Ukraine Can't Win the War

[User]

9 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Wishful thinking.

The only wishful thinking I am guilty of being wrong about here was expecting you to respond directly to the things I say or provide some objective evidence to back up the garbage you assert. 

So, no real source for how NATO promised Russia no expansion?

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, User said:

The only wishful thinking I am guilty of being wrong about here was expecting you to respond directly to the things I say or provide some objective evidence to back up the garbage you assert. 

So, no real source for how NATO promised Russia no expansion?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

Essentially, James Baker said NATO would not expand eastward in exchange for German reunification. 

It was never put in a legal agreement and so...NATO and the US did what they've done many times before. They feign innocence...

"It's not in writing in any formal agreement document so we didn't say it."

They "slimed" Gobachev.

Since then NATO and the US have hidden behind this "slimey" move.

Such a display of pompous euro BS, and American lies. All rather dishonorable. 

[User]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

Essentially, James Baker said NATO would not expand eastward in exchange for German reunification. 

It was never put in a legal agreement and so...NATO and the US did what they've done many times before. They feign innocence...

"It's not in writing in any formal agreement document so we didn't say it."

They "slimed" Gobachev.

Since then NATO and the US have hidden behind this "slimey" move.

Such a display of pompous euro BS, and American lies. All rather dishonorable. 

Is this a joke? 

"No formal deal was struck"

There is either a deal or there isn't a deal. Talk about a deal doesn't equal a deal. There are no lies, there is no dishonor. There was no deal.

 

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Is this a joke? 

"No formal deal was struck"

There is either a deal or there isn't a deal. Talk about a deal doesn't equal a deal. There are no lies, there is no dishonor. There was no deal.

 

Dude...

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward"

The transcripts show what Baker said. It was never put on an "official agreement" and THAT is what they hide behind. Do you not think that's a tad "slimey"? I find it embarrassing for our "side".

Now...you can argue that the Russian's should have been on the ball more and got fcked as a result of their own naivety. But all that means is you excuse "slimey" crap as long as it benefits you.

Edited May 25, 2024 by Nationalist

[User]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Dude...

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward"

The transcripts show what Baker said. It was never put on an "official agreement" and THAT is what they hide behind. Do you not think that's a tad "slimey"? I find it embarrassing for our "side".

Now...you can argue that the Russian's should have been on the ball more and got fckef as a result of their own naivety. But all that means is you excuse "slimey" crap as long as it benefits you.

If there is no official agreement, there is no official agreement. US leaders are members of NATO. The US does not control NATO or set all NATO policy like some dictatorship. They can't make any such promises on NATO's behalf. The fact that US leaders talked about it doesn't prove anything other than they talked about it. 

NATO has consistently expanded since its inception. Nothing in its charter prevents or precludes that. It has ALWAYS been an organization that expands. 

The only embarrassing thing here is how you and other Russian / Putin supporters push this garbage to somehow justify Putin invading Ukraine. 

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, User said:

If there is no official agreement, there is no official agreement. US leaders are members of NATO. The US does not control NATO or set all NATO policy like some dictatorship. They can't make any such promises on NATO's behalf. The fact that US leaders talked about it doesn't prove anything other than they talked about it. 

NATO has consistently expanded since its inception. Nothing in its charter prevents or precludes that. It has ALWAYS been an organization that expands. 

The only embarrassing thing here is how you and other Russian / Putin supporters push this garbage to somehow justify Putin invading Ukraine. 

Not to "justify" squat. Only to rightly point out that NATO and the USA are not merely innocent onlookers to some evil empire.

They have made the bed of distrust.

Oh and...how long do you figure NATO would exist, should the US pull out of it? Trump was able to ruffle a lot of feathers, demanding other NATO nations are held responsible for their agreed contributions. The USA IS NATO for all intents and purposes.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not to "justify" squat. Only to rightly point out that NATO and the USA are not merely innocent onlookers to some evil empire.

They have made the bed of distrust.

Oh and...how long do you figure NATO would exist, should the US pull out of it? Trump was able to ruffle a lot of feathers, demanding other NATO nations are held responsible for their agreed contributions. The USA IS NATO for all intents and purposes.

They did not make anything. There was no deal. If the Russians believed there was, they are fools. They are not fools though, they are just liars and you are here pushing their propaganda. 

You tried to claim there was a deal, and all you have is backroom discussions that were never made official. That is no deal. 

 

[Nationalist]

21 hours ago, User said:

They did not make anything. There was no deal. If the Russians believed there was, they are fools. They are not fools though, they are just liars and you are here pushing their propaganda. 

You tried to claim there was a deal, and all you have is backroom discussions that were never made official. That is no deal. 

 

Tsk tsk...so disappointing. 

You are correct that there was no signed deal. You are incorrect that the discussion never happened and that Baker didn't make such a promise. 

The Russians were certainly naive to take Baker's word as solid.

Can NATO or the Americans be trusted? Obviously not. These people lie and cheat as a matter of course.

Russia and NATO. Brutality Vs. unconscionable slime. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve each other.

But when NATO back-stabs nations and places us in danger, that's where my conscience must draw the line.

Thus NATO is most certainly guilty of provocation. Russia is most certainly guilty of an invasion. 

Two peas in a pod.

[User]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Tsk tsk...so disappointing. 

You are correct that there was no signed deal. You are incorrect that the discussion never happened and that Baker didn't make such a promise. 

The Russians were certainly naive to take Baker's word as solid.

Can NATO or the Americans be trusted? Obviously not. These people lie and cheat as a matter of course.

Russia and NATO. Brutality Vs. unconscionable slime. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve each other.

But when NATO back-stabs nations and places us in danger, that's where my conscience must draw the line.

Thus NATO is most certainly guilty of provocation. Russia is most certainly guilty of an invasion. 

Two peas in a pod.

I am saying there was no deal. Period. Discussions do not equal deals. You started by saying there was a deal, not that there were discussions about a deal. 

No, the Russians were not naive. Putin is using this as propaganda. The Russians before him never made any proclamations about such a deal, including Gorbachev, who they were dealing with. Where did Gorbachev ever make any such proclamations about a deal?

No, he said there was no such deal:

"We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”"

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

You are here pushing Putin propaganda to justify his invasion of Ukraine. This is why I say you support Putin. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, User said:

I am saying there was no deal. Period. Discussions do not equal deals. You started by saying there was a deal, not that there were discussions about a deal. 

No, the Russians were not naive. Putin is using this as propaganda. The Russians before him never made any proclamations about such a deal, including Gorbachev, who they were dealing with. Where did Gorbachev ever make any such proclamations about a deal?

No, he said there was no such deal:

"We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”"

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

You are here pushing Putin propaganda to justify his invasion of Ukraine. This is why I say you support Putin. 

Dude... https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629

Does the documentation of the meetings lie? How about Robert Gates? Lying too?

It was fcking Slick-Willy who broke with the promises made and began expanding NATO.

[User]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Does the documentation of the meetings lie? How about Robert Gates? Lying too?

It was fcking Slick-Willy who broke with the promises made and began expanding NATO.

Dude what?

As I already told you, NATO has been expanding since is inception. It is part of its charter. It was expanding before that meeting and after... there was never any deal to not expand. There was no "promise" other than talks that amounted to no deal. 

• 1949 – The 12 founding members
• 1952 – The accession of Greece and Türkiye
• 1955 – The accession of Germany
• 1982 – The accession of Spain
• 1999 – The first wave of post-Cold War enlargement
• 2004 – The second wave of post-Cold War enlargement
• 2009 – The accession of Albania and Croatia
• 2017 – The accession of Montenegro
• 2020 – The accession of North Macedonia
• 2023 – The accession of Finland
• 2024 – The accession of Sweden

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm

Stop pushing Putin's propaganda to justify his invasion. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, User said:

Dude what?

As I already told you, NATO has been expanding since is inception. It is part of its charter. It was expanding before that meeting and after... there was never any deal to not expand. There was no "promise" other than talks that amounted to no deal. 

• 1949 – The 12 founding members
• 1952 – The accession of Greece and Türkiye
• 1955 – The accession of Germany
• 1982 – The accession of Spain
• 1999 – The first wave of post-Cold War enlargement
• 2004 – The second wave of post-Cold War enlargement
• 2009 – The accession of Albania and Croatia
• 2017 – The accession of Montenegro
• 2020 – The accession of North Macedonia
• 2023 – The accession of Finland
• 2024 – The accession of Sweden

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm

Stop pushing Putin's propaganda to justify his invasion. 

I'm telling the truth. I'm sorry you don't like it.

[User]

Just now, Nationalist said:

I'm telling the truth. I'm sorry you don't like it.

That is all you got?

You are not telling the truth here. You started off this whole thing trying to post this dishonesty of trying to say there was an agreement to not expand NATO to Ukraine. No such agreement existed. 

You tried to claim that it was Clinton that started the expansion... NATO has been expanding since its inception. I outlined how many times and how many countries. 

You are the one who doesn't like the truth here. You are the one pushing Putin's propaganda to help Putin justify his invasion, an invasion you want to further support by abandoning Ukraine. 

[Nationalist]

53 minutes ago, User said:

That is all you got?

You are not telling the truth here. You started off this whole thing trying to post this dishonesty of trying to say there was an agreement to not expand NATO to Ukraine. No such agreement existed. 

You tried to claim that it was Clinton that started the expansion... NATO has been expanding since its inception. I outlined how many times and how many countries. 

You are the one who doesn't like the truth here. You are the one pushing Putin's propaganda to help Putin justify his invasion, an invasion you want to further support by abandoning Ukraine. 

Like I said, I'm sorry the truth bothers you so much. The archived documents tell a much different story though.

I did mean expansion to central Europe but...ya...ok...

What truth? I told you the truth. You can't even dispute the truth. Instead you hide behind any "legally binding documents". Gorbachev and Yeltsin screwed up...basically. Hell Yeltzin wound up begging Clinton for finances. And the Russian people were suitably pissed with him.

Here's the story from the Smithsonian. Read it yourself.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-contradictory-legacy-of-mikhail-gorbachev-180980679/

So...back to Ukraine. Nothing you do or "support" can change the outcome of this war. Only NATO troops...a lot of 'em...could avoid eastern Ukraine from becoming part of Russia. That's always been the case.

Do I "support" that outcome? Sure. It's inevitable anyway so save some lives and money...and sue for peace. 

Does that mean I "support" Putin? No. It means I support common fcking sense.

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Does that mean I "support" Putin? No. It means I support common fcking sense.

Nobody believes you.  Common sense (which you obviously lack) tells us that if everything you've said here has been supportive of Putin, and critical of his opponents, then you support Putin.  

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody believes you.  Common sense (which you obviously lack) tells us that if everything you've said here has been supportive of Putin, and critical of his opponents, then you support Putin.  

Moonie...who's "us"? Your peanut gallery?

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Moonie...who's "us"? Your peanut gallery?

Anyone with any common sense - don't worry about it.  🙄

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Anyone with any common sense - don't worry about it.  🙄

You mean like Colonel Douglas Macgregor? Judge Anthony Napolitano?

Or maybe like NBC News?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-digs-defenses-fears-lose-russia-war-us-aid-delays-rcna146796

Or, I know, like Comic-Boy himself.

https://www.reuters.com/world/zelenskiy-kharkiv-urges-biden-xi-join-peace-summit-2024-05-26/

Well wha'd ya know...peace talks being sought by Ukraine. 

Who's been saying a peace agreement is the way to go for Ukraine?

That's right...NOT YOU.

[Moonbox]

45 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Who's been saying a peace agreement is the way to go for Ukraine?

That's right...NOT YOU.

Sure I have.  Every war ends with a peace agreement.  The terms and context of the agreement are what we disagree on.  You figure that the West should abandon Ukraine and let Putin dictate terms - because you support him.  🤡

[Nationalist]

49 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Sure I have.  Every war ends with a peace agreement.  The terms and context of the agreement are what we disagree on.  You figure that the West should abandon Ukraine and let Putin dictate terms - because you support him.  🤡

Well...Russia just leaving the lands they now have, is most likely a non-starter. A pipe-dream.

Back in reality, the superior force will dictate the terms. Only a complete fool would expect otherwise.

BTW...I understand Zelinsky has been begging Brandon to attend his peace talks. Brandon is ignoring this. You know...speaking of abandonment...

You have screamed and kicked and whined away for a long time now. You've even scoffed at holding peace talks. 

You have lost, goofball. Enjoy the crow, while common sense emerges.

[NAME REMOVED]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You mean like Colonel Douglas Macgregor? 

You actually take what that loon says seriously? Even the US Army have distanced themselves from him, as he is an embarrassment. He predicted Ukraine would surrender within 48 hours in 2022. Since then, he has rambled on about Ukraine is a week away from losing the war for every two weeks since the invasion began

McGregor is 0 for 170 in his predictions on the conflict. He is also a well known bigot.

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

You actually take what that loon says seriously? Even the US Army have distanced themselves from him, as he is an embarrassment. He predicted Ukraine would surrender within 48 hours in 2022. Since then, he has rambled on about Ukraine is a week away from losing the war for every two weeks since the invasion began

McGregor is 0 for 170 in his predictions on the conflict. He is also a well known bigot.

Well...Cookie Monster...

Quote

Shortly before Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his latest invasion of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, reportedly told congressional leaders meeting in closed session that the smaller country would "fall in 72 hours."

Is Milley a "loon" too?

How about Napolitano...is he a "loon" too?

Mr. Cookie Monster...You sort o' need to face facts. Your denials have amounted to nothing more than hundreds of thousands of dead people...most of them Ukrainians who did not cower and run away to Poland and other nations.. The inevitable has already happened. Even Zelinsky knows its time to find a peace deal.

You can...and probably will...whine, p1ss and moan about it but...what has and is happening has always been inevitable. Maybe you should try to live WITHIN reality...instead of WITHIN a cookie jar.

[User]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Back in reality, the superior force will dictate the terms. Only a complete fool would expect otherwise.

Yes, but the duplicity of your argument here is that you want to leave Russia as the superior force giving no help to Ukraine. 

 

[Nationalist]

Just now, User said:

Yes, but the duplicity of your argument here is that you want to leave Russia as the superior force giving no help to Ukraine. 

 

Russia IS the superior force! That's just the way it IS! Are we going to rail against reality now?

[User]

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Russia IS the superior force! That's just the way it IS! Are we going to rail against reality now?

Nice dodge. Russia is not the superior force, at least not anywhere near as much, if we help Ukraine. 

Reality isn't an issue for me, it certainly appears to be for you.