This is the problem. Yes the US saved Ukraine under the previous administration.
Now we got some a$$hole in office that wants him to surrender and give the Russians whatever they want.
Shouting match between Zelensky and Trump
- Thread starter kevin arnold
- Start date
Now we got some a$$hole in office that wants him to surrender and give the Russians whatever they want.
Yes the last administration not trump
Sad sack of shyt.
Remember being deployed and there were ships in literal standoffs with the Russian navy trying to puff their chest out and we just letting them off the hook
This is disgraceful as fukk
Precisely why no one trusts us and we have so many enemies.
The only country that both parties are in agreement of is Israel; which, coincidentally, pays them through AIPAC.
Every other country is fukked depending on who's president.
I do not blame the global south for moving to BRICS and away from the West and America.
Tribal Outkast
Veteran
SC need to get this man out of here
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
No, *you* misunderstand. Nothing you're saying really matters. Everything you're doing in here is to deflect and nothing more. You don't have some high ground. And you're not enlightened. You're just running interference. Your constant pivot to "both sides do it" is just a way to avoid engaging with what's actually happening, so you can act all high and mighty. The US is a backwards hypocritical country, but that doesn't change anything wrt Russia's aggression. You might think you're offering some objective view, but all you're doing is running interference and calling it balance.you misunderstand. i don't view "predicted" russian ambitions any differently to US ambitions (both realised and predicted).
i'm sure my focus has been on those supporting ukraine. quote me.
i have not addressed questions of morality.
i am talking about american propaganda re. russia's actions when under similar circumstances america took a similar path and still applies a similar policy today.
yanks keep avoiding this point because they have no answer to it.
FWIW i don't expect an answer, so stop @'ing me.
not vague at all.
ask ya mama about geese and ganders.
Your posts serve no real purpose in the context of this thread and what's happening.
This is the first 3 comments you made:
What is the point other than to deflect?
And I don't play that mama shyt, so watch your fukking mouth.
don't look up
IIVI
Superstar
I hate to even consider this.
If Zelensky doesn’t give up and continues to make Trump and Vance look dumb and weak, do you think United States would let, maybe even push Russia to take nuclear action? Maybe not in a pure civilian location, but a nuclear strike on military.
Russia has talked it before, they were no doubt deterred by Biden. This Trump/Vance shyt though is a whole other story. I hope they’re not that batshyt.
If Zelensky doesn’t give up and continues to make Trump and Vance look dumb and weak, do you think United States would let, maybe even push Russia to take nuclear action? Maybe not in a pure civilian location, but a nuclear strike on military.
Russia has talked it before, they were no doubt deterred by Biden. This Trump/Vance shyt though is a whole other story. I hope they’re not that batshyt.
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
This fukking Nigerian stank ass Canadian immigrant refugee spreading Russian propaganda again.
1. The Budapest Memorandum (1994)
Official Document: The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on December 5, 1994, by the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine (later joined by France and China in separate statements).
Content: Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear arsenal—the third-largest in the world at the time—in exchange for security assurances from the signatories. The key commitments included:
Respecting Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders.
Refraining from the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity or political independence.
Refraining from economic coercion against Ukraine.
Verifiable Facts:
Russia annexed Crimea, a part of Ukraine, in 2014 and launched a full-scale invasion in 2022, explicitly violating the memorandum’s terms regarding sovereignty and the use of force.
The US and UK, as co-signatories, committed to providing assurances but did not specify military intervention in the agreement. Their response to Russia’s actions included sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, and diplomatic condemnation, but no direct military defense of Ukraine’s borders.
Analysis: The Budapest Memorandum is a political agreement, not a legally binding treaty under international law (e.g., it was not ratified by the US Senate). It lacks enforcement mechanisms or explicit mutual defense clauses, unlike NATO’s Article 5. Russia has claimed that the US and its allies failed to uphold Ukraine’s security by not preventing Russian aggression, but the memorandum does not obligate the US or UK to militarily defend Ukraine—only to respect its sovereignty and seek UN Security Council action if violated (which they did). Thus, no verifiable breach of this agreement by the US or its allies can be directly tied to causing Russia’s invasion.
2. NATO’s “Not One Inch Eastward” Assurance (1990)
Official Context: This refers to a verbal assurance allegedly given by US Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, during negotiations over German reunification. Baker reportedly said NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift “one inch eastward” from its then-current position if the Soviet Union allowed a unified Germany to join NATO.
Verifiable Facts:
Declassified documents, such as those from the US National Security Archive (e.g., the transcript of the Baker-Gorbachev meeting), confirm this conversation occurred. Baker’s statement was specific to East Germany and NATO’s military jurisdiction, not a broader promise about future NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.
No written treaty or formal agreement prohibiting NATO expansion was signed. Gorbachev himself confirmed in a 2014 interview that “the topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all” in a binding sense during those talks.[
NATO expanded eastward starting in 1999, admitting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, followed by other former Soviet bloc countries (e.g., the Baltic states in 2004). Ukraine was not a NATO member by 2022 but had been pursuing membership since 2008, with NATO affirming its “open door” policy (Article 10 of the NATO Treaty).
Russian Claims: Putin has repeatedly cited this assurance as a broken promise, arguing in speeches (e.g., February 21, 2022) that NATO’s expansion threatened Russia’s security, justifying the invasion as a defensive measure.
Analysis: The “not one inch” statement was not a formal agreement but a diplomatic assurance tied to German reunification, not a perpetual ban on NATO enlargement. NATO’s founding treaty allows any European state to apply for membership, and expansion decisions are made by consensus among members, not unilaterally by the US. No official document was breached, though Russia perceives this as a betrayal of intent. Whether this perception directly “led to” the invasion is a matter of Russian policy, not a verifiable legal violation by the US or its allies.
3. The Minsk Agreements (2014-2015)
Official Documents: Minsk I (September 5, 2014) and Minsk II (February 11, 2015), brokered by the OSCE with France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine as key parties. The US was not a signatory but supported the process as a NATO ally and partner of Ukraine.
Content: These agreements aimed to end the conflict in eastern Ukraine (Donbas) between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces. Key provisions included a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, and restoration of Ukrainian control over its border with Russia.
Verifiable Facts:
The agreements were never fully implemented. Ceasefire violations persisted on both sides, and Ukraine did not grant “special status” to Donetsk and Luhansk as envisioned, citing ongoing Russian interference.
Russia claimed the US and its allies pressured Ukraine to abandon Minsk II, pointing to Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership and military buildup (e.g., US aid like Javelin missiles approved in 2017). Putin declared the Minsk process dead on February 21, 2022, days before the invasion.
The US provided over $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine from 2014 to 2021, escalating to billions more post-2022, per US State Department records.
Analysis: The US was not a party to Minsk, so it had no direct obligations to break. Its military support to Ukraine, while consistent with defending a sovereign partner, was seen by Russia as undermining Minsk’s de-escalation goals. However, Minsk’s failure stemmed from mutual non-compliance (Russia’s continued support of separatists, Ukraine’s refusal to grant autonomy), not a unilateral US breach. No official document ties US actions here directly to triggering the invasion.
4. NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997)
Official Document: Signed on May 27, 1997, between NATO and Russia to foster cooperation and reduce tensions post-Cold War.
Content: NATO pledged to avoid “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in new member states, and Russia agreed to respect the sovereignty of states and their right to choose alliances.
Verifiable Facts:
NATO deployed rotational forces (e.g., battlegroups in the Baltics and Poland) after 2014 in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, not permanent bases with “substantial” forces as defined then (a subjective term).
Russia violated the act by annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine, breaching its commitment to respect sovereignty.
Analysis: Russia has argued NATO’s eastward military presence broke the 1997 spirit, but the act is not a treaty banning expansion or rotational deployments. NATO’s actions were defensive and post-2014, not preemptive violations prompting the 2022 invasion. No clear breach by the US or allies is documented here.
Conclusion
Based on official documents and verifiable facts:
No legally binding agreements were demonstrably broken by the US or its allies that directly caused Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum was not violated by the US (it acted within its terms), the “not one inch” assurance was not a treaty, the Minsk Agreements’ failure involved multiple parties (not just US actions), and the NATO-Russia Founding Act was not breached in a way that legally justified Russia’s response.
Russian Perspective: Russia perceives NATO expansion and US military aid to Ukraine as violations of implicit understandings or security assurances, particularly from 1990 and 1997 discussions. However, these are not documented as broken formal commitments.
Causation: The invasion stemmed from Russia’s strategic choices, including its rejection of Ukraine’s sovereignty (articulated in Putin’s 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”) and fears of NATO encroachment, rather than specific, verifiable breaches of agreements by the US or its allies.
Similar threads
