https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_MemorandumAJ02 said:JFABNRGR said:Newtonag said:
I'm not ok with it but if I can't push them out, my neighbors aren't willing to come into my house to help and risk their death or bring the war to their house, and I'm losing said neighbor's support, I might try to keep the 2/3's of the house I still have before I lose it all. (While more thousands die)
And that my friend is YOUR moral right and we should respect that same right for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, while acknowledging a monster invaded their sovereign country, who years ago, we committed to supporting their security for giving up their nukes, while also observing countless and continuing barbaric acts by the russians.
Where does it state we agreed to that? Show me. Because I can't find that anywhere.
Trump-Vance-Zelenskyy
175,755 Views |
1748 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by ts5641
Zobel said:
Reducing Russia's geopolitical interest to the desires of the oligarchs etc. isn't consistent with their behavior. I think you are right pre-Putin, but Putin broke the oligarchs by making examples of Gusinsky and Khodorkovsky. Putin has financial interests, sure, but also geopolitical ones.
This map remains relevant, because it continues to provide a model that predicts Russian behavior.
I don't see Africa on there and they are very interested and active in Africa. Another reason the globe should support ousting the Orcs from Ukraine's rich agricultural belt.
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Sure, Putin broke/killed/arrested 'some' oligarchs, but make no mistake, they run the place (even if Russia is nearly as corrupt as Ukraine).Quote:
Reducing Russia's geopolitical interest to the desires of the oligarchs etc. isn't consistent with their behavior. I think you are right pre-Putin, but Putin broke the oligarchs by making examples of Gusinsky and Khodorkovsky. Putin has financial interests, sure, but also geopolitical ones.
And Putin himself knows he is going to be dead within 10-20 years (max). I think the dehumanization/attempts to look into some mad 'geopolitical interest' long term outlook are misplaced, especially considering that he has…given lengthy explanations/thoughts about Russia/goals.
There are no maps that show a real American economic interest in Ukraine, just sunk costs.
Never in my life have I seen such a weak stance from a RepublicanTheRealJacob said:
I think Putin has something on Trump, because Trump just flipped our foreign policy of 80+ years in a matter of weeks
docb said:Never in my life have I seen such a weak stance from a RepublicanTheRealJacob said:
I think Putin has something on Trump, because Trump just flipped our foreign policy of 80+ years in a matter of weeks
Please fill in the blank:
The US should pay for Ukraine's defense with US taxpayers' $ and, if Zelensky had his way, by risking US lives by providing a security guarantee because __________.
What US interests justify the above?
Ukraine signed a mineral deal three days before Zelenskyy came to the US to meet with Trump. pic.twitter.com/7657t7OUqe
— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) March 3, 2025
I was told Trump was just being greedy to get a mineral deal.
🚨Victoria Nuland’s son is part of a think tank working against President Trump’s efforts to end the Ukraine War.
— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) March 3, 2025
Prior to Zelensky's DC visit, the group was drafting alternative "peace plans" to escalate the war and lobbying against the proposed mineral deal.
🧵🧵🧵
Really no need to play your stupid game because the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Not once has Zelensky asked us to put boots on the ground. Funding another country to be able to fight is not a new concept. Especially when you have practically the entire free world behind you in justifying the right for Ukraine to fight for it's sovereignty.DTP02 said:docb said:Never in my life have I seen such a weak stance from a RepublicanTheRealJacob said:
I think Putin has something on Trump, because Trump just flipped our foreign policy of 80+ years in a matter of weeks
Please fill in the blank:
The US should pay for Ukraine's defense with US taxpayers' $ and, if Zelensky had his way, by risking US lives by providing a security guarantee because __________.
What US interests justify the above?
captkirk said:🚨Victoria Nuland’s son is part of a think tank working against President Trump’s efforts to end the Ukraine War.
— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) March 3, 2025
Prior to Zelensky's DC visit, the group was drafting alternative "peace plans" to escalate the war and lobbying against the proposed mineral deal.
🧵🧵🧵
Treason?
docb said:Really no need to play your stupid game because the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Not once has Zelensky asked us to put boots on the ground. Funding another country to be able to fight is not a new concept. Especially when you have practically the entire free world behind you in justifying the right for Ukraine to fight for it's sovereignty.DTP02 said:docb said:Never in my life have I seen such a weak stance from a RepublicanTheRealJacob said:
I think Putin has something on Trump, because Trump just flipped our foreign policy of 80+ years in a matter of weeks
Please fill in the blank:
The US should pay for Ukraine's defense with US taxpayers' $ and, if Zelensky had his way, by risking US lives by providing a security guarantee because __________.
What US interests justify the above?
Now that you're proven wrong, will you adjust your position accordingly?
docb said:Really no need to play your stupid game because the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Not once has Zelensky asked us to put boots on the ground. Funding another country to be able to fight is not a new concept. Especially when you have practically the entire free world behind you in justifying the right for Ukraine to fight for it's sovereignty.DTP02 said:docb said:Never in my life have I seen such a weak stance from a RepublicanTheRealJacob said:
I think Putin has something on Trump, because Trump just flipped our foreign policy of 80+ years in a matter of weeks
Please fill in the blank:
The US should pay for Ukraine's defense with US taxpayers' $ and, if Zelensky had his way, by risking US lives by providing a security guarantee because __________.
What US interests justify the above?
If you had good answers to either of the above questions it seems like you'd be able to offer them instead of trying to deflect.
As to the bolded part, what, ultimately, do you think him asking the US for a security guarantee, something he's repeatedly emphasized, means? If it's a guarantee, then it's backed up with some type of firm commitment for us to get involved at some point. Put in a token force of peacekeepers, but without someone willing to back them, it's not a guarantee, is it?
I have 2 America loving fighting age sons who hail from a long and rich history of military service. I see zero reason for them to go spill their blood, or for any of their peers to go spill their blood, for Ukrainian soil. Why is Ukrainian dirt any more worth defending for the US than any of the myriad other places in world where a non-allied country is engaging in conflict?
And I missed the part where we said Ukraine doesn't have the right to fight for its sovereignty. We're right there with the rest of the free world in that regard. But the rest of the free world isn't paying for it, so why should we?
More to the point, when our credit cards are maxed out and we can barely afford to make the minimum monthly payments on them, why should we, who have no major interests in Ukraine from a security or economic standpoint, pay for their defense?
And we haven't even addressed the question of whether continuing the war is the best thing for the Ukrainian people. I don't think it is. They're running out of people willing to fight even if they're funded.
The goals are:Zobel said:
By this logic any of those outcomes are acceptable, even if they are mutually contradictory... so we don't actually have any goals, and anything that happens is fine.
1- stop the killing (on moral, religious grounds)
2- stop any stealing/grift/non-audited spending (on moral, religious grounds)
It is truly astounding how many "real patriots" as the leftists want to call themselves, are foaming at the mouth willing to stand with Ukraine, Palestine and illegals. While simultaneously ****ting on this country, our President and Vice President. I have never in my life seen something this vile and indefensible.
Quote:
"Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason. No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United State patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure".
Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month!
All that they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed"
"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."
Some of you are really invested in this. Why?Quote:
Really no need to play your stupid game because the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Not once has Zelensky asked us to put boots on the ground. Funding another country to be able to fight is not a new concept. Especially when you have practically the entire free world behind you in justifying the right for Ukraine to fight for it's sovereignty.
docb said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_MemorandumAJ02 said:
Where does it state we agreed to that? Show me. Because I can't find that anywhere.
I'd say we've more than fulfilled any "obligation" of the non-treaty agreement. Ukraine was short-sighted in giving up their nukes so easily bc they didn't want the hassle & cost of maintaining. Now that they realize how short-sighted it was, they're asking the Western world to bail them out again. I'd say several hundred billions of dollars relieves us of ANY guilt with walking away and letting them handle the rest. No where in the agreement (again, not a treaty) did it say the US was obligated to provide military or monetary support in perpetuity. We've done more than we ever should have.
I mean, the guy talks about
We have wasted enough money, and Zelenskyy (and the globalists with their hands in the cookie jar) is not interested in peace. Fight on, brother!
Is anyone questioning their right? They clearly have the right. They don't have the weaponry. They don't have the men. They don't have the money. But they unquestionably have the right. In fact, I am all for it. Just leave my wallet out of it.Quote:
the right for Ukraine to fight for it's sovereignty.
We have wasted enough money, and Zelenskyy (and the globalists with their hands in the cookie jar) is not interested in peace. Fight on, brother!
Geopolitical interests aren't always purely economical.
jkcpow said:The goals are:Zobel said:
By this logic any of those outcomes are acceptable, even if they are mutually contradictory... so we don't actually have any goals, and anything that happens is fine.
1- stop the killing (on moral, religious grounds)
2- stop any stealing/grift/non-audited spending (on moral, religious grounds)
1 has never been part of US geopolitical imperatives. There are hot wars all over the world where we don't stop the killing for its own sake.
docb said:Really no need to play your stupid game because the first part of your sentence is incorrect. Not once has Zelensky asked us to put boots on the ground. Funding another country to be able to fight is not a new concept. Especially when you have practically the entire free world behind you in justifying the right for Ukraine to fight for it's sovereignty.DTP02 said:docb said:Never in my life have I seen such a weak stance from a RepublicanTheRealJacob said:
I think Putin has something on Trump, because Trump just flipped our foreign policy of 80+ years in a matter of weeks
Please fill in the blank:
The US should pay for Ukraine's defense with US taxpayers' $ and, if Zelensky had his way, by risking US lives by providing a security guarantee because __________.
What US interests justify the above?
Of course, you don't really care about their sovereignty.
If you did, you should want the west to physically intervene because there's little to suggest Ukraine can do a damn thing to push Russia out.
I find it hard to believe Europe/west cares much about either ukriane's sovereignty or the threat of russia continuing to other former Soviet satellites. If they did, the only real answer is to send soldiers to fight the russians.
True. But I struggle to find anyone that is virtuous here. Time to sit on the sidelines.Zobel said:
Geopolitical interests aren't always purely economical.
docb said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_MemorandumAJ02 said:JFABNRGR said:Newtonag said:
I'm not ok with it but if I can't push them out, my neighbors aren't willing to come into my house to help and risk their death or bring the war to their house, and I'm losing said neighbor's support, I might try to keep the 2/3's of the house I still have before I lose it all. (While more thousands die)
And that my friend is YOUR moral right and we should respect that same right for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, while acknowledging a monster invaded their sovereign country, who years ago, we committed to supporting their security for giving up their nukes, while also observing countless and continuing barbaric acts by the russians.
Where does it state we agreed to that? Show me. Because I can't find that anywhere.
Can you show me the text? I don't see anything in there about the US providing for their perpetual security in this scenario.
And…it's over.
The left is going to need a new “how dare they” meme https://t.co/ibulBY8CYs
— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) March 3, 2025
I can't wait until some district judge rules that some American has standing and forces Trump to resume assistance. You know it's coming.
And that district should be ignored.
Grand strategy isn't about virtue, it's about interests.
Here you go. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdfLogos Stick said:docb said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_MemorandumAJ02 said:JFABNRGR said:Newtonag said:
I'm not ok with it but if I can't push them out, my neighbors aren't willing to come into my house to help and risk their death or bring the war to their house, and I'm losing said neighbor's support, I might try to keep the 2/3's of the house I still have before I lose it all. (While more thousands die)
And that my friend is YOUR moral right and we should respect that same right for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, while acknowledging a monster invaded their sovereign country, who years ago, we committed to supporting their security for giving up their nukes, while also observing countless and continuing barbaric acts by the russians.
Where does it state we agreed to that? Show me. Because I can't find that anywhere.
Can you show me the text? I don't see anything in there about the US providing for their perpetual security in this scenario.
Russia, the US, and the UK all promised to never invade Ukraine, and Russia, the US, and the UK all agreed to provide assistance to Ukraine in the event of an attack on Ukraine.
Is the interview of him saying American sons and daughters will have to die legit? And not an ai fake?
Logos Stick said:docb said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_MemorandumAJ02 said:JFABNRGR said:Newtonag said:
I'm not ok with it but if I can't push them out, my neighbors aren't willing to come into my house to help and risk their death or bring the war to their house, and I'm losing said neighbor's support, I might try to keep the 2/3's of the house I still have before I lose it all. (While more thousands die)
And that my friend is YOUR moral right and we should respect that same right for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, while acknowledging a monster invaded their sovereign country, who years ago, we committed to supporting their security for giving up their nukes, while also observing countless and continuing barbaric acts by the russians.
Where does it state we agreed to that? Show me. Because I can't find that anywhere.
Can you show me the text? I don't see anything in there about the US providing for their perpetual security in this scenario.
Yeah, I couldn't find it either. This is verbatim what the 6 parts of the agreement are. Waiting for someone to point me to the part that US has failed to uphold.
Zobel said:
Grand strategy isn't about virtue, it's about interests.
Sounds like we aren't interested
45-70Ag said:
Is the interview of him saying American sons and daughters will have to die legit? And not an ai fake?
I want to see the rest of the video. It was too short of a clip to say for sure, based on the one I saw. Could be something like "we have to fight against Russia bc if we don't, one day they could try to attack America. And then America's sons & daughters will have to die fighting them."
Even number 5 involves nuclear weapons.
I agree. I read it as 1, 2, 3, & 5 mean the US cannot do any of those things to Ukraine.
#4 only comes into play if someone else uses nukes against any of the countries in the pact.
#6 says discuss with the other parties of the pact if you're unsure
#4 only comes into play if someone else uses nukes against any of the countries in the pact.
#6 says discuss with the other parties of the pact if you're unsure
jacketman03 said:Here you go. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdfLogos Stick said:docb said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_MemorandumAJ02 said:JFABNRGR said:Newtonag said:
I'm not ok with it but if I can't push them out, my neighbors aren't willing to come into my house to help and risk their death or bring the war to their house, and I'm losing said neighbor's support, I might try to keep the 2/3's of the house I still have before I lose it all. (While more thousands die)
And that my friend is YOUR moral right and we should respect that same right for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, while acknowledging a monster invaded their sovereign country, who years ago, we committed to supporting their security for giving up their nukes, while also observing countless and continuing barbaric acts by the russians.
Where does it state we agreed to that? Show me. Because I can't find that anywhere.
Can you show me the text? I don't see anything in there about the US providing for their perpetual security in this scenario.
Russia, the US, and the UK all promised to never invade Ukraine, and Russia, the US, and the UK all agreed to provide assistance to Ukraine in the event of an attack on Ukraine.
What page? I did search for several words, like assistance, and found nothing.
This is the only one that mentions the US providing any "assistance", and it's specific to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.
Featured Stories
See All
18:37
2h ago
1.4k
12:46
3h ago
2.1k
Keys to the Game: Texas A&M at No. 24 Tennessee
by Luke Evangelist
Texas A&M adds former North Carolina DT CJ Mims via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
64:01
22h ago
9.3k
Terence Kitchens
Texas A&M adds former Houston Christian LB TJ Smith via transfer portal
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
166
skoal_man12
Are we worried about not getting a big RB in the portal?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
52