Option A: provoke a conflict that could lead to Nuclear War Option B: Let Russia have the Donbas region (which wanted to join them anyway). Would you feel good about choosing option A after the world gets nuked? I suspect not. Which means you're probably don't actually see option A as a serious threat. Do you have any inkling what the % chances is that a nuclear war would result from attacking Russia? It seems to me you're fine with playing Russian Roulette, with odds unknown.
About time we let Ukraine take out Russian military infrastructure inside Russia. Ukraine should have called our bluff anyways
If Russia wanted to die it wouldn't be trying to take any of Ukraine. Launching a nuke would end Russia. Not gonna happen. And Donbas isn't ours to give. And I hate bullies. Time for Ukraine to start attacking Russian territory.
Not getting involved isn't "giving" anything. Ukraine is not our ally and is not in NATO. So you're willing to gamble everything on Russia bluffing. Do you know how close we've come to nuclear war a couple of times? If you hate bullies, perhaps you could direct some of that hate at Ukraine itself for attacking the region that Russia sequestered. Anyway, no point trying to talk sense to you. You just swallow all the shit that gets funneled into your mouth.
That is false. Please educate yourself. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...ed-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/ And here's another... America’s obligation to Ukraine began with nukes in the early 1990s But don't take my word for it. Ask somebody who was there...
Just a general update. Many countries are preparing for a very large war. Many countries are handing out very large contracts to build military equipment and munitions. New factories are being built around the world to produce war materials. Example, Boeing recieved a $7.5 billion dollar contract to build just the kit to attach to dumb bombs that turns them into smart weapons. Kits to be delivered in full by 2030. Not sure what this means, but,,,,.
I think it means the bombs will have little panels that will fall off and hit people on the ground. barfo
More spin from the liberal media. Putin is just looking for a few places to release some doves to show his neighboring countries that he is a man of love and peace.
What is false? That Ukraine is not our ally? They are not apart of NATO. In fact, the statements of intent to join NATO were key to the conflict. Ukraine received billions on compensation from Russia in exchange for the nukes, and it was determined that Ukraine couldn't support the functionality of the nukes long term anyway. The US gave a security ASSURANCE not a security guarantee. You apparently didn't read the document you posted, because it makes it clear that a security assurance is an assurance by the United States that the United States would not attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons. It has nothing to do with the US become a military protectorate of Ukraine. " The Ukrainians had raised security guarantees or as- surances earlier with U.S. officials during the Bush administration. Baker initially in 1992 showed no enthusiasm for the idea, fearing that extending Ukraine security assurances would trigger a flood of requests from other former Soviet states. How- ever, Bartholomew’s senior adviser, James Timbie, pointed out that, once Kyiv acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, it would automati- cally receive a “negative security assurance” from Washington, i.e., the United States had stated that it would not use nuclear weapons against any non- nuclear weapons state that was a party to the NPT unless that state was attacking the United States or a U.S. ally in conjunction with a state armed with nuclear weapons. Baker proved amenable to packag- ing such assurances for Ukraine, provided that the U.S. government would be reiterating existing com- mitments, not undertaking new obligations.42 Timbie later suggested adding other assurances which the United States had already provided all signatories of the Final Act of the Helsinki Confer- ence on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Baker agreed, again since these were not new commitments. These included commitments to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and existing borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force, and to refrain from economic coercion. As discussions proceeded with the Ukrainians, Timbie conducted parallel conversations with Russian and British embassy offi- cers in Washington. Washington saw it essential that the Russians also provide Kyiv security assurances. The logic for including the British stemmed from the fact that Britain, like the United States and Rus- sia, was a depositary state for the NPT.43 American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton ad- ministrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. of- ficials also continually used the term “assurances” in- stead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies.44 "
Cricky, I just pasted the text from your own document that refutes the argument you're trying to make. Page 37 details a memorandum of understanding on what the "security assurance" means. There are 5 points. 4 are statements of comittment to NOT attack Ukraine. Only one discusses that the UN Security Council would look to provide assistance to Ukraine if they were attacked with nuclear weapons. Page 37. Read it. Where did you hear that this treaty obligated us to defend Ukraine against invasion BTW? This is just another example of how the media lie to the population to get them to support whatever conflict the elite want to push.
None of that prohibits the US from helping or supplying weapons. Or even helping militarily. I didn't say anything about the US doing the minimum that we are obligated to do. But Ukraine are clearly an ally that we have obligations to help defend. We aren't limited to only helping once they've been attacked by nukes. And Russia is VERY clearly violating the terms of the agreement. Ukraine kicking Russia in the teeth is great for US interests. And quite frankly, when Russia attacked the nuclear plant that could have been construed as a nuclear attack, trying to turn the plant into a nuclear weapon if there were ever an investigation. The US is well within our rights and we are acting in our best interest. Fuck Russia and anybody who supports their aggression toward their neighboring countries.
Not all our allies are part of NATO. That isn't the winning argument you think it is. NATO is a defensive alliance. If Ukraine joining NATO provoked Russia to invade, then that's only because Russia decided it would be easier to invade now rather than later when Ukraine was a NATO member. barfo
Ok, now you're back peddling buddy. The US is not bound to protect Ukraine by any treaty. Also Russia was in control of that nuclear plant when they supposedly attacked it. So I guess they like to attack their own infastructure, blow up their own piplines... Lord help us.
At this point, there is really nothing anyone can do about this. We already have deranged leaders in charge of many NATO countries, and there won't be a changing of the guard for many months. Russia will retaliate if if weaponry from a NATO country strikes inside Russia. Will that country then declare article 5 and get us all into a hot war with Russia? Russia wouldn't be able to fend off all of NATO at by itself, and the likely hood that the resort to using nukes is high. China would probably get involved. If you are cheering for this, you are a fucking moron, or obviously not taking this seriously.
I'm not back peddling because I haven't changed my position in the least. Ukraine is a US ally that we have obligations to help defend. It is also in the best interest of the US to help defend them and make Russian aggressive expansion as costly as possible for Russia. I fully support US aid to Ukraine against the Russian invasion, even if we had no treaties or agreements with Ukraine. This has been my stance since 2014. Which is in line with the position I've always had about how to deal with invasions of unaggressive countries by autocratic empires.
