Olive Branches

There's no way Biden is open to a peaceful outcome; he's fought too long and hard to escalate the situation and won't stop until he gets his way and American soldiers are on the ground and dying.

Besides, it's all Trump's fault.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: didntasktobeborned

Cool story.

Why isn't the US in the ICC?

Because, Bush, apparently:

www.hrw.org...

a reply to: JinMI

None of the allies really want this war, with the possible exception of Poland ( still a hate-on with the Russians) and Canada ( because Justin Trudeau is a dumb f8ck WEF puppet).

Even in the US, only the rabid globalists want this war, as well as the Biden because of their corruption.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Was there a reason for Russia to violate that agreement?

Something about NATO expanding, although not an official agreement anywhere.

Nor is it a secret as the current POTUS made remarks on it's guaranteed aggression if violated back in 1997

I'm not saying I agree with Russia but I certainly understand their side of the coin.

The time to decisively strike back against Russia's invasion with extreme force was a year ago.

China has allied themselves with Russia to continue this war and bleed our resources to the point when China invades Taiwan, all we'll have to throw at them is harsh language.

originally posted by: Tebus

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Tebus
a reply to: JinMI

Lets hope Russia agrees to withdraw from Eastern Ukraine, and return Crimea.

Let's not talk fantasy and instead focus on reality.

Thanks.

Unlikely, but we can certainly hope.

From a realistic perspective, the first course of action would be to secure a lasting ceasefire. This will only be achieved by a number of concessions. Ukraine will need to be able to export its agri product and have Russian forces move back to some point in eastern Ukraine that doesnt threaten Ukraines access to the sea.

IMO this ends with a DMZ in the Donbass. An open route to the Black Sea.

Russia is done without it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The time to decisively strike back against Russia's invasion with extreme force was a year ago.

China has allied themselves with Russia to continue this war and bleed our resources to the point when China invades Taiwan, all we'll have to throw at them is harsh language.

The US is facing massive amounts of financial pressure.

From within and without.

I don't think it's by accident.

originally posted by: JinMI
Was there a reason for Russia to violate that agreement?

Something about NATO expanding, although not an official agreement anywhere.

Oh, I see, since there was no official agreement about NATO expanding (just some misremembered talking points) it was okay for Putin to violate the Budapest Memorandum?

Here, listen to this guy, his name is Mikhail Gorbachev, he was the guy running the show when the Soviet Union unraveled:

The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.” Stop parroting Russian talking points

Not only did the verbal agreement never take place, NATO still adheres to the non-deployment agreement in the former GDR reunification process.

originally posted by: JinMI
... while the west is pushing for more war.

All very tiresome with this oft repeated mantra.

The West is not calling for war. In fact, the West has been consistent that Russia needs to stop the war and withdraw. It's Russia who is doing the killing here. It is Russian imperialist belligerence that is piling up the bodies.

Ukraine is supported by the civilised world. Maybe the Japanese PM can help resolve the problem of an aggressive and corrupted Russia/ Who knows.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Seems like the "misremembered talking points" echoed through the US and NATO:

To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.

Russia and the West finally struck an agreement in September that would allow NATO to station its troops beyond the Iron Curtain. However, the deal only concerned a reunified Germany, with further eastward expansion being inconceivable at the time.

"The Soviet Union still existed and the countries of Eastern Europe were still part of the Soviet structures – like the Warsaw Pact – which was not officially dissolved until July 1991," said Amélie Zima, doctor of political science at the Thucydide Centre (Panthéon-Assas) in Paris. "We cannot speak of betrayal, because a chain of events that would rearrange the security configuration in Europe was about to take place."

In short, at a time when Westerners were offering the "guarantees" spoken of by Vladimir Putin, no one could have predicted the collapse of the USSR and the historic upheavals that followed.

Link

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: JinMI
... while the west is pushing for more war.

All very tiresome with this oft repeated mantra.

The West is not calling for war. In fact, the West has been consistent that Russia needs to stop the war and withdraw. It's Russia who is doing the killing here. It is Russian imperialist belligerence that is piling up the bodies.

Ukraine is supported by the civilised world. Maybe the Japanese PM can help resolve the problem of an aggressive and corrupted Russia/ Who knows.

I don't wish to discuss topics with folks who ignore history and place a facade on the subject.
Thanks though.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Tebus

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Tebus
a reply to: JinMI

Lets hope Russia agrees to withdraw from Eastern Ukraine, and return Crimea.

Let's not talk fantasy and instead focus on reality.

Thanks.

Unlikely, but we can certainly hope.

From a realistic perspective, the first course of action would be to secure a lasting ceasefire. This will only be achieved by a number of concessions. Ukraine will need to be able to export its agri product and have Russian forces move back to some point in eastern Ukraine that doesnt threaten Ukraines access to the sea.

IMO this ends with a DMZ in the Donbass. An open route to the Black Sea.

Russia is done without it.

I can imagine that would be a big lift for Ukraine to accept, but a non-permanent DMZ for the time being might be acceptable. But I am thinking this would not be ideal for Ukraine as it may just allow Russia to solidify its presence in East and be the source of frequent flare ups of conflict.

I think Russia will want guarantees that their access to the black sea is secure.

a reply to: JinMI

From your source and your post:

"In short, at a time when Westerners were offering the "guarantees" spoken of by Vladimir Putin, no one could have predicted the collapse of the USSR and the historic upheavals that followed."

a reply to: JinMI

This does not refute what Gorbachev said, as a matter of fact, it supports his assertion that no guarantees were made.

Now that we have that cleared up, how is Russia justified in violating the Budapest Memorandum?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: didntasktobeborned

Why isn't the US in the ICC?

Because we don't like the idea of getting our pee-pee's wacked.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I already said that there was not an official treaty or declaration. But to pretend it doesn't exist or wasn't said, understood and established is simply not true.

The slaughter of civilians in the Donbass would seem to justify it.

Why is the US sending billions of dollars to this "sovereign" nation that isn't part of NATO?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

From your source and your post:

"In short, at a time when Westerners were offering the "guarantees" spoken of by Vladimir Putin, no one could have predicted the collapse of the USSR and the historic upheavals that followed."

Cool, an excuse.

But it was said and understood....right?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In who's shoes?

Ukraines? Not be a tool for the east or west.
Russia? Not go back on agreements and treaties previously made.
The West? Same as Russia.

Then I guess you should be in support of the US and UK supplying arms to Ukraine since the US, UK, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 promising that all signatories would respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the existing borders at the time, and the US gave assurances to Ukraine that we would support the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

That's why we are careful to not have US forces in direct combat roles in Ukraine and have been careful not to support any Ukrainian excursions onto Russian soil. We are abiding by the Budapest Memorandum.

originally posted by: JinMI
But to pretend it doesn't exist or wasn't said, understood and established is simply not true.

It didn't exist, nor was it said:

The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years.

The slaughter of civilians in the Donbass would seem to justify it.

The part of the country that Russia destabilized? That part?

a reply to: 1947boomer

Was Ukraines independence sovereignity respected in 2014......?