Actually it was US, UK, Russia, France, and China, the five permanent members of UN security council, promised Ukraine that they would protect her from nuclear attacks. But now Russia is attacking her, with conventional warfare.
I don't see anything about it just being nukes... The text of that agreement stated that in exchange for the step, the “Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
i didnt really know anything about putins early history so i read his bio on wikipedia. its pretty fascinating and explains a lot about why he is such as a**hole. his grandfather was a personal chef for stalin and lenin...wow! brother, uncles and grandmother killed in WWII. it almost reminds me of andrew jackson, who as a kid was captured by british during revolutionary war. an officer slashed his face with a sword when he refused to shine his boots. his brother died in the prison camp and his mom died on the way home from picking up young andrew from the prison camp. its what led to jacksons life-long hatred to all things british. imagine the intense hatred putin must have for the west and especially germany...like jackson, its personal. the direct connection he has to stalin and lenin through his grandfather is pretty remarkable. his family was destroyed by the war. he is literally a child of the soviet union and has obviously never been able to let it go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born on 7 October 1952 in Leningrad, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union (now Saint Petersburg, Russia),[18][19] the youngest of three children of Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin (1911–1999) and Maria Ivanovna Putina (née Shelomova; 1911–1998). Spiridon Putin, Vladimir Putin's grandfather, was a personal cook to Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.[20][21] Putin's birth was preceded by the deaths of two brothers, Viktor and Albert, born in the mid-1930s. Albert died in infancy and Viktor died of diphtheria during the Siege of Leningrad by Nazi Germany's forces in World War II.[22] Putin's mother was a factory worker and his father was a conscript in the Soviet Navy, serving in the submarine fleet in the early 1930s. Early in World War II, his father served in the destruction battalion of the NKVD.[23][24][25] Later, he was transferred to the regular army and was severely wounded in 1942.[26] Putin's maternal grandmother was killed by the German occupiers of Tver region in 1941, and his maternal uncles disappeared on the Eastern Front during World War II.[27]
There is no way to secure an entire country the size of Texas where everyone is armed and hates you with 190,000 troops, that is just not enough. There will be nowhere secure for them.....the populace will continue to fight and kill Russians every day, everywhere. Let's hope talks work. DD
Of course they wouldn't (at least the white dominant Western world), but that is for a lot of reasons.... including the fact that Russia is a super power that has nuclear weapons and is aligned with China, which is a growing relationship that is about to send the world back into another Cold War..... and from the perspective of Europeans, this is right at their door step. There is also a major component of economic consequences across the world that would not exist if Egypt invaded the Sudan. Should every single conflict get the same attention? Yes, a life is a life.... but the reality is that doesn't happen. Can it be implicit bias AND economic and geopolitical? Absolutely, but it isn't a fair comparison.
There was an assurance, not a legal commitment. It was not with NATO and what Ukraine gave up was nuke capability (they had the HW but had no control of it). Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. Content According to the memorandum,[22] Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following: Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[23] Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[19][24]
It's not often that war has such clear cut sides. Russia is an authoritarian tyrannical regime aggressively initiating a war with a neighbor that is proponent of Democracy in addition to being an underdog. It really is a case of supporting Democracy against those that seek to wipe out Democracy.
This is 100% nukes. NATO would already be in Ukraine right now if nuclear weapons weren't a question. This is why there was a huge disarmament movement in the 90s. This is literally the scenario everyone wanted to avoid at the time (a madman leveraging nuclear capability to prevent foreign governments from stopping wars). Mikhael Gorbachev in particular was a big advocate of finding a path to disarming the US and Russia (and the rest of the world by extension). There was a theoretical window in the 90s but it never really went beyond some token efforts to retire a small portion of nuclear weapons.
I don't think it is imagined in your head, you are introspective and based on your experience and facts you reach conclusions. I am well aware that my opinions are in part based on my perspective, and I have the perspective of a white man, that is tall and attractive by the norms of white society.... I try very hard to listen to other people, especially women and minorities and doing so has changed my view or perspective on many things. Having a Middle Eastern wife has also made a large impact.... and she has no problem (thankfully) pointing out when I act entitled of when I am ignorant and I take what she says and others tell me seriously. I will think about what you and others have said, and it may well change my perspective.... as I, for all my faults, will change my opinions, especially as I get older.
Within the USA military, they believe that they can stop 99%......... so there are two ways of looking at it....... wow we can stop 99% or ........ we can't stop all of it. The longer this goes on, the more I believe that the USA and her NATO allies should get directly involved in the conflict through air raids or even sending group troops into the Ukraine. What we are doing is setting a really bad precedent.
Yeah, I read about that a decade ago, how Russia's land capabilities were obselete or slowly growing out of date and could be wiped out before they could retaliate, but that still leaves a lot to subs and mobile launchers they were developing in response. I mean, they still have nukes to irradiate the world a 100x over, so I'm not sure a 99% interception rate is a measure of success.
No one is willing to risk the fate of humanity over Ukraine's survival. It sounds bad but that's the bottom line. Zelensky knows this and keeps on saying no one is coming, it's all up to us. With that said, the idea of a no-fly zone in a western section of Ukraine for the safe passage of refugees is interesting. I think that might be an area that could be done with a clear sole intention of protecting civilians but not the military.
Ukraine is probably lost eventually without direct military involvement from NATO. They can only hold on for so long, Russia will just brute force their way in eventually.
Well that is the question isn't it? Does the USA want to risk a 1% chance if even only a handful of nukes are launched? First, I don't believe that Putin would launch nuclear weapons if the USA/NATO entered the Ukraine right now.
Meebee. There's a lot of considerations at play here. I'm inclined to believe that the longer this goes on the better this is for Ukraine and I like Ukraine's chances more of ending the conflict with some sort of negotiated agreement.
"It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed” I'm not going to call it racist because that word get thrown out too lightly, but that is 100% biased. How could you even argue that? He is stating straight up that he has more empathy for blue eyed, blonde haired Europeans.
