Colors of Blue and Gold

[Joe Elliott]

You need to stop them there - right?  Or they will overrun "Europe." 

Stop making up stuff. Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO. But yes they need to be stopped in Ukraine, for two reasons;

I agree. Russia won't overrun Europe. But only because of the strong stand being taken by Ukraine, the U. S. and western Europe.

But if things change, this could happen.

If we withdraw our support of Ukraine, Ukraine could eventually fall to Russia.

If we continue to appear weak, the west pares it's armies, Russia could launch a sudden attack to occupy some or all of the Baltic states. And, before NATO launches a strong counter attack, Russia could draw a 'Red Line', declare the Baltics are sacred to Russia and will result in a Nuclear war if we attack Russia. That is, the part of 'Russia' that was just recently the Baltic States. And from time to time repeat this process every few years. With the West becoming more and more discouraged with each defeat and Russia becoming bolder and bolder. It's not any more implausable than a thoroughly defeated 1918 Germany occupying France in 1940.

But, for now, the only danger is to a part of Ukraine. Or, perhaps, all of Ukraine, if we withhold our support.

[Joe Elliott]

In 1994, the United States pressured Ukraine to give up the Nuclear Weapons it got from the break up of the Soviet Union.

In exchange, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine. And the U. S. promised that Russia will never attack Ukraine.

The aid we give to Ukraine is a great deal for us. It wrecks a great power that has been a menace to World Peace for decades. Being the principle reason for all the billions we have spent each year for many decades. Now, for a fraction of our yearly expenditures on defense, we are getting that menaced wrecked. If we could do the same with China, if a similar amount of aid to Taiwan could wreck the threat of China, our military expenditures could be greatly reduced in the coming years.

But over and above the practical considerations, there is the moral consideration. The promises of the United States should mean something. We made a promise to Ukraine that we have been unable to fulfil. The least we can do, in exchange of reducing Nuclear Proliferation, which was and is so important to us, is give full support to Ukraine. Much more than we have given so far. Let's make good our promise, that if we can't prevent a Russia attack, at least give Ukraine the tools that will enable Russia to totally fail. So that we will have at least partially keep our promises.

[Jon Banks]

In 1994, the United States pressured Ukraine to give up the Nuclear Weapons it got from the break up of the Soviet Union.

In exchange, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine. And the U. S. promised that Russia will never attack Ukraine.

Ukraine had nukes but they didn't have the launch codes. So the nukes were useless to them. Also, Ukraine voted to leave the USSR in 1991 so your first sentence is inaccurate.

As for Russia, they argue that the US didn't uphold its end of the deal because we expanded NATO up to Russia's doorstep after promises made to Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO.

The aid we give to Ukraine is a great deal for us.

It's a bad deal for Ukraine which was one of the poorest countries in Europe before the 2022 invasion and has lost millions of people since last year. It will take Ukraine decades to recover from this war. And the war was totally avoidable if less bellicose policies towards Russia were taken by the US and NATO.

Do you really care about Ukraine or are you suggesting that you support them being used as geopolitical pawns on a chessboard? Because that's the way it looks from my POV.

But over and above the practical considerations, there is the moral consideration. The promises of the United States should mean something.

Does that rationale apply to the promises the US made to Russia about not expanding NATO?

[Richard Smith]

There is no doubt that "Europe" has made some token donations, but the US is providing the vast majority of military support.  Hundreds of billions.

You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it will never become true. Get your facts straight and show us some actual evidence for the "hundreds of billions" that the US has provided.

You need to stop them there - right?  Or they will overrun "Europe." 

Stop making up stuff. Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO. But yes they need to be stopped in Ukraine, for two reasons;

No one is saying Russia will overrun "Europe"?  HA HA HA.  That has been a cornerstone of the entire leftist propaganda machine promoting the war.  The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler.   Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light.  It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists.  This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy.  Putin became the proxy target.  It would be humorous that a war has been fought on that basis if the consequences were not so tragic. 

[Jon Banks]

   [a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/18/ukraine-russia-south-korea-00097563"]Politico: Ukraine could become a 'Frozen Conflict', U.S. officials say[/a]

U.S. officials are planning for the growing possibility that the Russia-Ukraine war will turn into a frozen conflict that lasts many years — perhaps decades — and joins the ranks of similar lengthy face-offs in the Korean peninsula, South Asia and beyond.

The options discussed within the Biden administration for a long-term “freeze” include where to set potential lines that Ukraine and Russia would agree not to cross, but which would not have to be official borders. The discussions — while provisional — have taken place across various U.S. agencies and in the White House.

It’s a scenario that may prove the most realistic long-term outcome given that neither Kyiv nor Moscow appear inclined to ever admit defeat. It’s also becoming increasingly likely amid the growing sense within the administration that an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive won’t deal a mortal blow to Russia.

A frozen conflict — in which fighting pauses but neither side is declared the victor nor do they agree that the war is officially over — also could be a politically palatable long-term result for the United States and other countries backing Ukraine.

It would mean the number of military clashes would fall, the costs of supporting Kyiv also likely would drop, and public attention to the war would wane.

“We are planning for the long term, whether it looks frozen or thawed,” said a U.S. official familiar with the Biden administration’s discussions on Ukraine. The official said such planning is a growing focus of the administration, whereas in past months “it was all about the urgent and short-term.”

Two other U.S. officials and a former Biden administration official confirmed that an extended freeze in fighting is one possibility for which the U.S. is preparing. U.S. officials also are thinking through the long-term security ties Washington will have with Kyiv, as well as Ukraine’s relationship with the NATO military alliance.

“There’s a school of thought that says, ‘Oh, the Ukrainians have to have [the city of] Mariupol and Azov Sea access.’ There’s others less hung up about the placement of the lines as long as Ukraine is secure going into the future,” the former administration official said, describing the internal conversations.

Such discussions remain in early stages, with the U.S. officials stressing that the war will remain hot for quite some time and that the Biden administration is intent on providing Ukraine with the weapons and support it needs to push the Russians out of as much territory as possible.

Realism may ultimately win afterall but not before thousands more Ukrainians and Russians are killed.

[Martin Weidmann]

No one is saying Russia will overrun "Europe"?  HA HA HA.  That has been a cornerstone of the entire leftist propaganda machine promoting the war.  The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler.   Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light.  It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists.  This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy.  Putin became the proxy target.  It would be humorous that a war has been fought on that basis if the consequences were not so tragic.

The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler.

First of all, I never mentioned Hitler. Secondly, invading other countries is not the same as overrunning Europe.

Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light.

Nobody is changing a story. You just misrepresent what was actually said, as per usual!~

It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists.

Hilarious. What a load of BS

This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy. 

Are you now idiotically claiming that the Russian invasion of Ukraine had something to the with the (not so fake) Russion collusion case?

And, Trump isn't "somehow" an enemy of democracy. He is the impitamy of an enemy of democracy.

[Rick Plant]

President Biden never had to leave a NATO summit early because world leaders were laughing at him. Leaders around the world respect President Biden.

Criminal Donald was an absolute joke and world leaders were not shy about making that known. The only leaders Criminal Donald gushed over were murderous dictators like Putin and Kim Jung Un, who used Donnie for a fool to take advantage of his ignorance so they could advance their nefarious agenda. 

Trump leaves NATO summit early after video shows leaders laughing at him
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2019/12/04/trump-to-leave-nato-summit-early-after-video-shows-leaders-laughing-at-him.html

[Joe Elliott]

Ukraine had nukes but they didn't have the launch codes. So the nukes were useless to them. Also, Ukraine voted to leave the USSR in 1991 so your first sentence is inaccurate.

If this was true, why was the United States and Russia so keen for Ukraine to give them up? Obviously, it would be much simpler for Ukraine to figure out how to make modifications to make these missiles operational than it would be to do this from scratch. If nothing else, they would have a mass of fissile material that can be used to make a nuclear bomb, a big first step. If nothing else, Russia wouldn’t know if Ukraine had nuclear capability and that alone might have stopped them from attempting to take Kiev, the first step in taking over all of Ukraine.

As for Russia, they argue that the US didn't uphold its end of the deal because we expanded NATO up to Russia's doorstep after promises made to Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO.

First of all, Russia is just pretending to be afraid of NATO attack. No matter how strong NATO gets, Russia can’t be attacked because if it’s nuclear deterrence. The Russians have a similar organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization. How much As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing do we do about countries joining the CSTO? None. Because we have no intention of taking them out one at a time.

Nations that want to expand always complain about other counties defensive agreements. Germany claimed that if Belgium entered into a defensive agreement with France, Germany would be threatened. Germany might have to attack Belgium to keep Germany safe. It was the lack of defensive agreement that helped France fall. The main attack came through the hills of forests of the Ardennes in southern Belgium. Belgium didn’t defend this region because they guessed that France might. France didn’t defend this region because they guessed that Belgium might. Something that could have been avoided if they coordinated their forces in case Belgium was attacked. So, the main panzer force was able to advance against almost no opposition until they were through the forest.

Secondly, the promise to never invade Ukraine was made on paper. The promise to not expand NATO was spoken. That is a big difference.

The promise not to expand NATO was made in 1990, when East Germany rejoined West Germany to form Germany. East of Germany was solidly controlled Soviet territory, Poland, the Baltic States. So, yes, it seemed to the U. S. negotiator that NATO would never expand to those areas. Moscow would never allow it.

In any case the notion that spoken agreements are just as binding as written agreements is nonsense. One miss-statement, at any point, during negotiations can allow a country to break its written promises. A nation can say “If you give me something now, I will always never invade you”. Then, after getting what they want, they can point to some miss-statement, or an alleged miss-statement, possibly made by someone, to go back on their written promise. That is why treaties are written down. So, everyone knows what is being agreed to.

Yes, if it was written down that NATO that in exchange for Russia’s promise not to invade, NATO would never expand, then NATO could not expand without breaking the treaty.

If spoken promises are binding, then written promises can always be broken by falsely claiming that spoken promises were made. Something that cannot be done with written agreements. Which, as I said before, is why treaties are written.

Question: Can spoken promises, or alleged spoken promises, justify the breaking of written treaties?

It's a bad deal for Ukraine which was one of the poorest countries in Europe before the 2022 invasion and has lost millions of people since last year. It will take Ukraine decades to recover from this war. And the war was totally avoidable if less bellicose policies towards Russia were taken by the US and NATO.

Ukraine has great agricultural production. And great iron and coal resources. I wonder why it is one of the poorest countries in Europe? I know. It’s because if hundred of years of autocratic Moscow rule. It is because during most of the past 30 years, Ukraine was been ruled by Moscow approved dictators. And whenever Ukraine tried to chose democracy, Russia attacks without fail. Ukraine has been poor for the same reason Russia has been relatively poor, despite a very well-educated population, despite great natural resources. Autocratic rule, under the czars, under the Soviets, under Putin, that always look for ways to enrich themselves, at the expense of the people of Russia and Ukraine.

Under Russia rule, losing millions of Ukrainians is nothing new. Under Russian misrule, millions of Ukrainians starved to death in the early 1930’s. Then, Russian misrule in 1939, caused Russia to make a deal with Hitler, allowing him to defeat France, which freed him up to attack the Soviet Union, resulting in millions of more Ukrainians being killed. At least now, the lose of “millions of Ukrainians” is to emigration, which I believe is temporary. But temporary or not, at least it is not millions of deaths.

And yes, I know, you can say that was Soviet rule. Soviet rule from Moscow. To me, it was Russian misrule. Just a different name.

If the Russians take over Ukraine, who’s to say future misrule won’t result in millions of deaths. If these future deaths were to occur, it would be due to the “mistakes” of Russian rulers. Considering the past, Ukraine is right to do whatever it takes to avoid this fate.

Do you really care about Ukraine or are you suggesting that you support them being used as geopolitical pawns on a chessboard? Because that's the way it looks from my POV.

From my point of view, you are a Russian apologist. Who prefers autocratic rule. Who cares nothing for democracy.

I’m not saying Ukraine must be forced to fight. Whether they want to or not. Because it helps us. But if Ukraine wants to fight, if they don’t want to be ruled by Moscow, if they don’t want the risk millions of Ukrainian lives being lost to the whims of Moscow as has happened in the past, then we should support them. But if Ukraine decides to throw in the towel, I will be the first to support their decision. But until them, we should support them.

It is you who cares nothing for Ukrainians. Who, it doesn’t matter the least bit what Ukrainians think or want. It doesn’t matter the least to you what Moscow has done to the Ukrainians in the past. And clearly Russia seems determine to stamp our Ukraine culture, stamp out the Ukrainian language. To you, it doesn’t matter in the least what Ukrainians want. We should stop aid to Ukraine regardless.

Question: Do you think we should stop military aid to Ukraine. Regardless of what Ukrainians think?

If so, how is it that I am the one who cares nothing about Ukrainians.

I suspect you won’t advocate stopping all Ukrainian military aid. Just as much as you can convince others to stop. And if you can someday convince others to stop all aid to Ukraine, that would be fine with you.