Germany is "wrong" to finance Ukraine
-
-
Of course the Vietnamese could never have beaten the US in an actual war nor is that what happened.
To recap- Vietnam was a false flag. It was a war of aggression, as was the incursion into Cambodia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
"Later investigation revealed that the 4 August attack did not happen; no North Vietnamese vessels had been present. Shortly after the events, the National Security Agency, an agency of the US Defense Department, deliberately skewed intelligence to create the impression that an attack had been carried out.[5][6][7]"
So, leaving aside the history of France in Vietnam, Vietnam was invaded by the US. It's that simple.
Vietnam was not and never could have been an existential threat to the US.
If it had been, hypothetically, it would have had zero chance of winning an actual war with the US.
The only thing that happened (and the same with Aphganistan and Russia) is that Vietnam "won" back their countries through attrition.
As an aside, do you think the US had an actual intention to occupy Vietnam on a permanent basis? I don't.
So, we get to Ukraine.
Again, Russia won't occupy Ukraine. It might change the map. But that's different.
So, why is Ukraine attacking Russia as if Ukraine can "win" the war and set the terms for peace?
It's not going to happen.
-
I think youâre conflating two things. Of course Vietnam couldnât win a war of conquest against the US, nor could Afghanistan win a war of conquest against the Soviet Union or the US, nor could Ukraine win a war of conquest against Russia. But in all of those cases, the weaker power can resist and raise the cost to the aggressor high enough so that the larger aggressor decides itâs no longer worth pursuing. That happened with Afghanistan twice and Vietnam once, as well as other examples. And itâs certainly a possible outcome in Russia.
-
I think I'm comparing and contrasting them.
Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
Russia invaded Ukraine because it was the last contiguous state that had not been, and would have been, made a member of NATO.
To recap-
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev, and in it is the provision that NATO would not be expanded.
Fast forward to the provision was violated in every way possible.
So, we get to Ukraine.
Russia was not going to, and didn't, accept this last possible violation of the treaty.
Or do you agree with the Russia = Hitler's Germany analogy?
The former is a fact.
The later is a fiction.
This gives new meaning to the expression- "poking the bear".
And still, why are we adding fuel to the fire by paying for the continuation of this war when a) we're perpetuating it by paying for it, b) a great many Americans are experiencing deprivation, and c) the US debt is skyrocketing?
'But as they said in one of the later Rocky movies, "Time...it's undefeated.".-- Mik
-
I think I'm comparing and contrasting them.
Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
Russia invaded Ukraine because it was the last contiguous state that had not been, and would have been, made a member of NATO.
To recap-
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev, and in it is the provision that NATO would not be expanded.
Fast forward to the provision was violated in every way possible.
So, we get to Ukraine.
Russia was not going to, and didn't, accept this last possible violation of the treaty.
Or do you agree with the Russia = Hitler's Germany analogy?
The former is a fact.
The later is a fiction.
This gives new meaning to the expression- "poking the bear".
And still, why are we adding fuel to the fire by paying for the continuation of this war when a) we're perpetuating it by paying for it, b) a great many Americans are experiencing deprivation, and c) the US debt is skyrocketing?
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev, and in it is the provision that NATO would not be expanded.
Not sure that's entirely accurate.
Some history.
-
We could compare our theories of why and how the war started, those also differ. But I was specifically answering your assertion that âUkraine could never ever win a war against the Russiansâ. I think we have numerous examples of a much stronger power giving up its ambitions against a weaker one simply because the cost becomes too high and stopping the war is always a decision the stronger power can make at any time simply by pulling out. Thereâs absolutely no reason that couldnât happen here like itâs happened so many other times throughout recent history.
-
Well, I think Ukraine will go back to being Ukraine and Russia will go back to being Russia. No matter how or why it started, it won't last forever.
It's a quagmire like all wars.
I don't think we're going to agree.
Russia is at war with Ukraine. Russia doesn't occupy it.
My point was more, as in the video in my OP, what should the US do now?
I can't see how the US, and the EU, are doing anything to achieve peace.
On the contrary, our actions seem to be perpetuating the war.
-
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev, and in it is the provision that NATO would not be expanded.
Not sure that's entirely accurate.
Some history.
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev, and in it is the provision that NATO would not be expanded.
Not sure that's entirely accurate.
Some history.
That's not history. It's analysis, and it's very slanted. Do you have anything more concrete?
-
Well, I think Ukraine will go back to being Ukraine and Russia will go back to being Russia. No matter how or why it started, it won't last forever.
It's a quagmire like all wars.
I don't think we're going to agree.
Russia is at war with Ukraine. Russia doesn't occupy it.
My point was more, as in the video in my OP, what should the US do now?
I can't see how the US, and the EU, are doing anything to achieve peace.
On the contrary, our actions seem to be perpetuating the war.
-
I think I'm comparing and contrasting them.
Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
Russia invaded Ukraine because it was the last contiguous state that had not been, and would have been, made a member of NATO.
To recap-
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev, and in it is the provision that NATO would not be expanded.
Fast forward to the provision was violated in every way possible.
So, we get to Ukraine.
Russia was not going to, and didn't, accept this last possible violation of the treaty.
Or do you agree with the Russia = Hitler's Germany analogy?
The former is a fact.
The later is a fiction.
This gives new meaning to the expression- "poking the bear".
And still, why are we adding fuel to the fire by paying for the continuation of this war when a) we're perpetuating it by paying for it, b) a great many Americans are experiencing deprivation, and c) the US debt is skyrocketing?
-
-
wtg said:
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev
Could you post a link to that actual document? I have searched and am unable to find it.
Thanks.
I did a quick query to AI.
Did the US ever sign a treaty with Russia that specifically stated that NATO would not expand eastward? Or were there merely discussions with/assurances to Gorbachev from Western Europe and the US about limiting NATO expansion?
Here is the answer;
No. The United States did not sign a treaty with Russiaâor the Soviet Unionâprohibiting NATO from expanding eastward.
The treaty people often mean is the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and the two German states. It set limits on military deployments in the former East Germany; it did not bar NATO from admitting countries elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation, was the signatory on the Soviet side. <citation src="6,7"></citation>
There were, however, conversations and verbal assurances during German reunification negotiations. James Bakerâs ânot one inch eastwardâ phrase and similar remarks by other Western officials are documented. Their meaning and scope remain disputed: some argue they encouraged Gorbachev to expect NATO would not expand more broadly; others argue they concerned NATOâs military role in a reunified Germany, and were never a binding promise about future membership. <citation src="2,4,8"></citation>
So the most precise summary is: no treaty barring broader eastward expansion; yes, there were diplomatic discussions and assurances, but no written, legally binding commitment covering Eastern Europe as a whole. <citation src="4,6,8"></citation>
-
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev
Could you post a link to that actual document? I have searched and am unable to find it.
Thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_II
I could be wrong, of course.
I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility.
As to the treaty documents- no.
I don't know where they are kept.
I'll reconsider.
But, yeah, I'm not reading the treaty documents.
That would take months, and I'm not an attorney.
-
wtg said:
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev
Could you post a link to that actual document? I have searched and am unable to find it.
Thanks.
I did a quick query to AI.
Did the US ever sign a treaty with Russia that specifically stated that NATO would not expand eastward? Or were there merely discussions with/assurances to Gorbachev from Western Europe and the US about limiting NATO expansion?
Here is the answer;
No. The United States did not sign a treaty with Russiaâor the Soviet Unionâprohibiting NATO from expanding eastward.
The treaty people often mean is the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and the two German states. It set limits on military deployments in the former East Germany; it did not bar NATO from admitting countries elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation, was the signatory on the Soviet side. <citation src="6,7"></citation>
There were, however, conversations and verbal assurances during German reunification negotiations. James Bakerâs ânot one inch eastwardâ phrase and similar remarks by other Western officials are documented. Their meaning and scope remain disputed: some argue they encouraged Gorbachev to expect NATO would not expand more broadly; others argue they concerned NATOâs military role in a reunified Germany, and were never a binding promise about future membership. <citation src="2,4,8"></citation>
So the most precise summary is: no treaty barring broader eastward expansion; yes, there were diplomatic discussions and assurances, but no written, legally binding commitment covering Eastern Europe as a whole. <citation src="4,6,8"></citation>
wtg said:
There was a treaty signed by the US with Gorbachev
Could you post a link to that actual document? I have searched and am unable to find it.
Thanks.
I did a quick query to AI.
Did the US ever sign a treaty with Russia that specifically stated that NATO would not expand eastward? Or were there merely discussions with/assurances to Gorbachev from Western Europe and the US about limiting NATO expansion?
Here is the answer;
No. The United States did not sign a treaty with Russiaâor the Soviet Unionâprohibiting NATO from expanding eastward.
The treaty people often mean is the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and the two German states. It set limits on military deployments in the former East Germany; it did not bar NATO from admitting countries elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation, was the signatory on the Soviet side. <citation src="6,7"></citation>
There were, however, conversations and verbal assurances during German reunification negotiations. James Bakerâs ânot one inch eastwardâ phrase and similar remarks by other Western officials are documented. Their meaning and scope remain disputed: some argue they encouraged Gorbachev to expect NATO would not expand more broadly; others argue they concerned NATOâs military role in a reunified Germany, and were never a binding promise about future membership. <citation src="2,4,8"></citation>
So the most precise summary is: no treaty barring broader eastward expansion; yes, there were diplomatic discussions and assurances, but no written, legally binding commitment covering Eastern Europe as a whole. <citation src="4,6,8"></citation>
I'm not convinced.
-
These are the sources that AI used in composing its answer; the links didn't copy when I pasted its response earlier. At least you'll know, if you have the time and desire to do so, upon what it based its response.
From the Brookings Institute, this bit is especially interesting:
Former Soviet President Gorbachevâs View
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 âinsist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]âparticularly U.S. Secretary of State James Bakerâs promise that NATO would not expand into the Eastâbe legally encoded?â Gorbachev replied: âThe topic of âNATO expansionâ was not discussed at all, and it wasnât brought up in those years. ⌠Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATOâs military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Bakerâs 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.â
Gorbachev continued that âThe agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.â To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
The entire Brookings link is here:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
This last one is from the NSA and contains declassified info about discussions that happened at the time.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đ
Register Login