GAC06 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

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."

---

Keep reading. This didn't just start in 2014. It has been an escalation that started before that.

---

Ukraine had a consistent policy of nonalignment until Russia invaded them in 2014.

---

It's not that simple. And, I think it was a good decision of the US not to get involved in Ukraine in 2014 over Crimea. Or anytime between 2014 and 2022. I think it was good to help save Kiev from Russia. I don't really care very much about their border war.

If Europe is concerned, they can put their money where their mouth is.

But, a huge part of the reason our tax dollars are going there has to do with political graft in both the US and Ukraine.

If Muskermench can prove the 360 degree turn of military aid to Ukraine back into the pockets of US lawmakers, that is going to be one hell of a thing.

There are no angels here, only demons.

BusterAg 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.)

---

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.

---

This is a different argument. I could be persuaded by this, since we are up to our eyeballs in debt.


However, that is completely different than claiming that the war was UKRAINES fault. That is an asinine assertion. The person who commits violence first is the one at fault. Russian FREAKING INVADED a sovereign nation. Not for retaliation of any attack or anything.. just because they want it. Just like Hitler invading Poland or Japan invaded China. There is ZERO justification for that.

Eliminatus said:

---

Your typical European I would say is ill traveled and ignorant to both world culture and events. I will always advocate that more Europeans need to travel outside of Europe, and not just on vacation either. It is enlightening in so many ways, the very least of which is appreciating that their national identity is worth fighting for.

---

This is also true.

Just because most Americans only speak English doesn't mean they are not well cultured compared to other parts of the world.

And it's not like America is one culture, either. Besides the language thing Texas and California are as different as Spain and England.

Teslag said:

---

Same reason he said Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating. Love the guy, voted for him 3 times and would again if I could, but he sometimes says some really really stupid *****

---

Yes, he is unhinged with little impulse control. He wants to give Ukraine back to Russia. He will be held in high esteem in Russian history books.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

What exactly did Zelenskyy do to try and prevent the invasion? Did he negotiate anything with Putin? Did he ever speak to Putin? Did he ask for help from other nations?

---

You mean did he surrender before they invaded? No, he didn't do that. He doesn't and didn't owe Russia anything.

Putin wanted Ukraine to be a part of Russia. You can't negotiate that away.

And yes he asked for help. Trump was the first one to send him lethal aid prior to the invasion.

---

So nothing..

---

Well surrender is definitely something

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

aTmAg said:

---

BusterAg 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.)

---

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.

---

This is a different argument. I could be persuaded by this, since we are up to our eyeballs in debt.


However, that is completely different than claiming that the war was UKRAINES fault. That is an asinine assertion. The person who commits violence first is the one at fault. Russian FREAKING INVADED a sovereign nation. Not for retaliation of any attack or anything.. just because they want it. Just like Hitler invading Poland or Japan invaded China. There is ZERO justification for that.

---

I'm not assigning blame on Ukraine. I am saying that they chose open war over peace, and Russia started the invasion. They expanded the threat to join NATO. That spawned the invasion. They wouldn't have done that without assurances from Biden that we had their back. That promise should never have been given, and wouldn't have been given, if Ukraine wasn't the largest money laundering operation for corrupt US politicians.

Everyone is at fault here. Ukraine, Russia and the US government.

There are no angels here, only demons.

GAC06 said:

---

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."

---

And even IF Ukraine were pursing NATO membership prior, it wouldn't matter AT ALL. Russia had invaded Georgia prior. Ukraine had EVERY REASON to protect itself after that. (And even before.)

BusterAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

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."

---

Keep reading. This didn't just start in 2014. It has been an escalation that started before that.

---

Ukraine had a consistent policy of nonalignment until Russia invaded them in 2014.

---

It's not that simple. And, I think it was a good decision of the US not to get involved in Ukraine in 2014 over Crimea. Or anytime between 2014 and 2022. I think it was good to help save Kiev from Russia. I don't really care very much about their border war.

If Europe is concerned, they can put their money where their mouth is.

But, a huge part of the reason our tax dollars are going there has to do with political graft in both the US and Ukraine.

If Muskermench can prove the 360 degree turn of military aid to Ukraine back into the pockets of US lawmakers, that is going to be one hell of a thing.

There are no angels here, only demons.

---

What's to prove? The money goes to defense contractors for their weapons and then the congress members get campaign donations donations from the defense contractors.

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Would you bust into their home and beat the **** out of them if they simply threatened to install a home alarm system and buy a gun for self defense?

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Him joining with his neighbor in an agreement to defend each other if they are attacked is NOT threatening anybody. It would only be a "threat" if you were going to attack.

Neither you, nor Putin, get to declare non-threats as threats as an excuse to attack somebody.

Except NATO has never invaded Russia. Russia always used that as an excuse but the reality is being part of the NATO alliance is about defense against a future Russian invasion, not the other way around.

The fact Ukraine wanting to join NATO sparked a Russian invasion tells you that Russia had been planning to invade them all along as part of a grand strategy... which I will reiterate includes the Baltics and Moldova and parts of Romania. Eventually Poland. They need to fracture NATO for that to happen.

And here's a case in point. Right on time:

Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILDhttps://t.co/Wc4pfosXNQ pic.twitter.com/HmT57x3n2u

— Faytuks News (@Faytuks) February 19, 2025

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Yeah, by calling the police. Which is essentially what Ukraine tried to do.

aTmAg said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Him joining with his neighbor in an agreement to defend each other if they are attacked is NOT threatening anybody. It would only be a "threat" if you were going to attack.

Neither you, nor Putin, get to declare non-threats as threats as an excuse to attack somebody.

---

So you'd be okay with Cuba getting Russian nukes today?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Trump is sending a clear message we are not going to continue to pay for this war.

JayM said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Same reason he said Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating. Love the guy, voted for him 3 times and would again if I could, but he sometimes says some really really stupid *****

---

Yes, he is unhinged with little impulse control. He wants to give Ukraine back to Russia. He will be held in high esteem in Russian history books.

---

This isn't going to happen.

I'm still waiting for all of those U.S. journalists to be liberated from internment camps.

FIDO*98* said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Him joining with his neighbor in an agreement to defend each other if they are attacked is NOT threatening anybody. It would only be a "threat" if you were going to attack.

Neither you, nor Putin, get to declare non-threats as threats as an excuse to attack somebody.

---

So you'd be okay with Cuba getting Russian nukes today?

---

Yes. This isn't 1963. Russia can touch us with nukes from anywhere on the globe. Even closer than Cuba with a few boomers.

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

What's to prove? The money goes to defense contractors for their weapons and then the congress members get campaign donations donations from the defense contractors.

---

That's politics. Super unethical but technically legal, most of the time.

Fraud is when money goes into the Ukrainian government, and that money goes into the pockets of lawmakers personal accounts, without anyone ever buying / making weapons.

Kind of like Hunter Biden's Burisma swindle.

I'm willing to be that there are even more brazen instances of fraud, but, we will see.

No one is giving Ukraine nukes.

BusterAg said:

---

JayM said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Same reason he said Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating. Love the guy, voted for him 3 times and would again if I could, but he sometimes says some really really stupid *****

---

Yes, he is unhinged with little impulse control. He wants to give Ukraine back to Russia. He will be held in high esteem in Russian history books.

---

This isn't going to happen.

I'm still waiting for all of those U.S. journalists to be liberated from internment camps.

---

His rhetoric today alone would cast doubt on your assertion.

I don't know what the **** Trump is thinking right now. I used to scoff at him being labeled as "Putin's lil buddy" but damn me if he isn't looking like one at the moment. It's not over yet of course but the messaging direction so far is WILD. He is favoring Russian interests over anyone else right now in Europe. What. The. Actual. ****.

Teslag said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Would you bust into their home and beat the **** out of them if they simply threatened to install a home alarm system and buy a gun for self defense?

---

Us calling something a "defensive alliance" does not make it so. Why do we not take Russia's words about such things? Same reason. This is basic. You have to look a capability. Especially when the nations exist in a state of bellicose tension. As said earlier this is a view take even of allies, it just is not talked about as much. Would not resent it if learned Mosad has contingency plan for us as foe as a "rainy day" thing.

It's going to be ok. Deep breath

BusterAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BusterAg 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.)

---

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.

---

This is a different argument. I could be persuaded by this, since we are up to our eyeballs in debt.


However, that is completely different than claiming that the war was UKRAINES fault. That is an asinine assertion. The person who commits violence first is the one at fault. Russian FREAKING INVADED a sovereign nation. Not for retaliation of any attack or anything.. just because they want it. Just like Hitler invading Poland or Japan invaded China. There is ZERO justification for that.

---

I'm not assigning blame on Ukraine. I am saying that they chose open war over peace, and Russia started the invasion. They expanded the threat to join NATO. That spawned the invasion. They wouldn't have done that without assurances from Biden that we had their back. That promise should never have been given, and wouldn't have been given, if Ukraine wasn't the largest money laundering operation for corrupt US politicians.

Everyone is at fault here. Ukraine, Russia and the US government.

There are no angels here, only demons.

---

Regarding the war itself, Ukraine is no demon at all. Not even close. Proclaiming a desire to join NATO is not a "threat". And that is not the reason they attacked. They attacked because they WANT Ukraine. It's that simple.


And you are 100% wrong on Russia attacking "because Biden assurances that he had their back." Biden did the EXACT OPPOSITE. He said in an interview that he wouldn't care about a "minor incursion" and even pulled out all US troops 10 days prior to the invasion. THAT is what gave Putin the green light. I think the reason that Zelensky got Biden to support him afterwards was because he secretly threatened to expose Biden's corruption. If Biden had instead kept American troops there, then Putin would have likely never invaded. If Biden had F-22's on patrol, then he would have certainly never invaded.

He is parroting Tucker Carlson. He has an inner circle that tells him what he needs to think. Reaching Trump is all about reaching his influencers. He only has a few people who he listens to, until he gets mad at them and stops listening. Steve Bannon, for example.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Would you bust into their home and beat the **** out of them if they simply threatened to install a home alarm system and buy a gun for self defense?

---

Us calling something a "defensive alliance" does not make it so. Why do we not take Russia's words about such things? Same reason. This is basic. You have to look a capability. Especially when the nations exist in a state of bellicose tension. As said earlier this is a view take even of allies, it just is not talked about as much. Would not resent it if learned Mosad has contingency plan for us as foe as a "rainy day" thing.

---

It's a defensive alliance if your neighbor has a history of invading countries.

I like how you twist yourself into every reason possible to suggest Ukraine has no right to defend itself from invasion.

Biden wanted to evacuate the Ukrainian leadership and Z told him no. At that point the Biden admin was backed into a decision and decided to assist in the defense.

FIDO*98* said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Him joining with his neighbor in an agreement to defend each other if they are attacked is NOT threatening anybody. It would only be a "threat" if you were going to attack.

Neither you, nor Putin, get to declare non-threats as threats as an excuse to attack somebody.

---

So you'd be okay with Cuba getting Russian nukes today?

---

If they were liquid fueled? Hell no. Just like Kennedy didn't. If they were solid fueled, then that would be no different than Soviet nuclear submarines being in international waters 90 miles off our coast. We don't attack them because of that.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Biden wanted to evacuate the Ukrainian leadership and Z told him no. At that point the Biden admin was backed into a decision and decided to assist in the defense.

---

He didn't have to assist. He could have just let them duke it out.

aTmAg said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Biden wanted to evacuate the Ukrainian leadership and Z told him no. At that point the Biden admin was backed into a decision and decided to assist in the defense.

---

He didn't have to assist. He could have just let them duke it out.

---

He did. We didn't start sending large amounts of aid until after Ukraine held their own

When talking about the American people/USA and Ukraine, can we separate ourselves from the State Department that does whatever the hell they want?

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.

---

They agreed because they signed the Budapest memo where Russia and the US agreed to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity. Something after today is laughable.

Quote:

---

I think the reason that Zelensky got Biden to support him afterwards was because he secretly threatened to expose Biden's corruption.

---

That would not surprise me in the slightest. Zelensky had access to receipts that would have provided leverage, not only with Biden but Obama, too. Remember Obama's hot mic statement to Medvedev about Putin being "flexible" until after Obama's reelection? Flexible about what, exactly?

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Would you bust into their home and beat the **** out of them if they simply threatened to install a home alarm system and buy a gun for self defense?

---

Us calling something a "defensive alliance" does not make it so. Why do we not take Russia's words about such things? Same reason. This is basic. You have to look a capability. Especially when the nations exist in a state of bellicose tension. As said earlier this is a view take even of allies, it just is not talked about as much. Would not resent it if learned Mosad has contingency plan for us as foe as a "rainy day" thing.

---

No but their very charter does. Their is only one provision for preemptive attacks and that is nuclear and I think cyber is a grey area.

NATO is a defensive alliance bound by mandate to attack only when attacked. The day they go against that, NATO no longer exists on paper. NATO has never done that in it's entire existence. Ergo, we can safely call it a defensive alliance.

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Teslag said:

---

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

---

If someone threatens me from their lawn when I'm across the fence, then yes I'm taking the fight to them.

---

Would you bust into their home and beat the **** out of them if they simply threatened to install a home alarm system and buy a gun for self defense?

---

Us calling something a "defensive alliance" does not make it so. Why do we not take Russia's words about such things? Same reason. This is basic. You have to look a capability. Especially when the nations exist in a state of bellicose tension. As said earlier this is a view take even of allies, it just is not talked about as much. Would not resent it if learned Mosad has contingency plan for us as foe as a "rainy day" thing.

---

It's a defensive alliance if your neighbor has a history of invading countries.

I like how you twist yourself into every reason possible to suggest Ukraine has no right to defend itself from invasion.

---

They have every right.

The issue is our being on the hook for it. There is no "twisting involved". Simply discussing what does and does not lead to more conflict. We have to decide.

It is not a defensive alliance. It is simply an alliance. That is what not getting. Any one on the other side of that fence sees only alliance. You are still talking right and wrong. I repeat the question made earlier --- are we going to make a task of enforcing "should bes" and if so, in what way?

You can't argue what one sets as their red line unless willing to suppress it by force. We have to decide.

Actually believe my starting position was stronger than yours. Declare your intent to repel invasion before-hand. Not "have your back" after.

We have the same issue coming up with Taiwan.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the reason that Zelensky got Biden to support him afterwards was because he secretly threatened to expose Biden's corruption.

---

That would not surprise me in the slightest. Zelensky had access to receipts that would have provided leverage, not only with Biden but Obama, too. Remember Obama's hot mic statement to Medvedev about Putin being "flexible" until after Obama's reelection? Flexible about what, exactly?

---

Possibly, but I think it far more likely when it became apparent that Ukraine was not going to fold quickly and so Biden could gain some quick political capital and goodwill across the world. Worked pretty well too, I might add.