sigh. More insults and name-calling. This 'illogical MAGA idiot' is a retired 28-year active duty US Army officer who is a graduate of both Command and General Staff College and Army War College. If you think you know more about this than I do, you are mistaken. You seem to be arguing that we should have trusted Russia to comply with the Budapest Memo. Is that realistic? And Clinton promised Ukraine that we would have their back if they gave up their nukes. Four presidents later, we didn't.
I will tell you once again: If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, they would not have been invaded by Russia.
Last edited:
Good for you. Doesn't make you right. You're showing it in every post.
You were arguing it was our fault Russia invaded because we made overtures to accepting Ukraine into NATO. Correct?
In other words, NATO and Ukraine believed Ukraine would be safer and less likely to be invaded if they were in NATO............because we can't trust Russia to leave Ukraine alone. You are now saying it wasn't wise to trust Russia in '94 but we can trust them now? You're saying without the NATO protection we could trust Russia to not invade? You're completely contradicting yourself. We shouldn't have trusted them with the BM but we can trust them to not invade now without NATO protection? Pick a lane dude. Either you trust Russia or you don't. And I would argue the issue of trust is completely different in the two situations because it was a reformer named Yeltsin in '94 who was leading Russia and it's now a murdering former KGB agent.
We promised to have Ukraine's back with the BM? Not in writing but it was the spirit of the agreement. You say we didn't do it? WHAT WOULD YOU CALL WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW? That's exactly what we're doing along with the UK and the rest of Europe.
It's easy to Monday morning QB what happened 30 years ago. You seem to forget the geopolitical atmosphere at the time. Russian provinces were splitting off right and left. Everyone thought there was a fundamental change happening in Russian leadership. Ukraine was going to finally break free from Russia but they were still rightly concerned about future conflicts with them. They wanted the US to guarantee protection for them in the BM. Why? Because of what is happening RIGHT NOW. They were right. But by all means lets blame the US for Russia breaking an agreement and invading Ukraine.
You may have been educated on the subject but your politics is overwhelming your logic.
I don't use words like 'fault' and 'blame'. I simply convey what transpired. Putin had warned for 20 years that any former Warsaw Pact nation joining NATO would be considered an act of war. Ukraine and the US finalized the paperwork for Ukraine to join NATO and Russia invaded. That's what happened.
Bill Clinton promised Ukraine that we'd have their six if they got into a war with Russia. You and I don't know if the understanding at the time assumed ground troops, nuclear weapons, whatever. I think it's safe to assume that Ukraine would appreciate a lot more military support from the US than they're getting at this time. But of course, more support could escalate this into WWIII.
I posted this for you when you were using your pre-banishment user name. It must be difficult for you to accept amid your Churchill fantasies:
"Many of these analysts argue that the U.S. erred in its efforts to prevent the breakout of war by refusing to offer to retract support for Ukraine to one day join NATO or substantially reconsider its terms of entry. And they argue that Russia’s willingness to go to war over Ukraine’s NATO status, which it perceived as an existential national security threat and listed as a fundamental part of its rationale for the invasion, was so clear for so long that dropping support for its eventual entry could have averted the invasion."
Opinion | The U.S. made a huge mistake in the run-up to the Russian invasion
The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.
www.msnbc.com
Why is the US the largest financial contributor to Ukraines defense? You would think that if the threat of invasion by Russia were that real, Germany, France, Poland and other Euro countries would be doing more than that US.
Why is it in American's best interest to support Ukraine? Since we purchase oil from Russia, it sounds like we're fighting ourselves in this situation.
Answer: After being NATO's cash cow for 75 years, Germany, France, Poland and other Euro countries knew that Uncle Stupid would pony up yet again so they wouldn't have to.
The following is copied from an article in the NY Times, link included.
“Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, NATO’s first supreme allied commander Europe, felt strongly that his mission was to get Europeans “back on their military feet” — not for American troops to become the permanent bodyguard for Brussels and Berlin.
“If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States,” he wrote of NATO in 1951, “then this whole project will have failed.”
“But as leaders of NATO allies gather in Washington on Tuesday for the alliance’s 75th anniversary, some 90,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Germany, Italy, Britain and elsewhere, making up a significant portion of the 500,000 NATO troops on high readiness.”
If we purchase oil from Russia, it's through intermediaries (since direct purchase is banned) and it's not very much at all:
Crude oil imports (Top 15 countries)
Crude oil imports (Top 15 countries)
(thousand barrels per day)
Country Jul-24 Jun-24 YTD 2024 Jul-23 YTD 2023
Canada 4,373 3,971 4,116 3,634 3,833
Mexico 413 575 480 746 731
Venezuela 308 226 206 153 117
Saudi Arabia 280 273 308 392 387
Guyana 258 293 208 65 89
Brazil 254 181 213 195 147
Colombia 209 187 213 208 194
Nigeria 207 117 160 164 177
Iraq 202 202 192 204 220
Ecuador 169 153 133 192 135
Libya 92 41 83 20 66
Argentina 74 43 64 54 44
Trinidad And Tobago 57 56 40 49 33
Kazakhstan 40 58 43 60 32
United Kingdom 39 64 62 46 42
That simple question cuts to the bone. What is in America's best interest? Let's review NATO's bastard brother, SEATO.
In 1954, the United States, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or SEATO. The purpose of the organization was to prevent communism from gaining ground in the region. Oh, and there were four little fellas who didn't participate in the international military alliance but were brought under SEATO's protection anyway. Those little fellas were North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Now, I don't need to tell you that this didn't end well for the US. But there is an analogy with the US making a pledge of protection with non-NATO member Ukraine and the US making a pledge of protection with non-SEATO member South Vietnam. Is it in America's best interest to support Ukraine, or is it in America's best interest to have Britain, France, Germany et al pouring their guts into Ukraine?
This guy actually tries to justify and dignify the NATO free riders.
"Obama, Trump, and others who accuse NATO allies of free riding argue that the allies choose to spend less on defense than they otherwise would because of the massive US military budget and the US commitment to defend Europe against attack. In this view, US taxpayers are gullible suckers, providing security to Europeans who, in turn, spend lavishly on social welfare and infrastructure instead of ensuring their own defense."
No ‘free-riding’ here: European defense spending defies US critics
Recently released evidence suggests that most of NATO’s members have increased their defense spending or plan to—even as the US has increased its own presence in Europe.
www.atlanticcouncil.org
Scouring the internet? More proof that you don't know wtf you're talking about. It was in a news report of someone I regularly watch. Someone that voted for Bernie. It was presented to me. Not the other way around.
