Circus freaks?
Circus freaks?
Sounds like someone I want to listen to.
I started that post (you quoted it!) with the answer to your question:I want to make sure I understand this...we DON'T take Ukraine into NATO but we DO agree that neither side takes them into a security alliance. But if Russia invades...we go to war with Russia. Over their invasion of Ukraine. And that's "different" from them being IN NATO. Because Russia...what?
You know it is just the last half of the word sauerkraut and that is a food many Germans eat, right?Yikes. FYI: My daughter in law is of German heritage and that means my precious Grandkids are too.
Someone asked me what my Dad called them and I carefully spelled it out.
He and about a million GI’s who fought in Europe.
Unwinnable war for Russia. These people will fight for a millennia.
I am 1/2 German and 1/2 Lithuanian. Go ahead and call me Krauty McPerogi, I don’t mind! 😉
They are taking volunteers in Ukraine. Get your fat ass over there. On the plus side, they all smoke - you’ll fit right in!Russia needs to be confronted NOW.
Mrs. Trad will buy the plane ticket.They are taking volunteers in Ukraine. Get your fat ass over there. On the plus side, they all smoke - you’ll fit right in!
These Russian POWs are all about the age of my son. I feel sorry for them too. They are literally expendable pawns in a war they don’t even know why it was started or what it’s about. Sad.
Unless they punched holes on their gas tanks or immediately surrendered I don’t feel bad for them. They’re the ones committing the atrocities.These Russian POWs are all about the age of my son. I feel sorry for them too. They are literally expendable pawns in a war they don’t even know why it was started or what it’s about. Sad.
2,1 ………………………………. 3This may have something to do with it….I mean the odds are one of them at table was going to have to head to his bunker master suite after Propaganda meeting.
Well we won’t see @seminole97 for awhile now, that is grade A fapping material for that Russia-loving SOB!
Red track suit pants guy is a bad MF.
We don't want Cuba having nukesI started that post (you quoted it!) with the answer to your question:
Just guarantee neither side will incorporate the country into their military alliance and festoon it with bases.
It’s that simple, why is it absurd?
We don’t want Cuba being made into a base for other country’s weapons.
Better than nothing and the oligarchs will lose it.The problem is that when this is over the oligarchs will want them back, and they’ll still have some money and lots of seedy friends. For all the talk of liquidating them and giving sssets to ukr, salvage value will be low.
Perhaps the Ukrainians are skeptical of this type of agreement since the Russians violated the existing Budapest agreement. Also they have invaded the country on the false pretense of eliminating Nazis.I started that post (you quoted it!) with the answer to your question:
Just guarantee neither side will incorporate the country into their military alliance and festoon it with bases.
It’s that simple, why is it absurd?
We don’t want Cuba being made into a base for other country’s weapons.
Russia doesn’t want Ukraine made into a base for other country’s weapons.
What is the distinction you draw between those positions?
The Russians were seeking something like this:
Finland signed an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union in April 1948, under which Finland was obliged to resist armed attacks by "Germany or its allies" against Finland, or against the Soviet Union through Finland, and, if necessary, ask for Soviet military aid to do so. At the same time, the agreement recognised Finland's desire to remain outside great power conflicts, allowing the country to adopt a policy of neutrality during the Cold War.
Is that worse than what we have now?
Talk about scraping the barrel.This may have something to do with it….I mean the odds are one of them at table was going to have to head to his bunker master suite after Propaganda meeting.
Worries about "Basing weapons" can be taken care by treaty or other agreement, like how we agreed to no permament NATO bases in the Baltics or other border countries. The INF treaty between the US banned missiles from all of Europe in 1987 until Putin asked Trump to withdraw from it in 2019 to provide him with a "legitimate security concern about NATO missiles in Ukraine" as a pretext for his planned invasion. The INF could be renewed, and NATO could guarantee no bases, and no troops training east of Lviv or wherever.I started that post (you quoted it!) with the answer to your question:
Just guarantee neither side will incorporate the country into their military alliance and festoon it with bases.
It’s that simple, why is it absurd?
We don’t want Cuba being made into a base for other country’s weapons.
Russia doesn’t want Ukraine made into a base for other country’s weapons.
What is the distinction you draw between those positions?
The Russians were seeking something like this:
Finland signed an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union in April 1948, under which Finland was obliged to resist armed attacks by "Germany or its allies" against Finland, or against the Soviet Union through Finland, and, if necessary, ask for Soviet military aid to do so. At the same time, the agreement recognised Finland's desire to remain outside great power conflicts, allowing the country to adopt a policy of neutrality during the Cold War.
Is that worse than what we have now?
I'm trying to figure out what part of such an agreement guarantees Ukraine's safety from future Russian aggression or subversion.Worries about "Basing weapons" can be taken care by treaty or other agreement, like how we agreed to no permament NATO bases in the Baltics or other border countries. The INF treaty between the US banned missiles from all of Europe in 1987 until Putin asked Trump to withdraw from it in 2019 to provide him with a "legitimate security concern about NATO missiles in Ukraine" as a pretext for his planned invasion. The INF could be renewed, and NATO could guarantee no bases, and no troops training east of Lviv or wherever.
I would guess any agreement would have to include the naval base in Crimea and a land bridge to it. Maybe throw in the small break away areas. Have the agreement refereed by outside powers if both sides could agree to who that would be.
Ukraine joins NATO, but no basing NATO missiles or forces there. That's how all the former Warsaw Pact countries were added.I'm trying to figure out what part of such an agreement guarantees Ukraine's safety from future Russian aggression or subversion.
The base is Russian as are the people in the break away states. I don't think Russia will concede them. I suspect if they make this offer, the West will ask Ukraine to agree and might threaten them with lifting sanctions.Only if you're giving up Ukrainian territory.
All those lands go back to Ukraine, or sanctions stay in place.
Gonna be some interesting 2022 and 2024 election cycles w/o Russian money involved.
More like Sped-natz, amiright?
It's only Russian because they stole it.The base is Russian as are the people in the break away states.
He literally sits 50 feet away from everyone, but will be next to all of them.Sounds like someone I want to listen to.