The Ukraine war thread
-
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Ukraine war thread:
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
What does it mean? It means are you ready to eliminate him? If not, then you have to find some sort of workable deal.
So which is it?
It means you don’t negotiate with him, perhaps. We and the rest of the international community sanction and pressure the living crap out of Russia until they stop their murderous invasion.
No I think even this late in the game Putin should be sat down at the table and forced to lay out his cards. He talks big that’s for certain but he also knows full well just how weak he really is. Moreover he knows that NATO has never been nor ever can be a threat to the Russian Federation even it were to include Ukraine and for that matter, Georgia. It is a defensive collective security alliance nothing more.
Putin’s has a pathological paranoia of being held personally held to account. A pathological terror of ordinary people actually governing themselves and holding their freely elected politicians accountable. Putin fears that in Ukraine because he knows it could probably spread into his coveted and completely mythological Russia. That is what he fears most in his perverse and thoroughly corrupted KGB brain.
It is not the binary choice as someone here is trying to gaslight. Stay the course 89.
@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
Putin’s is a pathological paranoia being held personally held to account. A pathological terror of ordinary people actually governing themselves and holding their freely elected politicians accountable. Putin fears that in Ukraine because he knows it could probably spread into his coveted and completely mythological Russia. That is what he fears most in his perverse and thoroughly corrupted KGB brain.
Yeah you know better than me but that’s why I mentioned the 2011 protests…and 1991… Putin is longing for a Soviet life, perhaps this will be over once he’s gone but I’m not sure how long that’ll be.
-
@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
Putin’s is a pathological paranoia being held personally held to account. A pathological terror of ordinary people actually governing themselves and holding their freely elected politicians accountable. Putin fears that in Ukraine because he knows it could probably spread into his coveted and completely mythological Russia. That is what he fears most in his perverse and thoroughly corrupted KGB brain.
Yeah you know better than me but that’s why I mentioned the 2011 protests…and 1991… Putin is longing for a Soviet life, perhaps this will be over once he’s gone but I’m not sure how long that’ll be.
-
See? More unhelpful partisanship.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
A way forward?
So. Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s. The failure runs through 4 US administrations and several UK governments. What were the obligations and how can live up to them now? Or should we?
Also up for discussion, is the US and West looking at the Ukraine/Russia war as two separate events, while Ukraine and Russia treat it as one, with a cease fire in the middle? And does that different viewpoint cause confusion to both sides?
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
A way forward?
So. Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s. The failure runs through 4 US administrations and several UK governments. What were the obligations and how can live up to them now? Or should we?
Also up for discussion, is the US and West looking at the Ukraine/Russia war as two separate events, while Ukraine and Russia treat it as one, with a cease fire in the middle? And does that different viewpoint cause confusion to both sides?
Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s.
Let’s not bother, because there really were none.
The Budapest Memorandum merely stated that the US, UK and Russian Federation recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine and the integrity of its 1991 borders. The signatories furthermore gave Ukraine security assurances to Ukraine that in exchange for Ukraine handing over its Soviet era nuclear weapons arsenal it would receive technical aid and assistance from the US and UK to build a democratic polity based on a free market economy. The signatories furthermore pledged to provide all necessary technology and assistance for the remediation of the Chernobyl nuclear site.
The key here is the term security assurances
In the arcane world of diplospeak, security assurances are not at all security guarantees pledging the signatories to come to Ukraine’s aid in the event of attack by a third party. Likewise they do not represent in any way a mutual non aggression pact. Security assurances under the terms of Budapest Memorandum are merely non binding acceptance that the three remaining nuclear powers, the US, UK and Russia will continue to recognise Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the absence of the country maintaining its own nuclear deterrent capability. More importantly though, the assurances were also given in return for Ukraine’s signature to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a nonnuclear state. If you like, a bargaining chip to bring Ukraine on side - since Ukraine would retain its own technical capacity and know-how to produce its own nuclear weapons well into the future.
At best the Memorandum suggested but did not promise, that the nuclear weapons Ukraine’s turns over to Russia will not be used against Ukraine (ha,ha, ha). In reality however it only meant that the signatories would give consideration to supplying Ukraine with the necessary conventional weapons it would need to maintain a defensive armed force from any third party aggressor.
At the time this agreement was reached, Ukraine desperately wanted the Chernobyl site cleaned up as well a massive input of western credits and loans along with technical assistance from the West. Russia too wanted similar Western aid but it also wanted to be the sole nuclear power in the region. The US and the UK wanted Ukraine to become a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty as a non nuclear state. There was an optimism in West arising from the ill conceived belief of a peace dividend for Europe and the West that would result in liberal democracy throughout all former communist states. After all, that’s what free enterprise and open societies enevitably produce. It was therefore inconceivable at the time that autocratic Russian chauvinism and revanchist imperial aspirations would ever appear again. Life was at last a bed of roses.
NB:
Written on iPhone with a fat finger
in one shot. Will not bother to proof read for corrections. -
Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s.
Let’s not bother, because there really were none.
The Budapest Memorandum merely stated that the US, UK and Russian Federation recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine and the integrity of its 1991 borders. The signatories furthermore gave Ukraine security assurances to Ukraine that in exchange for Ukraine handing over its Soviet era nuclear weapons arsenal it would receive technical aid and assistance from the US and UK to build a democratic polity based on a free market economy. The signatories furthermore pledged to provide all necessary technology and assistance for the remediation of the Chernobyl nuclear site.
The key here is the term security assurances
In the arcane world of diplospeak, security assurances are not at all security guarantees pledging the signatories to come to Ukraine’s aid in the event of attack by a third party. Likewise they do not represent in any way a mutual non aggression pact. Security assurances under the terms of Budapest Memorandum are merely non binding acceptance that the three remaining nuclear powers, the US, UK and Russia will continue to recognise Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the absence of the country maintaining its own nuclear deterrent capability. More importantly though, the assurances were also given in return for Ukraine’s signature to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a nonnuclear state. If you like, a bargaining chip to bring Ukraine on side - since Ukraine would retain its own technical capacity and know-how to produce its own nuclear weapons well into the future.
At best the Memorandum suggested but did not promise, that the nuclear weapons Ukraine’s turns over to Russia will not be used against Ukraine (ha,ha, ha). In reality however it only meant that the signatories would give consideration to supplying Ukraine with the necessary conventional weapons it would need to maintain a defensive armed force from any third party aggressor.
At the time this agreement was reached, Ukraine desperately wanted the Chernobyl site cleaned up as well a massive input of western credits and loans along with technical assistance from the West. Russia too wanted similar Western aid but it also wanted to be the sole nuclear power in the region. The US and the UK wanted Ukraine to become a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty as a non nuclear state. There was an optimism in West arising from the ill conceived belief of a peace dividend for Europe and the West that would result in liberal democracy throughout all former communist states. After all, that’s what free enterprise and open societies enevitably produce. It was therefore inconceivable at the time that autocratic Russian chauvinism and revanchist imperial aspirations would ever appear again. Life was at last a bed of roses.
NB:
Written on iPhone with a fat finger
in one shot. Will not bother to proof read for corrections.@Renauda TY, that does make me feel a little less horrible… It also paints the earlier Rubio speech from 2014 as hawkish hyperbole mostly delivered as political fodder going into midterm elections…
-
Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s. The failure runs through 4 US administrations and several UK governments. What were the obligations and how can live up to them now? Or should we?
We didn't live up them and we aren't going to live up to them. But we did place one piece of international Truth in the forevermore... NO sovereign nation will ever give up all of its nuclear weapons again. Not ever. Never.
-
Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s. The failure runs through 4 US administrations and several UK governments. What were the obligations and how can live up to them now? Or should we?
We didn't live up them and we aren't going to live up to them. But we did place one piece of international Truth in the forevermore... NO sovereign nation will ever give up all of its nuclear weapons again. Not ever. Never.
-
We didn't live up them and we aren't going to live up to them
I believe I more than adequately pointed out already that there was nothing for you, the US, to live up to other than give consideration to supplying Ukraine with defensive conventional weaponry to act as a deterrent to third party aggression. That supply the US has been honouring albeit at times grudgingly. LD certainly understood my message.
Perhaps it’s a reading comprehension disability on your part. Doubt it though, you just want to be heard.
-
Here’s the current reality as described by the President of Finland this weekend. Finns know the Russians, know where Putin is determined to take this war and how the West must respond. They have first hand experience with the Kremlin and remember the hard lessons history has taught their nation:
Alexander Stubb, President of Finland speaks:
https://www.facebook.com/swedishveterans/videos/1029926085633089/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v
-
Yup totally. And Zelenskyy asked Vance his thoughts on Putin’s repeated violations of previous diplomacy and cease fires to which Vance threw a tantrum about not saying thank you. Vance should’ve said something simple about how this time it’ll be different because we have a leader that will enforce security agreements. Even Trump during the meeting said he’s the toughest person in the world but that he doesn’t want for it to come to that.
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
Vance threw a tantrum about not saying thank you
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/28/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-thankful-us-fact-check/index.html
During a remarkably combative Oval Office meeting on Friday, both President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he was insufficiently thankful.
“You have to be thankful. You don’t have the cards,” Trump said, adding a bit later, “You gotta be more thankful.”
and
Here are 33 previous examples of Zelensky thanking or expressing gratitude toward the United States, its officials or its people for their support. This is not a comprehensive list. Notably, we did not review Zelensky’s many domestic remarks in Ukrainian.
-
Some people say if you watch the tape carefully, Zelensky called Vance a bitch. Not in English, of course...
