UKRAINE & EU v RUSSIA part 2

[Butcher Bob]

^^^

name 1 country that has taxed it's people and given to the USA.
we have a invasion crossing our border where's our free money.

zelensky said something before our VP went off. he said the word
cyka. the VP happened to know what it ment.

then trump got a little of our money back. $78 he did not give a parking voucher.

The US has profitted from war for decades. It has exploited other people and nations to its own advantage forever. US corporations rip off third-world people, buy their governments and pollute their lands. The US wages drug wars that kill women and childrend and criminalise the innocent. I could go on, but I'm not going to waste a week of my time outlining all the ways the US exploits the rest of the world to its own advantage.

Please, don't play the US victim card. US hegemoney has done more damage to people and the planet than almost every other country combined. You did fuck-all to fight Hilter until the Japanese gave you no choice, and you profitted handsomely from the war effort wiith the UK finally paying of its war debts in 2006.

The world's commodities are all traded in US$ and the US gets its way with almost everything in relaiton to other nations because you know the old joke: "Where does an 800 pound gorilla sit? Anywhere it likes!"

Sounds like you're sucking Putin's cock...after all, isn't that what you say to me when I point out the same shit?
Fukking hypocrite.



Oh look, Trudeau has pledged for Ukraine, the support of Canada's military...



...that's what?...two squirrels and a canoe?

Apologies in advance to my Canadian friends for that joke.

[roller24]

And of course ^ that's what the US offered to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nukes: protection from Russia so that Ukraine could be a sovergeign nation.

Did that stop Russia interfering in Ukranian politics and day-to-day life?

No.

Did the US keep its word to protect Ukraine from Russian hegemoney in exchange for giving up 1700+ nulclear weapons?

No.

To say this conflict dates back to 2014 – or any time after that – is utter bullshit. This goes back to the core of Ukranian independence – and even further.

Your own "nazi" rhetoric even stems from the days of German collboration – which shows you at least how far back Ukraine was opposed to Russian occupation. This war has been brewing a long, long time and the US has only played a bit part in all that time.

People who know fuck-all about history also know fuck-all about this conflict. I would say that's probably about 95% of Americans.

You claim that the promise of no NATO expansion holds no merit since it was not on paper, yet you claim the US was bound to protect UKR from the Russians. There was no guarantee in the Budapest Memorandum.
It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."

So in logic, your claim is no more valid than that of Dill.

[Lrus007]

[Intrinsic]

[Butcher Bob]

Boy, the dick swinging contest is full blown now.
Everybody is jumping in.
Wonder how that will turn out?


Zelensky continues to tell everyone that US will be helping Ukraine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI8nEvv139U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWge4l5DaDo
...hmm, that's odd, I thought the televised WH meeting was an indication that there is a wrench in the works...
...but what do I know, everything is probably fine...he doesn't sound deluded at all.

Ut-oh...cracks...

Tulsi, Director of National Intelligence seems to think Zelensky needs to come around...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jxxYG0TuU
...but I guess that's to be expected.

VP Vance is maintaining that Ukraine needs to pay up...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9a9yE4jXOI
...of course he's maintaining that position.

Seems Trump has suspended all military aid to Ukraine, and Zelensky runs crying to UK...
...where UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer touts "Coalition of the Willing", and says US must be involved...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG1T71PJLMA
...and Trump says "No".

EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen says Europe "is ready to step up"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJsER0dqH-0
...but US is footing half of all Ukraine costs so far...
...and foots 64% of NATO's bills, which Trump is looking at pulling out of.

Looks like a Canadian official suggested tossing US out of the G7...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75BmwKaT4n8
...except that US has a 52% share of the G7.



As it turns out, the televised meeting in the WH was faked...
...and video of the real conversation has been leaked...

[Prawn Connery]

You claim that the promise of no NATO expansion holds no merit since it was not on paper, yet you claim the US was bound to protect UKR from the Russians. There was no guarantee in the Budapest Memorandum.
It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."

So in logic, your claim is no more valid than that of Dill.

I think you're getting confused, roller. You are comparing a conversation between Gorbachev and Baker that touched on hypotheticals with an actual treaty that stated the following:

As a signatory, RUSSIA would . . .

1. Respect the signatory's (Ukraine's) independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). FAIL

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. FAIL

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. FAIL

The US as signatory would:
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". FAIL (under Trump)

6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. FAIL (under Trump)

[Prawn Connery]

Sounds like you're sucking Putin's cock...after all, isn't that what you say to me when I point out the same shit?
Fukking hypocrite.

Nah. I'm literate, Bob, so I actually recognise the words "Russia" and "Ukraine" when they are used in the English language. . . and also when they are not. As in, my posts had fuck-all to do with either them. Unlike your cock-sucking attempts.

I think it's time to get the black light out to she who's telling the truth between for me and Bob:

Ah, so that's why Bob is smiling

[roller24]

You claim that the promise of no NATO expansion holds no merit since it was not on paper, yet you claim the US was bound to protect UKR from the Russians. There was no guarantee in the Budapest Memorandum.
It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."

So in logic, your claim is no more valid than that of Dill.

I think you're getting confused, roller. You are comparing a conversation between Gorbachev and Baker that touched on hypotheticals with an actual treaty that stated the following:

As a signatory, RUSSIA would . . .

1. Respect the signatory's (Ukraine's) independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act). FAIL

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. FAIL

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. FAIL

The US as signatory would:
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". FAIL (under Trump)

6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. FAIL (under Trump)

Let's not FAIL to note, that the only thing even resembling the US providing a guarantee of security is in sec 4.. which only states that the US would seek Security Council action .... IN WHICH NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE USED.
However, the UN council was sought, and declared that military aid in the form of weaponry and financial aid be given, and that declaration has been met by the US. The UN has made no authorization of deployment to my knowledge.

Let us also not FAIL to acknowledge the one could claim that both the US and Russia violated sec 3..

And let me ask you this, why in your journalistic prowess, did you segregate the signatories to make it appear as if only Russia was bound to 1,2, and 3, and the US to 4, and 6? The document clearly states that all points of agreement are bound to all signatories. A little twist and spin, I suspect.

[Butcher Bob]

Nah. I'm literate, Bob...

Judging by the convo you're having with Roller, I'd have to say you are vastly mistaken.



Oh, looks like Finland's president Alexander Stubb has a 'peace plan' too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0FrqVRJsw




Zelensky says he's ready to sign the mineral deal...



...again....for the fourth time.



But wait, what's this?...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NhKFFvplHic
...a 'false flag'?

[Prawn Connery]

Let's not FAIL to note, that the only thing even resembling the US providing a guarantee of security is in sec 4.. which only states that the US would seek Security Council action .... IN WHICH NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE USED.

So let's ignore the fact Putin has already threatened to use nuclear tactical wepons in Ukraine – because I know you will ignore the facts, even though they are only a google search away - and focus instead on the actual text.

Here is a screenshot of the actual UN Memoranum:

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetai ... 0280401fbb

See the bit where it states "seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine . . . if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used"?

if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression

or

an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used

So which part of that sentence does the final clause apply to? Why, the part of the sentence that the clause is attached to!

When you are literate, like me, you learn how to read things properly.

And let me ask you this, why in your journalistic prowess, did you segregate the signatories to make it appear as if only Russia was bound to 1,2, and 3, and the US to 4, and 6? The document clearly states that all points of agreement are bound to all signatories. A little twist and spin, I suspect.

Well that's easy, roller. Because Russia is the one that violated 1, 2 and 3, and the US and UK are the ones that acted on 4 and 6. The UK is still acting under 4 and 6.

Interestingly, the US – under Trump – is the one now trying to violet paragraph 3.