Trump Says Making Ukraine a NATO Member an ‘Unhinged’ Idea, Biden Risking Nuclear War Over ‘Bribes’

[Hoodat]

Good Lord, you're boring.

Boring, yet accurate with absolute precision.

[Kamaji]

@Kamaji

Blah,blah,BullBush squared,blah.

If it rains,you blame it  on Trump.

Class envy is NEVER pretty.

Wow.  Can't you even think of a new insult?

You're the one who made the lame excuse for Trump's failures, not me.  Maybe you should stop supporting losers.

[Kamaji]

@Kamaji

I know.

He's rude,he's rich,and he's  orange!

No, he's arrogant, he's ignorant, he hires incompetent people, and his failures exceed his successes by a huge margin.

[sneakypete]

Wow.  Can't you even think of a new insult?

@Kamaji

Not one that is such  a snug fit.

[Kamaji]

@Kamaji

Not one that is such  a snug fit.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@sneakypete

I'm curious - what is your opinion on Trump's clearly stated position to cutoff all aid to Ukraine?

It's not like that issue requires any military experience or anything - just a very basic knowledge of history since WW2.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

I'm curious - what is your opinion on Trump's clearly stated position to cutoff all aid to Ukraine?

It's not like that issue requires any military experience or anything - just a very basic knowledge of history since WW2.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I am 100 percent against it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

I am 100 percent against it.

I truly respect your willingness to disagree with your guy's position on an issue.

[bigheadfred]

@sneakypete

I'm curious - what is your opinion on Trump's clearly stated position to cutoff all aid to Ukraine?

It's not like that issue requires any military experience or anything - just a very basic knowledge of history since WW2.

Trump says he would cut off aid to Ukraine and then says he would give Zelensky a lot more if Putin won't come to terms. Talking out of both sides of his mouth--again.

[Kamaji]

Trump says he would cut off aid to Ukraine and then says he would give Zelensky a lot more if Putin won't come to terms. Talking out of both sides of his mouth--again.

Trump is a liar and a seducer; he views everything from an instrumental point of view:  what does he have to say to this crowd in front of him now to seduce them into emotionally investing in him, without regard to what he's said to anyone else previously, or what he'll say to anyone else in the future.  And once he has a group emotionally bonded to him, he can say what he likes to other people - he can walk down Fifth Avenue and shoot someone - and that group will not disavow him.

That, btw, is the essence of his own self-description in his book "The Art of the Deal".

[Hoodat]

Trump says he would cut off aid to Ukraine and then says he would give Zelensky a lot more if Putin won't come to terms.

It is clearly obvious at this point that Putin will not come to terms.  He has already annexed the territory of five Ukrainian Oblasts.  Even claims of independence for Luhansk and Donetsk have been squelched by Putin's actions.  "Liberator" and 'protector", my ass.

[sneakypete]

It is clearly obvious at this point that Putin will not come to terms. He has already annexed the territory of five Ukrainian Oblasts.  Even claims of independence for Luhansk and Donetsk have been squelched by Putin's actions.  "Liberator" and 'protector", my ass.

@Hoodat

NO dictator can afford to compromise because compromise is seen as a form of weakness,and people fearing the dictator is what keeps him in power.

EVERY time in  history we have ever seen a dictator that was no longer feared by his people,he ended up either being chased out of his country  or killed by his own people.

It is "dictate or die".

[Right_in_Virginia]

Zero chance Trump doesn't know those agreements were made and signed.  They were raised multiple times publicly by his Administration, and have been discussed a bunch since this invasion.

Regardless, it was his job as both President and now as a presidential candidate to get informed on a key foreign policy on which he has expressed a very hard-line opinion.

You also have to assume that whomever his current foreign policy advisors is/are, they would have told him as well.  If not, then he has selected incompetent ones yet again.

Why are you insisting Donald Trump support the continued killing of Ukrainians and destruction of their country ..... the draining of our treasury and military readiness, and the escalation of potential WWIII with a nuclear power ..... for a conflict that would have been solved at the negotiating table had the US and Britain not blocked those efforts and for which the United States has no compellingly reason, including legal, to involve itself in?

[Hoodat]

.... for a conflict that would have been solved at the negotiating table had the US and Britain not blocked those efforts

Good grief, stop lying already.

[ScottinVA]

There's nothing right with it.

NATO exists to defend its member countries. It does this by providing a security guarantee that an attack on one of them is an attack on all of them.

Ukraine is not a NATO member and it is not covered by the security guarantee in the Alliance’s treaty.

Yet, NATO has helped Ukraine's armed forces, including with equipment and financial support, to fight their individual conflict with Russia.

In so doing, NATO has transformed itself from a defensive umbrella for member states to an offensive alliance open at whim to any state.

NATO has outlived its mission.

Wrong.  NATO is absolutely right to assist Ukraine.  I refer you to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.   The signatories of that agreement for Ukraine and other former Soviet vassal states to surrender their nuclear stockpiles, i.e., the US, UK and Russia, were legally bound to ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity.  Russia violated that treaty, beginning in 2014, and will pay the price for its hegemony.  Fortunately, Russia is indeed paying that price with each passing day.  Ukraine, with NATO’s help, will eventually drive those filthy orcs off their land, and humanity will be better for it. Further, Ukraine subsequently will join NATO.

This is going to happen whether Trump, who never will be President again, likes it or not.  A weakened Russia (and hopefully a dead Putin) is better for humanity.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Bullshit.  I refer you to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, under which the signatories of that agreement for Ukraine to surrender its nuclear stockpile, i.e., the US, UK and Russia, were legally bound to ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Here's a little more info @ScottinVA with links to the full sources:

Feb 1, 2022 —

Unlike Article 5 of the NATO charter, it does not require a specific response from the United States or others. So it’s worth a little history lesson.

The reality is much murkier. The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism.  And while it provides security assurances, they do not include specific promises with regard to a potential invasion.

More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/what-budapest-memorandum-means-us-ukraine/

Analysis

Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at the political level. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.  According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."

In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. 

The United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

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

[Hoodat]

Wrong.  NATO is absolutely right to assist Ukraine.

NATO isn't assisting Ukraine.

[ScottinVA]

Here's a little more info @ScottinVA with links to the full sources:

Analysis

Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at the political level. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.  According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."

In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. 

The United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

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

Russia was one of the signatories guaranteeing and respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity.  They’re either held to that requirement or they aren’t.  In this case, the western countries are holding them to it, professorial analysis aside.

And all that aside… Ukraine is fighting for its independence against a hegemonic rogue state headed by an evil thug regime.  The West is going to continue to aid them until the last piece of Russian filth crawls back home across that border.  It’s always so easy for westerners to sit in their comfy climes and prattle on about necessity of Ukraine submitting to Russian occupation “to save lives.”  These people have never had a conversation with anyone who has had to exist under the Russian jackboot.  I have interacted with such people and their stories are horrifying.

[sneakypete]

Why are you insisting Donald Trump support the continued killing of Ukrainians and destruction of their country ..... the draining of our treasury and military readiness, and the escalation of potential WWIII with a nuclear power ..... for a conflict that would have been solved at the negotiating table had the US and Britain not blocked those efforts and for which the United States has no compellingly reason, including legal, to involve itself in?

@Right_in_Virginia

What a utter crock of crap.

How come you didn't mention Russia in your rant? After all,THEY were  the ones that did the invading that started this conflict!

Serious question,are you one of those "Better Red than  Dead!" people?

[sneakypete]

Here's a little more info @ScottinVA with links to the full sources:

Analysis

Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at the political level. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.  According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."

@Right_in_Virginia

NOR does it forbid such actions.

In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine,

If  there has ever been a sign of desperation,it is using THOSE two losers as an excuse to justify cowering under your bed.

 

The United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

Political commitments are not legally binding?

Since when?
 

[sneakypete]

NATO isn't assisting Ukraine.

@Hoodat

True,but NATO nations are clearly supporting Ukraine.

BTW,why are people like you  supporting the Soviets?

[Kamaji]

Good grief, stop lying already.

That's not possible.

[ScottinVA]

Political commitments are not legally binding?

Since when?

Exactly.  Weasel words from the Clinton people are not the ticket out of opposing Russia’s invasion of the country whose territorial integrity Russia itself committed to respecting and supporting.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is true that the Budapest Memorandum does not create a legal obligation for the signatories to provide military assistance to Ukraine.  If it did, we would have committed massive U.S. combat troops in Ukraine, not just provided weaponry.

But at the least, it certainly provides a clear legal justification for us to provide Ukraine with weapons with which it can defend itself.

Kind of like a "Stand your Ground" law.  You're not obligated to stand your ground, but if you choose to do so, you're perfectly justified in doing so.  Which renders ridiculous any claim that providing such assistance to Ukraine is an offensive provocation against Russia.

It should also be remembered that Russia itself was obligated to respect Ukraine's borders, and itself clearly breached that Agreement.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

What a utter crock of crap.

How come you didn't mention Russia in your rant? After all,THEY were  the ones that did the invading that started this conflict!

Serious question,are you one of those "Better Red than  Dead!" people?

@sneakypete

We don't agree on our involvement in this conflict or our role in instigating it.  I respect that your opinion is sincere and born of your political and life experiences.  So, too, is mine.

As to the "Better red than dead" slogan, I think it's meaningless in this shitshow.