If Temp Hold on Ukraine Aid "threatened US National Security", what did NO WEAPONS DO

Darth Omar said:
And in the Mother of Ironies, I agree more with Obama’s Ukraine policy lol.

Go figure. I’m not on board with arming Ukraine if it’s going to antagonize Russia and neither was Obama. Obama didn’t want to fight the Russians in a proxy war—7000 miles away in Ukraine, and neither do I. But the lefties want us to fight a proxy war with Russia [even though The Obama didn’t] because their ridiculous Russian narrative demands it.

And if Trump doesn’t ‘he’s Putin’s puppet’ blah blah blah.

I’m half convinced much of the world thinks we’ve lost our minds and they might have an argument.
Click to expand...

Well, that's one way to look at it.

Obama could have led a NATO coalition to deter Putin's invasion of Crimea in the first place.

And justified it with the Budapest Memorandum which states ...

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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

Do you really think the world should just cede the Ukraine and other old USSR satellites to Putin's aggression?
 
Bigdog said:
Well, that's one way to look at it.

Obama could have led a NATO coalition to deter Putin's invasion of Crimea in the first place.

And justified it with the Budapest Memorandum which states ...

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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

Do you really think the world should just cede the Ukraine and other old USSR satellites to Putin's aggression?
Click to expand...
a bit late to be concerned with such niceties. When John McCain and Vicky Nulad ( whose name again came up in the hearings) fomented revolution during the Euromaidan, that make the Budapest Memorandum obsolete.

Repeated threats by the Orange and colors rulers to not renew the Sevastapol lease put Putin in the position of forced annexation of Crimea ( for Black Sea access )
 
Do you really think the world should just cede the Ukraine and other old USSR satellites to Putin's aggression?
Click to expand...
Crimea is historic Russian with Russian majorities ( why the separatists started the war)
Putin isn't going to "seize" anything. that's pure Russiaphobia
 
dukkha said:
a bit late to be concerned with such niceties. When John McCain and Vicky Nulad ( whose name again came up in the hearings) fomented revolution during the Euromaidan, that make the Budapest Memorandum obsolete.

Repeated threats by the Orange and colors rulers to not renew the Sevastapol lease put Putin in the position of forced annexation of Crimea ( for Black Sea access )
Click to expand...

I don't know how it made it obsolete. And I would argue that Ukraine had the sovereign right to not renew the Sevastopol lease.
 
dukkha said:
Crimea is historic Russian with Russian majorities ( why the separatists started the war)
Putin isn't going to "seize" anything. that's pure Russiaphobia
Click to expand...

Historic is not a justification for Putin to send his military into Crimea.

I'm not a Russiaphobe, but it appears to me that Pootie is trying to seize the rest of Ukraine. And would like to seize Georgia and Belarus, too.
 
countryboy said:
We're not "unhinged" we're just sick and tired of leftist lunatics, and your lying, hypocritical bullshit. What does it matter what a far left website has to say about Obama? Bottom line is, he provided no lethal weaponry to Ukraine. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

Politifact isn't far left at all. This is part of the behavior of the Unhinged Right. If anyone dare contradict Saint Trump, they get branded "Far Left" or "Radical Democratic Socialist."
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
Historic is not a justification for Putin to send his military into Crimea.

I'm not a Russiaphobe, but it appears to me that Pootie is trying to seize the rest of Ukraine. And would like to seize Georgia and Belarus, too.
Click to expand...
Justification? like THREATENED ACCESS TO SEVASTOPOL??
seems pretty damned justified to me -especially when we fomented the Euromaidan and overturned the order
where Ukraine was ready to partner with Russia over nat gas.

Nothing personal my friend but we just whistle past the graveyard and blame other for our follies;
instead of taking ownership of yet another FUBAR intervention.
Why are we not part of the Normandy talks? - Because we want this goddamned war with Putin

No Putin doesn't even want Donbass -but he does support the separatists who want autonomy
from what was a repressive Kyiv under Poroshenko
 
dukkha said:
Justification? like THREATENED ACCESS TO SEVASTOPOL??
seems pretty damned justified to me -especially when we fomented the Euromaidan and overturned the order
where Ukraine was ready to partner with Russia over nat gas.

Nothing personal my friend but we just whistle past the graveyard and blame other for our follies;
instead of taking ownership of yet another FUBAR intervention.
Why are we not part of the Normandy talks? - Because we want this goddamned war with Putin

No Putin doesn't even want Donbass -but he does support the separatists who want autonomy
from what was a repressive Kyiv under Poroshenko
Click to expand...

It would have been a huge victory for the free world if Pootie lost access to SEVASTOPOL, my friend.

And it would lessen the strength of any China Russo military coalition.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
It would have been a huge victory for the world if Pootie lost access to SEVASTOPOL, my friend.
Click to expand...
ridiculous. absolute pure and unmitigated Russiaphobia. Why should Russia not have a warm water port?
Russia has every right to be in syria -they were invited in, unlike Iran.

The Russia navy is no real threat - but any country that isn't landlocked has a natural right to field a NAVY.

Godammed BD - read that long article I posted and stop thinking everything has to be a zero sum game with Russia
We don't have to have Cold War 2.0 -we choose it
 
dukkha said:
ridiculous. absolute pure and unmitigated Russiaphobia. Why should Russia not have a warm water port?
Russia has every right to be in syria -they were invited in, unlike Iran.

The Russia navy is no real threat - but any country that isn't landlocked has a natural right to field a NAVY.

Godammed BD - read that long article I posted and stop thinking everything has to be a zero sum game with Russia
We don't have to have Cold War 2.0 -we choose it
Click to expand...

I never mentioned Russia's Tartus naval base.

I'm not a Russiaphobe. And, landlocked countries do not have a natural right to naval, or any, ports.
 
Bigdog said:
Well, that's one way to look at it.

Obama could have led a NATO coalition to deter Putin's invasion of Crimea in the first place.

And justified it with the Budapest Memorandum which states ...

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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

Do you really think the world should just cede the Ukraine and other old USSR satellites to Putin's aggression?
Click to expand...

Well, it seems to be a bit of stalemate so it’s not like Russia is going to waltz into Ukraine any time soon.

I just think we have more pressing matters at home. In fact, there’s no shortage of them.
 
Bigdog said:
I never mentioned Russia's Tartus naval base.

I'm not a Russiaphobe. And, landlocked countries do not have a natural right to naval, or any, ports.
Click to expand...
recall Russia has had a lease on Sevastopol with Ukraine since Crimea was returned back by the Presidium in 1954.
It was a goodwill jester - but the Soviet and now Russia is a great power ( at least military)
and expects access to Sevastopol.

I'm not interested in calling you names like Russiaphobe, or Cold Warrior,but I can only address your
posts that act like Russia isn't a valid state,and must remain a vassal of the west.

This is what infuriates Russians, one reason why Putin gets to play his nationalism and is counterproductive to peace and world order
We play these game of 'keep Russia in a box' even after we expanded NATO after we promised not to.

Looking at all these circumstances it's no wonder Putin was compelled to annex Crimea
 
dukkha said:
recall Russia has had a lease on Sevastopol with Ukraine since Crimea was returned back by the Presidium in 1954.
It was a goodwill jester - but the Soviet and now Russia is a great power ( at least military)
and expects access to Sevastopol.

I'm not interested in calling you names like Russiaphobe, or Cold Warrior,but I can only address your
posts that act like Russia isn't a valid state,and must remain a vassal of the west.

This is what infuriates Russians, one reason why Putin gets to play his nationalism and is counterproductive to peace and world order
We play these game of 'keep Russia in a box' even after we expanded NATO after we promised not to.

Looking at all these circumstances it's no wonder Putin was compelled to annex Crimea
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your assessment of Putin's reasoning.

Britain had a lease on Hong Kong, and the U.S. had a lease on the Panama Canal.

You are concerned about Russia's hypersonic missiles and a China Russo military coalition. I would think that weakening Russia's military prowess would be a positive to you.
 
Bigdog said:
I don't disagree with your assessment of Putin's reasoning.
Click to expand...
It's clear Putin plays of Russian nationalism -what do you not agree with?

Britain had a lease on Hong Kong, and the U.S. had a lease on the Panama Canal.
Click to expand...
Britain had a worldwide Navy - they were not soley reliant on Hong Kong
The US still has access to the Panama canal - ownership doesn't change that.
Cutting off the lease to Sevastopol means Russia can't even use Tartus.
That is a big deal - a warm water ( Blue Navy) port is essential to Russia

You are concerned about Russia's hypersonic missiles and a China Russo military coalition. I would think that weakening Russia's military prowess would be a positive to you.
Click to expand...
completely different strategic goals -the supersonics are in space.
By denying Russia it's access, it forces them to be closer to Xi -so again that's counterproductive to the argument you made
 
Last edited:
dukkha said:
It's clear Putin plays of Russian nationalism -what do you not agree with?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

Britain had a worldwide Navy - they were not soley reliant on Hong Kong
The US still has access to the Panama canal - ownership doesn't change that.
Cutting off the lease to Sevastopol means Russia can't even use Tartus.
That is a big deal - a warm water ( Blue Navy) port is essential to Russia
Click to expand...

Re Panama & HK: My point was it's a LEASE, ... honor it.

Why can't they use Tartus?

completely different strategic goals -the supersonics are in space.
By denying Russia it's access, it forces them to be closer to Xi -so again that's counterproductive to the argument you made
Click to expand...

It's more important to weaken Russia's military prowess, IMO.
 
Bigdog said:
I don't disagree.
Click to expand...
check that off

Re Panama & HK: My point was it's a LEASE, ... honor it.
Click to expand...
The Colors persidents would not honor the lease -or continually threatened it

Why can't they use Tartus?
Click to expand...
how can they get there? Black Sea thru the Bosporous Strait is their only continuous warm water port.
Murmansk is ice-free port, Novorossiysk is ice-free port but the Northern sea route is only navigable for part of the year.

It's more important to weaken Russia's military prowess, IMO.
Click to expand...
most important is getting Russia away from China ( if it's not already too late) Russian engineering combined with Chinese money is the existentil threat
 
dukkha said:
check that off

The Colors persidents would not honor the lease -or continually threatened it
Click to expand...


2010 "Yanukovych said the lease on Russia's Black Sea fleet that was due to expire in 2017 will be prolonged for 25 years, until 2042 at least."


how can they get there? Black Sea thru the Bosporous Strait is their only continuous warm water port.
Murmansk is ice-free port, Novorossiysk is ice-free port but the Northern sea route is only navigable for part of the year.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. That is a navigation issue, not a port issue.

most important is getting Russia away from China ( if it's not already too late) Russian engineering combined with Chinese money is the existentil threat
Click to expand...

I disagree. And The two will never really trust each other, and rightfully so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top