Olive Branches

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Let's not talk fantasy and instead focus on reality.

Thanks.

The reality is if that your neighbor broke into your house you would kill them or pummel them until they left. Not wait for your neighbor and some dude in a completely different neighborhood to figure out what was best for you.

Or I could be wrong.

I blame Yanukovych for stroking Russia's rodapost instead of finishing up ties to align with the EU. Anyways, looks like the house was the neighbors house originally and he never officially gave the okay for the current resident to dwell in it.

a reply to: JinMI

Subsequently, the USSR collapsed and so on. Which your source acknowledges no one could have predicted at the time.

Things change.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

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.

Bold is mine.

I guess that's why we stopped Russia from taking Crimea.

originally posted by: LSU2018
Anyways, looks like the house was the neighbors house originally and he never officially gave the okay for the current resident to dwell in it.

Which part? You talking about Crimea which Stalin gave to the Ukraine SSR? That part was included in the Budapest Memorandum which the Soviet Union signed.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

When did peace become such an ugly word?

*shakes head*

When the current thing in the white house entered in.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So was Gorbachev lying to Baker or Clinton? Because it's clearly mentioned in my source above.

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

Sure, the part with the dead civilians by the Ukrainian govt.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Subsequently, the USSR collapsed and so on. Which your source acknowledges no one could have predicted at the time.

Things change.

Yet still, Putin believes it. Or believes it will provide for his justification.

To simply pretend it didn't happen doesn't apply to "things changing."

originally posted by: JinMI
So was Gorbachev lying to Baker or Clinton? Because it's clearly mentioned in my source above.

The expansion at that time was clearly understood in both my source and yours as being in the former GDR, which to this day is still adhered to.

Sure, the part with the dead civilians by the Ukrainian govt.

It isn't Russia's business what their neighbors do in their own territory. Even if it is killing each other.

And that's if someone is dumb enough to believe Putin is some altruistic do-gooder. It's empire building.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The expansion at that time was clearly understood in both my source and yours as being in the former GDR, which to this day is still adhered to.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. It doesn't matter if you, me, Baker, Clinton or Gorbachev believe it. Putin believes it, or that's what we're lead to believe.

It isn't Russia's business what their neighbors do in their own territory. Even if it is killing each other.

Agreed, although I add the US as well.

And that's if someone is dumb enough to believe Putin is some altruistic do-gooder. It's empire building.

I've never stood on Putins side. My interests are to have the US out of it.

a reply to: JinMI

Putin likes to live in the past, apparently, but also fails to learn lessons from the past.

Who is pretending it didn't happen? Things do change and they certainly have.

No use in pretending otherwise.

originally posted by: JinMI
Putin believes it, or that's what we're lead to believe.

And he is obviously wrong for believing that as both your source and my source confirm.

Now that we, once again, have established that Putin violated the Budapest Memorandum on false pretexts how do you address this? The United States is a signatory to that accord, we affirmed, in an actual agreement, to help.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Was Gorbachev lying to Baker or Clinton?

Again, was Ukraines independence and sovereignity respected in 2014?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Your clairvoyance is wasted on putin. Shame.

originally posted by: JinMI
Was Gorbachev lying to Baker or Clinton?

Was he? Where's a quote of him refuting what he said in 2014?

Again, was Ukraines independence and sovereignity respected in 2014?

No, it was not, and we should have stepped up then, but we have a sad history of not standing by the people who we agreed to support in their times of need. But if you are now shifting to a posture of, "We stuck you before so we should stick you again", just let me know.

a reply to: JinMI

My clairvoyance? We are in the here and now. The past is the past. Putin should learn from 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.

And man purses. The left will still have those.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Was he? Where's a quote of him refuting what he said in 2014?

We have two conflicting statements from Gorbachev. Which one is true?

No, it was not, and we should have stepped up then, but we have a sad history of not standing by the people who we agreed to support in their times of need. But if you are now shifting to a posture of, "We stuck you before so we should stick you again", just let me know.

I was talking about their elections and leaders but yea, we can shift to Crimea. Either way, makes the Budapest Memorandum out to just be a piece of paper.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

My clairvoyance? We are in the here and now. The past is the past. Putin should learn from it.

Here.

Have a mirror....

originally posted by: JinMI
We have two conflicting statements from Gorbachev. Which one is true?

We do? I don't see a quote in your source from Gorbachev contradicting the one I posted. Please post it now if you have one.

I was talking about their elections and leaders but yea, we can shift to Crimea. Either way, makes the Budapest Memorandum out to just be a piece of paper.

Their elections are their elections, not Russia's business. You keep shifting the goal posts and it's not a good look. Unless Ukraine flat out attacked Russia, which it did not, they were not in violation of the Budapest Memorandum in any way.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: 1947boomer

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.

Bold is mine.

I guess that's why we stopped Russia from taking Crimea.

No, the reason we didn't stop Russia from taking Crimea is because that would have required direct intervention of US forces killing Russian forces--the two largest nuclear powers on the planet shooting at each other. When the Budapest Memorandum was signed, the US made it clear to Ukraine that we were not guaranteeing their territorial integrity in the same way we do with NATO. NATO is established by a treaty between the signatory nations and requires each to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. That level of guarantee was specifically withheld from Ukraine.

However, there's nothing that prohibits us from helping Ukraine take Crimea back.