BashiChuni
-
Posts
2,611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
65
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by BashiChuni
-
-
2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Something snapped in you a while back dude, DON'T make it personal.
There is not a ratified agreement to defend Ukraine, I previously shared the SIGNED agreement. You shared an internal memo of a conversation, which others dispute...
Your memo also overlooks the fact that Putin Invaded Ukraine and took the Crimea in 2014.
What also happened in 2014?
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
You shared a memo...where is the signed and ratified document? Your rules bro.
Where’s the signed, ratified treaty to defend Ukraine? I actually produce sources. It’s a proven fact the US promised to not advance nato via the sec state James baker. Don’t be ignorant.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, icohftb said:
Even if Ukraine did break a promise and decided to ally them self with NATO does that somehow morally or legally justify Russia's invasion?
I’m not justifying it. I’m telling you how we got here. And how we could have avoided it
-
On 5/28/2024 at 10:03 AM, ClearedHot said:
1. Because it is not true, you are actually spreading Russian disinformation. There were meetings and discussions but there was never anything singed and NATO leadership denies there was an agreement. Gorbachev FALSELY claimed there was an agreement and ultimately that lie was used by Putin (and now you), as a justification for war.
I have receipts. What do you have?
https://https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
-
THE TOLD DOESNT WORK AT ABQ! - every UPT FAIP.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, raimius said:
Accepting foreign aid and seeking to make alliances (sometime in the future), are now considered acts of war?
...Half the world is now at risk of a Russian invasion, if that's the standard.
Do you really want to claim that is a valid justification for war?
Act of war and provoking are two separate issues.
“Unprovoked”. Sure.
look I think Russia overrated. But they definitely were reacting to something, which was articulated by yours truly in a masterful way above.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tucker-carlson-show/id1719657632?i=1000657058513
first 10 min of tuckers podcasts lays it out further. Jeffery sacks explains it well.
-
3 hours ago, Stoker said:
Looking at our efforts, such as they are, to support a free and independent Ukraine outside of the Russian orbit, and saying that they're a strategic disaster because it provoked Russia into invading, is like someone in 1942 saying that cutting off oil exports to Japan in 1940 was a strategic disaster because it provoked their attack on Pearl Harbor. We just don't know how it's going to turn out... however, thus far it has taken Ukraine from a shaky potential partner to the most anti-Russian country on the planet, and roused Finland and Sweden out of decades/centuries of neutrality in favor of NATO membership. Not a bad gain for the first round of cards and hundred billion dollars.
not even close. why does the west think ukraine SHOULDNT be outside the russian orbit?!
fuck the entire central and south american countries are in the US orbit
-
-
any other fucking brain busters @raimius?
-
-
7 hours ago, raimius said:
I'll ask again, Bashi...
ukraine is a simple rook in the geopolitical chess game played by the west post WWII. a chess game where the west has demonstrated strong opening moves but disastrous long term strategic thinking.
no one in the west, NATO, or the EU gives one flying fuck about ukraine or its people. they are a means to a end.
to answer your question russia invaded after seeing nato (US) and the cia fucking around and finding out in the ukraine.
"For years, the Kremlin made it emphatically clear that inviting Ukraine to join NATO would cross a red line that threatened Russia’s vital security interests."
"Evidence grew in recent years that the United States had begun to treat Ukraine as a NATO ally in all but name. Steps included pouring nearly $3 billion in “security assistance” (primarily weaponry) into the country since 2014."
"Predictably, such conduct ultimately produced a geopolitical explosion. U.S. and NATO officials used Ukraine as a strategic pawn against Russia and are now fuming with outrage at Moscow’s decision to go to war. Russia’s invasion was indeed a horrid overreaction, but it was far from being unprovoked. The Ukrainian people, unfortunately, are the ones paying a high price in blood for the gullibility of their country’s leaders and the shocking arrogance of U.S. leaders."
https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war#
standing by for "the CATO institute is a secret KGB run dis/mis/trans-information campaign!
"The split between Washington and both Paris and Berlin about admitting Ukraine to NATO emerged clearly in 2008 when President George W. Bush lobbied ferociously for extending such an invitation. French and German leaders firmly opposed that step at the NATO summit. In her memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalled that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was especially outspoken, dismissing Ukraine as a “corrupt mess” and warning that a membership offer would dangerously provoke Russia. The allied opposition held, and the best that Bush could come away with was a summit declaration affirming that “someday” Ukraine would become a NATO member. "
https://www.cato.org/commentary/making-ukraine-nato-member-all-name
standing by for "Angela Merkel is a puppet of putin!"
-
1
-
-
it is true and has been confirmed by both sides. stop spreading misinformation.
-
3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
So a promise has to be formalized in a treaty or it is ok to runaway in the middle of the night like Uncle Joe did?
you are picking which promises you want to be honored. we promised the Russians no more NATO expansion east. You never addressed that.
-
-
8 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
I did not ask if there was a need or if there was a purpose, it was a simple question. Your sort of answer is you think he would have possibly started a war with the west or attacked before they could join.
I didn't ask if the U.S. historically keeps promises, I asked if YOU believe in promises made, promises kept.
You tried to "generally" answer then quoted a speech. I suggest you review the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain.
was that promise voted on in the senate and formalized in a treaty? or was it a legally non-binding agreement? is ukraine a part of nato?
-
26 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:
Gents, I'm all for healthy debate
except you're not. snap.
-
1
-
-
nato expanding up to the borders of russia was provocation.
-
1. there is zero need for ukraine to join nato. it's incendiary and serves no purpose. would the US be upset if canada or mexico joined BRICS or the warsaw pact?
to answer your question...possibly, but no way to know. i think he would have invaded before ukraine joined NATO (such as present day conditions).
2. ironic. generally yes, but historically when has the US kept promises? also which promise are you going to reference?
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents"
-
NATO didn't need any more members...for what purpose? hope hundreds of thousands of ukranian lives were worth it. foolish.
certainly not a "unprovoked" invasion.
-
1
-
-
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that."
"So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"
- NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg 07 Sep 2023
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
-
what does the Lord say?
-
there needs to be serious prison time.
-
1
-
-
the only side that needs to re-equip and re-arm ain't the russian side.
-
palenske fucks
-
1
-
Russian Ukraine shenanigans
in General Discussion
Posted
oh ousted? not western backed CIA coup overthrow? interesting