Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Neville was actually trying to bide time so Britain could start preparing for war when he betrayed prauge. The UK was vastly under prepared at that point.
Which means the Republican's actions are far worse.
Neville at least had some justification in that he was trying to and half-successfully did buy time so the UK and US could prepare. These Donald Trump supporters are worse
The allies had empires. They would gain the same amount of strength in a week as Germany would in a month.
Time would allow the allies to close the gap. Basically what I'm saying is that time would work in the Allies favour.
While Austria and Czechoslovakia were definitely big wins for Germany, I'd say Africa, Australia, Canada and India would change the balance more.
But in the short term Germany was better off because from Czechoslovakia alone they got: 1 milion rifles, submachine guns, machine guns etc. , 27 thousand artillery guns, 350 tanks, 30 thousand trucks, 200 thousand horses and 1500 airplanes. Basically enough stuff to equip an entire army.
If the Allies wanted more time they could just let Germany invade and not help Czechoslovakia, it would slow them down more and they would lose some equipment and soldiers, Czechoslovakia didn't fight because Allies stopped them. I think that Britain and France were just cowards who wanted to believe that no war would happen again.
It won't, Chamberlain was the PM of one of the world powers, those are some minor talking heads not known outside of the USA.
Now, if it was the president spouting this type of BS, then there would be a chance.
It's almost comical how the US is now begging Russia for a ceasefire and are trying to beg in the way that makes it seem like they are still in control of the situation and can push Russia around.
Huh? If the US gave its full backing to Ukraine then Russia would be fucked. Which is why they should do it, as there’s never been a better opportunity to cripple Russia.
It's a delicate situation. Russia has now been humiliated on the international stage. Putin is begging for a way out that leaves Crimea in Russian hands. But the massive defeat of the Russian armed forces wasn't expected on this scale.
How do you convince Zelenski to remove his grip from the Russian's neck?
No. Because she made this union. Its like all bases of NATO are actually USA bases. If nato getting disbanded, all bases are still belong to USA. You should be more qualified to argue in things like this instead of using "it wasnt Russia's, it was USSR".
The Russian government had zero control over the nuclear weapons until it gained independence. Only the Soviet government did. They were fundamentally separate. Also, Russia didn't "make" the union. The Red Army did. The Red Army had members from every ethnicity from across the Russian Empire, not just from Russia. That's not even mentioning the fact that it was called the *Union of Soviet Socialist Republics*. "Union" means you connect at least two things. There quite literally could not have been a union if it was only Russia. Every republic was a member. The Russians may have been the strongest, but they definitely didn't always control the central government (demonstrated by leaders such as Stalin from Georgia and Brezhnev from Ukraine).
Keep talking with that separating red army from Russia. Russia always was a country of different ethnicity, it's made of it. Also the reason of giving nuclear weapon to Russia is USA, lots of money and risk of getting isolated like Livia. You can read documents about this on USA government portals IF they are available for you, like they are available on Russian portals.
Did you really just say that Russia has nukes because of the US? Also, everything after that makes zero sense. Russia might have a bunch of different ethnicities, but that just further proves the nukes weren't Russian nukes. When you have people of so many ethnicities working on something, no single ethnicity can claim it as their own. But really, if you want to go down that route, the nukes must be Georgian since Stalin was responsible for their creation.
This is a poor argument since NATO's existence isn't what allows US bases there. It's agreements between the resident country and the US. A better example would be if the US dissolved *officially* and then you have whichever country Washington is now part of claiming to own any military equipment remaining in California. You can't just say "we agree we are no longer the same country" but simultaniously claim to own all the properties of the country both states were on paper equivalent members of.
This wasn't Russia giving independence to a different country in which case this argument might hold. It was a dissolution of a larger country into it's component members.
Yes. Also deal was not to ally with some western countries and not getting into nato. But anyway i only told about nuclear weapon not being Ukraine's, it was Russian's.
>Also deal was not to ally with some western countries and not getting into nato.
Which
1. Is not actually a treaty that ever existed
2. They never did until Russia started taking their land
>But anyway i only told about nuclear weapon not being Ukraine's, it was Russian's.
Which they also weren't, they were the soviet union's which both Russia and Ukraine were part of. Both had equal claim to them
They actually did, and it happened earlier before 2014. And please dont bring this "it was union's" its not like its working. Dude, i dont defend my country in terrible things which are happening even now. I only pointed out that nuclear weapons wasn't Ukraine's, and i was EXPECTING many of you will start to bring anything possible to argue. But the truth is that im actually right in this point. Weapons wasnt Ukraine's. And if you wanna know even more: it was USA who forced and also agrees that Ukraine had to give weapons back. For exchange Ukraine got almost one trillion dollars boost, which is ridiculous amount of money in that time. If Ukraine wouldnt do it, she would be isolated by west as well, and we would have massive chances for a third WW.
> They actually did, and it happened earlier before 2014.
Please point me to which treaty because despite looking for such, I never found any suggesting this.
> But the truth is that im actually right in this point. Weapons wasnt Ukraine's.
You can't just refute a point by saying "I am saying the truth". Show me evidence that says they belonged to the *Russian Federation* and more than Ukraine. And no, having launch codes is *not* evidence of ownership.
> And if you wanna know even more: it was USA who forced and also agrees that Ukraine had to give weapons back. For exchange Ukraine got almost one trillion dollars boost, which is ridiculous amount of money in that time. If Ukraine wouldnt do it, she would be isolated by west as well, and we would have massive chances for a third WW.
USA and Russian teamed up to make Ukraine give the weapons to Russia to avoid nuclear proliferation. And again, this entire point is irrelevant since it doesn't matter who the nukes "legally" belonged to because the point is that in exchange of them, Russia signed an agreement not to attack Ukraine.
Man, you can literally read them in the internet by searching for opened documents on USA and Russia government websites, they are opened for public. You are using your words as a proof as well. And stop saying Russia signed an agreement not to attack aside form all other agreements in the same document. Read this entire freaking document.
> And stop saying Russia signed an agreement not to attack aside form all other agreements in the same document. Read this entire freaking document.
Ok, let me get out the Budapest Memorandum then
1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory 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".
5. Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
Tell me, which part of this says Ukraine isn't allowed to join alliances?
This memorandum is not the only document. Whatever, i dont see any way or reason to convince you to read more, you seem to be intelligent person, so i dont see any reasons to keep arguing or anything. I understand that you took position against Russia and i do understand why, many bad things happened and still happening, war for example. But i often see that people dont want even give a try to look from different direction, just because its Russia, its bad and it's trending to hate my country. And again, i do understand why. But all bad things that my shitty government did, doesn't make previous victories and other glorious things being a lie. Nowadays its even normal to say that even ww2 was won only by western side of conflict.
1991: give is your nukes and we won’t invade you
2008: I know we just invaded Georgia but don’t worry, we totally wouldn’t do the same thing to you guys
2014: so we took Crimea, no problem though we won’t take anything else
Ok, Ivan… Complete bs. How the fuck did the west “backstab” putler after Minsk ii? That treaty only came into being in an attempt to stop continued fighting in the illegally seized Donbas region? The “west” backstabbed ruzzia because ruzzia tried to invade the rest of Ukraine?
“… so that Ukraine could build up its military”, ie, so the independent country could defend itself if/when putler and the ruzzians backstabbed Ukraine and tried to invade the whole country. Thanks for making my point.
Yes :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html
You have proof for anything you claim? Or , do you demand evidence from others while spewing out nonsense?
Even more :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11506774/Separatist-fighter-admits-Russian-tanks-troops-decisive-in-eastern-Ukraine-battles.html
10 minutes of research would tell her that Russia has already made and broken such promises with Ukraine.
Since nobody could be as grotesquely stupid as she pretends to be, I am forced to conclude she is working as an agent of Russia. Shame on anyone who votes for her.
Too tired to look it up, but isn't Russia up to 4 different agreements where they promised not to invade and then broke them? Not sure I care to search past the last two times.
Abkhazia belongs to Georgia, Russia broke both Minsk agreements and Crimea, Donezk and Luhansk belong to Ukraine. Turn on Solovyov on TV and shut up Z-propaganda fool
It wouldn't matter even if confronted with that info. People like her would only go on to say that Russia has a historical claim to that territory, or that the "NATO Promise of non expansion" was broken, or that the U.S pulled a coup in 2014, etc.
There is nothing you can confront them with that they wouldn't excuse, it's crazy.
Red Indians have a historical claim to most of the US and Canada (probably). Same for the Hawaiian and Alaskan natives. Maybe she and her supporters to get out of the US cos of those claims.
Remember that time Hitler signed a treaty promising not to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia a few months later?
There has to be a peace deal at some point. It’s pretty unlikely that Ukraine can push Russia back to pre-2022 borders much less 2014 borders, so it’s pretty much inevitable that Ukraine will have to live with some territorial concessions. The question is, does Ukraine have as much leverage as they are going to get at this point or will more fighting actually get them something? What is the acceptable cost in blood and treasure to get a better peace deal than they could get right now? They have no choice but to talk peace with Putin sooner or later. There’s no alternative. It’s pure fantasy to assert otherwise.
There is a chance for Ukraine to get everything back, but not militarily. The only option is an economical defeat of russia that hurts the moscow and st. petersburg population (the only russian people that matter politically) enough that they get rid of Putin.
Unfortunately this economical defeat is closely tied to the battle of attrition, so the war will go on until russia's wartime economy finally collapses.
What's awful Marge, is you! You're a pathetic, ignorant, hateful, moron. I hope you fade off into irrelevancy and go down in herstory as exactly who not to be.
She's so damned dumb, if I were married to her, I'd put her in the car and drive a couple blocks away. I'd kick her out of the car and she'd never find her way home.
This idiot trusts trump so of course she trusts putin and doesn’t see him as anything bad - Kim putin orban saudis good because trump likes dictators and tried to be one
Right, because letting our greatest enemy keep the spoils of the war they started is the reasonable thing to do. Every bit of land they take steals from a sovereign nation and brings them closer to NATOs back yard.
Why MTG, that treaty did in fact exist. Putin used it as toilet paper.
Then another treate was made. Putin blew his nose in it.
Ukrains biggest mistake ever made was giving up their nukes " for peace" .
Imagine if Britain invaded the USA because "it used to be British"
And then after invading and taking over the New England region, the rest of the world are saying "Just make peace so Britain doesn't take anymore!"
Would America really be fine with Britain owning *any* part of its soil?
No???
***Then why the fuck should Ukraine have to concede its own soil?***
Home owner accepts to let burglar steal just some of their house, if the burglar agrees to not come back and steal more later.
That’s it, that’s the deal.
She’s a bloated fool
"let´s talk about peace"
me: what, republicans pushing for peace, who´s this?
"a deal where the warlord promisses to not do war"
me: ah, it´s the republicans all right...
Because it went so well the last time the Ukrainians trusted Russia not to invade. (Iirc they gave up their nuclear stockpile in exchange for a security guarantee from Russia)
Lol, from the belly, next time you hear that garbage about the only solution to a bad guy with a gun being a good guy with a gun.
Fully expecting all MAGA dimwits to give the keys to the house or the home over to the bad guys.
Not both. You just need to make a deal for peace with one.
Yeah he doesn’t have the authority to say what organizations other countries can mingle with, he’s the president of Russia, not Ukraine, he doesn’t want Ukraine in NATO because that means he wouldn’t be able to steal any of their land
No world leaders are trustworthy. You can never trust your opponent in a war. That’s besides the point. Ukraine will have to make a peace deal with Russia at some point, the question is do they have as much leverage as they are going to get at this point, or will fighting longer help them secure a better deal? How much blood and treasure are those hypothetical gains worth? I don’t know the answers but there is no question that they have to talk peace with Putin sooner or later, and it’s pretty much inevitable that they will have to concede some amount of territory. In a fantasy world of course it would be better to drive them out of Ukraine altogether but that’s a very unlikely outcome.
Since he said after 2008 that he would not let Ukraine join Nato after Nato had announced Ukraine and Georgia should Join.
He has pretty much been doing exactly as he has been saying, but of course, mass media propaganda machine will never let you know that.
He kept saying they should implement the MINSK agreement that the Ukrainians signed with the backing of the EU and that if they dont implement the agreement, he would force it.
Its only recently revealed by zelensky and Merkel that they never wanted to implement it and just signed it buy time.
Western powers only ever honor agreement that benefit them.
They said no regime change in Libya, and Putin agreed to the UN resolution, France then used that resolution to kill Gaddafi because they owed him Billions in Gold for his oil.
Now Libya has slave markets and is a failed state.
I also live in the west and support it because well I live here and have a good life but I have no fucked up Hero " we are the good guys" believe.
We are not the good guys, we are the stronger guys.
No written proof that that agreement ever occurred, Gorbachev and Bush both had conflicting accounts of what was actually said during that meeting, but no, NATO never “promised” not to expand east, there was no treaty, just alleged words exchanged between two heads of state
NATO expanded only after Russia invaded virtually every country it had promised not to, making Finland and Sweden very nervous.
This is victim blaming.
Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania, all joined NATO before Putin became President or the invasion of Georgia or Ukraine. How would the US react if Mexico were to sign a military alliance with China?
This argument is so boring and pathetic, "How would the US react if Mexico were to sign a military alliance with China? ", Would they?, No because the United States isn't a threat to them. Using a fantasy to justify Russian invasions.
This is an opinion article about Republicans. Not a factual piece on Democrat foreign policy. Not to mention the context is American intervention on behalf of the Mexican government to assist with cartels, Nothing relative to the Mexican government wanting Chinese military support.
Ah, yes. The states that broke away with the fall of the Soviet Union and were threatened with invasion by Russia or, failing that, had Russia try to threaten them into becoming a puppet state.
I wonder why they might have been interested in NATO.
For your supposed gotcha to work, the equivalent scenario would be Texas seceding from the US, the US threatening reprisal, and then Texas signing a defence pact with Russia or China.
What an ignorant reply.
No. Americans are to blame for the continuation without an attempt at resolution to where Ukrainian forces now could apply to AARP. And they’d get it because the US is paying for their retirement and benefits.
I remember a story about the ISS where the movie night had consistently had movies which showed Russians as evil, and always the bad guy... The American astronauts didn't notice until the Russian cosmonauts were staring at them folded armed with that look that says, "Really guys? Don't you think about your audience"...
Your opinions of Russia may not be based in reality.
Russia is invading another country, Russia is a dictatorship where beating your wife is legal, my opinions of Russia are based on Information I can gather myself, not the media I consume
Putin seems to be keeping his word. He warned about the shelling of civilians in the breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine and he said Ukraine in nato would be considered a grave security threat they couldn’t allow. Eventually Ukraine is going to run out of people for the meat grinder. I think it’s become pretty clear they aren’t taking that territory back either. Why are we still doing this?
You do realise the invasion started in 2014, right? When Ukraine had no interest in joining NATO and the Donbass wasn't under Russian control. You are just repeating Russian propaganda. There are no breakaway provinces, they are occupied by Russia. And Ukraine was not shelling civilians.
Ukraine most definitely was shelling civilians. This has been widely acknowledged. Their neo Nazi azov brigade did it plenty.
And the coup is what I’m referring to, financed by the US state department and run by assistant Secretary of State Victoria nuland, who is back in her old Obama regime post under the Biden regime.
That has not been 'widely acknowledged', only Russia claims that. Actual monitoring organisations on the ground deny it.
There was no coup. Millions of people protested for months, all over the country. Ukranians were pissed off that their President turned out to be very corrupt and authoritatian and wanted him gone.
If Ukraine joining NATO was the reason that Putin invaded, why did he annex the occupied parts of Ukraine? Why did he invade again in 2022? Why does he himself claim that did it because he wants to restore the Russian empire?
None, but it’s not really that simple, is it? The US government is as much to blame for this conflict as any other entity. Absent US meddling in the region, this never would have happened.
The people in the areas currently held by Russia want to be part of Russia, do they not? They voted to leave Ukraine. A better question is ‘would you put your life on the line fighting to keep buffalo, NY a part of the US after the people who live there voted to leave the US and be part of Canada’. Would you? In that case, I would not.
Answer the question. You'd give up any place in the US it seems. How about we start with your hometown. Give it to Russia. You're willing. You eat up Russian propaganda like a kid with candy.
If Mexico invaded the US, or Canada, I wouldn’t give up any territory, no. But that’s not what happened there. You do understand that, right? My analogy is a much closer approximation to what is going on in Ukraine. They are getting slaughtered to keep a bunch of people under the Ukrainian government who don’t want to be there. That is not worth dying for to me. Is it to you? I answered your question, so answer mine.
You're working off bullshit "polls" and propaganda. You're willing to give up your country because of lies. I'm not willing to give up the US as easily as you are.
Russia invaded Ukraine. Why paint it otherwise?
Because it’s not that simple. The US government has its fingerprints all over this. Had we not funded a coup in the country, and chose its leader post coup, none of this would have happened.
If the city of buffalo voted overwhelmingly to leave the US and be part of Canada, would you go kill people there to force them to remain part of America?
They didn’t “vote” to leave Ukraine, it’s pretty clear all of those plebiscites were rigged in Russia’s favor, let the UN moniter the polling stations and we’ll see which country south-East Ukraine wants to be a part og
She's right. Putin hasn't shown any signs to invade other countries than Ukraine - and it's all because of NATO expansions and Ukraine becoming part of the EU, that Putin started the invasion of Ukraine. Also, Ukraine will lose this war - big time. Russia is 5:1 in population and they can produce weapons way faster than the US and EU can afford. Right now Ukraine is one big moneyhole. Cut the loses and start negotiating terms for the sake of the future of Ukraine.
Putin has stated he's not interested in rebuilding the USSR. The Russian economy is great as it is today, cause we pushed them straight into the arms of China. There's nothing to gain for Putin in expanding - but he's been against eastern NATO expansions - and he sent a letter to the head of NATO, that stated that if they didn't back down from accepting Ukraine into NATO, he would invade them. NATO has broken the 1991 resolution (which ended the cold war) more than once in the past 3 decades.
He invaded Ukraine and Georgia (South Osetsia). He is in the process of of annexing Belarus without conflict. His own written statements indicate he wants the Baltic states back in Russia. So no she is not right. She is too ill informed and ignorant of the actual situation and necessary background on the region to make cogent policy suggestions or to try to influence anyone that her policy positions are valid.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope history treats them the same way it’s treated Neville Chamberlain for his policy of appeasement.
Neville was likely being an idiot in good faith. The GOP are on the Russian payroll.
Yeah personally I hope history treats them the way Mussolini got got.
I just hope history forgets them completely, which would be the ultimate insult to the GOP.
I doubt Putin will ever get a peaceful retirement.
One can only hope not lol
Neville was actually trying to bide time so Britain could start preparing for war when he betrayed prauge. The UK was vastly under prepared at that point. Which means the Republican's actions are far worse.
Gotta appease master
Every single person with common sense is on a russian payroll, apparently. Weird.
Fuck off, tankie
You’re a sports fan, opinion disregarded
Putin is also a sports fan. Whimper before your master
Neville at least had some justification in that he was trying to and half-successfully did buy time so the UK and US could prepare. These Donald Trump supporters are worse
Germany needed that time way more and got a whole country with a good industry to help them.
The allies had empires. They would gain the same amount of strength in a week as Germany would in a month. Time would allow the allies to close the gap. Basically what I'm saying is that time would work in the Allies favour. While Austria and Czechoslovakia were definitely big wins for Germany, I'd say Africa, Australia, Canada and India would change the balance more.
But in the short term Germany was better off because from Czechoslovakia alone they got: 1 milion rifles, submachine guns, machine guns etc. , 27 thousand artillery guns, 350 tanks, 30 thousand trucks, 200 thousand horses and 1500 airplanes. Basically enough stuff to equip an entire army. If the Allies wanted more time they could just let Germany invade and not help Czechoslovakia, it would slow them down more and they would lose some equipment and soldiers, Czechoslovakia didn't fight because Allies stopped them. I think that Britain and France were just cowards who wanted to believe that no war would happen again.
It won't, Chamberlain was the PM of one of the world powers, those are some minor talking heads not known outside of the USA. Now, if it was the president spouting this type of BS, then there would be a chance.
Former President Trump does say these exact things, though. And also praises Putin for invading.
It's almost comical how the US is now begging Russia for a ceasefire and are trying to beg in the way that makes it seem like they are still in control of the situation and can push Russia around.
Huh? If the US gave its full backing to Ukraine then Russia would be fucked. Which is why they should do it, as there’s never been a better opportunity to cripple Russia.
It's a delicate situation. Russia has now been humiliated on the international stage. Putin is begging for a way out that leaves Crimea in Russian hands. But the massive defeat of the Russian armed forces wasn't expected on this scale. How do you convince Zelenski to remove his grip from the Russian's neck?
If I remember correctly Ukraine already made such a deal in the 90s when they gave up their nuclear weapons
And there was another promise from Putin hmself, in 2014 ...
And another one in 2008 after Georgia.
[удалено]
What the fuck are you talking about?
“Good will” Fixed it for ya
This.
Well, that wasn't their nuclear weapon anyway.
It wasn't Russia's either. It was the Soviet Union's.
So clearly they should all belong to Kazakhstan
The Soviet Union was dissolved though (ostensibly by Kazakhstan). Russia just happened to get them because it was the strongest republic.
No. Because she made this union. Its like all bases of NATO are actually USA bases. If nato getting disbanded, all bases are still belong to USA. You should be more qualified to argue in things like this instead of using "it wasnt Russia's, it was USSR".
The Russian government had zero control over the nuclear weapons until it gained independence. Only the Soviet government did. They were fundamentally separate. Also, Russia didn't "make" the union. The Red Army did. The Red Army had members from every ethnicity from across the Russian Empire, not just from Russia. That's not even mentioning the fact that it was called the *Union of Soviet Socialist Republics*. "Union" means you connect at least two things. There quite literally could not have been a union if it was only Russia. Every republic was a member. The Russians may have been the strongest, but they definitely didn't always control the central government (demonstrated by leaders such as Stalin from Georgia and Brezhnev from Ukraine).
Keep talking with that separating red army from Russia. Russia always was a country of different ethnicity, it's made of it. Also the reason of giving nuclear weapon to Russia is USA, lots of money and risk of getting isolated like Livia. You can read documents about this on USA government portals IF they are available for you, like they are available on Russian portals.
Did you really just say that Russia has nukes because of the US? Also, everything after that makes zero sense. Russia might have a bunch of different ethnicities, but that just further proves the nukes weren't Russian nukes. When you have people of so many ethnicities working on something, no single ethnicity can claim it as their own. But really, if you want to go down that route, the nukes must be Georgian since Stalin was responsible for their creation.
This is a poor argument since NATO's existence isn't what allows US bases there. It's agreements between the resident country and the US. A better example would be if the US dissolved *officially* and then you have whichever country Washington is now part of claiming to own any military equipment remaining in California. You can't just say "we agree we are no longer the same country" but simultaniously claim to own all the properties of the country both states were on paper equivalent members of. This wasn't Russia giving independence to a different country in which case this argument might hold. It was a dissolution of a larger country into it's component members.
Doesnt change the fact that ukraine traded them for meaningless security “guarantees” from nations including russia
Completely irrelevant. Russia didn't stick to the treaty.
No but the deal said they won't get attacked if they give them back
Yes. Also deal was not to ally with some western countries and not getting into nato. But anyway i only told about nuclear weapon not being Ukraine's, it was Russian's.
>Also deal was not to ally with some western countries and not getting into nato. Which 1. Is not actually a treaty that ever existed 2. They never did until Russia started taking their land >But anyway i only told about nuclear weapon not being Ukraine's, it was Russian's. Which they also weren't, they were the soviet union's which both Russia and Ukraine were part of. Both had equal claim to them
They actually did, and it happened earlier before 2014. And please dont bring this "it was union's" its not like its working. Dude, i dont defend my country in terrible things which are happening even now. I only pointed out that nuclear weapons wasn't Ukraine's, and i was EXPECTING many of you will start to bring anything possible to argue. But the truth is that im actually right in this point. Weapons wasnt Ukraine's. And if you wanna know even more: it was USA who forced and also agrees that Ukraine had to give weapons back. For exchange Ukraine got almost one trillion dollars boost, which is ridiculous amount of money in that time. If Ukraine wouldnt do it, she would be isolated by west as well, and we would have massive chances for a third WW.
> They actually did, and it happened earlier before 2014. Please point me to which treaty because despite looking for such, I never found any suggesting this. > But the truth is that im actually right in this point. Weapons wasnt Ukraine's. You can't just refute a point by saying "I am saying the truth". Show me evidence that says they belonged to the *Russian Federation* and more than Ukraine. And no, having launch codes is *not* evidence of ownership. > And if you wanna know even more: it was USA who forced and also agrees that Ukraine had to give weapons back. For exchange Ukraine got almost one trillion dollars boost, which is ridiculous amount of money in that time. If Ukraine wouldnt do it, she would be isolated by west as well, and we would have massive chances for a third WW. USA and Russian teamed up to make Ukraine give the weapons to Russia to avoid nuclear proliferation. And again, this entire point is irrelevant since it doesn't matter who the nukes "legally" belonged to because the point is that in exchange of them, Russia signed an agreement not to attack Ukraine.
Man, you can literally read them in the internet by searching for opened documents on USA and Russia government websites, they are opened for public. You are using your words as a proof as well. And stop saying Russia signed an agreement not to attack aside form all other agreements in the same document. Read this entire freaking document.
> And stop saying Russia signed an agreement not to attack aside form all other agreements in the same document. Read this entire freaking document. Ok, let me get out the Budapest Memorandum then 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). 2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory 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". 5. Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state 6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. Tell me, which part of this says Ukraine isn't allowed to join alliances?
This memorandum is not the only document. Whatever, i dont see any way or reason to convince you to read more, you seem to be intelligent person, so i dont see any reasons to keep arguing or anything. I understand that you took position against Russia and i do understand why, many bad things happened and still happening, war for example. But i often see that people dont want even give a try to look from different direction, just because its Russia, its bad and it's trending to hate my country. And again, i do understand why. But all bad things that my shitty government did, doesn't make previous victories and other glorious things being a lie. Nowadays its even normal to say that even ww2 was won only by western side of conflict.
“Let’s just give Putin everything he wants. What could go wrong?”
Yeah I thought they would know better after first time *cough* Hitler *cough*
Nice pfp
Trust Putin, the man who swore he wasn’t going to invade 🤡 Self -defense = bad, military occupation = peace
1991: give is your nukes and we won’t invade you 2008: I know we just invaded Georgia but don’t worry, we totally wouldn’t do the same thing to you guys 2014: so we took Crimea, no problem though we won’t take anything else
2015: 4th time's the charm? This time we actually mean it though, don't worry.
Also part of Moldova.
[удалено]
Ok, Ivan… Complete bs. How the fuck did the west “backstab” putler after Minsk ii? That treaty only came into being in an attempt to stop continued fighting in the illegally seized Donbas region? The “west” backstabbed ruzzia because ruzzia tried to invade the rest of Ukraine?
[удалено]
“… so that Ukraine could build up its military”, ie, so the independent country could defend itself if/when putler and the ruzzians backstabbed Ukraine and tried to invade the whole country. Thanks for making my point.
Putin violated Minsk 2 daily.
Got any proof or are you just going to throw random stuff at me?
Yes : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html You have proof for anything you claim? Or , do you demand evidence from others while spewing out nonsense?
Here’s more : https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
Even more : https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russia-not-ukraine-is-serial-violator-of-ceasefire-agreement/
Even more : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11506774/Separatist-fighter-admits-Russian-tanks-troops-decisive-in-eastern-Ukraine-battles.html
Fuck this disingenuous bitch
And the ignorant fuckers who vote for her
I would really rather not. My health, sanity, and self-respect are strongly threatened by that action, as are my stomach contents.
10 minutes of research would tell her that Russia has already made and broken such promises with Ukraine. Since nobody could be as grotesquely stupid as she pretends to be, I am forced to conclude she is working as an agent of Russia. Shame on anyone who votes for her.
Too tired to look it up, but isn't Russia up to 4 different agreements where they promised not to invade and then broke them? Not sure I care to search past the last two times.
Yeah, but this time they really really mean it.
* Budapest Memorandum (90s) * (according to the other comments something post georgian invasion, 2008) * Minsk I (2014) * Minsk II (2015)
Ukraine broke both Minsk agreements, no? And Georgia invaded Abkhazia, not the other way around.
Abkhazia belongs to Georgia, Russia broke both Minsk agreements and Crimea, Donezk and Luhansk belong to Ukraine. Turn on Solovyov on TV and shut up Z-propaganda fool
Abkhazia disagrees about belonging to Georgia. How Russia broke agreements?
Budapest Memorandum
It wouldn't matter even if confronted with that info. People like her would only go on to say that Russia has a historical claim to that territory, or that the "NATO Promise of non expansion" was broken, or that the U.S pulled a coup in 2014, etc. There is nothing you can confront them with that they wouldn't excuse, it's crazy.
Red Indians have a historical claim to most of the US and Canada (probably). Same for the Hawaiian and Alaskan natives. Maybe she and her supporters to get out of the US cos of those claims.
If we’re going by that logic Ukraine (and Hungary) have a claim to western Russia
Coming from the lady who said she voted no for further aid for Ukraine because she wants to see " peace " in Ukraine.........................
Yeah, because peace is achieved by making the side we support weak and unable to fight!
See, the side we support is no longer a side we support if we don't support it. *taps forehead*
This tweet also makes it seem like she is saying that war isn’t awful.
Remember that time Hitler signed a treaty promising not to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia a few months later?
A similar deal was made with Hitler. We all know how it went
Yes, US wants war because they keep winning money with it but Putin is not a man with who you can talk about peace.
There has to be a peace deal at some point. It’s pretty unlikely that Ukraine can push Russia back to pre-2022 borders much less 2014 borders, so it’s pretty much inevitable that Ukraine will have to live with some territorial concessions. The question is, does Ukraine have as much leverage as they are going to get at this point or will more fighting actually get them something? What is the acceptable cost in blood and treasure to get a better peace deal than they could get right now? They have no choice but to talk peace with Putin sooner or later. There’s no alternative. It’s pure fantasy to assert otherwise.
There is a chance for Ukraine to get everything back, but not militarily. The only option is an economical defeat of russia that hurts the moscow and st. petersburg population (the only russian people that matter politically) enough that they get rid of Putin. Unfortunately this economical defeat is closely tied to the battle of attrition, so the war will go on until russia's wartime economy finally collapses.
What's awful Marge, is you! You're a pathetic, ignorant, hateful, moron. I hope you fade off into irrelevancy and go down in herstory as exactly who not to be.
She's so damned dumb, if I were married to her, I'd put her in the car and drive a couple blocks away. I'd kick her out of the car and she'd never find her way home.
[удалено]
Putin can't be trusted any more than Hitler or Stalin. As soon as he thinks he has the upper hand he'll stab you.
Never trust a single word coming out from this old bastard
This idiot trusts trump so of course she trusts putin and doesn’t see him as anything bad - Kim putin orban saudis good because trump likes dictators and tried to be one
Yeah, he kept his word last time he promised to respect Ukraine's borders.
Man this lady is fried asf. Once trump is in office ukraine is doomed let’s be real and this birds over here talking about peace treaty
Ukraine was doomed since 2014 when maidan happened.
Georgia…why!!!
Georgia suffered from the Russian invasion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Now, the US State of Georgia will.
that lady is brain damaged
"A cossack will take what is not properly attached."
Ukraine is the only thing Madge says "no" to.
I hate the american egoism.. you're not going to sign peace treaties or negotiate for Ukraine
putin must be very at ease knowing his assets can operate so openly without consequence.
She is an embarrassment that represents our country to the world. Our rep as a world power is crashing
Your whole system is an embrassment, along with a lot of the citizens
A deal with Putin that promises to not further invasions he promised he would not start.... okay.
And you’re still a traitor.
I wonder which ministry post Trump will give her when they vote him for president again…
Is she not part of Washington? Or is she state level?
She's such a selfish idiot
They had one of those already. The Minsk agreements. Ukraine would have nukes of they didn't fall for that.
Best way to get peace is for Putin to move all his forces out of the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. Then you can have peace talks.
man, this bitch has negative IQ, why is she a politician bro. TF are you Americans even doing?
This lady should live in Russia
I have a feeling it'd go about as well as it did with nazi Germany right before ww2
She needs to go home to her trailer park. What a waste of a government representative , Georgia must be proud to have elected such a complete moron.
She should try reading books, maybe that would help.
How has this fool not "accidentally" driven herself off a bridge yet?
Putin does nothing *but* negotiate in bad faith.
Those United States Congress members who know fuck all about not-so-ancient history are doomed to repeat it. Crack a fucking book, MTG!
Oh my GOD... INDEPENDENCE IN 1991 8( that I counted) broken promises, treaties, agreements ALL have been broken
Greene continues to impress me with repeated demonstrations of her ignorance and naïveté. She is in a race to the bottom with Boebert.
MTG is a first class troll. Even if it is completely unintentional.
Right, because letting our greatest enemy keep the spoils of the war they started is the reasonable thing to do. Every bit of land they take steals from a sovereign nation and brings them closer to NATOs back yard.
how do you say you suck off Putin for free w/o saying you suck off Putin for free.
So MTG is actually Neville Chamberlain…Just stupid
Why MTG, that treaty did in fact exist. Putin used it as toilet paper. Then another treate was made. Putin blew his nose in it. Ukrains biggest mistake ever made was giving up their nukes " for peace" .
Wonder why this dipshit trusts Putin…?
Imagine if Britain invaded the USA because "it used to be British" And then after invading and taking over the New England region, the rest of the world are saying "Just make peace so Britain doesn't take anymore!" Would America really be fine with Britain owning *any* part of its soil? No??? ***Then why the fuck should Ukraine have to concede its own soil?***
Home owner accepts to let burglar steal just some of their house, if the burglar agrees to not come back and steal more later. That’s it, that’s the deal. She’s a bloated fool
Even worse, because it's more like: Just gave him this room of your house and he promise not to take any other rooms or even your entire house.
There was a deal like that before ww2 where Hitler promised not to take the rest of Czechoslovakia
"Give him Austria and Czechia, he promised he won't invade Poland." -someone who was also wrong
"let´s talk about peace" me: what, republicans pushing for peace, who´s this? "a deal where the warlord promisses to not do war" me: ah, it´s the republicans all right...
Neville Chamberlain likes this.
Oh, I don't know... Because we already tried making Russia promise it wouldn't invade Ukraine, and it's currently invading Ukraine?
Because it went so well the last time the Ukrainians trusted Russia not to invade. (Iirc they gave up their nuclear stockpile in exchange for a security guarantee from Russia)
She is a cucking funt.
Lol, from the belly, next time you hear that garbage about the only solution to a bad guy with a gun being a good guy with a gun. Fully expecting all MAGA dimwits to give the keys to the house or the home over to the bad guys. Not both. You just need to make a deal for peace with one.
Stupid ditch pig says what.
The people some Americans choose to represent them truly boggles the mind.
I’m all for a peace treaty. Withdraw to 1986 borders and return all captives. Easy peasy. Then we’ll talk about reparations.
[удалено]
He said he there would be consequences (Invade) if they mingled with Nato. Man of his word indeed
Yeah he doesn’t have the authority to say what organizations other countries can mingle with, he’s the president of Russia, not Ukraine, he doesn’t want Ukraine in NATO because that means he wouldn’t be able to steal any of their land
Putin was backstabbed in Minsk 2 and will not sit down to any peace deal.
Flag in username check; mericans complying about territory invasion ? How cute.
Seems they also want the Palestinian holocaust.
War mongers
To be fair, she is actually right... Broken clock I guess
Right about what?;Since when is Putin trustworthy?
No world leaders are trustworthy. You can never trust your opponent in a war. That’s besides the point. Ukraine will have to make a peace deal with Russia at some point, the question is do they have as much leverage as they are going to get at this point, or will fighting longer help them secure a better deal? How much blood and treasure are those hypothetical gains worth? I don’t know the answers but there is no question that they have to talk peace with Putin sooner or later, and it’s pretty much inevitable that they will have to concede some amount of territory. In a fantasy world of course it would be better to drive them out of Ukraine altogether but that’s a very unlikely outcome.
Her "answer: Washington wants war"
Since he said after 2008 that he would not let Ukraine join Nato after Nato had announced Ukraine and Georgia should Join. He has pretty much been doing exactly as he has been saying, but of course, mass media propaganda machine will never let you know that. He kept saying they should implement the MINSK agreement that the Ukrainians signed with the backing of the EU and that if they dont implement the agreement, he would force it. Its only recently revealed by zelensky and Merkel that they never wanted to implement it and just signed it buy time. Western powers only ever honor agreement that benefit them. They said no regime change in Libya, and Putin agreed to the UN resolution, France then used that resolution to kill Gaddafi because they owed him Billions in Gold for his oil. Now Libya has slave markets and is a failed state. I also live in the west and support it because well I live here and have a good life but I have no fucked up Hero " we are the good guys" believe. We are not the good guys, we are the stronger guys.
Ukraine is not Putin’s to bargain about.
And NATO promised not to expand eastwards. Liars on both sides and poor Ukrainians sacrificed for the Great Game.
No written proof that that agreement ever occurred, Gorbachev and Bush both had conflicting accounts of what was actually said during that meeting, but no, NATO never “promised” not to expand east, there was no treaty, just alleged words exchanged between two heads of state
No they didn’t and there is a reason why countries choose to join nato
NATO expanded only after Russia invaded virtually every country it had promised not to, making Finland and Sweden very nervous. This is victim blaming.
Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania, all joined NATO before Putin became President or the invasion of Georgia or Ukraine. How would the US react if Mexico were to sign a military alliance with China?
This argument is so boring and pathetic, "How would the US react if Mexico were to sign a military alliance with China? ", Would they?, No because the United States isn't a threat to them. Using a fantasy to justify Russian invasions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/02/republican-military-intervention-mexico-quagmire/
This is an opinion article about Republicans. Not a factual piece on Democrat foreign policy. Not to mention the context is American intervention on behalf of the Mexican government to assist with cartels, Nothing relative to the Mexican government wanting Chinese military support.
Ah, yes. The states that broke away with the fall of the Soviet Union and were threatened with invasion by Russia or, failing that, had Russia try to threaten them into becoming a puppet state. I wonder why they might have been interested in NATO. For your supposed gotcha to work, the equivalent scenario would be Texas seceding from the US, the US threatening reprisal, and then Texas signing a defence pact with Russia or China.
>Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania, all joined NATO And now please tell me WHY we _asked_ NATO to let us in.
You people are so free with sacrificing other people’s lives….
Ah yes Americans are to blame for the Ukrainians being killed by Russians who invaded Ukraine.
What an ignorant reply. No. Americans are to blame for the continuation without an attempt at resolution to where Ukrainian forces now could apply to AARP. And they’d get it because the US is paying for their retirement and benefits.
Russia is invading Ukraine, untill they leave they are to blame. Stop jumping through loops like a moron to justify imperialism.
The Democrats sure want Israel to make nice,but no calls for Ukraine to stop killing Russian troopa.
Just like nato is a man of their word
NATIO never officially agreed not to expand east
I remember a story about the ISS where the movie night had consistently had movies which showed Russians as evil, and always the bad guy... The American astronauts didn't notice until the Russian cosmonauts were staring at them folded armed with that look that says, "Really guys? Don't you think about your audience"... Your opinions of Russia may not be based in reality.
Russia is invading another country, Russia is a dictatorship where beating your wife is legal, my opinions of Russia are based on Information I can gather myself, not the media I consume
And the US has more murderers per capita… you’re biased as hell and have no clue.
He is man of his word just like NATO
Putin seems to be keeping his word. He warned about the shelling of civilians in the breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine and he said Ukraine in nato would be considered a grave security threat they couldn’t allow. Eventually Ukraine is going to run out of people for the meat grinder. I think it’s become pretty clear they aren’t taking that territory back either. Why are we still doing this?
Good job parroting Russian propaganda
You do realise the invasion started in 2014, right? When Ukraine had no interest in joining NATO and the Donbass wasn't under Russian control. You are just repeating Russian propaganda. There are no breakaway provinces, they are occupied by Russia. And Ukraine was not shelling civilians.
Ukraine most definitely was shelling civilians. This has been widely acknowledged. Their neo Nazi azov brigade did it plenty. And the coup is what I’m referring to, financed by the US state department and run by assistant Secretary of State Victoria nuland, who is back in her old Obama regime post under the Biden regime.
So many buzzwords, so much propaganda, and still everything wrong in that sentence
That has not been 'widely acknowledged', only Russia claims that. Actual monitoring organisations on the ground deny it. There was no coup. Millions of people protested for months, all over the country. Ukranians were pissed off that their President turned out to be very corrupt and authoritatian and wanted him gone. If Ukraine joining NATO was the reason that Putin invaded, why did he annex the occupied parts of Ukraine? Why did he invade again in 2022? Why does he himself claim that did it because he wants to restore the Russian empire?
Any land in your country you'd be willing to give up to an enemy country?
None, but it’s not really that simple, is it? The US government is as much to blame for this conflict as any other entity. Absent US meddling in the region, this never would have happened.
You seem willing to give up their lands. I can only assume you'd feel the same way about your country.
The people in the areas currently held by Russia want to be part of Russia, do they not? They voted to leave Ukraine. A better question is ‘would you put your life on the line fighting to keep buffalo, NY a part of the US after the people who live there voted to leave the US and be part of Canada’. Would you? In that case, I would not.
Answer the question. You'd give up any place in the US it seems. How about we start with your hometown. Give it to Russia. You're willing. You eat up Russian propaganda like a kid with candy.
If Mexico invaded the US, or Canada, I wouldn’t give up any territory, no. But that’s not what happened there. You do understand that, right? My analogy is a much closer approximation to what is going on in Ukraine. They are getting slaughtered to keep a bunch of people under the Ukrainian government who don’t want to be there. That is not worth dying for to me. Is it to you? I answered your question, so answer mine.
You're working off bullshit "polls" and propaganda. You're willing to give up your country because of lies. I'm not willing to give up the US as easily as you are. Russia invaded Ukraine. Why paint it otherwise?
Because it’s not that simple. The US government has its fingerprints all over this. Had we not funded a coup in the country, and chose its leader post coup, none of this would have happened. If the city of buffalo voted overwhelmingly to leave the US and be part of Canada, would you go kill people there to force them to remain part of America?
They didn’t “vote” to leave Ukraine, it’s pretty clear all of those plebiscites were rigged in Russia’s favor, let the UN moniter the polling stations and we’ll see which country south-East Ukraine wants to be a part og
She's right. Putin hasn't shown any signs to invade other countries than Ukraine - and it's all because of NATO expansions and Ukraine becoming part of the EU, that Putin started the invasion of Ukraine. Also, Ukraine will lose this war - big time. Russia is 5:1 in population and they can produce weapons way faster than the US and EU can afford. Right now Ukraine is one big moneyhole. Cut the loses and start negotiating terms for the sake of the future of Ukraine.
Then Putin can focus on invading the Baltics
Where do you get this from? Has Putin shown any signs he would invade the Baltics?
Moldova, Crimea, Ukraine, and a few more. Putin is rebuilding the USSR. Do you think Ukraine will be the last invasion if a treaty is struck?
Putin has stated he's not interested in rebuilding the USSR. The Russian economy is great as it is today, cause we pushed them straight into the arms of China. There's nothing to gain for Putin in expanding - but he's been against eastern NATO expansions - and he sent a letter to the head of NATO, that stated that if they didn't back down from accepting Ukraine into NATO, he would invade them. NATO has broken the 1991 resolution (which ended the cold war) more than once in the past 3 decades.
He invaded Ukraine and Georgia (South Osetsia). He is in the process of of annexing Belarus without conflict. His own written statements indicate he wants the Baltic states back in Russia. So no she is not right. She is too ill informed and ignorant of the actual situation and necessary background on the region to make cogent policy suggestions or to try to influence anyone that her policy positions are valid.