Olive Branches

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A) lied about Gorbachev's quotes and

I didn't quote Gorbachev. I understood him to possibly have said it but no, it was Baker in a conversation with Gorbachev.

B) failed to read the sources shows you aren't interested in what was actually discussed but instead prefer parroting Putin's 2007 speech which mischaracterized NATO expansion for his own rhetorical purposes. The Soviets had a name for what you are doing.

Have I quoted any of Putin speeches?

I seriously don't get it. You have to make these strawmans and try to attack my character because I wont support something you support. There's a word for that too. It's called being disingenuous or bad faithed.

Why do you need me to support Ukraine Augustus? Why does the government also need my consent for Ukraine Augustus?

Pretty much. Since it wasn't, "Ukraine violated the Budapest Memorandum".

Sure did, as did the US and of course Ukraine.

a reply to: JinMI

Could you explain how you think the US and Ukraine broke the memorandum.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Russia has no legitimate 'voice' in another soverign nation.

Its the voice of the opposition party and, yes, they do have a voice there since so many people of Ukraine are still loyal to Russia. You have to know its wrong to silence the opposing party, regardless of who they identify with.

Why? The oil was still flowing.

When was this? Citation please.

A year is 'days'? Do you not know how to use a calendar?

Yes, I know how to use a calendar. Do you know how to read? Both I and the quoted article made it clear that just days after biden took office the US consulate in Ukraine urged the shutdown of the opposition party tv stations and further encouraged seizing Medvedchuk's assets, including the pipeline. Ukraine would never have opposed Russia if biden had not promised to back them up if Russia responded with aggression. Of course, biden sat by and waited while Ukraine took the response full in the face before he did a damn thing. Now he commits billions of tax payer dollars in cash and weapons to Ukraine. It is also public information that Ukraine has sold many of the weapons and the money just seems to vanish.

Last February, days after the Inauguration of President Joe Biden, America’s allies in Kyiv decided to get tough on Medvedchuk. The Ukrainian government started by taking his TV channels off the air, depriving Russia of its propaganda outlets in the country. The U.S. embassy in Kyiv applauded the move. About two weeks later, on Feb. 19, 2021, Ukraine announced that it had seized the assets of Medvedchuk’s family. Among the most important, it said, was a pipeline that brings Russian oil to Europe, enriching Medvedchuk and his family—including Putin’s goddaughter, Daria—and helping to bankroll Medvedchuk’s political party.

link

You don't know what Regan would have done. Your assertions are nothing but lame opinions based on bs.

I do NOT consider Russia an ally. Your bs is starting to get very close to libel. I suggest you start offering citation that places the blame on someone else...

originally posted by: JinMI
I didn't quote Gorbachev. I understood him to possibly have said it but no, it was Baker in a conversation with Gorbachev.

One, you initially claimed it was Gorbachev (do I need to pull your post?). Two, you then claimed it was a quote from Bakker, but it wasn't a quote from either of them.

Have I quoted any of Putin speeches?

Your talking points are directly from his speech about NATO expansion and alleged guarantees yet none exist which is corroborated by the Premier of the Soviet Union during those times.

Why do you need me to support Ukraine Augustus?

I'm not asking you to support anything, I'm telling you that your rationale for justifying the Russian invasion are based on lies which you are parroting.

Sure did, as did the US and of course Ukraine.

This should be easy then, cite the relevant passage that Ukraine violated.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: JinMI

Could you explain how you think the US and Ukraine broke the memorandum.

Sure.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to
refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be
used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations;

The US heavy handed use of its resources, material and political, in Ukraines 2014 elections. Followed by Trumps green light for javalins in 2019. Allowed by Ukraine.

Russias influx of weapons in the east of Ukraine and their acceptance by Ukraine.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights
inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

Ukraine allowing their politics and trade to be guided by Russia and the US, depending on the year.

Budapest Memorandum (PDF)

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: JinMI

Could you explain how you think the US and Ukraine broke the memorandum.

Sure.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to
refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be
used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations;

The US heavy handed use of its resources, material and political, in Ukraines 2014 elections. Followed by Trumps green light for javalins in 2019. Allowed by Ukraine.

Russias influx of weapons in the east of Ukraine and their acceptance by Ukraine.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights
inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

Ukraine allowing their politics and trade to be guided by Russia and the US, depending on the year.

Budapest Memorandum (PDF)

Russia invaded in 2014, by 2019 the memorandum had already been ripped apart by Russia.

Prior to 2014 both Russia and US had influence in Ukranian politics. But not to the extend of breaking the memorandum.

a reply to: JinMI

Who's "crying"?

Are you trying to derail your own thread?

Is Russia not breaching the agreement:

"to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights
inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;"

By invading Ukraine.

Also, if Ukraine et al were to have breached it themselves, where does it say that Russia may then start a war?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

One, you initially claimed it was Gorbachev (do I need to pull your post?). Two, you then claimed it was a quote from Bakker, but it wasn't a quote from either of them.

ORLY????

Baker: If that happens, our troops will return home. We will leave any country that does
not desire our presence. The American people have always had a strong position favoring this.
However, if the current West German leadership is at the head of a unified Germany then they
have said to us they will be against our withdrawal.
And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If
NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for
the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that
if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch
of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the “two + four”
mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military
organization spreading to the east.
6
These are our thoughts. Perhaps a better way can be found. As of yet, we do not have the
Germans’ agreement to this approach. I explained it to Genscher and he only said that he will
think it over. As for [French Foreign Minister Roland] Dumas, he liked the idea. Now I have
given an account of this approach to you. I repeat, maybe something much better can be created,
but we have not been able to do that yet.
Gorbachev: I want to say that in general we share this way of thinking. Indeed, the
process has begun and is underway. And we need to try to adjust to the new reality. A
mechanism is needed that would assist stability in Europe--a very important center of world
politics--in remaining undisturbed. Of course we have some differences in looking at this
situation. I think there is nothing terrible in that. The most important thing is not to approach this
situation in too simplistic a manner.

So not only is further east of east not east, Baker not saying east didn't happen and Gorbachev totally didn't say he thought the same.

I should disbelieve my lying eyes!!!!!!!!!!

Your talking points are directly from his speech about NATO expansion and alleged guarantees yet none exist which is corroborated by the Premier of the Soviet Union during those times.

A point which I already made clear. A point that doesn't really matter if the guy who is invading believes it. As the point of diplomacy is already long gone.

I'm not asking you to support anything, I'm telling you that your rationale for justifying the Russian invasion are based on lies which you are parroting.

Except I havn't justified it. There is no justification. Another strawman. Still doesn't mean the US should be there.

This should be easy then, cite the relevant passage that Ukraine violated.

See above, my response to Scot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Its the voice of the opposition party and, yes, they do have a voice there since so many people of Ukraine are still loyal to Russia. You have to know its wrong to silence the opposing party, regardless of who they identify with.

Wrong or not, it isn't Russia's call to invade over that, it ins't their country.

When was this? Citation please.

September 2021.

Yes, I know how to use a calendar. Do you know how to read? Both I and the quoted article made it clear that just days after biden took office the US consulate in Ukraine urged the shutdown of the opposition party tv stations and further encouraged seizing Medvedchuk's assets, including the pipeline. Ukraine would never have opposed Russia if biden had not promised to back them up if Russia responded with aggression. Of course, biden sat by and waited while Ukraine took the response full in the face before he did a damn thing. Now he commits billions of tax payer dollars in cash and weapons to Ukraine. It is also public information that Ukraine has sold many of the weapons and the money just seems to vanish.

And? None of that violates the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine's internal politics are not Russia's concern.

You don't know what Regan would have done. Your assertions are nothing but lame opinions based on bs.

It's 'Reagan', and we know what he did, he stood up to the Soviet Union (Russia) when they invaded another of their neighbors. I guess because he was a Neo-Con, RINO Globalist. Or he just a tyrannical and imperialist regime when he saw one.

I do NOT consider Russia an ally. Your bs is starting to get very close to libel.

No? You don't? Are you at least getting buff in the biceps from carrying their water?

'Libel', LOL. AHAHAHAHAHA. Sue me.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: JinMI

Could you explain how you think the US and Ukraine broke the memorandum.

Sure.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to
refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be
used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations;

The US heavy handed use of its resources, material and political, in Ukraines 2014 elections. Followed by Trumps green light for javalins in 2019. Allowed by Ukraine.

Russias influx of weapons in the east of Ukraine and their acceptance by Ukraine.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights
inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

Ukraine allowing their politics and trade to be guided by Russia and the US, depending on the year.

Budapest Memorandum (PDF)

Russia invaded in 2014, by 2019 the memorandum had already been ripped apart by Russia.

Prior to 2014 both Russia and US had influence in Ukranian politics. But not to the extend of breaking the memorandum.

Right, which proceeded the Maidan Square (coup/revolution). In which outside politics and funds played a large part.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Who's "crying"?

Are you trying to derail your own thread?

Is Russia not breaching the agreement:

"to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights
inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;"

By invading Ukraine.

Also, if Ukraine et al were to have breached it themselves, where does it say that Russia may then start a war?

Sure. As did the US and as Ukraine allowed.

Making the Budapest Memorandum effectively toilet paper by all nations.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: JinMI

Could you explain how you think the US and Ukraine broke the memorandum.

Sure.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to
refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be
used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations;

The US heavy handed use of its resources, material and political, in Ukraines 2014 elections. Followed by Trumps green light for javalins in 2019. Allowed by Ukraine.

Russias influx of weapons in the east of Ukraine and their acceptance by Ukraine.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights
inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

Ukraine allowing their politics and trade to be guided by Russia and the US, depending on the year.

Budapest Memorandum (PDF)

Russia invaded in 2014, by 2019 the memorandum had already been ripped apart by Russia.

Prior to 2014 both Russia and US had influence in Ukranian politics. But not to the extend of breaking the memorandum.

Right, which proceeded the Maidan Square (coup/revolution). In which outside politics and funds played a large part.

Internal ukranian politics.

Not a breech of the memorandum.

a reply to: ScepticScot

McCain, Nulin, Graham and Biden are "internal" Ukrainians?

US funds are "internal?"

No. That argument doesn't hold water.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ScepticScot

McCain, Nulin, Graham and Biden are "internal" Ukrainians?

US funds are "internal?"

No. That argument doesn't hold water.

The revolution was Ukranian.

Both Russia and US played favourites but until Russia invaded Ukraine and started funding civil war in the the east the memorandum still held up.

originally posted by: JinMI
ORLY????

Yeah, cut the ****:

“The bottom line is, that’s a ridiculous argument,” Mr. Baker said in an interview in 2014, a few months after Russia seized Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine. “It is true that in the initial stages of negotiations I said ‘what if’ and then Gorbachev himself supported a solution that extended the border that included the German Democratic Republic,” or East Germany, within NATO. Since the Russians signed that treaty, he asked, how can they rely “on something I said a month or so before? It just doesn’t make sense.” What Baker actually said.

Still doesn't mean the US should be there.

We aren't there. So you're covered on that outrage du jour.

See above, my response to Scot.

So Ukraine dealing with internal territorial issues violated the treaty? Ok, makes total sense.