aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Is there a treaty on this? Asking for real, there has been mention of this agreement but I thought it was more of an understanding than an actual promise. May be wrong though.

---

It's called the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994.

---

Couple of notes. This appears to cover us using force against Ukraine (as well as use of force by Russia and the UK) except in self-defense. Does not seem to apply to the current conflict.

Second point, how convenient the US Ambassador seems to have some relation to our current Sec of State.

Quote:

---

The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[2] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[3][4]

---

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Is there a treaty on this? Asking for real, there has been mention of this agreement but I thought it was more of an understanding than an actual promise. May be wrong though.

---

It's called the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994.

---

Couple of notes. This appears to cover us using force against Ukraine (as well as use of force by Russia and the UK) except in self-defense. Does not seem to apply to the current conflict.

Second point, how convenient the US Ambassador seems to have some relation to our current Sec of State.

Quote:

---

The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[2] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[3][4]

---

---

You are reading it too narrowly. Here is some context. And consider the times. A few years prior, Saddam invaded Kuwait and the UN went to war to kick him out. Ukraine would have never given up the weapons over mere promises to not get invaded. The term "security assurances" has a specific meaning in treaties. For us to do nothing, would ensure nobody to every sign such a treaty again and for everybody to rush to get nukes.

That's not to say we should blindly give them our entire GDP. Biden has clearly screwed this up (surprise). He should have done something similar to what Reagan did which was to provide 2 stingers for every empty stinger tube returned. That ensured that the weapons were used and not hoarded (or sold).

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Who cares if this fool takes a sliver of Ukraine? or the whole damn thing? Our country may very well collapse within the next 5 years with the stupid sh** we are pushing here. We need to be fighting to save our own damn country...not some POS far eastern euro country. Who GAF about them?

---

We aren't doing this because we care about Ukraine.

---

Why? It's a crap country that does not impact us at all.

Why aren't we fighting all across the globe? Do we not care about people in Africa getting slaughtered? China? Spare me the "we care" BS. Why don't we go fight the Saudi's or Iranians?

If we "cared" we wouldn't be depending on African slaves and child slaves risking their lives, breaking their backs and breathing in toxic chemicals and fumes so that we could have our fancy Teslas and iPhones, all while absolutely annihilating their environment.

Honestly, if you "cared", you wouldn't be driving a Tesla...EV batteries are HORRIBLE for the environment and Africans/African children.

---

Because we promised them protection in exchange for them getting rid of their nukes. We have no such agreement with people in Africa, China, etc.

---

Is there a treaty on this? Asking for real, there has been mention of this agreement but I thought it was more of an understanding than an actual promise. May be wrong though.

---

It's called the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994.

---

Interesting tidbit about this- I've heard the argument made that this agreement is moot since the nukes never belonged to Ukraine in the first place. Under the Soviet system all nukes were under direct control of Moscow, and never belonged to the UkSSR.

I don't really have an opinion either way, just found that interesting.

Teslag said:

---

MuchosPollos said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

I am also interested in what happened in 1991. Can you explain that please? The only thing I can think of was the Wall coming down, but that was in 89 wasn't it?

ETA: The first Gulf War? That fits the time frame, but Russia couldn't do crap to help its ally?

Sorry this, was meant to reply to Mucho.

---

1991 look it up…..

Again F16 being deliberately obtuse…..at the height of the Cold War the west DIDN'T engage in any malicious attempts or behind the scenes actions to topple the communist USSR??? That's what y'all believe, really?

I've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.

---

The problem for Russia is that their military is largely the same as it was in 1991. They simply don't have the equipment and ability to do what you think they can do. It's not 1941 anymore. Modern weapons can repel whatever meat the Russians want to throw in the grinder. And all they have is meat.

---

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan showed that you don't need the best weapons systems. Are you sure that you only want to hedge your bets on technological superiority alone?

Have you read Sun Tzu ever?

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The war on Ukraine will stop under one of the three following conditions:
-Ukraine loses completely
-Ukraine brokers piece by being able to credibly destroy Crimea
-Ukraine wins completely
-Russia loses so many men and arms that they can no longer defend their capital from an invasion and they have to pull out.

---

The Ukrainians do not have the ability to invade Russia by any reasonable measure. They can't even, and will not be able to, reclaim Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk. Russia will never give back the majority ethnic Russian areas they presently hold.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Who cares if this fool takes a sliver of Ukraine? or the whole damn thing? Our country may very well collapse within the next 5 years with the stupid sh** we are pushing here. We need to be fighting to save our own damn country...not some POS far eastern euro country. Who GAF about them?

---

We aren't doing this because we care about Ukraine.

---

Why? It's a crap country that does not impact us at all.

Why aren't we fighting all across the globe? Do we not care about people in Africa getting slaughtered? China? Spare me the "we care" BS. Why don't we go fight the Saudi's or Iranians?

If we "cared" we wouldn't be depending on African slaves and child slaves risking their lives, breaking their backs and breathing in toxic chemicals and fumes so that we could have our fancy Teslas and iPhones, all while absolutely annihilating their environment.

Honestly, if you "cared", you wouldn't be driving a Tesla...EV batteries are HORRIBLE for the environment and Africans/African children.

---

Because we promised them protection in exchange for them getting rid of their nukes. We have no such agreement with people in Africa, China, etc.

---

Is there a treaty on this? Asking for real, there has been mention of this agreement but I thought it was more of an understanding than an actual promise. May be wrong though.

---

It's called the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994.

---

Interesting tidbit about this- I've heard the argument made that this agreement is moot since the nukes never belonged to Ukraine in the first place. Under the Soviet system all nukes were under direct control of Moscow, and never belonged to the UkSSR.

I don't really have an opinion either way, just found that interesting.

---

Of course, that makes no sense. If the US were to break up, the entire US arsenal wouldn't suddenly belong to the 68 square miles of Washington DC. Every American would have labored and paid taxes to fund the property of the US government and they would all would have legitimate claim to a portion of it's assets.

Likewise, every citizen of the former USSR would have a proper claim to part of the the assets of the USSR. Including former USSR citizens in Ukriane. Russia can try to claim it all as their if they want just like China can claims the entire south sea is theirs, but just because people make claims doesn't mean anybody else has to honor that.


And regarding US reputation, it doesn't matter. We didn't go in there in the 90s and say "hey those are Russia's, give it back". We negotiated in good faith for a deal as them being theirs and for them to give them up. Nobody would ever make such a deal again if we pretend the deal never existed when the going went tough.

(Again this does not imply we should screw ourselves over it)

MuchosPollos said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

I am also interested in what happened in 1991. Can you explain that please? The only thing I can think of was the Wall coming down, but that was in 89 wasn't it?

ETA: The first Gulf War? That fits the time frame, but Russia couldn't do crap to help its ally?

Sorry this, was meant to reply to Mucho.

---

1991 look it up…..

Again F16 being deliberately obtuse…..at the height of the Cold War the west DIDN'T engage in any malicious attempts or behind the scenes actions to topple the communist USSR??? That's what y'all believe, really?

I've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.

---

To anybody's knowledge, we (the US or its allies) did not have any direct action against the USSR, especially inside the Kremlin for the entire duration of the regime.

What we did was finance the first Afghani war where Russia expended a whole lot of its limited capital fighting a losing war. We also bankrupted them through the military spending competition, the space competition and other economic methods. But there wasn't any direct action coups like what we did routinely in central and south America or anything of that nature.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

MuchosPollos said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

I am also interested in what happened in 1991. Can you explain that please? The only thing I can think of was the Wall coming down, but that was in 89 wasn't it?

ETA: The first Gulf War? That fits the time frame, but Russia couldn't do crap to help its ally?

Sorry this, was meant to reply to Mucho.

---

1991 look it up…..

Again F16 being deliberately obtuse…..at the height of the Cold War the west DIDN'T engage in any malicious attempts or behind the scenes actions to topple the communist USSR??? That's what y'all believe, really?

I've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.

---

The problem for Russia is that their military is largely the same as it was in 1991. They simply don't have the equipment and ability to do what you think they can do. It's not 1941 anymore. Modern weapons can repel whatever meat the Russians want to throw in the grinder. And all they have is meat.

---

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan showed that you don't need the best weapons systems. Are you sure that you only want to hedge your bets on technological superiority alone?

Have you read Sun Tzu ever?

---

That was already addressed. There's a massive difference between Afhani's on the defensive in their homeland against the US with no real goal. The Russians are the agressor and need to take the offensive in a foreign land against a tough battle hardened, well trained defender who also happens to have superior weaponry.

Teslag said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

MuchosPollos said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

I am also interested in what happened in 1991. Can you explain that please? The only thing I can think of was the Wall coming down, but that was in 89 wasn't it?

ETA: The first Gulf War? That fits the time frame, but Russia couldn't do crap to help its ally?

Sorry this, was meant to reply to Mucho.

---

1991 look it up…..

Again F16 being deliberately obtuse…..at the height of the Cold War the west DIDN'T engage in any malicious attempts or behind the scenes actions to topple the communist USSR??? That's what y'all believe, really?

I've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.

---

The problem for Russia is that their military is largely the same as it was in 1991. They simply don't have the equipment and ability to do what you think they can do. It's not 1941 anymore. Modern weapons can repel whatever meat the Russians want to throw in the grinder. And all they have is meat.

---

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan showed that you don't need the best weapons systems. Are you sure that you only want to hedge your bets on technological superiority alone?

Have you read Sun Tzu ever?

---

That was already addressed. There's a massive difference between Afhani's on the defensive in their homeland against the US with no real goal. The Russians are the agressor and need to take the offensive in a foreign land against a tough battle hardened, well trained defender who also happens to have superior weaponry.

---

Pro-Russian residents who live in Eastern Regions of Ukraine ARE on their homeland.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

MuchosPollos said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

I am also interested in what happened in 1991. Can you explain that please? The only thing I can think of was the Wall coming down, but that was in 89 wasn't it?

ETA: The first Gulf War? That fits the time frame, but Russia couldn't do crap to help its ally?

Sorry this, was meant to reply to Mucho.

---

1991 look it up…..

Again F16 being deliberately obtuse…..at the height of the Cold War the west DIDN'T engage in any malicious attempts or behind the scenes actions to topple the communist USSR??? That's what y'all believe, really?

I've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.

---

The problem for Russia is that their military is largely the same as it was in 1991. They simply don't have the equipment and ability to do what you think they can do. It's not 1941 anymore. Modern weapons can repel whatever meat the Russians want to throw in the grinder. And all they have is meat.

---

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan showed that you don't need the best weapons systems. Are you sure that you only want to hedge your bets on technological superiority alone?

Have you read Sun Tzu ever?

---

That was already addressed. There's a massive difference between Afhani's on the defensive in their homeland against the US with no real goal. The Russians are the agressor and need to take the offensive in a foreign land against a tough battle hardened, well trained defender who also happens to have superior weaponry.

---

Pro-Russian residents who live in Eastern Regions of Ukraine ARE on their homeland.

---

If some citizens of El Paso were pro-Mexico, would that give Mexico the right to invade?

aTmAg said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

MuchosPollos said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

I am also interested in what happened in 1991. Can you explain that please? The only thing I can think of was the Wall coming down, but that was in 89 wasn't it?

ETA: The first Gulf War? That fits the time frame, but Russia couldn't do crap to help its ally?

Sorry this, was meant to reply to Mucho.

---

1991 look it up…..

Again F16 being deliberately obtuse…..at the height of the Cold War the west DIDN'T engage in any malicious attempts or behind the scenes actions to topple the communist USSR??? That's what y'all believe, really?

I've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.

---

The problem for Russia is that their military is largely the same as it was in 1991. They simply don't have the equipment and ability to do what you think they can do. It's not 1941 anymore. Modern weapons can repel whatever meat the Russians want to throw in the grinder. And all they have is meat.

---

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan showed that you don't need the best weapons systems. Are you sure that you only want to hedge your bets on technological superiority alone?

Have you read Sun Tzu ever?

---

That was already addressed. There's a massive difference between Afhani's on the defensive in their homeland against the US with no real goal. The Russians are the agressor and need to take the offensive in a foreign land against a tough battle hardened, well trained defender who also happens to have superior weaponry.

---

Pro-Russian residents who live in Eastern Regions of Ukraine ARE on their homeland.

---

If some citizens of El Paso were pro-Mexico, would that give Mexico the right to invade?

---

No. And I am not excusing Russia holding the territory either. I am simply saying the populace in the areas they currently hold supports them being there, and they will not give them back. It's just facts. Not an endorsement.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Teslag said:

---

MuchosPollos said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

I am also interested in what happened in 1991. Can you explain that please? The only thing I can think of was the Wall coming down, but that was in 89 wasn't it?

ETA: The first Gulf War? That fits the time frame, but Russia couldn't do crap to help its ally?

Sorry this, was meant to reply to Mucho.

---

1991 look it up…..

Again F16 being deliberately obtuse…..at the height of the Cold War the west DIDN'T engage in any malicious attempts or behind the scenes actions to topple the communist USSR??? That's what y'all believe, really?

I've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.

---

The problem for Russia is that their military is largely the same as it was in 1991. They simply don't have the equipment and ability to do what you think they can do. It's not 1941 anymore. Modern weapons can repel whatever meat the Russians want to throw in the grinder. And all they have is meat.

---

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan showed that you don't need the best weapons systems. Are you sure that you only want to hedge your bets on technological superiority alone?

Have you read Sun Tzu ever?

---

That was already addressed. There's a massive difference between Afhani's on the defensive in their homeland against the US with no real goal. The Russians are the agressor and need to take the offensive in a foreign land against a tough battle hardened, well trained defender who also happens to have superior weaponry.

---

Pro-Russian residents who live in Eastern Regions of Ukraine ARE on their homeland.

---

If some citizens of El Paso were pro-Mexico, would that give Mexico the right to invade?

---

No. And I am not excusing Russia holding the territory either. I am simply saying the populace in the areas they currently hold supports them being there, and they will not give them back. It's just facts. Not an endorsement.

---

They should have pushed for peaceful secession long ago then. As it is now, they are collaborators and deserve to be killed right along with their Russian pals.

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

fka ftc said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

---

People are willing to fight much harder when they are invaded. Unlike WW2, the Russian people aren't going to tolerate 27 million deaths for an invasion of Ukraine. Only about 15K Soviets died in Afghanistan before they pulled out.

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

---

People are willing to fight much harder when they are invaded. Unlike WW2, the Russian people aren't going to tolerate 27 million deaths for an invasion of Ukraine.

---

Indigenous peoples have joined the chat,

And it was not all about available weaponry and smallpox.

However, generally I think you are true. But a group of people out of options for food, shelter, security can become highly motivated to raid others and take they things.

fka ftc said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

---

Russia doesn't have the man power to send it into the meat grinder like they did in WWI and WWII.

Back then they could suffer insane casualty rates and just keep going. Not possible today.

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

---

People are willing to fight much harder when they are invaded. Unlike WW2, the Russian people aren't going to tolerate 27 million deaths for an invasion of Ukraine.

---

Indigenous peoples have joined the chat,

And it was not all about available weaponry and smallpox.

However, generally I think you are true. But a group of people out of options for food, shelter, security can become highly motivated to raid others and take they things.

---

Russia has options for food, shelter, security, etc. What are you talking about?

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

---

People are willing to fight much harder when they are invaded. Unlike WW2, the Russian people aren't going to tolerate 27 million deaths for an invasion of Ukraine.

---

Indigenous peoples have joined the chat,

And it was not all about available weaponry and smallpox.

However, generally I think you are true. But a group of people out of options for food, shelter, security can become highly motivated to raid others and take they things.

---

Russia has options for food, shelter, security, etc. What are you talking about?

---

Then why did they invade Ukraine? Putin looking for a new house in Kiev and this is the easy way.

I thought Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe.

They also have a couple of neat electricity facilities Putin may want back.

Don't be dense.

Again, tend to disagree. Russia (at least to my knowledge) still trains its youth to fight and to do so at an early age.

Also, propaganda is a powerful tool. It can get Germans to exterminate Jewish children, Russians to fight for what state media tells them in the cause, and even hear at home propaganda and misinformation can get 81 million people to vote for a dementia riddled child molesting puppet controlled by globalist commies.

You do not win wars by planning for your enemy to just surrender when they get tired.

GAC06 said:

---

Kiev was just a feint guys

---

Almost forgot about that ****

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

---

People are willing to fight much harder when they are invaded. Unlike WW2, the Russian people aren't going to tolerate 27 million deaths for an invasion of Ukraine.

---

Indigenous peoples have joined the chat,

And it was not all about available weaponry and smallpox.

However, generally I think you are true. But a group of people out of options for food, shelter, security can become highly motivated to raid others and take they things.

---

Russia has options for food, shelter, security, etc. What are you talking about?

---

Then why did they invade Ukraine? Putin looking for a new house in Kiev and this is the easy way.

I thought Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe.

They also have a couple of neat electricity facilities Putin may want back.

Don't be dense.

---

They want more, and the export income and strategic position that comes with it.

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

Russia is a lot weaker than they were before they invaded Ukraine.
But hopefully the countries bordering them aren't stupid.

Taking on Russia, even in its current state would be foolhardy.

aTmAg said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Who cares if this fool takes a sliver of Ukraine? or the whole damn thing? Our country may very well collapse within the next 5 years with the stupid sh** we are pushing here. We need to be fighting to save our own damn country...not some POS far eastern euro country. Who GAF about them?

---

We aren't doing this because we care about Ukraine.

---

Why? It's a crap country that does not impact us at all.

Why aren't we fighting all across the globe? Do we not care about people in Africa getting slaughtered? China? Spare me the "we care" BS. Why don't we go fight the Saudi's or Iranians?

If we "cared" we wouldn't be depending on African slaves and child slaves risking their lives, breaking their backs and breathing in toxic chemicals and fumes so that we could have our fancy Teslas and iPhones, all while absolutely annihilating their environment.

Honestly, if you "cared", you wouldn't be driving a Tesla...EV batteries are HORRIBLE for the environment and Africans/African children.

---

Because we promised them protection in exchange for them getting rid of their nukes. We have no such agreement with people in Africa, China, etc.

---

Is there a treaty on this? Asking for real, there has been mention of this agreement but I thought it was more of an understanding than an actual promise. May be wrong though.

---

It's called the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994.

---

Interesting tidbit about this- I've heard the argument made that this agreement is moot since the nukes never belonged to Ukraine in the first place. Under the Soviet system all nukes were under direct control of Moscow, and never belonged to the UkSSR.

I don't really have an opinion either way, just found that interesting.

---

Of course, that makes no sense. If the US were to break up, the entire US arsenal wouldn't suddenly belong to the 68 square miles of Washington DC. Every American would have labored and paid taxes to fund the property of the US government and they would all would have legitimate claim to a portion of it's assets.

Likewise, every citizen of the former USSR would have a proper claim to part of the the assets of the USSR. Including former USSR citizens in Ukriane. Russia can try to claim it all as their if they want just like China can claims the entire south sea is theirs, but just because people make claims doesn't mean anybody else has to honor that.


And regarding US reputation, it doesn't matter. We didn't go in there in the 90s and say "hey those are Russia's, give it back". We negotiated in good faith for a deal as them being theirs and for them to give them up. Nobody would ever make such a deal again if we pretend the deal never existed when the going went tough.

(Again this does not imply we should screw ourselves over it)

---

I think a more analogous example would be if the US had nukes stationed in a NATO country and then NATO dissolves. We would claim the nukes to be ours rather than belonging to country in which they were based.

Of course neither example is a direct comparison to the political structure of the USSR but there you have it.

Again, it's an argument that I heard which sounded interesting and offers a different perspective on the Budapest agreement

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

Russia is in trouble. All of the satellite nations that are still in the borders of Russia are sensing that Russia is vey weak and are pulling out their knives. Russia could find it self under attack in many countries.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next week

---

This seems to ignore that Russia somehow managed to survive an invasion by Nazi Germany and then more recently an internal coup and a division of their country into substantially smaller pieces yet still remaining a super power with an arsenal nukes and armed forces (regardless of what folks may think of their tech, training and weaponry).

Those who think Russia is teetering on the brink of ruin may want to learn a little more about Russia.

---

People are willing to fight much harder when they are invaded. Unlike WW2, the Russian people aren't going to tolerate 27 million deaths for an invasion of Ukraine.

---

Indigenous peoples have joined the chat,

And it was not all about available weaponry and smallpox.

However, generally I think you are true. But a group of people out of options for food, shelter, security can become highly motivated to raid others and take they things.

---

Russia has options for food, shelter, security, etc. What are you talking about?

---

Then why did they invade Ukraine? Putin looking for a new house in Kiev and this is the easy way.

I thought Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe.

They also have a couple of neat electricity facilities Putin may want back.

Don't be dense.

---

Don't be dense? Are you kidding?

You think they went 30+ years without food and shelter and then suddenly decided to invade Ukraine? Of course not. They would have have millions die of starvation and exposure. They have plenty of that stuff.

This is all about Putin wanting crap that didn't belong to him. 25% of Russians don't want to continue with the war. They know this is a load of crap.

Ok, you are right. Let's go Ukraine! Death to Russia! Hand Putin!

Did I do it right? I am fine with you thinking I am dumb and clueless.

But it would be actually dumb and clueless to think I have no idea what I am talking about.

I simply disagree with your take.

fka ftc said:

---

Again, tend to disagree. Russia (at least to my knowledge) still trains its youth to fight and to do so at an early age.

Also, propaganda is a powerful tool. It can get Germans to exterminate Jewish children, Russians to fight for what state media tells them in the cause, and even hear at home propaganda and misinformation can get 81 million people to vote for a dementia riddled child molesting puppet controlled by globalist commies.

You do not win wars by planning for your enemy to just surrender when they get tired.

---

Disagree all you want, but do you really think Russia would be able or willing to sacrifice 20-30 million just to defeat Ukraine?

It's one thing to do it in WWII when they had the manpower, were fighting off an invasion, and had most of the population behind the effort, especially after the German death squads started showing up behind the line of advance. It's another to do it to win a conflict they started, where plenty of people in Russia do not support it.

Rapier108 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Again, tend to disagree. Russia (at least to my knowledge) still trains its youth to fight and to do so at an early age.

Also, propaganda is a powerful tool. It can get Germans to exterminate Jewish children, Russians to fight for what state media tells them in the cause, and even hear at home propaganda and misinformation can get 81 million people to vote for a dementia riddled child molesting puppet controlled by globalist commies.

You do not win wars by planning for your enemy to just surrender when they get tired.

---

Disagree all you want, but do you really think Russia would be able or willing to sacrifice 20-30 million just to defeat Ukraine?

It's one thing to do it in WWII when they had the manpower, were fighting off an invasion, and had most of the population behind the effort, especially after the German death squads started showing up behind the line of advance. It's another to do it to win a conflict they started, where plenty of people in Russia do not support it.

---

I know Russia has nukes and a sociopath with absolutely no soul as a president / dicktator.

I know I owe Ukraine nothing and have no agreement to defend them at all costs.

I know money could be and should be better spent here.

I know that the simple answers people try and give us for very big, complex problems usually have some issues / holes in those answer.

fka ftc said:

---

Ok, you are right. Let's go Ukraine! Death to Russia! Hand Putin!

Did I do it right? I am fine with you thinking I am dumb and clueless.

But it would be actually dumb and clueless to think I have no idea what I am talking about.

I simply disagree with your take.

---

But the points you bring up do not apply. Russia is not getting invaded, they are not starving, do not need shelter, etc. so they aren't going to sacrifice 27M over it like they did in WW2. There is no similarity to WW2 here. They only lost 15K in Afghanistan before they pulled out.

aTmAg said:

---

Ukraine doesn't have nukes.

---

Right. They gave the nukes they had back to Russia because Russia made a super serious promise that they would never attack Ukraine.

fka ftc said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Again, tend to disagree. Russia (at least to my knowledge) still trains its youth to fight and to do so at an early age.

Also, propaganda is a powerful tool. It can get Germans to exterminate Jewish children, Russians to fight for what state media tells them in the cause, and even hear at home propaganda and misinformation can get 81 million people to vote for a dementia riddled child molesting puppet controlled by globalist commies.

You do not win wars by planning for your enemy to just surrender when they get tired.

---

Disagree all you want, but do you really think Russia would be able or willing to sacrifice 20-30 million just to defeat Ukraine?

It's one thing to do it in WWII when they had the manpower, were fighting off an invasion, and had most of the population behind the effort, especially after the German death squads started showing up behind the line of advance. It's another to do it to win a conflict they started, where plenty of people in Russia do not support it.

---

I know Russia has nukes and a sociopath with absolutely no soul as a president / dicktator.

I know I owe Ukraine nothing and have no agreement to defend them at all costs.

I know money could be and should be better spent here.

I know that the simple answers people try and give us for very big, complex problems usually have some issues / holes in those answer.

---

So now you're pivoting from saying Russia will sacrifice tens of millions of men to win (which was BS) to Russia will use nukes to win.

Quit moving the goal posts already.

Rapier108 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Again, tend to disagree. Russia (at least to my knowledge) still trains its youth to fight and to do so at an early age.

Also, propaganda is a powerful tool. It can get Germans to exterminate Jewish children, Russians to fight for what state media tells them in the cause, and even hear at home propaganda and misinformation can get 81 million people to vote for a dementia riddled child molesting puppet controlled by globalist commies.

You do not win wars by planning for your enemy to just surrender when they get tired.

---

Disagree all you want, but do you really think Russia would be able or willing to sacrifice 20-30 million just to defeat Ukraine?

It's one thing to do it in WWII when they had the manpower, were fighting off an invasion, and had most of the population behind the effort, especially after the German death squads started showing up behind the line of advance. It's another to do it to win a conflict they started, where plenty of people in Russia do not support it.

---

I know Russia has nukes and a sociopath with absolutely no soul as a president / dicktator.

I know I owe Ukraine nothing and have no agreement to defend them at all costs.

I know money could be and should be better spent here.

I know that the simple answers people try and give us for very big, complex problems usually have some issues / holes in those answer.

---

So now you're pivoting from saying Russia will sacrifice tens of millions of men to win (which was BS) to Russia will use nukes to win.

Quit moving the goal posts already.

---

Reread the bold. Its not moving any gold posts. Its recognizing there are not simple takes boiled down to a few lines on an internet forum.

Putin

Super cool that Putin's health is apparently in sharp decline. That is just what everyone needed at this particular time. I hope he genuinely cares about his people...even if he goes crazy as he nears the end.

We should have stayed the hell out of this. There are no "good guys". And even if there were, the bad guy doesn't threaten us. We need to get our house in order before playing world police, unless we are under a direct threat.

TexAgs91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ukraine doesn't have nukes.

---

Right. They gave the nukes they had back to Russia because Russia made a super serious promise that they would never attack Ukraine.

---

Goes to show, never trust somebody else with your own defense.