Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Putin was forced to invade a sovereign nation because they might have joined a defensive alliance?

---

no what putin was afraid of was ukraine becoming part of nato and then nato putting nuclear missiles in ukraine. this is no different than if russia wanted to put nuclear missiles in say Cuba.

what i can assure you is we played a major hand in this and that has been somewhat admitted to by victoria nuland. she admitted that the minsk agreement was a ploy to buy time for ukraine to prepare for war.

this issue is not black and white.

---

This isn't 1963. The reach of modern nuclear munitions are just as capable from Poland as they are from Ukraine.

titan said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

What is this nonsense?

Where did you come up with this "right"? Who is responsible for enforcing this "right"?

If Canada formed an alliance with China you can bet America wouldn't hesitate to invade because of it.

---

Bingo. This is not about rights but about how nations predictably react when they have sufficient power and sense of security risk to do so. Diplomacy deals with reality, not as things should be. Thats for philosophers and priests.

That said, Ukraine is a special case. WE asked them to disarm their arsenal in 1994 in return for guarantees. WE should have told Russia BEFORE invading --- "you remember what happened to Saddam? We are not going to let you invade Ukraine, we have that 1994 pledge remember? So don't. And you can't say its our fault and act of war because we are telling you now and you know about the 1994 arrangement. So back off that mobilization and lets discuss things."

But the reason that didn't happen is because Biden's admin were crooks, theives, bad actors. They didn't want to prevent it. They didn't care, as long as their criminal enterprises and laundering in Ukraine could remain obscured and concealed.

---

I'd argue Ukraine shouldn't have ever agree to disarmament. I would wager that Ukraine likely only agreed because we paid off the right people to agree.
America should never be in the business of making countries weak because we will then "protect" them. It is a foolish and shortlived vision that is sold as being altruistic but in reality is at best a paper tiger.

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

The Kraken said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

What is this nonsense?

Where did you come up with this "right"? Who is responsible for enforcing this "right"?

If Canada formed an alliance with China you can bet America wouldn't hesitate to invade because of it.

---

Why would Canada want an alliance with China? Does China promote democracy and western values? Is the Chinese alliance strictly defensive and has been for nearly 80 years?

Does the US have a President who has suppressed the opposition and by default has made himself leader for life? Does the President consider Canada "not a country" and is actually US territory?

---

You are being obtuse by focusing on details of what was intended as a diplomatic analogy. None of those details matter in the hypothetical. Its was a basic point about perspectives. Hell, there is a discernible tone in the air right now of us entering Mexico to various degrees because of the instability they are engendering. Would we take China's words the military alliance was "defensive"?

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

Ukraine never actually controlled those nuclear weapons. Moscow had the launch codes etc. There's some mythology around that, just like everything involving Ukraine this century.

2014: these people have been going at it internally and with the Russian population for probably the better part of 30 years now.

Quote:

---

Clashes in the West

Then, on Saturday, violent clashes broke out in the western Ukrainian town of Mukachevo, allegedly over the control of cigarette-smuggling routes. Right Sektor paramilitaries sprayed police officers with bullets from a belt-fed machinegun, and police backed by Ukrainian government troops returned fire. Several deaths and multiple injuries were reported.

Tensions escalated on Monday with President Petro Poroshenko ordering national security forces to disarm "armed cells" of political movements. Meanwhile, the Right Sektor dispatched reinforcements to the area while other militiamen converged on the capital of Kiev.

While President Poroshenko and Right Sektor leader Dmitry Yarosh may succeed in tamping down this latest flare-up of hostilities, they may be only postponing the inevitable: a conflict between the US-backed authorities in Kiev and the neo-Nazis and other right-wing fighters who spearheaded last year's coup and have been at the front lines of the fighting against ethnic Russian rebels in the east.

The Ukrainian right-wing extremists feel they have carried the heaviest burden in the war against the ethnic Russians and resent the politicians living in the relative safety and comfort of Kiev. In March, Poroshenko also fired thuggish oligarch Igor Kolomoiskyas governor of the southeastern province of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Kolomoisky had been the primary benefactor of the Right Sektor militias.
So, as has become apparent across Europe and even in Washington, the Ukraine crisis is spinning out of control, making the State Department's preferred narrative of the conflict that it's all Russian President Vladimir Putin's fault harder and harder to sell.

---

While Ukraine couldn't launch missiles they still controlled the pits and the warheads. Those are still useable with time and effort.

rgvag11 said:

---

Please show were Ukraine tried to join NATO prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea.

---

Tell me where wikipedia is wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#:~:text=Ukrainian%20President%20Volodymyr%20Zelenskyy%20was,any%20decisions%20on%20NATO%20membership.%22

I don't always trust wikipedia, so it is likely that they are wrong. Just tell me where.

titan said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

---

Ukraine was arming to attack Russia before Putin invaded Crimea?

When has NATO been the aggressor in its 76 year history?

texagbeliever said:

---

titan said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

What is this nonsense?

Where did you come up with this "right"? Who is responsible for enforcing this "right"?

If Canada formed an alliance with China you can bet America wouldn't hesitate to invade because of it.

---

Bingo. This is not about rights but about how nations predictably react when they have sufficient power and sense of security risk to do so. Diplomacy deals with reality, not as things should be. Thats for philosophers and priests.

That said, Ukraine is a special case. WE asked them to disarm their arsenal in 1994 in return for guarantees. WE should have told Russia BEFORE invading --- "you remember what happened to Saddam? We are not going to let you invade Ukraine, we have that 1994 pledge remember? So don't. And you can't say its our fault and act of war because we are telling you now and you know about the 1994 arrangement. So back off that mobilization and lets discuss things."

But the reason that didn't happen is because Biden's admin were crooks, theives, bad actors. They didn't want to prevent it. They didn't care, as long as their criminal enterprises and laundering in Ukraine could remain obscured and concealed.

---

I'd argue Ukraine shouldn't have ever agree to disarmament. I would wager that Ukraine likely only agreed because we paid off the right people to agree.
America should never be in the business of making countries weak because we will then "protect" them. It is a foolish and shortlived vision that is sold as being altruistic but in reality is at best a paper tiger.

---

Agree in principle and fully. However, since we did, to that degree, the situation now IS our FAULT. It was incumbent on us to make clear invading Ukraine was unacceptable, but we in turn would simply make sure NATO didn't happen even if Ukraine wants it --- by simply not voting for it.

And frankly, as a super hegemon, we had the means. OBidens were crooks and bad actors who had a good laundering and worse theft scheme going. They didn't want to expose that.

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

---

Ukraine was arming to attack Russia before Putin invaded Crimea?

When has NATO been the aggressor in its 76 year history?

---

WHERE did ttu_85 says they were "arming to attack"?

titan said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

---

Ukraine was arming to attack Russia before Putin invaded Crimea?

When has NATO been the aggressor in its 76 year history?

---

WHERE did ttu_85 says they were "arming to attack"?

---

It was implied, but okay. When did Ukraine and NATO enter into an agreement to start "prebasing of troops and hardware" in Ukraine?

ETA: I remember when it was all the rage to remind people that Trump authorized javelins to be placed in Ukraine. That was after Russia had already invaded.

Yep.

Russia has been ****ing around in Ukraine for a long time. Everyone crying about how the US supposedly staged a coup against a "legitimate" government in Ukraine conveniently and continuously ignores the fact that Russia has been meddling in Ukraine since the 1930's (earlier, really). That "legitimate" government was anything but considering the Russian influence in Ukrainian politics. It was widely believed by Ukrainians that the 2004/2005 elections were being outright rigged by the Russian supported government. 2010 rolled around, and the Russians had gotten their guys back in. Then Ukrainians once again peacefully revolted in 2014 in favor of pro-Western politics. Then Russia immediately decided to send in their little green men. The thing is, you don't just start that kind of operation at the drop of a hat. That's something that takes planning and maneuvering, so it's idiotic to pretend that Russia was just responding to current events. They had been planning that "response" for awhile.

Ukraine asked Obama in 2014 for lethal assistance and to buy weapons, which he denied. If the US was really interested in "prying Ukraine from Russia" and staging some kind of coup, you'd think we would help arm them to stave off a Russian invasion, but we didn't. Flash forward to the Trump presidency, and once again Ukraine has elected a pro-Western government. Once again, Russia is threatening to invade. Trump is willing to sell them Javelins and lethal aid that Democrats, the very ones supposedly meddling where they don't belong, wouldn't. Russia finally invades (again) in 2022 and guess who's reluctant to respond with lethal aid? The same group supposedly trying to pry it from Russia.

The entire argument against Ukraine boils down to, "It's Russia's right to do whatever they want to Ukraine and tell them what to do," from a group of people who claims to not be pro-Russia.

halfastros81 said:

---

He's posturing to get them to agree to a peace deal imo. It doesn't make it any less cringy but there is a method to his madness.

---

I think so as well but this is an own goal by Trump. Stupid messaging and unnecessary.

He's still 1Mx better than the alternative.

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

It's not the best use of USA resources to protect the rights of Ukraine, whatever they are.

The era of the USA asserting its empire over the entire world is coming to an end. We should not be trying to export our culture through force. We have enough problems right now to fix at home.

That is bad for a lot of people, both philosophically and financially, but that is the reality.

BusterAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Please show were Ukraine tried to join NATO prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea.

---

Tell me where wikipedia is wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#:~:text=Ukrainian%20President%20Volodymyr%20Zelenskyy%20was,any%20decisions%20on%20NATO%20membership.%22

I don't always trust wikipedia, so it is likely that they are wrong. Just tell me where.

---

Third sentence of your link.

"Although co-operating with NATO, Ukraine remained a neutral country. After it was attacked by Russia in 2014, Ukraine has increasingly sought NATO membership."

Quote:

---

The entire argument against Ukraine boils down to, "It's Russia's right to do whatever they want to Ukraine and tell them what to do," from a group of people who claims to not be pro-Russia.

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

I'll see if I can find the video I saw 2-3 days ago. Was a reporter interviewing an older Ukrainian lady. I don't speak the language but if the translation was accurate, the older lady blamed Ukraine for starting the war.

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

---

Ukraine was arming to attack Russia before Putin invaded Crimea?

When has NATO been the aggressor in its 76 year history?

---

2011 in Libya sure looks like that to the world, not to mention Iraq. Because NATO is us.

Try to see it from their perspective.

National military's do not take words and past as guide, they always calculate capability. We had scenarios for fighting the Royal Navy just before World War One. That late. Well after established friendship, let alone a bellicose rivalry.

aggiedent said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

What is this nonsense?

Where did you come up with this "right"? Who is responsible for enforcing this "right"?

If Canada formed an alliance with China you can bet America wouldn't hesitate to invade because of it.

---

We'd invade Canada over an alliance (economic, peace, military??????) with China? Sure we would.

---

For entertainment I went to reddit/r/canada to see if those clowns really believed the US would invade them. It was wild. Almost all of their responses were far far lefties posting every imaginable red-dawn type resistance antics. It was all cute with plenty of giggles imagining soy boy lefties trying to use an M4, until some ahole said- "Yeah we ought to form an alliance with China and allow them to base aircraft and troops."

My giggles stopped. My only response was "Wow what paranoid fantasies but if you really want to get invaded by the US this is exactly the only way to bring that about. Then you will be living out your insane Red-Dawnish fantasies against a country determined to burn your traitorous asses to the ground. Nobody is invading Canada, well unless you pull this stunt."

My post was deleted within 15 minutes.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

Even if you insist on a scenario where Russia wasn't concerned (do not buy it) my post above stands as the way to prevent an invasion for THAT `land grab' reason as well. We made the guarantee. We are responsible for not stopping it. Or in worst case, renouncing it. Instead, just conflicting messages- those usually lead to war.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

That only works if you're willing to back it up...

And let's be honest, the same group saying this never would have happened with Trump as president because he would've said it would be wailing and gnashing their teeth if Biden had said it. The Democrats are the exact opposite: If Trump had said it he'd be bringing us closer to WWIIII, but if Biden did he'd be displaying seasoned statesmanship or some bull****. That's the result of decades of Russian strategic influence in US politics. In the Cold War they tried to sow seeds of distrust in American ideals and politics, and they were somewhat successful in the long term. Then the USSR collapsed and they had domestic problems to control. Once Putin solidified his control, they started looking outward again. Nowadays, contrary to popular belief, they don't favor a particular party or candidate. They just stir **** up on both sides to create disunity, distrust, and instability. They ****ed Hillary with the DNC emails in 2016 and also worked to **** Trump by feeding Democrats the Russian collusion hoax crap. No matter who won, the opposing side could legitimately claim Russian influence and illegitimacy. They continued in 2020 and 2024, and now there's always a "Russian misinformation" bogeyman. They almost don't even need to try anymore because they've been so successful we'll question and deny everything on our own.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Putin wanted a puppet quasi-dictatorship in Ukraine similar to what he has in Belarus. He was well on his way to achieving that goal until 2014 when the US and west sponsored an overthrow of Ukraine's Russian-installed leader.

Russia responded by invading the eastern part of Ukraine and taking over Crimea. They gradually built up their forces and full-scale invaded in 2022.

Trump, just like a few posters on this board and also Tucker Carlson, seems to have been convinced think the world would be better off if Ukraine went the way of Belarus and just turned into a vassal state of Russia under Moscow's complete control. The Soviet Union getting back together. What could go wrong.

---

Don't forget that in response to the US State Department and Victoria Nuland's media blitz supported by USAID, the US promoted the Maiden Revolution to oust the Russia supported government. Ukraine then had a civil war between the Eastern part of the country that is majority ethnic Russian and the Western installed government in Kiev called the Donbas War. Both sides, the USA and Russia started this was over control of Ukrainian assets and government. The fact that diplomacy was not used is a red flag that the purpose for both sides was nefarious. IMO

titan said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

---

Ukraine was arming to attack Russia before Putin invaded Crimea?

When has NATO been the aggressor in its 76 year history?

---

2011 in Libya sure looks like that to the world, not to mention Iraq. Because NATO is us.

Try to see it from their perspective.

National military's do not take words and past as guide, they always calculate capability. We had scenarios for fighting the Royal Navy just before World War One. That late. Well after established friendship, let alone a bellicose rivalry.

---

"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."

-- Putin

Many people can see what he is trying to do. Some can not.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Then Ukrainians once again peacefully revolted in 2014 in favor of pro-Western politics.

---

Fact check: false. Over 120 were killed in/among the USAID riots. Including police officers. None of the riot was organic to Ukrainians, it was staunched via the CIA/USAID, which is why Nuland herself was there (and John McCain).

---

Fact check: Those 120 were killed by government forces under direction of Russian advisors in Ukraine.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

Even if you insist on a scenario where Russia wasn't concerned (do not buy it) my post above stands as the way to prevent an invasion for THAT `land grab' reason as well. We made the guarantee. We are responsible for not stopping it. Or in worst case, renouncing it. Instead, just conflicting messages- those usually lead to war.

---

Bidens horrific messaging on the front end certainly carries some blame. He invited Putin into Ukraine. People should not forget that.

Why couldn't Trump stick to the topic and post his comments in the Russia-Ukraine from Another Perspective [Part Deux] thread?

Instead, we get the usual regurgitation about how evil the Russian empire is, Putin is the antichrist, Ukraine is the most sovereign country evah!, and the like.

It is perfectly acceptable for Trump to have his own perspective. He is a die hard in believing wars can and should be avoided if people get to the table and work it out.

Neither the US nor Zelenskey / Ukraine wanted to work anything out and Putin saw an opportunity when 81 million ballots were cast for Peacemaker Joe.

And we have only encouraged the fight and ignored any opportunity for peace, until now. Step back and let the Art of the Deal maker get this done.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

Even if you insist on a scenario where Russia wasn't concerned (do not buy it) my post above stands as the way to prevent an invasion for THAT `land grab' reason as well. We made the guarantee. We are responsible for not stopping it. Or in worst case, renouncing it. Instead, just conflicting messages- those usually lead to war.

---

The best way to stop it would have been to move faster with NATO membership after 2014 and had a position in Ukraine similar to what we have in Poland and Romania.

Quote:

---

Ukraine then had a civil war between the Eastern part of the country that is majority ethnic Russian and the Western installed government in Kiev called the Donbas War.

---

A better way to put that is that Russia not so secretly invaded Eastern Ukraine and started a war.