All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

Soviet nucs were stationed in Ukraine 30 years ago. That does not mean they now have the ability to develop & deploy nuc weapons again.
They are now totally dependent upon the West for their support & survival. That support will end if they begin pursuing nucs.
This is not a rational concern. Had they tried to retain any Soviet nucs in '94, they would not have had the means or access to employ them.
This is your revisionist history fantasy. The premise for this discussion is crazy & a waste of time.

[old salt]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

[MDlaxfan76]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

Well, I want my apple pie warm with vanilla ice cream too.

"peaceful coexistence" between Russia, Ukraine, and all their neighbors is certainly a laudable goal...however, Russia, under the Putin kleptocracy, has proven that it is ideologically committed to the elimination of Ukraine as a sovereign nation. Peaceful coexistence with a nuclear-armed neighbor with such ideology and a doctrine that claims usage of nuclear weapons as an aggressor is legitimate, is not ever going to be going to be achieved without the nuclear deterrent. That nuclear deterrent, as well as overwhelming conventional deterrence, can most easily be provided through the same umbrella relationship that Finland and Sweden sought.

It's a very powerful motivator to clean up corruption and modernize their democratic institutions...which is a good thing.

Even then, "peaceful coexistence" will remain at best uneasy given Russia's declared ideology.

The other option is for Russia to change their regime and ideology such that peaceful coexistence is based upon mutual economic and cultural interest among equals. US and Canada.

[old salt]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

Well, I want my apple pie warm with vanilla ice cream too.

"peaceful coexistence" between Russia, Ukraine, and all their neighbors is certainly a laudable goal...however, Russia, under the Putin kleptocracy, has proven that it is ideologically committed to the elimination of Ukraine as a sovereign nation. Peaceful coexistence with a nuclear-armed neighbor with such ideology and a doctrine that claims usage of nuclear weapons as an aggressor is legitimate, is not ever going to be going to be achieved without the nuclear deterrent. That nuclear deterrent, as well as overwhelming conventional deterrence, can most easily be provided through the same umbrella relationship that Finland and Sweden sought.

It's a very powerful motivator to clean up corruption and modernize their democratic institutions...which is a good thing.

Even then, "peaceful coexistence" will remain at best uneasy given Russia's declared ideology.

The other option is for Russia to change their regime and ideology such that peaceful coexistence is based upon mutual economic and cultural interest among equals. US and Canada.

You act as if future NATO membership for Ukraine is assured.
Good luck with that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

If your boy Putin wanted that, this thing would have been over a long time ago. I want an apartment in Neuilly-sur-seine. Will have to go and get it as me just wanting it is irrelevant.

[PizzaSnake]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

"The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion."

So, you're good with restoring the nuclear capability they gave up? That work for you? How expensive are nukes and missiles? Bargain at twice the price...

[old salt]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

If your boy Putin wanted that, this thing would have been over a long time ago. I want an apartment in Neuilly-sur-seine. Will have to go and get it as me just wanting it is irrelevant.

Putin's conquests are over. He is a spent force, desperately trying to hold on to what he has taken.
His nucs are the only thing that makes him a credible threat & gives him leverage.

[old salt]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

"The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion."

So, you're good with restoring the nuclear capability they gave up? That work for you? How expensive are nukes and missiles? Bargain at twice the price...

That is not necessary. Russia is currently losing the war in Ukraine.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

If your boy Putin wanted that, this thing would have been over a long time ago. I want an apartment in Neuilly-sur-seine. Will have to go and get it as me just wanting it is irrelevant.

Putin's conquests are over. He is a spent force, desperately trying to hold on to what he has taken.
His nucs are the only thing that makes him a credible threat & gives him leverage.

Un huh.

[a fan]

Soviet nucs were stationed in Ukraine 30 years ago. That does not mean they now have the ability to develop & deploy nuc weapons again.

What do you think happened with those technicians and scientists, OS? Do you think they "forgot" how to do this stuff? It ain't that hard. They've got the material, and you yourself are telling us that NATO isn't letting them in.

They are now totally dependent upon the West for their support & survival. That support will end if they begin pursuing nucs.

10 seconds ago, you were telling me that Putin can't push into Ukraine any further, he's spent. Make up your mind.

Who's to say that Ukraine isn't chasing down nukes right now?

And where did you get the idea that the US would stop supporting Ukraine if they chased down nukes? Yeah, that's right....you made it up on the spot, and want me to believe you. Hard pass. You've been wrong about all of this stuff, so why would I start thinking you know what you're talking about now.

Been telling you that Putin is playing tiddly winks for the over a decade, and you've been bragging that Putin is playing chess, and lecturing to me that I'm dumb and you've got it all figured out. Which one of us was right, OS? (hint: not you)

This is not a rational concern.

Neither was the Taliban and Co. hitting us after arming them with Charlie Wilson's game. Whoops.

The premise for this discussion is crazy & a waste of time.

So don't respond. Not my fault you're unable to think about what things will look like in the coming years because of the choices Putin made. It's not revisionist. It's simple logic, and I'm looking forward, so your dumb charge is just....dumb.

-Ukraine is sitting on uranium
-They've built and maintained nuke weapons before
-You're telling us NATO won't take them
-We've seen that any non-nuclear country is vulnerable for invasion by nuke-holding countries
-Do I need to spell out the conclusion here?

1+1=2 . This is not complicated, OS.

[PizzaSnake]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

"The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion."

So, you're good with restoring the nuclear capability they gave up? That work for you? How expensive are nukes and missiles? Bargain at twice the price...surance

That is not necessary. Russia is currently losing the war in Ukraine.

Insurance.

[old salt]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation for Dummies.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/R ... %20(ICBMs).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... emorandum/
Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of the nuclear arms. The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.

Unfortunately, Russia has broken virtually all the commitments it undertook in that document. It used military force to seize, and then illegally annex, Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in early 2014. Russian and Russian proxy forces have waged war for more than five years in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas, claiming more than 13,000 lives and driving some two million people from their homes.

Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.

Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.

Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation. That owed in part to then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He had his flaws, but he insisted that there be no revision of the boundaries separating the states that emerged from the Soviet collapse. Yeltsin respected Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. Vladimir Putin does not.

U.S. officials did assure their Ukrainian counterparts, however, that there would be a response. The United States should continue to provide reform and military assistance to Ukraine. It should continue sanctions on Russia. It should continue to demand that Moscow end its aggression against Ukraine. And it should continue to urge its European partners to assist Kyiv and keep the sanctions pressure on the Kremlin.

Washington should do this, because it said it would act if Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum. That was part of the price it paid in return for a drastic reduction in the nuclear threat to America. The United States should keep its word.

The US is more than keeping our word under the Budapest Memorandum.
We are enabling the Ukrainians to win this war & to secure their nation's survival & independence.
It is not an open ended defense treaty.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation for Dummies.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/R ... %20(ICBMs).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... emorandum/
Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of the nuclear arms. The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.

Unfortunately, Russia has broken virtually all the commitments it undertook in that document. It used military force to seize, and then illegally annex, Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in early 2014. Russian and Russian proxy forces have waged war for more than five years in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas, claiming more than 13,000 lives and driving some two million people from their homes.

Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.

Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.

Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation. That owed in part to then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He had his flaws, but he insisted that there be no revision of the boundaries separating the states that emerged from the Soviet collapse. Yeltsin respected Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. Vladimir Putin does not.

U.S. officials did assure their Ukrainian counterparts, however, that there would be a response. The United States should continue to provide reform and military assistance to Ukraine. It should continue sanctions on Russia. It should continue to demand that Moscow end its aggression against Ukraine. And it should continue to urge its European partners to assist Kyiv and keep the sanctions pressure on the Kremlin.

Washington should do this, because it said it would act if Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum. That was part of the price it paid in return for a drastic reduction in the nuclear threat to America. The United States should keep its word.

The US is more than keeping our word under the Budapest Memorandum.
We are enabling the Ukrainians to win this war & to secure their nation's survival & independence.
It is not an open ended defense treaty.

Thanks for pulling your reference manual off the shelf.

[MDlaxfan76]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

Well, I want my apple pie warm with vanilla ice cream too.

"peaceful coexistence" between Russia, Ukraine, and all their neighbors is certainly a laudable goal...however, Russia, under the Putin kleptocracy, has proven that it is ideologically committed to the elimination of Ukraine as a sovereign nation. Peaceful coexistence with a nuclear-armed neighbor with such ideology and a doctrine that claims usage of nuclear weapons as an aggressor is legitimate, is not ever going to be going to be achieved without the nuclear deterrent. That nuclear deterrent, as well as overwhelming conventional deterrence, can most easily be provided through the same umbrella relationship that Finland and Sweden sought.

It's a very powerful motivator to clean up corruption and modernize their democratic institutions...which is a good thing.

Even then, "peaceful coexistence" will remain at best uneasy given Russia's declared ideology.

The other option is for Russia to change their regime and ideology such that peaceful coexistence is based upon mutual economic and cultural interest among equals. US and Canada.

You act as if future NATO membership for Ukraine is assured.
Good luck with that.

Assured?
Certainly not.

However, I think the US and the rest of NATO should be very open to that possibility, assuming we really do want to prevent an ongoing threat from Russia under Putin.

I think that's much preferable to Ukraine...and any other nation with a nuclear neighbor. with expansionist ambitions and ideology...feeling like they must obtain their own nuclear deterrence.

Ideally, Russia would reject the ideology Putin represents and come to grips with what they've done, making appropriate amends....but that is even further from "assured".

[MDlaxfan76]

Unless you are aligned with an org like NATO.

Which gives you........nukes. It's why no one messes with Israel...and why we need to stop sending money to them. They're all set.

Finland and Sweden certainly made an important calculation.

And that's what Salty wants to deny to Ukraine..why? because the Russkies will feel "surrounded".

I don't want the US to be obligated to intervene on Ukraine's behalf if they have future disputes with Russia. I want peaceful coexistence.
The West can provide the military & economic aid necessary for Ukraine to defend themselves & deter Russian invasion.
We are already doing that without formal NATO membership for Ukraine.
You won't get all other NATO members onboard for Ukraine's membership.
Dream on.

If your boy Putin wanted that, this thing would have been over a long time ago. I want an apartment in Neuilly-sur-seine. Will have to go and get it as me just wanting it is irrelevant.

Putin's conquests are over. He is a spent force, desperately trying to hold on to what he has taken.
His nucs are the only thing that makes him a credible threat & gives him leverage.

Well, he's waged a truly awful war of terror on the Ukrainian citizenry without usage of nuclear. And Ukraine has no such "leverage".

But yeah, his nuclear weapons are a big threat, not merely defensive but now threatened offensively...but you've told us again and again that Russia won't do so to NATO...because the blowback would be so disastrous. So, if Ukraine is part of NATO, that applies to them too.

[old salt]

But yeah, his nuclear weapons are a big threat, not merely defensive but now threatened offensively...but you've told us again and again that Russia won't do so to NATO...because the blowback would be so disastrous. So, if Ukraine is part of NATO, that applies to them too.

I have issued no such assurance. I've pointed out that the use of tac nucs is part of their tactical battle plans, especially in naval warfare.

I don't want the US to be on the hook if a future Ukraine invades Russia.

You have no idea what sort of Ukraine is going to emerge but you're already qualifying them for NATO membership.

[MDlaxfan76]

But yeah, his nuclear weapons are a big threat, not merely defensive but now threatened offensively...but you've told us again and again that Russia won't do so to NATO...because the blowback would be so disastrous. So, if Ukraine is part of NATO, that applies to them too.

I have issued no such assurance. I've pointed out that the use of tac nucs is part of their tactical battle plans, especially in naval warfare.

I don't want the US to be on the hook if a future Ukraine invades Russia.

You have no idea what sort of Ukraine is going to emerge but you're already qualifying them for NATO membership.

I must have misunderstood you...what do you think the chances are of Russia invading or striking a NATO country?

How much different than what you thought about Ukraine prior to the invasion?

I've read you as again and again saying that Russia won't do a first strike against NATO.
But if I'm mistaken, or there's some nuance I haven't understood, feel free to explain.

HOWEVER
Why do you feel such a need to overtly misrepresent what I just said?!
I said "certainly not".
And I repeated what I'd earlier said about Ukraine needing to demonstrate its reforms.

We were discussing the various ways that "peaceful coexistence" could be obtained, other than Ukraine obtaining a nuclear capacity to deter aggression from a war mongering neighbor. I see two other paths, one of which is the NATO umbrella. Not "assured".

Your sentence (red) is interesting...is it your contention that if, having joined NATO, Finland invaded Russia, the US would have to fight with Finland under Article 5???

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

[old salt]

But yeah, his nuclear weapons are a big threat, not merely defensive but now threatened offensively...but you've told us again and again that Russia won't do so to NATO...because the blowback would be so disastrous. So, if Ukraine is part of NATO, that applies to them too.

I have issued no such assurance. I've pointed out that the use of tac nucs is part of their tactical battle plans, especially in naval warfare.

I don't want the US to be on the hook if a future Ukraine invades Russia.

You have no idea what sort of Ukraine is going to emerge but you're already qualifying them for NATO membership.

I must have misunderstood you...what do you think the chances are of Russia invading or striking a NATO country?
Minimal, unless a counter-strike.

How much different than what you thought about Ukraine prior to the invasion?
100%

I've read you as again and again saying that Russia won't do a first strike against NATO.
and again.
But if I'm mistaken, or there's some nuance I haven't understood, feel free to explain.

HOWEVER
Why do you feel such a need to overtly misrepresent what I just said?!
I said "certainly not".
And I repeated what I'd earlier said about Ukraine needing to demonstrate its reforms.
Becaue it's way to soon to ponder NATO membership for Ukraine -- that only feeds Russian paranoia, Putin's propaganda, & Ukraine's sense of entitlement. It also frightens some in the US & NATO already hesitant about providing the current level of military assistance.

We were discussing the various ways that "peaceful coexistence" could be obtained, other than Ukraine obtaining a nuclear capacity to deter aggression from a war mongering neighbor. I see two other paths, one of which is the NATO umbrella. Not "assured".
https://foreignbrief.com/daily-news/cis ... azakhstan/
https://thediplomat.com/2022/10/cis-gat ... nsion-war/

Your sentence (red) is interesting...is it your contention that if, having joined NATO, Finland invaded Russia, the US would have to fight with Finland under Article 5???
Finland's "intelligentsia" are not telling David Ignatius that Russia needs to be dismembered. ...obtw - that's a warning from Ignatus.

[MDlaxfan76]

But yeah, his nuclear weapons are a big threat, not merely defensive but now threatened offensively...but you've told us again and again that Russia won't do so to NATO...because the blowback would be so disastrous. So, if Ukraine is part of NATO, that applies to them too.

I have issued no such assurance. I've pointed out that the use of tac nucs is part of their tactical battle plans, especially in naval warfare.

I don't want the US to be on the hook if a future Ukraine invades Russia.

You have no idea what sort of Ukraine is going to emerge but you're already qualifying them for NATO membership.

I must have misunderstood you...what do you think the chances are of Russia invading or striking a NATO country?
Minimal, unless a counter-strike.

Exactly, not a first-strike ala what they've done to Ukraine.
NATO umbrella provides huge deterrence.

How much different than what you thought about Ukraine prior to the invasion?
100%
Because of the NATO umbrella...it ain't as if Putin thinks all NATO countries should be independent, sovereign nations...

I've read you as again and again saying that Russia won't do a first strike against NATO.
and again.
But if I'm mistaken, or there's some nuance I haven't understood, feel free to explain.

HOWEVER
Why do you feel such a need to overtly misrepresent what I just said?!
I said "certainly not".
And I repeated what I'd earlier said about Ukraine needing to demonstrate its reforms.
Becaue it's way to soon to ponder NATO membership for Ukraine -- that only feeds Russian paranoia, Putin's propaganda, & Ukraine's sense of entitlement. It also frightens some in the US & NATO already hesitant about providing the current level of military assistance.

That doesn't explain the overt misrepresentation of what I said.
To your concerns, Russia's invasion forces this "ponder"...F "Russian paranoia, Putin's propaganda". Hannity and Carlson feed Putin's propaganda frequently, I'm just fine with Russians finding out the the West stands with Ukraine. "frightens"??! folks, Russia is committing war atrocities daily.

We were discussing the various ways that "peaceful coexistence" could be obtained, other than Ukraine obtaining a nuclear capacity to deter aggression from a war mongering neighbor. I see two other paths, one of which is the NATO umbrella. Not "assured".

Your sentence (red) is interesting...is it your contention that if, having joined NATO, Finland invaded Russia, the US would have to fight with Finland under Article 5???
Finland's "intelligentsia" are not telling David Ignatius that Russia needs to be dismembered. ...that's a warning from Ignatus.

[b]First, if Finland had been invaded and had terror rained down upon them, a war of genocide by war criminals.. you're darn tooting there would be calls for the break up of Russia from Finland. Second, you didn't answer...do you think Article 5 would obligate the US to invade Russia with a "future Ukraine" should such "future Ukraine" decide unilaterally to do so? Easy answer, no, that was a specious argument from the get-go.[/b]

[a fan]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation for Dummies.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/R ... %20(ICBMs).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... emorandum/
Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of the nuclear arms. The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.

Unfortunately, Russia has broken virtually all the commitments it undertook in that document. It used military force to seize, and then illegally annex, Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in early 2014. Russian and Russian proxy forces have waged war for more than five years in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas, claiming more than 13,000 lives and driving some two million people from their homes.

Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.

Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.

Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation. That owed in part to then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He had his flaws, but he insisted that there be no revision of the boundaries separating the states that emerged from the Soviet collapse. Yeltsin respected Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. Vladimir Putin does not.

U.S. officials did assure their Ukrainian counterparts, however, that there would be a response. The United States should continue to provide reform and military assistance to Ukraine. It should continue sanctions on Russia. It should continue to demand that Moscow end its aggression against Ukraine. And it should continue to urge its European partners to assist Kyiv and keep the sanctions pressure on the Kremlin.

Washington should do this, because it said it would act if Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum. That was part of the price it paid in return for a drastic reduction in the nuclear threat to America. The United States should keep its word.

The US is more than keeping our word under the Budapest Memorandum.
We are enabling the Ukrainians to win this war & to secure their nation's survival & independence.
It is not an open ended defense treaty.

So you think that a memo---not a treaty----that was already violated by Putin is still in place? And yet I'm the one who's nuts here? Okie dokie.

And it's odd, I seem to remember you mocking these documents calling them "pieces of paper" just a few weeks ago.

Also seem to remember you mocking the JCPOA, telling me that if it wasn't a ratified Treaty, the US didn't have to hold to it. Naturally, you told us this when you were defending Trump's reneging on the JCOPOA.

And yet here you are, lecturing us about a broken memorandum, telling us that the US is honoring its part "therefore", Ukraine can't get nukes.

Good luck with that.

Watch and learn, for a change.

We have three choices:

1. Admit Ukraine into NATO.
2. Watch as the US makes Ukraine a de facto member of NATO like Japan, by parking US military bases there and/or arming them to the teeth
3.Ukraine starts constructing nukes. This may happen no matter what we do.