Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's NATO Problem...Abandoning Allies?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Yovanovich ( a Democratic sleeper ) lied under oath .

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by pamak View Post
      Speaking about abandoning allies, we should include the example of Ukraine.

      Even though it is not technically an ally, it is still protected by agreements that the US signed in 1994 in order to remove the nuclear weapons which were staged there (and which were targeting the US).

      https://web.archive.org/web/20140317...s-1994/p32484#
      .

      Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994


      ...


      The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to the
      Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

      Now Ukraine is used as a pawn in Trump's election chessboard and even a congressionally authorized military aid is used as leverage to make it bow to the will of the POTUS
      If Ukraine is not an ally ( citing your own words ) Ukraine should not be mentioned in a discussion about abandoning allies .
      US have no obligations to Ukraine .

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by ljadw View Post

        The Baltics have no aircraft .
        And why put them together ? Do you think that if there is a war between Finland/Poland and Russia Greece/Albania will declare war on Russie and will send troops to Finland/Poland ?
        Leaving aside that your examples are all dumb, and have nothing to do with the actual strategic a political stakes in any of those regions (of which you seem entirely ignorant):
        In principle Yes. Since that is how alliances work.

        Let's instead say if Russia invades the Baltic republics, the odds are rather good that Finnish and Swedish air assets will be available in some form. Even more so if Finland would end up in some kind of shooting conflict with Russia.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by ljadw View Post

          If Ukraine is not an ally ( citing your own words ) Ukraine should not be mentioned in a discussion about abandoning allies .
          US have no obligations to Ukraine .
          I just posted the obligations US has to Ukraine.

          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post

            I will correct this one : ''career professionals "" = deep state sleepers, deep state professionals .
            Besides : what Bolton said was his opinion : he disagreed with the policy the WH was making , but he did not say that it was a quid pro quo .
            The colonel ,cited here by the Obama lobby, was also a DS professional : he was talking about a bipartisan foreign policy, meaning that the foreign policy of Trump should have the consent of the Democrats and RINOs.
            This is totally wrong as the potus is the only one who determines US foreign policy. Not the NSC, not State, not the secretary of state, not CNN . Not Congres.The only power Congress has is to reject a treaty proposal .
            The potus is the executive branch of the government, he is not obliged to follow the opinion of the NSC.Neither the opinion of the secretary of state or the NSA .: these people serve at the pleasure of the potus and can be fired at will as happened to Tillerson,Bolton and Bryan, Lansing, Haig, Powell.
            The strength of multiple testimonies revealing the perception of the participants is incriminating Trump because the law penalizes public officials even when they seek an indirect quid pro quo. In such cases, an indirect quo is not explicitly phrased and it must be deduced by other pieces of evidence, such as the perception of eye witnesses.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

            (b)Whoever—

            (2)being a
            public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
            (A)
            being influenced in the performance of any
            official act;

            ...

            shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of
            value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

            And no, the career professionals who participate in such talks have passed a background check that the hacks you use in the articles you post here have not passed. So, your and their opinion as outsiders are the ones that do not matter.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              I just posted the obligations US has to Ukraine.
              NO : US has NO obligations to Ukraine .Assurances do not mean obligations .

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                NO : US has NO obligations to Ukraine .
                I presented the facts of the agreements that were singed by the US.
                You present your opinion
                Champberlain would have agreed with you



                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #53
                  A summary of the Budapest Memorandums
                  1 US will respect the border, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine : meaningless blah blah
                  2 US will not use force against Ukraine,unless Ukraine attacks US first : meaningless blahblah
                  3 US will refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine : meaningless blahblah,because who will determine that US is using economic coercion ?
                  4 US will ask action from the UNSC to help Ukraine if this is attacked by nuclear weapons : this means that if Ukraine is attacked by nuclear weapons,US will ask someone else to help Ukraine ,but will not do it itself .
                  Nice . Who was talking about abandoning a ( non existent ) ally ?
                  5 US will not attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons, unless it is forced to do this . And as US and no one else will judge if it is necessary to attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons, this is also meaningless blahblah ,because point 5 means : if US judge6 that it is necessary to nuke Ukraine, they will do it .
                  6 Meaningless blahblah because such declarations always finish with meaningless blahblah: if there are problems ,US will consult with Ukraine : read : they will do blahblah with Ukraine.
                  Now the question : where in these 6 points can one find an obligation of the US to Ukraine ?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    A summary of the Budapest Memorandums
                    1 US will respect the border, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine : meaningless blah blah
                    2 US will not use force against Ukraine,unless Ukraine attacks US first : meaningless blahblah
                    3 US will refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine : meaningless blahblah,because who will determine that US is using economic coercion ?
                    4 US will ask action from the UNSC to help Ukraine if this is attacked by nuclear weapons : this means that if Ukraine is attacked by nuclear weapons,US will ask someone else to help Ukraine ,but will not do it itself .
                    Nice . Who was talking about abandoning a ( non existent ) ally ?
                    5 US will not attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons, unless it is forced to do this . And as US and no one else will judge if it is necessary to attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons, this is also meaningless blahblah ,because point 5 means : if US judge6 that it is necessary to nuke Ukraine, they will do it .
                    6 Meaningless blahblah because such declarations always finish with meaningless blahblah: if there are problems ,US will consult with Ukraine : read : they will do blahblah with Ukraine.
                    Now the question : where in these 6 points can one find an obligation of the US to Ukraine ?
                    Whatever you say Mr Chamberlain...
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      I presented the facts of the agreements that were singed by the US.
                      You present your opinion
                      Champberlain would have agreed with you


                      And none of these agreements mention an obligation of the US to Ukraine .
                      Chamberlain was a very wise PM ,much better than the interventionists who want to impose their ideology on the rest of the world .
                      Crimea was invaded by Russia : was this invasion a threat to the interests of US ?
                      Answer please : YES or NO .
                      The duty of the potus is to protect the interests of the American people, not the interests of the Ukrainians . Besides Ukrainians can not vote in the presidential elections .
                      In 1968 the SU invaded Czechoslovakia . What was the reaction of the Democrats ?
                      You have learnt nothing from the debacles of Somalia and Iraq/Afghanistan .
                      The truth is that if you want eternal peace,you will have eternal war .
                      US did nothing when China invaded Vietnam, when the SU invaded CZ, when the SU invaded Hungary, when Indonesia invaded Timor, when India invaded Pakistan, when Iraq invaded Iran . Why should US react when Russia invaded a part of Ukraine ?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        Whatever you say Mr Chamberlain...
                        He admits that he has no argument .

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                          And none of these agreements mention an obligation of the US to Ukraine .
                          Chamberlain was a very wise PM ,much better than the interventionists who want to impose their ideology on the rest of the world .
                          Crimea was invaded by Russia : was this invasion a threat to the interests of US ?
                          Answer please : YES or NO .
                          The duty of the potus is to protect the interests of the American people, not the interests of the Ukrainians . Besides Ukrainians can not vote in the presidential elections .
                          In 1968 the SU invaded Czechoslovakia . What was the reaction of the Democrats ?
                          You have learnt nothing from the debacles of Somalia and Iraq/Afghanistan .
                          The truth is that if you want eternal peace,you will have eternal war .
                          US did nothing when China invaded Vietnam, when the SU invaded CZ, when the SU invaded Hungary, when Indonesia invaded Timor, when India invaded Pakistan, when Iraq invaded Iran . Why should US react when Russia invaded a part of Ukraine ?
                          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....;

                          The duty of the POTUS with respect to the military aid is to do what the Senate decided to do on behalf of the US people. The Senate decided that the Ukrainian interests of receiving military aid were serving the US interests.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Commitment does not mean military aid . And the Senate does not determine US foreign policy .

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                              So as I recall, from reading books written by former Soviet generals and other articles and reports back during the 1980s and Cold War "heights" prior to the SU/USSR collapse; somewhere from half to 4/5ths of Soviet AFVs and combat aircraft were not at operational status and ready to "roll and go" on short notice. It would take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months to get this gear ready for combat duty and make an effective use in an attack/invasion upon Western Europe.

                              Further more, most of the Soviet; SU/USSR divisions/units/organizations were staffed at cadre' levels so would also require time to call up the reserves and former members needed to flesh out their TO&E. This timeline could be from a few weeks to a few months and hence would provide lead-time warning to the West and NATO for a response to Soviet mobilization.

                              Also, the call up of reservists and others to flesh out the many cadre's of Soviet divisions and units/organizations of the "First Wave" will pull many essential persons from the Soviet Industry/Agriculture/Commerce internal sectors as to constitute a major social/economic/industrial disruption to Domestic Soviet activities and well-being(economic he.

                              Injury to insult is that much of the wheeled/truck needs for transport and logistics to sustain a large scale attack/invasion of Western Europe would require pulling in the truck transport infrastructure in use to sustain the Industry/Agriculture/Commerce of the SU/USSR such that major internal dislocations would be further exacerbated.

                              So it would appear to any realistic and accurate assessors of SU/USSR military threat that to attack/invade the West/Europe might do more harm the the Soviet interior than to the West. Also, the lag in time to mobilize and build-up needed by the SU/USSR gives the West an equal window to do equal response.

                              Back then the SU/USSR was threatening with a hollow stick of balsa wood, and to fill that "hollow" with some lead would likely do more internal harm to the SU/USSR than their attack upon the West would produce. Not to mention any rewards/gains of such an attack/invasion would like not come close to making up the investment required to preform such in the first place.

                              EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissol...e_Soviet_Union
                              The degree of invasion danger in 1957 did not only depend on the strength/weakness of the Red Army ,but also the strength/weakness of NATO's forces .And the fact is that Nato was weaker than the Soviets .The annual NATO review of 1957 was pessimist :
                              P 49 :Nato authorities found that the ground,sea and air forces in early 1957 were inadequate to enable the Commanders to defend Nato's area.
                              P 58 :SACEUR was under no illusion that his land forces in their present state could easily overcome any surprise atack .
                              The survival of NATO in Central Europe depended on the threat | use of nuclear arms . But after the Sputnik launching this threat had become illusionary,as the Soviets could now attack Conus .The US nuclear umbrella did no longer function .
                              But still,the Soviets did not attack,the reason being that they had the greatests difficulties to control Eastern Europe and had not the means to control an other 120 million people .

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                The NATO country presently with the most troops in the Ukraine right now and also over the last 10 years that refuses to abandon the Ukraine and let Putin win. What country is that?
                                Last edited by Sparlingo; 11 Nov 19, 00:27.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X