Ukraine - Doomsday

[IGotWorms 4,060]

57 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Its probably been covered…but what is our obligation to protect Ukraine? 
 

Did we have an agreement to protect them if they gave up nuclear?

One last time, say it with me: they are a western democracy.

We want to foster and protect western democracy.

Particularly against autocratic regimes.

They also provide a bit of a buffer for the NATO states, which we actually are obliged to protect. But that’s perhaps a secondary issue.

That’s about it, really. If that doesn’t do it for you, well then I don’t know what to say

[cyclone24 1,923]

35 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

One last time, say it with me: they are a western democracy.

We want to foster and protect western democracy.

Particularly against autocratic regimes.

They also provide a bit of a buffer for the NATO states, which we actually are obliged to protect. But that’s perhaps a secondary issue.

That’s about it, really. If that doesn’t do it for you, well then I don’t know what to say

So we are obligated to protect them because they hold western values in Eastern Europe that we agree with?

Also we’re not really protecting them. We’re throwing money at the issue, tons of it , with some weapons…in what’s going to be a wasted use of resources. 
 

I was just curious what actual agreement we have with them that we are supposed to protect them because we are either doing a really terrible job of it or we shouldn’t be there at all. 

I’d prefer to see Zaleinski surrender and not get his entire country killed and drag us into a world war just to save Ukraine.

[iam90sbaby 2,642]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

One last time, say it with me: they are a western democracy.

We want to foster and protect western democracy.

Particularly against autocratic regimes.

They also provide a bit of a buffer for the NATO states, which we actually are obliged to protect. But that’s perhaps a secondary issue.

That’s about it, really. If that doesn’t do it for you, well then I don’t know what to say

I would care more but they keep using our dees as resources so fock'em.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

One last time, say it with me: they are a western democracy.

We want to foster and protect western democracy.

Particularly against autocratic regimes.

They also provide a bit of a buffer for the NATO states, which we actually are obliged to protect. But that’s perhaps a secondary issue.

That’s about it, really. If that doesn’t do it for you, well then I don’t know what to say

Wake me up when Puton gets to a NATO country. And us sending weapons is just making everything worse. You're just a Biden shill, who bought his lies to protect his bank account. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

3 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Wake me up when Puton gets to a NATO country. And us sending weapons is just making everything worse. You're just a Biden shill, who bought his lies to protect his bank account. 

It's Putin, not Puton, and NATO pouring weapons into the Ukraine helps their military keep Russia from slaughtering even more innocent civilians. 

This is good vs. evil, and the world needs to show Russia that this atrocious and despicable act has no place in modern times and will get met with fierce resistance.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Not a good day for Russian admiral and generals..

[IGotWorms 4,060]

1 hour ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It's Putin, not Puton, and NATO pouring weapons into the Ukraine helps their military keep Russia from slaughtering even more innocent civilians. 

This is good vs. evil, and the world needs to show Russia that this atrocious and despicable act has no place in modern times and will get met with fierce resistance.

It’s quite sad how far gone that side is. They don’t even realize a threat when they see it, as they’ve bought so far into this whole liberal world order one government full of pedophiles trying to rape your children thing  

[Cloaca du jour 2,152]

Look up the Minsk Accords.  Ukraine has been shelling and attacking these independent russian areas of ukraine for the last 8 years.  No one mentions that.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s quite sad how far gone that side is. They don’t even realize a threat when they see it, as they’ve bought so far into this whole liberal world order one government full of pedophiles trying to rape your children thing  

I read up on what the Austrian leader had to say about his visit with Putin. He said Putin genuinely believes what we view as propaganda. He doesn't comprehend the resistance and ass whooping that the Ukers are handing his military. He really thinks he's denazifying Ukraine. If so, he's focking nutballs and dangerous as hell, like Hitler believing up until almost the last moment that the Germans would somehow turn it around and prevail. The world can't stand for this.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

6 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

One last time, say it with me: they are a western democracy.

We want to foster and protect western democracy.

Particularly against autocratic regimes.

They also provide a bit of a buffer for the NATO states, which we actually are obliged to protect. But that’s perhaps a secondary issue.

That’s about it, really. If that doesn’t do it for you, well then I don’t know what to say

It doesn’t do it for me. Also, democracy. Lol. Democracy and Ukraine isn’t a thing. Never has been in its short existence. Wake up skippy. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

5 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It's Putin, not Puton, and NATO pouring weapons into the Ukraine helps their military keep Russia from slaughtering even more innocent civilians. 

This is good vs. evil, and the world needs to show Russia that this atrocious and despicable act has no place in modern times and will get met with fierce resistance.

Good vs evil.  Holy ship that’s funny. Good one 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

41 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

Look up the Minsk Accords.  Ukraine has been shelling and attacking these independent russian areas of ukraine for the last 8 years.  No one mentions that.

Geebus, post a freakin' link.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

19 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Good vs evil.  Holy ship that’s funny. Good one 

Not surprised you think this conflict is funny.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

42 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

Look up the Minsk Accords.  Ukraine has been shelling and attacking these independent russian areas of ukraine for the last 8 years.  No one mentions that.

 But it’s good vs evil! 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

Just now, Pimpadeaux said:

Not surprised you think this conflict is funny.

I think your simplistic characterization of it is, Jack. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

The Minsk Accords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#:~:text=This agreement consisted of a,border to the Ukrainian government.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

Just now, Pimpadeaux said:

The Minsk Accords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#:~:text=This agreement consisted of a,border to the Ukrainian government.

Why were there Accords? Because the innocent, peaceful Ukrainians weren’t shelling the shitte out of their own country, because their fellow citizens wanted to keep their language and culture? They had them for the hell of it? 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I think your simplistic characterization of it is, Jack. 

Keep siding with Russia. It validates my opinion of you.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

Just now, Pimpadeaux said:

Keep siding with Russia. It validates my opinion of you.

I bet it does. It also exposes your ignorance.  La de dah. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why were there Accords? Because the innocent, peaceful Ukrainians weren’t shelling the shitte out of their own country, because their fellow citizens wanted to keep their language and culture? They had them for the hell of it? 

I don't see how relatively small-scale conflict over disputed territory justifies a full-scale Russian assault on a free country, turning cities into rubble, engaging in war-crime atrocities and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

But that's you living in the past to justify the present.

Oh, and they had an agreement.

Quote

The next day, a Russian government spokesman acknowledged that officially recognising the Donbas republics would not be in keeping with the Minsk agreements

Oops. 

Pimpadeaux wins again.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

14 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

I don't see how relatively small-scale conflict over disputed territory justifies a full-scale Russian assault on a free country, turning cities into rubble, engaging in war-crime atrocities and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

But that's you living in the past to justify the present.

Oh, and they had an agreement.

Oops. 

Pimpadeaux wins again.

Oh, so they weren’t shelling their own people? How do you win again? Because  the dispute here is if they are both scumbags. Myself and the informed say they are, to different degrees. You, and the ignorant, claim it’s good vs evil. Stay stupid mo-fo. It suits you. You did vote for Hillary and Biden after all. And Bush.  Lol. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oh, so they weren’t shelling their own people? How do you win again? Because  the dispute here is if they are both scumbags. Myself and the informed say they are, to different degrees. You, and the ignorant, claim it’s good vs evil. Stay stupid mo-fo. It suits you. You did vote for Hillary and Biden after all. And Bush.  Lol. 

Sad that the "Puton" war that you love so much isn't going the way you'd hoped. 

Big difference between "shelling their own people" and fighting Russian-backed separatists, but you can't see that because you're an idiot.

BLM and Antifa are our own people. But you wouldn't have a problem with the government fighting them

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

6 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Sad that the "Puton" war that you love so much isn't going the way you'd hoped. 

Big difference between "shelling their own people" and fighting Russian-backed separatists, but you can't see that because you're an idiot.

BLM and Antifa are our own people. But you wouldn't have a problem with the government fighting them

I’d have a big problem with the government dropping artillery on them. You idiot. And what’s this “Puton” you refer to?  Something about a typo I assume. .   

[Utilit99 4,099]

6 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It's Putin, not Puton, and NATO pouring weapons into the Ukraine helps their military keep Russia from slaughtering even more innocent civilians. 

This is good vs. evil, and the world needs to show Russia that this atrocious and despicable act has no place in modern times and will get met with fierce resistance.

I thought you said that Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass? I didn't realize having all your civilians being slaughtered was a sign of "kicking ass".

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

47 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

I thought you said that Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass? I didn't realize having all your civilians being slaughtered was a sign of "kicking ass".

The Russian military has yet to win a major battle in Ukraine, despite the carnage your Russian butt buddies have inflicted on innocent people. Not surprised you don't have the mental capacity to understand that. Sad.

 

 

 

[Gepetto 1,382]

9 hours ago, cyclone24 said:

Well i was more talking as a country even before Biden. Did we have some sort of agreement to protect them?

The Budapest Memorandum https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/global-conflicts/ukraine-agreed-to-give-up-nukes-in-exchange-for-safety-from-russia-invasion-attack-budapest-memorandum-treaty/536-8748a51f-10ee-47f0-be30-b4088750ee44 

Yes, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion. 

In 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. signed the Budapest Memorandum. The other three nations made six commitments to Ukraine: to respect Ukraine’s independence and existing borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine except for in defense, to refrain from economic coercion to gain advantages from Ukraine, to provide assistance to Ukraine if it becomes victim to an act of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, to not use their nuclear weapons on Ukraine or other non-nuclear-weapon states and to consult one another in the event these commitments are put into question.

Ukraine, in return, committed to eliminating “all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time.”

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the country’s nuclear arsenal was split between four different countries: Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Much of that arsenal ended up in Ukraine, which inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the Arms Control Association says.

The Wilson Center, a non-partisan policy forum on global issues, said in an issue brief that Ukraine was reluctant to give up its nuclear weapons without security guarantees. By 1992, the Russian parliament had already passed a resolution that said Crimea — the peninsula later annexed by Russia in 2014 — should never have been given to Ukraine. Ukraine’s own parliament therefore demanded that security guarantees be provided in a legally binding treaty, the Wilson Center said.

In the final version of the deal, Russia promised not to attack Ukraine. While the U.S. and the U.K. assured Ukraine they would aid if it was attacked by Russia, that promised aid did not guarantee military support like a NATO country would receive.

In 2009, Russia and the U.S. announced that the assurances in the Budapest Memorandum would continue to remain in effect in the future.

But Russia first violated the memorandum in 2014, when it sent its military into Crimea and annexed it. The other three nations named in the Budapest Memorandum invoked the treaty’s sixth assurance, or the agreement to consult each other in the event the treaty’s commitments came into question, and met in Paris to discuss the invasion. Russia did not attend the meeting.

The Arms Control Association said a Russian foreign ministry official argued for Russia’s right to disregard the Budapest Memorandum by claiming “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.” In the months prior to Russia’s invasion of Crimea, Ukrainian citizens ousted the country’s authoritarian president through protests.

In 2016, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov claimed in a press conference the treaty contained only one obligation: Not to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. But the text of the agreement shows that claim was false.

 

Link to the actual text of the Budapest Memorandum:  https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf 

[Gepetto 1,382]

57 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

I thought you said that Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass? I didn't realize having all your civilians being slaughtered was a sign of "kicking ass".

Slaughtering civilians is not the same as military victory.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

6 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

The Budapest Agreement https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/global-conflicts/ukraine-agreed-to-give-up-nukes-in-exchange-for-safety-from-russia-invasion-attack-budapest-memorandum-treaty/536-8748a51f-10ee-47f0-be30-b4088750ee44 

Yes, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion. 

In 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. signed the Budapest Memorandum. The other three nations made six commitments to Ukraine: to respect Ukraine’s independence and existing borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine except for in defense, to refrain from economic coercion to gain advantages from Ukraine, to provide assistance to Ukraine if it becomes victim to an act of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, to not use their nuclear weapons on Ukraine or other non-nuclear-weapon states and to consult one another in the event these commitments are put into question.

Ukraine, in return, committed to eliminating “all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time.”

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the country’s nuclear arsenal was split between four different countries: Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Much of that arsenal ended up in Ukraine, which inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the Arms Control Association says.

The Wilson Center, a non-partisan policy forum on global issues, said in an issue brief that Ukraine was reluctant to give up its nuclear weapons without security guarantees. By 1992, the Russian parliament had already passed a resolution that said Crimea — the peninsula later annexed by Russia in 2014 — should never have been given to Ukraine. Ukraine’s own parliament therefore demanded that security guarantees be provided in a legally binding treaty, the Wilson Center said.

In the final version of the deal, Russia promised not to attack Ukraine. While the U.S. and the U.K. assured Ukraine they would aid if it was attacked by Russia, that promised aid did not guarantee military support like a NATO country would receive.

In 2009, Russia and the U.S. announced that the assurances in the Budapest Memorandum would continue to remain in effect in the future.

But Russia first violated the memorandum in 2014, when it sent its military into Crimea and annexed it. The other three nations named in the Budapest Memorandum invoked the treaty’s sixth assurance, or the agreement to consult each other in the event the treaty’s commitments came into question, and met in Paris to discuss the invasion. Russia did not attend the meeting.

The Arms Control Association said a Russian foreign ministry official argued for Russia’s right to disregard the Budapest Memorandum by claiming “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.” In the months prior to Russia’s invasion of Crimea, Ukrainian citizens ousted the country’s authoritarian president through protests.

In 2016, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov claimed in a press conference the treaty contained only one obligation: Not to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. But the text of the agreement shows that claim was false.

 

Link to the actual text of the Budapest Agreement:  https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf 

Great post, brah.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

11 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

Slaughtering civilians is not the same as military victory.

Yeah, how'd that go for Nazi Germany? So far, Ukraine is winning.

[cyclone24 1,923]

16 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

The Budapest Memorandum https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/global-conflicts/ukraine-agreed-to-give-up-nukes-in-exchange-for-safety-from-russia-invasion-attack-budapest-memorandum-treaty/536-8748a51f-10ee-47f0-be30-b4088750ee44 

Yes, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion. 

In 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. signed the Budapest Memorandum. The other three nations made six commitments to Ukraine: to respect Ukraine’s independence and existing borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine except for in defense, to refrain from economic coercion to gain advantages from Ukraine, to provide assistance to Ukraine if it becomes victim to an act of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, to not use their nuclear weapons on Ukraine or other non-nuclear-weapon states and to consult one another in the event these commitments are put into question.

Ukraine, in return, committed to eliminating “all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time.”

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the country’s nuclear arsenal was split between four different countries: Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Much of that arsenal ended up in Ukraine, which inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the Arms Control Association says.

The Wilson Center, a non-partisan policy forum on global issues, said in an issue brief that Ukraine was reluctant to give up its nuclear weapons without security guarantees. By 1992, the Russian parliament had already passed a resolution that said Crimea — the peninsula later annexed by Russia in 2014 — should never have been given to Ukraine. Ukraine’s own parliament therefore demanded that security guarantees be provided in a legally binding treaty, the Wilson Center said.

In the final version of the deal, Russia promised not to attack Ukraine. While the U.S. and the U.K. assured Ukraine they would aid if it was attacked by Russia, that promised aid did not guarantee military support like a NATO country would receive.

In 2009, Russia and the U.S. announced that the assurances in the Budapest Memorandum would continue to remain in effect in the future.

But Russia first violated the memorandum in 2014, when it sent its military into Crimea and annexed it. The other three nations named in the Budapest Memorandum invoked the treaty’s sixth assurance, or the agreement to consult each other in the event the treaty’s commitments came into question, and met in Paris to discuss the invasion. Russia did not attend the meeting.

The Arms Control Association said a Russian foreign ministry official argued for Russia’s right to disregard the Budapest Memorandum by claiming “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.” In the months prior to Russia’s invasion of Crimea, Ukrainian citizens ousted the country’s authoritarian president through protests.

In 2016, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov claimed in a press conference the treaty contained only one obligation: Not to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. But the text of the agreement shows that claim was false.

 

Link to the actual text of the Budapest Memorandum:  https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf 

Hmm…ok. 
 

So I guess we are technically doing what we said we would do but it’s pretty comical. We’re throwing tons of money at a total losing cause. Because of course we are.

[Utilit99 4,099]

33 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

Slaughtering civilians is not the same as military victory.

Putin has already won the war. Now we'll see how greedy he'll get. 

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Peope need to stop replying to Util99. Hes just bored and wants attention

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

4 minutes ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Peope need to stop replying to Util99. Hes just bored and wants attention

I have cats who have superior emotional maturity.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Just now, Pimpadeaux said:

I have cats who have superior emotional maturity.

He just posts crap to get a reaction. Like his post above about Putin already winning the war. He's just bored or lonely and desperately seeks attention. I'm not trying to be a jerk. It's sad and I have a feeling this message board is all he has.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

8 minutes ago, Brad GLuckman said:

He just posts crap to get a reaction. Like his post above about Putin already winning the war. He's just bored or lonely and desperately seeks attention. I'm not trying to be a jerk. It's sad and I have a feeling this message board is all he has.

He's the worst poster in forearm history in myriad ways. He spams up the place with his unfunny nonsense, and I just sporadically respond to it anymore. And he's one of the few who outdumbs HT. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,520]

10 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

He's the worst poster in forearm history in myriad ways. He spams up the place with his unfunny nonsense, and I just sporadically respond to it anymore. And he's one of the few who outdumbs HT. 

Mao. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

53 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

I have cats who have superior emotional maturity.

Yep. Even cats are smarter and more mature than you. And they are bottom of the line in the animal kingdom.  

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Peope need to stop replying to Util99. Hes just bored and wants attention

 I'm betting you were one of those kids in school who could never take care of things himself, so you always whined, "come on guys" let's just ignore him. 

Oh, wait, you still do it as an adult. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, Pimpadeaux said:

He's the worst poster in forearm history in myriad ways. He spams up the place with his unfunny nonsense, and I just sporadically respond to it anymore. And he's one of the few who outdumbs HT. 

You have 14 posts on this page alone. And that's only from this one alias. Talk about spamming. 

The same guy who says Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass in one sentence, then says Russia is slaughtering Ukrainians in the next sentence.

 

[fandandy 3,313]

1 hour ago, Pimpadeaux said:

I have cats who have superior emotional maturity.

And I bet you wait with bated breath for them to reply too.