etxag02 said:

---

A planet where counties are not constantly vying for territory via war is in our interests.

---

How many American lives is this "interest" worth to you?

Faustus said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.
. . .

---

---

Let me guess, to you the 2nd amendment refers to grizzlies when you find that convenient? It's BS interpretations like yours that cause nobody to trust us anymore.

It says what it says. If you want it to be a living and breathing document that somehow means we have to have boots on the ground instead of what it says, then more power to you.

TheCurl84 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

A planet where counties are not constantly vying for territory via war is in our interests.

---

How many American lives is this "interest" worth to you?

---

Right,... because war is the only solution to this problem.

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.

---

A lot of things change in 30 years. The U.S. is an economic mess. We no longer have the economic, military, or moral standing we had after the Cold War. We can't afford to involve ourselves in the conflicts between countries. We have zero money - less than zero. You are right, Ukraine won't be our Ally in the future - unless it is in their best interest - then they will be our Ally.

If anyone was talking about sending in U.S. troops to defend Ukraine, that would be a different story. Who has mentioned it as even a remote possibility?

If America retreats from the world there will be a power vacuum that will be filled. Do you want it to be filled by totalitarian regimes like Russia and China? If there are 3M Ukrainian refugees flowing into European countries, it's in our NATIONAL interest to do what we can to prevent that. That type of disruption would be bad for the U.S. politically and economically. You may not be interested in foreign policy, but it's definitely interested in you.

Faustus said:

---

It says what it says. If you want it to be a living and breathing document that somehow means we have to have boots on the ground instead of what it says, then more power to you.

---

LOL... you are the one pulling interpretations out of your ass. In the context it was written (3 years after the US lead UN coalition pushed Saddam out of Kuwait) it did NOT mean "if we get invaded, have a UN meeting about it." Your Biden-esq mentality shows exactly why nobody trusts America. We are dishonorable and never stick to our word.

(Remind me to never make an agreement with you, BTW)

aTmAg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

It says what it says. If you want it to be a living and breathing document that somehow means we have to have boots on the ground instead of what it says, then more power to you.

---

LOL... you are the one pulling interpretations out of your ass. In the context it was written (3 years after the US lead UN coalition pushed Saddam out of Kuwait) it did NOT mean "if we get invaded, have a UN meeting about it." Your Biden-esq mentality shows exactly why nobody trusts America. We are dishonorable and never stick to our word.

(Remind me to never make an agreement with you, BTW)

---

How exactly does one get a UN led coalition like Kuwait without Russia signing off on it like they did with Kuwait?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678#Details

Are the words "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action" meaningless in the Budapest Memorandum? Or do they just mean whatever you want them to mean - excepting of course what the plain language says?

NicosMachine 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.

---

A lot of things change in 30 years. The U.S. is an economic mess. We know longer have the economic, military, or moral standing we had after the Cold War. We can't afford to involve ourselves in the conflicts between countries. We have zero money - less than zero. You are right, Ukraine won't be our Ally in the future - unless it is in their best interest - then they will be our Ally.

---

It's not just Ukraine. Our abandonment of friends is why we the WOT was much harder than it should have been. Who in their right mind would work for/with us if they know we would just abandon them when convenient? It is why future wars will be vastly more costly and long.

Afghanistan was a disaster since it showed the world how we treat our "friends" when times get tough. Now Biden's Ukraine abandonment will reinforce that even more.

I agree that we are broke. We can't afford a full scale war. That is why we SHOULD WANT STRONG ALLIES. So we don't have to do everything ourselves. Biden should have offered our air power to Ukraine to keep a war from starting. No ground troops or anything. That would have been infinitely cheaper and more effective. Now we are screwed as I agree that we can't afford to send a gazillion troops to Ukraine.

Faustus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

It says what it says. If you want it to be a living and breathing document that somehow means we have to have boots on the ground instead of what it says, then more power to you.

---

LOL... you are the one pulling interpretations out of your ass. In the context it was written (3 years after the US lead UN coalition pushed Saddam out of Kuwait) it did NOT mean "if we get invaded, have a UN meeting about it." Your Biden-esq mentality shows exactly why nobody trusts America. We are dishonorable and never stick to our word.

(Remind me to never make an agreement with you, BTW)

---

How exactly does one get a UN led coalition without Russia signing off on it like they did with Kuwait? Are the words "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action" meaningless in the Budapest Memorandum? Or do they just mean whatever you want them to mean - excepting of course what the plain language says.

---

Obviously, you make a coalition with everybody OTHER than Russia, since Russia is the one who is the aggressor. Unless, of course we want to be morons and make sure we have even fewer allies then we currently do.

ScapeGOAT said:

---

Women

---

for clarity...

Got it. "Seek immediate UN Security Council action" means we have to form a coalition of other countries and go to war if the relief agreed to by the parties doesn't work.

I'm going to go with the language was crafted in such a way that what we agreed to was what it says. The history of the document contains references that it was watered down from the assurances Ukraine wanted from us, but we would not provide, for the very reason you're trying to ram into the instrument.

Can we go to war. Sure. But only if we want to and anyone else is willing, not because the BM requires us to. That was on purpose.

Faustus said:

---

Got it. "Seek immediate UN Security Council action" means we have to form a coalition of other countries and go to war if the relief agreed to by the parties doesn't work.

I'm going to go with the language was crafted in such a way that what we agreed to was what it says. The history of the document contains references that it was watered down from the assurances Ukraine wanted from us, but we would not provide, for the very reason you're trying to ram into the instrument.

Can we go to war. Sure. But only if we want to and anyone else is willing, not because the BM requires us to. That was on purpose.

---

So you ACTUALLY think that Ukraine signed an agreement with the full understanding that they would give up their nukes to Russia and that they would be completely on their own if they were attacked by Russia (the most obvious aggressor). Really?

I think Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan signed the best deal they were given with the understanding they wouldn't be allowed to keep the Russian nukes regardless.

You didn't answer the question.

Yes. Of course they did.

They wanted assurances they couldn't get, and had to make do with what was inked because it was the best they were going to get.

Faustus said:

---

Yes. Of course they did.
They wanted assurances they couldn't get, and had to make do with what was inked because it was the best they were going to get.

---

LOL.. Can an opinion possibly get any more naive? I think not. Not only will people refuse to ally with us, it is basically a "get nukes as fast as you can" warning to everybody else. The shortsightedness is astounding.

Furthermore, what assurances did they get? To be recognized? They already had that. A "promise" to not be invaded? That really worked out. Meanwhile what did they give up? Enough nukes to reduce them from the 3rd largest nuclear power to zero. There would be basically no reason to sign anything. Just hand over their nukes.

Your interpretation is a Clinton-esq legal contortion like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is. No wonder the entire world thinks we are a joke.

I'll take the repeated LOLs and personal attacks as signs that you have nothing to put up against the actual language in the document and cede the field to your histrionics.

If Putin takes Ukraine then expect massive military buildup along the entire western border as a first step under the pretense of "security concerns" involving NATO forces. That's the first chapter.

Now I dare someone to propose a happy ending that follows from that.

Faustus said:

---

I'll take the repeated LOLs and personal attacks as signs that you have nothing to put up against the actual language in the document and cede the field.

---

Feel free to try to desperately take whatever victory you can out of this... you need something.

But let it be known:

1) You think Ukraine expected to be abandoned when they assigned this agreement (and basically did nothing over the past 30 years to defend themselves)
2) Think this is "fine" from an alliance standpoint
3) Have no problem with how this effects the nuclear ambitions of future nations

Real smart foreign policy there.

aTmAg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

I'll take the repeated LOLs and personal attacks as signs that you have nothing to put up against the actual language in the document and cede the field.

---

Feel free to try to desperately take whatever victory you can out of this... you need something.

But let it be known:

1) You think Ukraine expected to be abandoned when they assigned this agreement (and basically did nothing over the past 30 years to defend themselves)
2) Think this is "fine" from an alliance standpoint
3) Have no problem with how this effects the nuclear ambitions of future nations

Real smart foreign policy there.

---

Our debate is only over what the BM required of us, and you brought a bunch of LOLs and personal attacks to the discussion, and not one reference to the actual language in the document, which has been a source of amusement. It's like litigating against a pro se Defendant.

As far as what is fine for our foreign policy, I haven't opined. I'd like to see a more robust response.

Just thought I'd point out the actual score.

The "Western" viewpoint here basically comes down to belief in democracy (or "self-determination" might be more accurate) over something like Bismarck-ian nationalist geo-politics.

The west view Ukraine as a sovereign country ruled by Ukrainians that should have self-determination about who they ally with and trade with and are aligned with politically.

Russians view Ukraine as a political entity created to rule over a Russian core territory that was only "set free" after the fall of communism. They believe that Ukraine should be like Belarus, a part of the east slavic homeland that is at very least a protectorate state of Russia.

Russians likely view Ukrainians aligning with their "enemies" as a betrayal of the historical links, while the west views it as Ukraine doing what's best for Ukraine.

I can think of some examples where the US would be put in a similar position as a thought exercise. The first I can think of is like the government of the Philippines being suddenly overthrown and replaced with a pro-China, anti-Taiwan, anti-US government. That would cause a ****storm, in terms of our strategic interests in the Pacific, and in terms of suddenly an ally for hundreds of years turning away from us. The only thing that scenario doesnt really have is an American sentiment that the Philippines is part of America in the same way that Ukraine can be considered a historical part of Russia.

Another similar example where we did flip our **** like Russia is now when something like this happened is with Cuba. If Cuba had been a US territory like Puerto Rico before the revolution with a significant Anglo-American population, IMO the US absolutely would have invaded Cuba with the full force of the armed forced to put down the revolution rather than the kind of half-assed Bay of Pigs which we did try.

Another possible similar scenario is if like Hawaii had stayed an American territory and then a protectorate of the US reverting back to more native-Hawaiian autonomy rather than statehood, and then now 80 years after its key strategic importance in WW2, suddenly Hawaii like the Phillippines example reverts to a pro-Chinese stance including a possible military alliance that would allow the Chinese to base missiles and ships in the central Pacific instead of ours. The outrage among the American people would likely also be extreme. Hawaii is our vacation paradise! And we have relatives there!

These are kind of the viewpoint of the Russians. That said, it doesn't make them right. Just because the Russian Empire once conquered Ukraine, or that the first "Russians" ruled from Kyiv or whatever, doesn't mean that the people of Ukraine have no right to rule themselves free of the oversight of Moscow in perpetuity.

We seem to be reacting more hysterically than the Ukrainians. Their President keeps telling Biden to calm down. Interviews on the streets of Kiev show a populace saddened but resigned to the fact that Donetsk and Luhansk are separated from Ukraine and basically Russian protectorates. As one Ukrainian stated "it already happened de facto and now it has happened de jure. There is no surprise here."

NicosMachine said:

---

We seem to be reacting more hysterically than the Ukrainians. Their President keeps telling Biden to calm down. Interviews on the streets of Kiev show a populace saddened but resigned to the fact that Donetsk and Luhansk are separated from Ukraine and basically Russian protectorates. As one Ukrainian stated "it already happened de facto and now it has happened de jure. There is no surprise here."

---

Yeah, people act like this is some sort of new aggression. Really, it's not. It's a continuation of aggression that goes back since before Crimea. Nobody (including Ukraine) has really done much to stop it before now - so why expect anybody to do so now when there are tanks rolling into Donetsk?

Faustus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

I'll take the repeated LOLs and personal attacks as signs that you have nothing to put up against the actual language in the document and cede the field.

---

Feel free to try to desperately take whatever victory you can out of this... you need something.

But let it be known:

1) You think Ukraine expected to be abandoned when they assigned this agreement (and basically did nothing over the past 30 years to defend themselves)
2) Think this is "fine" from an alliance standpoint
3) Have no problem with how this effects the nuclear ambitions of future nations

Real smart foreign policy there.

---

Our debate is only over what the BM required of us, and you brought a bunch of LOLs and personal attacks to the discussion, and not one reference to the actual language in the document, which has been a source of amusement. It's like litigating against a pro se Defendant.

As far as what is fine for our foreign policy, I haven't opined. I'd like to see a more robust response.

Just thought I'd point out the actual score.

---

No, the debate is over what America's national interest (aka the title of the thread). And I was the first person on this thread to quote the original document.

Your interpretation would not only have to flat out rewrite the spirit of the agreement, you would have to ignore context that the words themselves were written.

And by taking that position, you would have us screw our own national interest. Basically wrong all around.

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

I do not disagree with you at all.

BTHOB-98 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

I do not disagree with you at all.

---

It's not NATO expansion as much as it is the turn toward democracy and the west, and thus the turn away from Russian influence, that Ukraine made.

There are some pretty good articles and timelines that show Putin reacting more strongly to the various pro-democracy movements in Russia's sphere of influence than he ever reacted to NATO expansion. Here's one, that while I think it probably minimizes NATO expansion too much, hits on the key point: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/what-putin-fears-most/


The most cynical view of Putin is that he's always wanted empire. I think he would have been okay with being the dominant influence on countries bordering Russia and/or countries close to Russia+having strategic importance, and thus maintaining some position on the world stage as a pseudo-superpower, even if not at the level of the US and China.

But Georgia and Ukraine, especially, changed the calculus for him by forcing Russia to confront a future where they don't wield that kind of influence even in their own region and bordering countries. That seems to have been the final straw precipitating Russian aggression moreso than merely NATO expansion.

Without having read all the previous posts yet...

We miscalculated and provoked this by flirting with Ukraine as a potential NATO member. That would be like the Soviet Union talking to Mexico about joining the Warsaw Pact during the cold war. Then we helped oust a pro-Russian leader in favor of an anti-Russian leader. Ukraine is a great launching spot for invasion straight into the indefensible geography of Russia. They had to respond and call our bluff. Turns out we have never really been willing to fight the Russians over Ukraine, so now we look foolish and weak (again).

An alternative viewpoint was recently offered by Zeihan, who thinks we might be drawing the Russians into another never ending conflict in Ukraine where they will be bled of manpower and resources by ceaseless insurgency. I'm not sure I buy that in a flat, indefensible country like Ukraine. Its not like Afghanistan, which naturally favors a guerilla resistance.

Great post. I think that Biden badly, badly bungled this. His Administration is full of idealists who think releasing criminals onto the streets, stopping new domestic O&G production, and spreading liberalism around the world will solve every problem.

Foreign Policy had a good piece on this in January:

Quote:

---

Liberalism sees world politics differently. Instead of seeing all great powers as facing more or less the same problemthe need to be secure in a world where war is always possibleliberalism maintains that what states do is driven mostly by their internal characteristics and the nature of the connections among them. It divides the world into "good states" (those that embody liberal values) and "bad states" (pretty much everyone else) and maintains that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators, and other illiberal leaders. For liberals, the solution is to topple tyrants and spread democracy, markets, and institutions based on the belief that democracies don't fight one another, especially when they are bound together by trade, investment, and an agreed-on set of rules.

---

Quote:

---

Had U.S. policymakers reflected on their own country's history and geographic sensitivities, they would have understood how enlargement appeared to their Russian counterparts. As journalist Peter Beinart recently noted, the United States has repeatedly declared the Western Hemisphere to be off-limits to other great powers and has threatened or used force on numerous occasions to make that declaration stick. During the Cold War, for example, the Reagan administration was so alarmed by the revolution in Nicaragua (a country whose population was smaller than New York City's) that it organized a rebel army to overthrow the ruling socialist Sandinistas. If Americans could worry that much about a tiny country like Nicaragua, why was it so hard to understand why Russia might have some serious misgivings about the steady movement of the world's mightiest alliance toward its borders? Realism explains why great powers tend to be extremely sensitive to the security environment in their immediate neighborhoods, but the liberal architects of enlargement simply could not grasp this. It was a monumental failure of empathy with profound strategic consequences.

---

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/

NATO membership for Ukraine is meaningless as far as Russia's national security. Russia already knows cannot possibly win a conventional war against NATO regardless of whether Ukraine is in it.

NATO membership only matters in the sense that once Ukraine crosses that boundary, any aggressive action towards them risks all out war with the world so he has to gain all he can from them before that happens. Ideally for Russia Ukraine would have stayed a puppet state, but since it did not, they had to secure their strategic interests immediately (Crimea) and secondarily they can only get anything from Ukraine while it has no allies and only weak "support"

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 we're there.

---

Europe already gave up control over the continent when it decided to be completely reliant on foreign oil and gas. There is no protecting what has already been surrendered. Everyone knows this, which is why Europe won't do anything at all to stop Russia.

The real threat to Russia is not NATO but the European Union.

NATO is an uk/usa dominated defensive/peacekeeping alliance at its core.

The European Union is a potential territorial/sovereign entity that could one day claim hegemony over the entire continent. One of the ways such an entity comes to exist is through a decisive victory in war against a common enemy. This is the way many separate Austrian and Prussian aligned states were forged into "Germany" in the aftermath of Prussian victory in Paris.

Its also actually been tried to do exactly this two times before. Twice a "European Union" has invaded Russia seeking to decisively achieve that exact goal. Once by Napoleon and once by the Nazis.

It is neighboring country's ties with the EU that Russia can and should fear over NATO. The US and the UK are not interested in fighting Russia, only defending against them. However, one way for a "United States of Europe" to happen is for it to be declared in the midst of Victory from Red Square

I agree with you that the EU is a big concern for Russia, but do you really think they're concerned more by the EU than NATO? NATO seems to be much more of an imminent threat in their eyes.

From Putin's speech yesterday:

Quote:

---

Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads.

The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved.
A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned.

Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine's airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory.

I will add that the US-built Maritime Operations Centre in Ochakov makes it possible to support activity by NATO warships, including the use of precision weapons, against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and our infrastructure on the entire Black Sea Coast.

---

Quote:

---

Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO's eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020.

As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia's borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust.

---

Right now they are justifying their war.

What they say has little bearing on what actually they feel threatened by in as much as what will look like threatening actions to their own people and be believed.