THE TRUMP 2024 THREAD

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
It’s not hopeless. Ukraine still has their country. For now. If the war continues maybe not.

I mean hopeless as in, there very likely won't be a better outcome for Ukraine if the war continues.

Thats the deal we made with them to give up their nukes
Perhaps they should receive security guarantees from their European neighbors this time.
Thats seeming to be the more reliable method I suppose. Would be nice if we could keep our word though, especially for something so important

Better wording would probably be a good idea.


"The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][52] 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."[51] 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.[52] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[53] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[54] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[24]"

------------

"American and Ukrainian officials did not foresee the Russo-Ukrainian War and because of that Ukraine was willing to accept security "assurances" from the U.S. and Britain, which unlike "guarantees," do not require the use of military force if the agreement was violated. Pifer also wrote that in his view it would have been unlikely that such guarantees would have been ratified by the U.S. Senate.[58]"
 

Next Day Err

Well-Known Member
Is it not hopeless? Can the situation on the ground improve for Ukraine if the war continues and we continue military aid to them?





Perhaps they should receive security guarantees from their European neighbors this time.
That’s why I said NATO. The entire alliance should make a stand and make it clear to Putin that re-engaging his war will only end badly for him in the event of breaking a ceasefire. He only understands strength.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
I mean hopeless as in, there very likely won't be a better outcome for Ukraine if the war continues.





Better wording would probably be a good idea.


"The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][52] 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."[51] 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.[52] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[53] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[54] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[24]"

------------

"American and Ukrainian officials did not foresee the Russo-Ukrainian War and because of that Ukraine was willing to accept security "assurances" from the U.S. and Britain, which unlike "guarantees," do not require the use of military force if the agreement was violated. Pifer also wrote that in his view it would have been unlikely that such guarantees would have been ratified by the U.S. Senate.[58]"
We are bound to nothing.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
That’s why I said NATO. The entire alliance should make a stand and make it clear to Putin that re-engaging his war will only end badly for him in the event of breaking a ceasefire. He only understands strength.
Lol so more War? Maybe even World War III for a country that is not a not a “core American interest”? Sounds like you’re a madman. Not shocking from someone who wishes people dead when he doesn’t agree with them.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
That’s why I said NATO. The entire alliance should make a stand and make it clear to Putin that re-engaging his war will only end badly for him in the event of breaking a ceasefire. He only understands strength.
What would NATO threaten to do if Putin did break a ceasefire?
Lol so more War? Maybe even World War III for a country that is not a not a “core American interest”? Sounds like you’re a madman. Not shocking from someone who wishes people dead when he doesn’t agree with them.

Imagine if NATO were to start face :censored2:ing Russia over Ukraine tomorrow. Not just French and UK troops in Ukraine. All of NATO is coming over the hill. Putin knows he can't win and it's time to launch the nukes. Worth it for a non-member country?
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
Mike Lee wants us out of NATO.

Elon Musk wants us out of NATO.

The U.S. is basically a chimpanzee with a loaded firearm right now. What in the ever living :censored2: are we even doing.
theres want and then there's nogotiations and pressure to change behaviour. why must you always think the worst of us. Us being this country
 

Next Day Err

Well-Known Member
Imagine if NATO were to start face :censored2:ing Russia over Ukraine tomorrow. Not just French and UK troops in Ukraine. All of NATO is coming over the hill. Putin knows he can't win and it's time to launch the nukes. Worth it for a non-member country?
Worth it to kick his ass. He wouldn’t do :censored2: in the face of actual strength.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Interesting comments from Fetterman

I would never see him switching to a Republican but I think Independent is a very real possibility.

Oh well.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Oh well.
Federman is all over the place.

Very few actual moderates find themselves on the small end of a 70-80/30-20 issue. Because it's usually something that's very common sense.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
So now the new tariffs start tomorrow. Anti-corruption enforcement has been thrown out the window including anti-money laundering rules. So Trump can selectively lift tariffs from specific companies. Now, with bribery being legalized again, you only need to pay coin to the regime and continue business unimpeded while your competition drowns.

I imagine this was always the intention of the tariffs. It's just another grift with these people.

By lifting the rules on anti-money laundering and doing away with shell company owner verification, nearly nothing is stopping the rich from damn near wiring money to an account in exchange for getting on the exempt list.

This is on you, Trump voters. Congratulations to you for helping to usher in the most corrupt period in American life.
Gee, I wonder if that was what was happening when foreign entities were wiring millions to Biden family members through phony shell corporations?
 
Top