Can someone list them, please? Those interests don't readily come to mind.
America's National Interests n Ukraine
5,799 Views |
70 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by JJxvi
There are NONE!
Women
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
We are protecting NATO and the balance of power in Europe. The Ukraine is between Russia in Europe. It's a buffer. It's strategically important.
I'm not saying I agree with it. But that's why we're there.
I'm not saying I agree with it. But that's why we're there.
A planet where counties are not constantly vying for territory via war is in our interests.
wasn't that true after the 2014 seizure of the Crimea as well?
10% for the big guy. Ukraine government corrupt. Corrupt US politicians and their kids in on it
Humans are not capable of that.etxag02 said:
A planet where counties are not constantly vying for territory via war is in our interests.
aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
I read a summary of the agreement and not the whole document, so take this as $00.02. The agreement signed by us. Russia and about a half dozen others promises each will not invade Ukraine if they surrender their nukes. I didn't read anything about defense by other countries if one of the signing parties violates the agreement. Russia may violate their agreement. That's between Russia and the Ukraine and their agreement. We never promised to defend them. Can someone confirm or deny if this is an accurate summary of the agreement?
Here's the catch - wanting a buffer is equally applicable to Russia. And given the track record of NATO expansion they have more reason to be concerned than the EU/US does.BTHOB-98 said:
We are protecting NATO and the balance of power in Europe. The Ukraine is between Russia in Europe. It's a buffer. It's strategically important.
I'm not saying I agree with it. But that's why were there.
pipelines from russia to europe...we need to protect ukraine so our friends in Europe are required to use wind energy!
once everyone is dead in europe we can fight russia for it. Expansion strategy by Biden!
once everyone is dead in europe we can fight russia for it. Expansion strategy by Biden!
Poopy pants ruined any chance of anyone trusting us by his disastrous withdrawal from AFG.aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
NEOCON promises mean more foreign wars for Americans.aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
No more blood and treasure for foreign wars.
The time is over for America to play global police.
I agree that this is true, but not reality.etxag02 said:
A planet where counties are not constantly vying for territory via war is in our interests.
I'm in the camp of not sending in troops, but it is very much in our interest that Russia not invade and take over Ukraine.
I try to think what would have been the difference in WW2, as far as lives lost, if the US would have been more involved when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939?
I know it's looking in the rear view mirror, but I do wonder.
My $.02
There is this clause:Win At Life said:aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
I read a summary of the agreement and not the whole document, so take this as $00.02. The agreement signed by us. Russia and about a half dozen others promises each will not invade Ukraine if they surrender their nukes. I didn't read anything about defense by other countries if one of the signing parties violates the agreement. Russia may violate their agreement. That's between Russia and the Ukraine and their agreement. We never promised to defend them. Can someone confirm or deny if this is an accurate summary of the agreement?
Clearly we were promising to go to their aid. This was 3 years after the UN coalition was authorized to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in Persian Gulf war. That is what we offered and Ukraine was asking for. This was NOT meant to be a mere promise of us to go to the UN and ask "you want to help? No? Well we did our part.. Sorry Ukraine!"Quote:
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
Besides, who in the hell would sign an agreement to give up nukes for the mere promise that others would not invade and without any form of enforcement?
So F Ukraine because we F-ed AFG?Wabs said:Poopy pants ruined any chance of anyone trusting us by his disastrous withdrawal from AFG.aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
What we should have done was bolster up their defense to KEEP the war from ever starting. They are screwed now.ElKabong said:NEOCON promises mean more foreign wars for Americans.aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
No more blood and treasure for foreign wars.
The time is over for America to play global police.
javajaws said:Here's the catch - wanting a buffer is equally applicable to Russia. And given the track record of NATO expansion they have more reason to be concerned than the EU/US does.BTHOB-98 said:
We are protecting NATO and the balance of power in Europe. The Ukraine is between Russia in Europe. It's a buffer. It's strategically important.
I'm not saying I agree with it. But that's why were there.
The biggest interest is that it distracts from the fascist takeover North of our country.bat61 said:
Can someone list them, please? Those interests don't readily come to mind.
Your justification for our involvement in the Ukraine was to keep/earn ally trust. I'm saying that shipped sailed last year. Did it not?aTmAg said:So F Ukraine because we F-ed AFG?Wabs said:Poopy pants ruined any chance of anyone trusting us by his disastrous withdrawal from AFG.aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
Yes it was. Guess who the president was then? Spot a pattern?W said:
wasn't that true after the 2014 seizure of the Crimea as well?
Seven and three are ten, not only now, but forever. There has never been a time when seven and three were not ten, nor will there ever be a time when they are not ten. Therefore, I have said that the truth of number is incorruptible and common to all who think. — St. Augustine
It has shipped now, but not a year ago. A month ago Biden could have taken actions to keep an invasion from ever happening.Wabs said:Your justification for our involvement in the Ukraine was to keep/earn ally trust. I'm saying that shipped sailed last year. Did it not?aTmAg said:So F Ukraine because we F-ed AFG?Wabs said:Poopy pants ruined any chance of anyone trusting us by his disastrous withdrawal from AFG.aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
It provides a great distraction/cover for Biden's failures:
- the fallout from the Afghanistan exit debacle (critical After Action Reports surfacing recently)
- rampant crime in Democrat cities/enclaves and linked to Democrat policies
- U.S. southern border crisis - massive illegal immigration
- increasing resistance COVID-19 policies/mandates
- increasing resistance to critical race theory
- Increasing resistance to public school boards/policies/closures
- inflation
- supply chain imbroglio
- increased energy prices and actual energy shortages in some parts of the world
- Biden's cognitive decline
I voted for this because I like Mean Tweets!
What is America's interests in Ukraine... (a hint)
Weakness means more wars for Americans.ElKabong said:NEOCON promises mean more foreign wars for Americans.aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
No more blood and treasure for foreign wars.
The time is over for America to play global police.
You want to avoid war?
When the Russians try to attack your base in Syria, send them back home in bodybags.
When the Iranians try to attack your embassy in Baghdad, send a care package to the ringleader and don't give two ***** about who you offend in the process.
When the Chinese claim the South China Sea as theirs and theirs alone, send your Navy in there to let them know you don't play by their damn rules.
The previous POTUS was not a NEOCON. But he was no pacifist either and he understood better than any POTUS since Reagan the value of the Jacksonian approach to foreign policy over the delusional 70s-era sentiments currently holding sway in the White House.
If some of you want to avoid foreign wars, then the approach we are seeing now is not going to do one thing to keep that from happening.
President Biden, in his weakness, is assuring that we will have war in the future.
CSTXAg92 said:
Hunter Biden has a seat on the Board of Burisma Holdings, based in Kyiv, Ukraine. That's all you need to know. Daddy protecting the interests of his son and 'smartest guy he knows'.
There's plenty of corruption in Ukraine and in the Biden administration, but at some point the criticism of Biden has to be coherent.
The reality is that he's not warmongering here, he's weak. He's ceded these two regions to Putin and is hoping it stops there.
Seems accurate to me. Ukraine didn't expect China to militarily intercede on its behalf when it inked the document. It just provides a justification if any of the signatories want to do so, and Ukraine hoped a little more security than what was already extant.Win At Life said:aTmAg said:
We have an interest of having strong allies in the future.
When you promise somebody that you will protect them if they give up their nukes, and then leave them to fend for themselves when they get invaded, then people will probably not be inclined to be your ally anymore or in the future.
I read a summary of the agreement and not the whole document, so take this as $00.02. The agreement signed by us. Russia and about a half dozen others promises each will not invade Ukraine if they surrender their nukes. I didn't read anything about defense by other countries if one of the signing parties violates the agreement. Russia may violate their agreement. That's between Russia and the Ukraine and their agreement. We never promised to defend them. Can someone confirm or deny if this is an accurate summary of the agreement?
Also Ukraine had physical possession of the nukes, but Russia had operational operational control. Signatories to the BM (chuckle) included Russia, U.K., and the U.S., while France and China signed on in separate documents - as well as Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Amusingly it does look like we violated No. 3 on the list above by sanctioning Belarus.Quote:
. . . As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons via Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.
. . .
According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they would:
1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
. . .
It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.
. . .
The government of Belarus complained that American sanctions against it were in breach of Article 3 of the Memorandum. The US government retorted that its sanctions were targeted at combating human rights violations and other illicit activities of the government of Belarus and not the population of Belarus.
. . .
You guys are stretching bigtime. Who in their right mind would agree to that?
People with bombs they didn't have the codes to, and a desire for cash?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
Quote:
. . .
The United States would also not have made Ukraine an exception when it came to the denuclearization of other post-Soviet states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan. The deterrent value of the nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians. . . . The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) left by the Russians had been disabled by the Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but even if they had been reconfigured and made to work by the Ukrainians, it is unlikely that they would have had a deterrent effect. . . . Had Ukraine decided to establish full operational control of the nuclear weapons, it would have faced sanctions by the West and perhaps even a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition by the United States and other NATO allies. Ukraine would also likely have faced retaliatory action by Russia. Ukraine would also have struggled with replacing the nuclear weapons once their service life expired, as Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons program. In exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine received financial compensation, as well as the security assurances of the Budapest Memorandum.
. . .
And the promise to seek Persian Gulf-style UN assistance in the case they became a victim of an act of aggression. That's the important part.
Then perhaps the Budapest Memorandum should have been drafted differently. It looks like we (along with the other signatories) were just obligated to seek Security Council assistance - and Ukraine knew that Russia had an absolute veto on any resolution as a permanent Security Council member.aTmAg said:
And the promise to seek Persian Gulf-style UN assistance in the case they became a victim of an act of aggression. That's the important part.
Here is the pertinent clause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
Quote:
. . .
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
. . .
Europe is always precarious. If Russia invades Ukraine the whole of Europe will likely blow up into a big conflagration that will make our involvement more necessary.
We have national interest in not getting dragged in a larger conflict down the line.
If Putin takes Ukraine at will other leaders in the area will be forced to make a decision who they will side with. Putin or western democracies. We do not want to have confront a strong alliance of countries later down the line. This is particularlly true if Russia can start to wield power of energy and trade routes against the US.
The point of not getting involved in another foreign war is well taken but I think people are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be do we have a national interest in Ukraine. It's can we have a response to Russia that is proportional to our national interests.
If Putin takes Ukraine at will other leaders in the area will be forced to make a decision who they will side with. Putin or western democracies. We do not want to have confront a strong alliance of countries later down the line. This is particularlly true if Russia can start to wield power of energy and trade routes against the US.
The point of not getting involved in another foreign war is well taken but I think people are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be do we have a national interest in Ukraine. It's can we have a response to Russia that is proportional to our national interests.
Deplorable Neanderthal Clinger
Featured Stories
See All
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Florida Slam Dunk' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
41:06
10h ago
2.9k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Tom Schuberth
8:17
9h ago
3.1k
'I'm ready': Freshman Terrence Kiel II excited for the 2025 opener
by Ryan Brauninger
El Mero Mero 14
Rich Get Richer - Dick Sports and Texas Athletics
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
71