Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Facts are, security guarantees have been made to Ukraine.
Google “the fall of the USSR” and “the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine” and then come back and apologise everyone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
You are saying Ukraine is "de facto" NATO member... which is precisely the type of BS Russia likes to peddle as they attempt to make this a Russia vs NATO war because losing to war to Ukraine they started is to much for their little Z brains to cope with.
Do you think NATO member's would stand aside if any other non member European state were attacked in a similar way?
Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria?
Of course they wouldn’t.
So why single out Ukraine as a "de facto" member?
The reason countries join NATO is two reasons. They want extra guarantees of support to act as a deterrent. They also want to contribute to the alliance because they value its strength.
Ukraine has neither benefited from guarantees of support or contributed to the alliance. They are not members in any way.
NATO members are involved in Ukraine because they want to preserve a system where attacking another country for territorial gain is seen as unambiguously unacceptable.
For reasons I don't really understand, you seem to want to send out an all together more muddy message.
Last edited:
Pedantically speaking, @Roar87 is correct here: there is no formal treaty obligation on the UK (or US, etc.) to defend Ukraine. The "guarantees" given were more guidelines than rules; they provide a solid justification for the UK getting involved (if we needed another one) but they do not, in the strictest sense, oblige our response.
Just link it
We have a winner.
Some reports of the Ukrainians attacking a pair of destroyers with some success. Not much in the way of conformation.
So you think that Russia's invasion is illegal and immoral but you don't think anyone should support Ukraine, thus allowing Russia's illegal and immoral invasion to achieve its aims, is that accurate?
I agree with what Dr Cornell West says in this interview
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,022
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I agree with what Dr Cornell West says in this interview
LOL
So when he starts with the NATO non expansion line, which is a lie, we are supposed to be believe hes a balanced actor.
Why is he bouncing like that? Mental breakdown or Alzheimers?
I've just watched that and he doesn't have an answer. He throws around a lot of blame for why we got to this point - which I'm not at all sure I agree with, but that's another issue - but what he basically doesn't want to say seems to be "yes, Russia should win".
I agree with what Dr Cornell West says in this interview
It's the usual pile of apologist falsehoods, I couldn't be bothered to listen past the drivel claiming that there was a promise not to expand NATO to the East.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,614
- Location
- Rutland
This has been the same for every poster who has suggested the West is fuelling the war and should stop. They don't suggest an alternative strategy, just that the current one is wrong.
Russia is still conducting offensive operations against Ukraine, this seems to be easily overlooked.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,022
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Thats not strictly true.
Some of them, like Melon Musk, say Ukraine should capitulate.
Thats their strategy.
The cowards strategy. We have seen others in here with the same weak bladder.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,049
- Location
- La France
Regardless of the legalities, the West is getting to reduce the fighting capacity of our principal adversary at a bargain price.
It's really fortunate that we have all these declassified documents showing that we did in fact promise the Russians not to expand Eastwards when they handed over East Germany.
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
nsarchive.gwu.edu
It seems that we didn't actually adhere to what we promised them, and even when they didn't kick up too much of a fuss about all the Baltic states, the US insisted on interfering in Ukraine - which they explicitly made clear was a red line, so here we are.
Last edited:
Yeah, and considering you're convinced it's a lie you didn't do a very good of looking at the evidence.
It's not pedantry, it's wilfully not understanding how international agreements work. Taking slices of text in isolation without the entire framework of how and why they were put in place.
Take NATO article 5 that everyone talks about, if you want to be pedantic even if it is invoked no country has to do anything to aid a member that is attacked because it doesn't explicitly state it.
It's not a computer game where if a friendly nation is attacked, swords are automatically placed on enemy icons because you clicked OK to an alliance, nor are they heavily detailed 10000-page contracts spelling out every detail.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,022
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Even if we did (I find truth supporting the claims very hard to find unsurprisingly). The verbal agreements would have been with the USSR anyway. Which ceased to exist.
Russia does not get to pick and choose which bits of USSR agreements they may want to be party to.
Russia is not the USSR.
If there had of been any serious significant attempts to hold any weight to it then there would have been a treaty. Just like the Budapest memorandum.
The lack of any such agreement tells you all you need to know.
- Status