European Armaments Manufacturers

[UltraChad]

Name a single instance in that 80 years where the USA has said yes to a request for direct troop support.

The WW2, Vietnam which was actually started by France who dragged more than just the USA into SE Asian conflict for like 30 years, lots of material and intelligence supplied to the British during the Falkland's war, Yugoslavia in the early 90's, the entire Bosnia shit show in the late 90's, NATO Operation Essential Harvest in Macedonia in 01.

And then there is the securing of all the shipping lanes you guys depend heavily on, curtesy of the US Navy.

Most of our major military action/expenses have been cleaning up/policing European shit shows and defending Europe, mostly from Europe.

And now you want us to do WW3 for you. NOPE.

Europeans have great respect for the American people and military, but absolutely none for American political leadership (of all parties)

Europeans have a great sense of ENTITLEMENT to the American military.

That's why you got the political leadership we have.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

All parties assured ro Ukraine security

Are you referring to the 1994 memorandum signed by the US, Russia, the UK & Northern Ireland?

 

[ll74]

Are you referring to the 1994 memorandum signed by the US, Russia, the UK & Northern Ireland?

Yep.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yep.

Here’s the text from that memo, copy pasted from Wikipedia. Contains promises to respect Ukrainian independence, not to attack Ukraine, not to use economic coercion, and to seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine is attacked. They also promise to consult each other if any questions arise about these commitments. All pretty weak commitments and nothing mentioning weapons, ammunition, troops in the country, or any of the other things that are typically associated with security. Obviously Russia violated it. Which non binding commitments did the other signatories break?

—————————————-
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coerciondesigned to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereigntyand thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 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.

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

— Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons[13]

 

[ll74]

Here’s the text from that memo, copy pasted from Wikipedia. Contains promises to respect Ukrainian independence, not to attack Ukraine, not to use economic coercion, and to seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine is attacked. They also promise to consult each other if any questions arise about these commitments. All pretty weak commitments and nothing mentioning weapons, ammunition, troops in the country, or any of the other things that are typically associated with security. Obviously Russia violated it. Which non binding commitments did the other signatories break?

—————————————-
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coerciondesigned to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereigntyand thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 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.

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

— Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons[13]

Russia's argument regarding NATO for their invasion is based on a handshake about expansion behind the scenes.

There is far more written evidence of our support for security of Ukraine.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Russia's argument regarding NATO for their invasion is based on a handshake about expansion behind the scenes.

There is far more written evidence of our support for security of Ukraine.

I’m not defending Russia’s invasion or its rationalization for it. I looking for something that shows a binding commitment from the US and/or European countries to GUARANTEE security for Ukraine. If such a treaty exists, I haven’t seen it.

 

[UltraChad]

I’m not defending Russia’s invasion or its rationalization for it. I looking for something that shows a binding commitment from the US and/or European countries to GUARANTEE security for Ukraine. If such a treaty exists, I haven’t seen it.

But FEE FEES for Ukraine!!!!!

FEE FEES are just as good as a leagal treaty.....just ask a Ukraineophile.

 

[ll74]

I’m not defending Russia’s invasion or its rationalization for it. I looking for something that shows a binding commitment from the US and/or European countries to GUARANTEE security for Ukraine. If such a treaty exists, I haven’t seen it.

And my position is not about binding agreements. So you'll likely come up dry on that.

I don't think that is against my argument...unless you're defending 47.

And if you do, I'm not going to listen.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

And my position is not about binding agreements. So you'll likely come up dry on that.

I don't think that is against my argument...unless you're defending 47.

And if you do, I'm not going to listen.

I’ve heard people say that the US broke a promise to Ukraine. Just looking for something that spells out in writing what that promise was, and if it’s in any way binding.

 

[ll74]

I’ve heard people say that the US broke a promise to Ukraine.

We did

Just looking for something that spells out in writing what that promise was, and if it’s in any way binding.

The entire current invasion by Russia is
Not
In
Writing

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

We did


The entire current invasion by Russia is
Not
In
Writing

Russia promised not to invade, and then they did. They broke the promise they made in the 1994 memorandum. I don’t see any promises broken by the US or the UK.

 

[ll74]

Russia promised not to invade, and then they did. They broke the promise they made in the 1994 memorandum. I don’t see any promises broken by the US or the UK.

Lol..of course you don't.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Lol..of course you don't.

Because it doesn’t exist. If you could point to a broken promise, you would. Internet rumors about secret handshakes don’t count.

 

[ll74]

Because it doesn’t exist. If you could point to a broken promise, you would. Internet rumors about secret handshakes don’t count.

Russia's pretext of Nazism or NATO horseshit doesn't exist on the same level as you're stating here.

The war exist because of that. If you want to argue we have no obligation here and this is your argument ...the you also are accepting that Russia has no argument.

And my argument is meant to demonstrate that over everything. Thank you for supporting it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Russia's pretext of Nazism or NATO horseshit doesn't exist on the same level as you're stating here.

The war exist because of that. If you want to argue we have no obligation here and this is your argument ...the you also are accepting that Russia has no argument.

And my argument is meant to demonstrate that over everything. Thank you for supporting it.

I’m not arguing with you. I’m simply saying the US has made no promises to guarantee Ukraine’s security.

 

[ll74]

I’m not arguing with you. I’m simply saying the US has made no promises to guarantee Ukraine’s security.

Lol...of course you are.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Lol...of course you are.

No US president has committed the US to guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. Committing the US to such a guarantee would be unprecedented.

 

[ll74]

No US president has committed the US to guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. Committing the US to such a guarantee would be unprecedented.

Our current President has done neither position here.

And yet he's told Ukraine that our previous position is shit and told the Russian President that their positions are agreeable.

And so having a moral position, not in writing, in the past, is relevant.

Thanks for confirming

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

President Obama shared his perspectives on Ukraine in an interview with The Atlantic in 2016. The full interview is paywalled but here is a recap published by Radio Free Europe. Links to the RFE recap and The Atlantic interview are provided below.


U.S. President Barack Obama said that Ukraine "is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what" the United States does.

In one of a series of interviews published on March 10 that formed the basis of an article in The Atlantic magazine, Obama said that Ukraine was clearly a core interest for Russia but suggested that it may not be one for the United States.

Ukraine is "an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for," Obama said.

He rejected the notion that "the decision making of Russia or China" could somehow be influenced by "talking tough or engaging in some military action" in such situations. Such an idea "is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years," Obama said.
https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-ukraine-vulnerable-russian-military-domination/27603145.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

 

[ll74]

President Obama shared his perspectives on Ukraine in an interview with The Atlantic in 2016. The full interview is paywalled but here is a recap published by Radio Free Europe. Links to the RFE recap and The Atlantic interview are provided below.


U.S. President Barack Obama said that Ukraine "is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what" the United States does.

In one of a series of interviews published on March 10 that formed the basis of an article in The Atlantic magazine, Obama said that Ukraine was clearly a core interest for Russia but suggested that it may not be one for the United States.

Ukraine is "an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for," Obama said.

He rejected the notion that "the decision making of Russia or China" could somehow be influenced by "talking tough or engaging in some military action" in such situations. Such an idea "is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years," Obama said.
https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-ukraine-vulnerable-russian-military-domination/27603145.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

Obama was wrong on his position about Ukraine

 

[Politruk]

Then why is almost everyone in the western world so fucking mad we aren't we aren't doing WW3 for their entertainment??

Lie.

You really want to play THAT game? LOL go ahead......they were for everyone else's benefit anyhow, the US voter would LOVE to save TRILLIONS of dollars on people who fucking hate us.

More lies.

 

[Politruk]

And then there is the securing of all the shipping lanes you guys depend heavily on, curtesy of the US Navy.

Nobody but pirates poses any threat to those.

 

[Rightguide]

America has asked for European military support on countless occasions and has generally received it, leaving thousands of allied casualties as evidence of that commitment. Name a single instance in that 80 years where the USA has said yes to a request for direct troop support. Europeans have great respect for the American people and military, but absolutely none for American political leadership (of all parties)

In 1949 when NATO was founded and Europe needed support.

We've had our Army stationed there, keeping the peace, for all of those 80 years and absorbing the lion's share of the cost as well.

 

[ll74]

In 1949 when NATO was founded and Europe needed support.

We've had our Army stationed there, keeping the peace, for all of those 80 years and absorbing the lion's share of the cost as well.

Weird how in 1949, the political will existed to establish NATO.

I'm sure now we're all cognizant of the reasoning back then.

I think Churchill has some comments on the topic ....will have to review my notes.

 

[Hel_Books]

That's all over now. No one but Putin can rely on Trump -- no one in the world, including the U.S.

Oh, wait, now Trump is threatening Putin (in a social media post of course)

"Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely 'pounding' Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED."

The soap opera continues.