International Trump is Truly a Putin Cuck - Russia and Trump Says Ukraine Must Elect a New President as Part of a Peace Deal

[Rational Poster]

You're the first person in the world to accuse someone of falling for propaganda. Give yourself a big pat on the back.

Not just that, the whole put down is what I said to you earlier except you substituted brain liquified with mangled.

 

[The XL]

And the US and Russia signed up to respecting Ukraine's territorial sovereignty when they forfeited their nuclear weapons.

In your original scenario, the person in question was looking to take back what he voluntarily relinquished. In this scenario, the modern American constituency didn't agree to anything.

 

[The XL]

Not just that, the whole put down is what I said to you earlier except you substituted brain liquified with mangled.

Congrats, you're the first person to come up with those insults.

 

[brothir]

If we interjected every time a supposed bad guy was doing something, it would be never ending. We sure do pick our spots though.

Our interest in this was never about good vs evil. It's naive of you, or anyone else, to think so.

No, it's pretty squarely about good vs. evil. Putin is evil, is doing something evil, and the West is trying to prevent it. Pretty straightforward.

 

[Rational Poster]

Congrats, you're the first person to come up with those insults.

I'm the first person in this thread at least, and you're so malleable and your feelings were so hurt by it, it stuck with you and you repeated it.

 

[The XL]

No, it's pretty squarely about good vs. evil. Putin is evil, is doing something evil, and the West is trying to prevent it. Pretty straightforward.

The West is trying to bleed Russia out in blood and treasure. They don't give a shit about Ukraine.

 

[Rational Poster]

In your original scenario, the person in question was looking to take back what he voluntarily relinquished. In this scenario, the modern American constituency didn't agree to anything.

How many years are internationally binding treaties good for?

 

[The XL]

I'm the first person in this thread at least, and you're so malleable and your feelings were so hurt by it, it stuck with you and you repeated it.

lol, I didn't even remember that you said it by the time I posted it. I've used that kind of insult before, that's where I was drawing from. You sure have a big ego for someone so dull and irrelevant.

 

[Rational Poster]

lol, I didn't even remember that you said it by the time I posted it. I've used that kind of insult before, that's where I was drawing from. You sure have a big ego for someone so dull and irrelevant.

Everyone believes you, lmao

 

[brothir]

The West is trying to bleed Russia out in blood and treasure. They don't give a shit about Ukraine.

I'm part of the West, and I care about Ukraine. So do dozens, even hundreds, of millions of other people in the West. And elsewhere, too.

 

[The XL]

How many years are internationally binding treaties good for?

They're supposed to be for the duration of whatever time and/or terms are set. In reality, they're good for as long as both parties in question are satisfied by them. The American people aren't satisfied by them anymore.

 

[The XL]

I'm part of the West, and I care about Ukraine. So do dozens, even hundreds, of millions of other people in the West. And elsewhere, too.

You and others might, sure. The United States government doesn't, though.

 

[Rational Poster]

They're supposed to be for the duration of whatever time and/or terms are set. In reality, they're good for as long as both parties in question are satisfied by them. The American people aren't satisfied by them anymore.

So not even a single lifetime?

 

[The XL]

So not even a single lifetime?

Not in this case. It was a bad agreement.

What's funny is the fact that you guys are losing your minds over this agreement, when it wasn't even a legally binding treaty in the first place.

 

[sickc0d3r]

That's definitely not true.

That doesn’t make sense, man.

 

[Rational Poster]

Not in this case. It was a bad agreement.

What's funny is the fact that you guys are losing your minds over this agreement, when it wasn't even a legally binding treaty in the first place.

Why was it a bad agreement? Is nuclear proliferation good?

International agreements are political, not legal.

 

[The XL]

Why was it a bad agreement? Is nuclear proliferation good?

International agreements are political, not legal.

It was a bad agreement because it puts us in the middle of a regional squabble with the only other nuclear powerhouse in the world. It's simply not worth the money or the possible escalation. It also puts Ukraine in a position of fighting a war that they can't win.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

oof...

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

 

[Limbo Pete]

Our politicians represent our modern constituency, not our past constituency or Ukraine.

It's not even clear what you're trying to get at. Are you saying we have no obligation to uphold international agreements made in good faith? Why, because it's been X amount of years? There's an unspoken expiration date? You're talking like an entitled baby.

 

[Rational Poster]

It was a bad agreement because it puts us in the middle of a regional squabble with the only other nuclear powerhouse in the world. It's simply not worth the money or the possible escalation. It also puts Ukraine in a position of fighting a war that they can't win.

So we should have let them keep their nukes?