Ukraine-Russia

[newfie]

We may have reached the point of no return. Very soon those of you who were so worried about Ukraine may be forced to tell your loved ones goodbye or even yourselves. Both here and in Europe. Congratulations.

From a US perspective our diplomatic plan to deal with Putin has been to do so quietly this goes back to the Obama days where he preferred quiet diplomacy over Trumps style of public . Our "experts" have probably been advising this approach all along to various presidents. Even Biden would not do more than call Putin a killer one time in public. Theres nothing wrong with that other than it gives your political opponents an opportunity to bash you for being a putin puppet. So the right has accused Obama of such and of course we know what the left has done with trump on that subject.

We still have many options to employ . Sanctions for the most part are a joke. I would think attacking Putins being able to fund his war with oil sales should be a prime target. we can also move offensive weapons into the closest Nato countries which Putin absolutely does not want. And if all else fails threaten to make the Ukraine a country of Nato and put Nato right on his doorstep.
The last thing in my humble opinion that we should do is keep throwing more money into that meat grinder.

the one solution i think that had to be tried that no one wanted to try was to actually try to settle this diplomatically . At least that effort is now being made and we can either be successful or mark it off the list.

 

[newfie]

Where’s thumby….View attachment 518423

@Next Day Err was my loyal thumbs down guy until he finally put me on ignore.

 

[Doublestandards]

We still have many options to employ . Sanctions for the most part are a joke. I would think attacking Putins being able to fund his war with oil sales should be a prime target.

I was reading that trumps idea of sanctions would actually be a second set going after the people Russia sells to? Something like that, but it did sound interesting

we can also move offensive weapons into the closest Nato countries which Putin absolutely does not want. And if all else fails threaten to make the Ukraine a country of Nato and put Nato right on his doorstep.

The last thing in my humble opinion that we should do is keep throwing more money into that meat grinder.

I don’t think we should be sending money, but what do you think about us continuing to send weapons, or defense systems?

Helps us strategize and learn military strstegies while helping allies and taking Russia down a notch without Americans being directly involved

the one solution i think that had to be tried that no one wanted to try was to actually try to settle this diplomatically . At least that effort is now being made and we can either be successful or mark it off the list.

Sounds like Trump tried that already. He was being “nice” to Putin and being a dick to zelensky. Maybe he was trying to give Putin an off ramp to save face, but Putin seemed to take trumps kindness as weakness

 

[Doublestandards]

From a US perspective our diplomatic plan to deal with Putin has been to do so quietly this goes back to the Obama days where he preferred quiet diplomacy over Trumps style of public . Our "experts" have probably been advising this approach all along to various presidents. Even Biden would not do more than call Putin a killer one time in public. Theres nothing wrong with that other than it gives your political opponents an opportunity to bash you for being a putin puppet. So the right has accused Obama of such and of course we know what the left has done with trump on that subject.

We still have many options to employ . Sanctions for the most part are a joke. I would think attacking Putins being able to fund his war with oil sales should be a prime target. we can also move offensive weapons into the closest Nato countries which Putin absolutely does not want. And if all else fails threaten to make the Ukraine a country of Nato and put Nato right on his doorstep.
The last thing in my humble opinion that we should do is keep throwing more money into that meat grinder.

the one solution i think that had to be tried that no one wanted to try was to actually try to settle this diplomatically . At least that effort is now being made and we can either be successful or mark it off the list.

You had a comment the other day about Israel and Iran that I thought also summed up the situation in Ukraine pretty well also

foriegn support and involvement in foriegn conflicts should be minimal. The decision being based on a couple of things

does isolating us from involvement possibly lead to a greater world based conflict as what led us up to the world wars.
is there a minimal involvement that can reduce that risk.

 

[newfie]

I was reading that trumps idea of sanctions would actually be a second set going after the people Russia sells to? Something like that, but it did sound interesting

could work after all the tariff stuff it would be good if he could build a coalition and threaten less

I don’t think we should be sending money, but what do you think about us continuing to send weapons, or defense systems?

Helps us strategize and learn military strstegies while helping allies and taking Russia down a notch without Americans being directly involved

not a fan , i don't see the ukranians winning or even holding ground anymore I am terrified that we're going to get drawn into world war three on this mess. i think we have to get putin uncomfortable again. maybe hold some joint nato exercises in the Ukraine and run them right up to the dnepo river . tell putin we'll be doing this every year if he does not back off.

Sounds like Trump tried that already. He was being “nice” to Putin and being a dick to zelensky. Maybe he was trying to give Putin an off ramp to save face, but Putin seemed to take trumps kindness as weakness

i think Trump has to realize the game has changed. His unorthodox style helped him the first time around . the despots are getting comfortable with his approach and are not as uneasy challenging it this time around. the fact he keeps tallking about how he wants to save lives has actually made him weaker in putins eyes then his kindness. JMHO. with Putin you have to act like you could give a less who dies.

 

[newfie]

You had a comment the other day about Israel and Iran that I thought also summed up the situation in Ukraine pretty well also

i had another thought Trumps supposed to visit Saudi soon . He's pretty tight with them. he could exert a lot of pressure on Russia with the help of the Saudi's. Increase oil supply offer to fill the void in Europe to they don't need russian oil. etc.

 

[Doublestandards]

i think Trump has to realize the game has changed. His unorthodox style helped him the first time around . the despots are getting comfortable with his approach and are not as uneasy challenging it this time around. the fact he keeps tallking about how he wants to save lives has actually made him weaker in putins eyes then his kindness. JMHO. with Putin you have to act like you could give a less who dies.

to be fair though that seems to be the approach Obama took and it didn’t seem to work

Putin is clearly trying to continue advancing. I just worry if he’s never stopped it will get to a point where we’re forced to jump in, and at that point it might be a lot more difficult

 

[Thebrownblob]

to be fair though that seems to be the approach Obama took and it didn’t seem to work

Putin is clearly trying to continue advancing. I just worry if he’s never stopped it will get to a point where we’re forced to jump in, and at that point it might be a lot more difficult

I’m not an Obama fan. But he correctly realized Russia will always have the upper hand in a fight with Ukraine. He also realized there are cultural issues that we do not understand regarding the Ukrainian and Russian people. Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no need for us to “jump in”.

 

[Doublestandards]

I’m not an Obama fan. But he correctly realized Russian will always have the upper hand in a fight with Ukraine. He also realized there are cultural issues that we do not understand regarding the Ukrainian and Russian people. Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no need for us to “jump in”.

That’s a fair point. Still bugs me though considering the agreement we gave them.

Whats the next hypothetical scenario would it take for Russia to do for you to support America helping?

 

[newfie]

to be fair though that seems to be the approach Obama took and it didn’t seem to work

Putin is clearly trying to continue advancing. I just worry if he’s never stopped it will get to a point where we’re forced to jump in, and at that point it might be a lot more difficult

yea my fear too. we cant sit back forever and watch him kill civilians up to polands doorstep

hopefully we can put a tight financial choke hold on him before it gets to that point

 

[Thebrownblob]

That’s a fair point. Still bugs me though considering the agreement we gave them.

Whats the next hypothetical scenario would it take for Russia to do for you to support America helping?

You should really read that agreement, it is in no way binding and was made pretty clear. We’ve done more than enough.

 

[Doublestandards]

You should really read that agreement, it is in no way binding and was made pretty clear. We’ve done more than enough.

I have read it, If you have different information I may not have read then please send it and Ill read it



The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with U.S. Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom 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.[4][5]


“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine and Russia. The result was the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain; compensation for the economic value of the highly-enriched uranium in the warheads (which could be blended down and converted into fuel for nuclear reactors); and assistance from the United States in dismantling the missiles, missile silos, bombers and nuclear infrastructure on its territory. Steven Pifer recounts the history of this unique negotiation and describes the key lessons learned.”

The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine...

www.brookings.edu

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

You should really read that agreement, it is in no way binding and was made pretty clear. We’ve done more than enough.

These people just repeat stupid lies from left wing media. They've been tricked into thinking we agreed to protect Ukraine.

We only agreed to get involved if nukes are used against them.

Facts don't matter to leftists though.

 

[Box Ox]

You should really read that agreement, it is in no way binding and was made pretty clear. We’ve done more than enough.

I have read it, If you have different information I may not have read then please send it and Ill read it

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Budapest memorandum is not a treaty and it does not confer any new legal obligations for signatory States. It was written in a way to avoid an impression of legal obligation.[52]"

 

[newfie]

I have read it, If you have different information I may not have read then please send it and Ill read it



The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with U.S. Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom 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.[4][5]


“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine and Russia. The result was the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain; compensation for the economic value of the highly-enriched uranium in the warheads (which could be blended down and converted into fuel for nuclear reactors); and assistance from the United States in dismantling the missiles, missile silos, bombers and nuclear infrastructure on its territory. Steven Pifer recounts the history of this unique negotiation and describes the key lessons learned.”

The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine...

www.brookings.edu

we made a lot of promises back then that we never intended to keep

 

[Thebrownblob]

I have read it, If you have different information I may not have read then please send it and Ill read it



The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with U.S. Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom 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.[4][5]


“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine and Russia. The result was the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain; compensation for the economic value of the highly-enriched uranium in the warheads (which could be blended down and converted into fuel for nuclear reactors); and assistance from the United States in dismantling the missiles, missile silos, bombers and nuclear infrastructure on its territory. Steven Pifer recounts the history of this unique negotiation and describes the key lessons learned.”

The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine...

www.brookings.edu

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum is often misrepresented as a binding military agreement that obligates the U.S. to defend Ukraine. That is simply not true. The memorandum, signed by Ukraine, the U.S., the U.K., and Russia, was a diplomatic assurance in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. The agreement reaffirmed that all signatories would respect Ukraine's sovereignty, refrain from using force or economic coercion against it, and seek United Nations Security Council action if Ukraine was threatened with nuclear weapons. However, nowhere in the memorandum does it state that the U.S. or U.K. are required to provide military aid or intervene in a conflict.


Unlike NATO's Article 5, which explicitly requires mutual defense, the Budapest Memorandum contains no military commitments and has no enforcement mechanism.

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948

 

[Thebrownblob]

we made a lot of promises back then that we never intended to keep

Actually, Ukraine pretended we made a lot of promises. Even in 1994 it was made clear that there were never a guarantee.

 

[Thebrownblob]

These people just repeat stupid lies from left wing media. They've been tricked into thinking we agreed to protect Ukraine.

We only agreed to get involved if nukes are used against them.

Facts don't matter to leftists though.

This is 100% fact and I don’t know how anyone could’ve read that agreement and not understood that.

Honestly, this is the reason I believe the West has been trying to provoke Russia into using nukes or at least get them to threaten to so that we can have a full ground invasion with NATO participation

 

[newfie]

These people just repeat stupid lies from left wing media. They've been tricked into thinking we agreed to protect Ukraine.

We only agreed to get involved if nukes are used against them.

Facts don't matter to leftists though.

in fairness to that whole mess there both sides and the outsiders like us wrote and agreed to a lot of agreements that were for all intents and purposes written on toilet paper.

whatever comes of this current mess will be more of the same.

 

[Thebrownblob]

in fairness to that whole mess there both sides and the outsiders like us wrote and agreed to a lot of agreements that were for all intents and purposes written on toilet paper.

whatever comes of this current mess will be more of the same.

Bottom line Ukraine is of no strategic importance to the United States. We have no business there. Sorry Ukraine lovers.