Colors of Blue and Gold

[Martin Weidmann]

No one is saying Russia will overrun "Europe"?  HA HA HA.  That has been a cornerstone of the entire leftist propaganda machine promoting the war.  The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler.   Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light.  It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists.  This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy.  Putin became the proxy target.  It would be humorous that a war has been fought on that basis if the consequences were not so tragic.

The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler.

First of all, I never mentioned Hitler. Secondly, invading other countries is not the same as overrunning Europe.

Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light.

Nobody is changing a story. You just misrepresent what was actually said, as per usual!~

It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists.

Hilarious. What a load of BS

This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy. 

Are you now idiotically claiming that the Russian invasion of Ukraine had something to the with the (not so fake) Russion collusion case?

And, Trump isn't "somehow" an enemy of democracy. He is the impitamy of an enemy of democracy.

[Rick Plant]

President Biden never had to leave a NATO summit early because world leaders were laughing at him. Leaders around the world respect President Biden.

Criminal Donald was an absolute joke and world leaders were not shy about making that known. The only leaders Criminal Donald gushed over were murderous dictators like Putin and Kim Jung Un, who used Donnie for a fool to take advantage of his ignorance so they could advance their nefarious agenda. 

Trump leaves NATO summit early after video shows leaders laughing at him
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2019/12/04/trump-to-leave-nato-summit-early-after-video-shows-leaders-laughing-at-him.html

[Joe Elliott]

Ukraine had nukes but they didn't have the launch codes. So the nukes were useless to them. Also, Ukraine voted to leave the USSR in 1991 so your first sentence is inaccurate.

If this was true, why was the United States and Russia so keen for Ukraine to give them up? Obviously, it would be much simpler for Ukraine to figure out how to make modifications to make these missiles operational than it would be to do this from scratch. If nothing else, they would have a mass of fissile material that can be used to make a nuclear bomb, a big first step. If nothing else, Russia wouldn’t know if Ukraine had nuclear capability and that alone might have stopped them from attempting to take Kiev, the first step in taking over all of Ukraine.

As for Russia, they argue that the US didn't uphold its end of the deal because we expanded NATO up to Russia's doorstep after promises made to Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO.

First of all, Russia is just pretending to be afraid of NATO attack. No matter how strong NATO gets, Russia can’t be attacked because if it’s nuclear deterrence. The Russians have a similar organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization. How much bitching do we do about countries joining the CSTO? None. Because we have no intention of taking them out one at a time.

Nations that want to expand always complain about other counties defensive agreements. Germany claimed that if Belgium entered into a defensive agreement with France, Germany would be threatened. Germany might have to attack Belgium to keep Germany safe. It was the lack of defensive agreement that helped France fall. The main attack came through the hills of forests of the Ardennes in southern Belgium. Belgium didn’t defend this region because they guessed that France might. France didn’t defend this region because they guessed that Belgium might. Something that could have been avoided if they coordinated their forces in case Belgium was attacked. So, the main panzer force was able to advance against almost no opposition until they were through the forest.

Secondly, the promise to never invade Ukraine was made on paper. The promise to not expand NATO was spoken. That is a big difference.

The promise not to expand NATO was made in 1990, when East Germany rejoined West Germany to form Germany. East of Germany was solidly controlled Soviet territory, Poland, the Baltic States. So, yes, it seemed to the U. S. negotiator that NATO would never expand to those areas. Moscow would never allow it.

In any case the notion that spoken agreements are just as binding as written agreements is nonsense. One miss-statement, at any point, during negotiations can allow a country to break its written promises. A nation can say “If you give me something now, I will always never invade you”. Then, after getting what they want, they can point to some miss-statement, or an alleged miss-statement, possibly made by someone, to go back on their written promise. That is why treaties are written down. So, everyone knows what is being agreed to.

Yes, if it was written down that NATO that in exchange for Russia’s promise not to invade, NATO would never expand, then NATO could not expand without breaking the treaty.

If spoken promises are binding, then written promises can always be broken by falsely claiming that spoken promises were made. Something that cannot be done with written agreements. Which, as I said before, is why treaties are written.

Question: Can spoken promises, or alleged spoken promises, justify the breaking of written treaties?

It's a bad deal for Ukraine which was one of the poorest countries in Europe before the 2022 invasion and has lost millions of people since last year. It will take Ukraine decades to recover from this war. And the war was totally avoidable if less bellicose policies towards Russia were taken by the US and NATO.

Ukraine has great agricultural production. And great iron and coal resources. I wonder why it is one of the poorest countries in Europe? I know. It’s because if hundred of years of autocratic Moscow rule. It is because during most of the past 30 years, Ukraine was been ruled by Moscow approved dictators. And whenever Ukraine tried to chose democracy, Russia attacks without fail. Ukraine has been poor for the same reason Russia has been relatively poor, despite a very well-educated population, despite great natural resources. Autocratic rule, under the czars, under the Soviets, under Putin, that always look for ways to enrich themselves, at the expense of the people of Russia and Ukraine.

Under Russia rule, losing millions of Ukrainians is nothing new. Under Russian misrule, millions of Ukrainians starved to death in the early 1930’s. Then, Russian misrule in 1939, caused Russia to make a deal with Hitler, allowing him to defeat France, which freed him up to attack the Soviet Union, resulting in millions of more Ukrainians being killed. At least now, the lose of “millions of Ukrainians” is to emigration, which I believe is temporary. But temporary or not, at least it is not millions of deaths.

And yes, I know, you can say that was Soviet rule. Soviet rule from Moscow. To me, it was Russian misrule. Just a different name.

If the Russians take over Ukraine, who’s to say future misrule won’t result in millions of deaths. If these future deaths were to occur, it would be due to the “mistakes” of Russian rulers. Considering the past, Ukraine is right to do whatever it takes to avoid this fate.

Do you really care about Ukraine or are you suggesting that you support them being used as geopolitical pawns on a chessboard? Because that's the way it looks from my POV.

From my point of view, you are a Russian apologist. Who prefers autocratic rule. Who cares nothing for democracy.

I’m not saying Ukraine must be forced to fight. Whether they want to or not. Because it helps us. But if Ukraine wants to fight, if they don’t want to be ruled by Moscow, if they don’t want the risk millions of Ukrainian lives being lost to the whims of Moscow as has happened in the past, then we should support them. But if Ukraine decides to throw in the towel, I will be the first to support their decision. But until them, we should support them.

It is you who cares nothing for Ukrainians. Who, it doesn’t matter the least bit what Ukrainians think or want. It doesn’t matter the least to you what Moscow has done to the Ukrainians in the past. And clearly Russia seems determine to stamp our Ukraine culture, stamp out the Ukrainian language. To you, it doesn’t matter in the least what Ukrainians want. We should stop aid to Ukraine regardless.

Question: Do you think we should stop military aid to Ukraine. Regardless of what Ukrainians think?

If so, how is it that I am the one who cares nothing about Ukrainians.

I suspect you won’t advocate stopping all Ukrainian military aid. Just as much as you can convince others to stop. And if you can someday convince others to stop all aid to Ukraine, that would be fine with you.

[Jon Banks]

Question: Can spoken promises, or alleged spoken promises, justify the breaking of written treaties?

Yes. Agreements only stand if both sides honor them.

If we agree that on Tuesdays, I wash your car and on Fridays, you wash mine, that agreement ends when one of us or both us us stop upholding it.

Western leaders have long known that bringing Ukraine into NATO is a major non-starter for Russia but have promised future NATO membership to Ukraine anyway in spite of the fact that they knew it could lead to an aggressive response from Russia. So now Ukraine is suffering from the consequences of the stupid game of chicken.

From my point of view, you are a Russian apologist. Who prefers autocratic rule. Who cares nothing for democracy.

You couldn't be more wrong about me.

I believe in democracy and reject the idea that our leaders must do undemocratic or anti-liberal things to save our democracy.

Secondly, there's nothing worse democracy than war because war justifies government crackdowns on personal freedom and freedom of expression.

So I reject the idea that endless and unnecessary wars are good for democracy. The opposite is true. 

The US has been at war for 90% of my lifetime and I don't think our democracy is better off for it. Things are only getting worse here.

I’m not saying Ukraine must be forced to fight. Whether they want to or not. Because it helps us.

I don't view Russia as a major national security problem for the US so I don't see why we have a dog in the fight between Russia and Ukraine.

There are areas of geopolitics where the US and Russia strongly disagree and there are other areas of geopolitics where the US and Russia can find common ground. But short of launching nuclear war, Russia isn't a threat to the US. 

If there's anything we can do to help end the war as soon as possible, I support that but I reject the idea that Ukraine's fight is America's too.

Question: Do you think we should stop military aid to Ukraine. Regardless of what Ukrainians think?

Given that we're partially responsible for Ukraine being in this situation (ie the NATO issue and America's role in their 2014 coup), I don't think it's morally right to cut off aid to Ukraine.

But I don't think our aid to Ukraine can realistically be unconditional or without limitations.

Contrary to your accusations, I do have sympathy towards the plight of Ukrainians but I prefer a ceasefire as soon as possible, even if it means they don't regain all their territory, over a years long war where thousands more are killed and we end up with the same result, a stalemate...

[Richard Smith]

It's not wasted money. Just like Hitler, Putin needs to be stopped. And sending weapons to Ukraine seems to be a very cost effective way to do it. Yes, it costs money to stop Putin. Just like it cost money to stop Hitler. But it needs to be done.

In the long run, Ukraine will be better off suffering the war damage, than living under the boot of Russia. There is no hope for them if that happens. And adding Ukraine to Russia will only give them more resources, more draftees, and make Russia an even bigger threat to Europe and the world.

And so far you have dodged my question.

Why did the recent reverses on the battlefield for Russia spur you to start complaining about our expenditures. You were pretty silent during the months of stalemate. Is it possible you are more concerned about Russia failing than our spending money?

The Hitler rationale that Martin from "Europe" denies anyone has used.

[Martin Weidmann]

The Hitler rationale that Martin from "Europe" denies anyone has used.

Where did I say that?

Why do you need to lie every time you write something?

[Richard Smith]

Where did I say that?

Why do you need to lie every time you write something?

LOL. Rabbit hole here we come.  This thread is available for anyone to read.