Posted on 03/19/2022 4:49:27 PM PDT by conservative98
Now, shills for this war on the right like Mark Levin and Sean Hannity were confronted with the truth.
From your link:
"[The US] ...agreed to the following:"
"Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they 'should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used'."
It would appear that the US is obligated to seek UN action - NOT intervene militarily on a unilateral basis, as so many are advocating...
Yes I find a lot of the commentary from the Communist Party USA website, CPUSA, to be fully supportive of Putin, and caring all the talking points against Ukraine such as they are “Nazis and drug addicts”, and that it was “never a country in the first place”… It’s something I would never have imagined 20 years ago on free Republic, but a certain colour of posters here would be lockstep with the Communists. Horse then again when Trump befriended the Stalinist dictator Kim Jong Un and everybody around her got silent on the issue of North Korean persecution of Christians and their nuclear programs or ballistic launches , that should’ve been the first indication that things would be going out of whack with not an insignificant portion of folks. Incredible. Surreal. 1984.
Provide your source for this information
Right...and Iran doesn't have uranium and Fauxi didn't create a bio-weapon in Wuhan.
You'll have to be more specific. Which info from which post?
If there ever was a time that we needed a President like Donald Trump, it is now.
You overlook the first 3 items:
1) Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[23]
2) Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
3) Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.
Per the original agreement
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
Since what we’re witnessing is an OBVIOUS fracking invasion but the appeasers, putinists, communists, and statist bootlickers all seem to think that an invasion does not qualify as a breach of the agreement, then it would be no breach of the agreement if WE went in and “didn’t invade” Ukraine. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. IF it aint an invasion for the Rukes, it aint an invasion for anyone else, including NATO members.
“2.
Read the Agreement, and do what it says.”
Which is what ?
“But in de facto reality, that agreement is void.”
So again, what do you think should be done?
What I think should be done is quite different than “what should be done”. Because I think that, since the agreement is void, we should just help them build some nukes, by huk or by cruk. If they had kept those nukes, there would have been no invasions.
But “what should be done” implies that others would have input into the response, which means here come the politicians with their mumblypeg responses and bullshiite along with the putinista pantywaist brigade. They are BARELY willing to allow us to provide weapons, like we did when Russia invaded and tried to annex Afghanistan.
John Mearsheimer - probably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015:
“The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked .... What we’re doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
CIA director Bill Burns in 2008:
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]” and “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that “[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level.” He adds “if you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute’s senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.”
Today he adds “we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance”.
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that “[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level.”
***How the hell is it “PUSHING” into NATO? Each member nation asks to join. 69% of Ukes want to be in NATO.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-nato-idUSKBN19V12V
If you’re asking that question then you don’t understand NATO.
“what I think should be done is quite different than “what should be done”.” is a quite convenient dodge from my question.
A totally mumbly bullshiite (to use your terms) response.
I told you what I think. I told you what I perceive other people think should be done. There is no fracking dodge.
If you’re asserting something without evidence then you don’t understand inductive logic.
Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance (NATO) in history toward another major power would not end well. - The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.
The last reasonably friendly warning from Russia that the alliance needed to back off came in March 2007, when Putin addressed the annual Munich security conference. .......“Nato has put its frontline forces on our borders,” Putin complained. Nato expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”
The Obama administration’s shockingly arrogant meddling in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s elected, pro‐Russia president was the single most brazen provocation, and it caused tensions to spike. -Moscow immediately responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war was underway ‘with a vengeance’
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1504103672019513345.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/ukraine_world
https://threadreaderapp.com/hashtag/UKRAINE
They’re simply not getting it. The Ukes were ambivalent about NATO membership all along. That’s why little snot countries like Estonia got in, but the Ukes have had an on-again/off-again relationship with the NATO MAP.
What the Ukes wanted was to be left alone. They wanted aggressive neutrality. They even gave up nukes towards that desire, only to be betrayed by us and invaded by their bully neighbor twice.
Putin blaming NATO expansion is like your wife having a headache. Any excuse will do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.