How fun is it to see F-15s, F-16 and F-35 coming back without missiles?

[Eagler]

Yeah.

Like Putin could have... you know... chosen not to invade.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Timeline-,Peace%20negotiations%3A%20First%20phase%20of%20invasion%20(24%20February%20to%207,Ukraine%20would%20not%20join%20NATO.

Why weren't western nations interested in this option?

Blood and war and profit must have sounded better...especially to those not actually fighting and dying

Eagler

[CptTrips]

Why weren't western nations interested in this option?

I don't click on tin-foil hat links.

But Putin could have just not invaded.

No invasion, no war.

Putin chose this war.  No one else.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Have to give the patriotic propaganda boys credit..they have made defending one of the most corrupt nations in the world required or you are automatically a Russian bot...and are silenced

There were ways out of the conflict before it started..

They were ignored

We are on the doorstep of ww3 now

Wtg!

Eagler

Who is defending Ukraine?

I said Russia is worse. I never said Ukraine was not corrupt. Certain people "in power" in the U.S. have helped make it more corrupt.

But if you think having Russia control it will make that better.......

Under Putin, Russia is still the same Russia that, if it had an ally like Nazi Germany, would still try to take over Europe. Or, if they thought they could pull it off without an ally.They'll still try it incrementally. What's next, after Ukraine? If you think there isn't a plan for the next step, you're only fooling yourself.

And here's something really patriotic: Right now, with those same people "in power", the U.S. isn't much, if any, less corrupt than Ukraine. Yall think about that.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Timeline-,Peace%20negotiations%3A%20First%20phase%20of%20invasion%20(24%20February%20to%207,Ukraine%20would%20not%20join%20NATO.

Why weren't western nations interested in this option?

Blood and war and profit must have sounded better...especially to those not actually fighting and dying

Eagler

You think Putin negotiates in good faith? Remember, this is a guy who somehow wins with 80% of the popular vote. And his opponents have a serious proclivity to prematurely reach room temperature. Often "in custody". It's easy to sell out people you don't know for "peace". Ask Chamberlain. It rarely works. Appeasement is a lousy foreign policy. It results in stronger enemies more emboldened.

[Eagler]

This planet and its ppl at it's current level or lack of enlightenment is geared towards war more than peace

We are on our present course as we aren't capable of anything else

Eagler

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

This planet and its ppl at it's current level or lack of enlightenment is geared towards war more than peace

We are on our present course as we aren't capable of anything else

Eagler

Doesn't apply to all people and all nations. Only some nations actively seek expansion, subjugation, or outright elimination of other nations or people. Oddly enough, they seem to be allies. They also seem to have one man, or one party, or one religion rule. Funny how that seems to work. Almost like totalitarianism is a bad thing.

[hazmatt]

I find it interesting that it was never once mentioned that during the reunification of German NATO promised Russia that they wouldn't expand "not one inch eastward"

 U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

Yet we are trying to get Ukraine into NATO so we can put nukes on Russia's border. I doubt we would stand by if Mexico allied with Russia and Russia was gong to put nukes in Mexico.

Sometimes it's useful to consider that what the TV tells you is "a story" and not always "the story"

[CptTrips]

I find it interesting that it was never once mentioned that during the reunification of German NATO promised Russia that they wouldn't expand "not one inch eastward"

 U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

Yet we are trying to get Ukraine into NATO so we can put nukes on Russia's border. I doubt we would stand by if Mexico allied with Russia and Russia was gong to put nukes in Mexico.

Sometimes it's useful to consider that what the TV tells you is "a story" and not always "the story"

That was debunked by Gorbachev himself (There is a German mag interview out there).  What was agreed to was no non-German NATO troops would move east into East Germany.

No agreement was made about other former Soviet states and none would have been agreed upon.

Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

{Link to original source within...}
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

[hazmatt]

We can both find documents to support both sides of this. For example:
The Strobe Talbott account of the October 22nd meeting with Yeltsin is more detailed and nuanced than Christopher’s, but also leaves the impression that Yeltsin heard only what he wanted to hear...

However this is not my point.

My point is that the US would not agree to Mexico joining Russia and putting nukes in Mexico any more then we could accept Russian nukes in Cuba. However we expect Russia to accept nukes in Ukraine which would have less then a 10 minute flight time to Moscow.

Seems people think it's normal for the US to start a nuclear war over Russian missiles in Cuba but it's completely unreasonable for Russia to say anything about NATO missiles in Ukraine...

This is my final post on this matter as I'm trying to make a point on hypocrisy, not argue the details of who said exactly what and who heard exactly what about what was said.

[CptTrips]

This is my final post on this matter as I'm trying to make a point on hypocrisy, not argue the details of who said exactly what and who heard exactly what about what was said.

You are free to have whatever opinion you want about general human hypocrisy.  But opinions aren't facts, and facts aren't opinion.

The facts are there was never any agreement to not expand NATO membership to former Soviet states.  The Russian president himself, who signed the actual treaties in question, has confirmed this.  No such signed treaty can be shown because no such treaty exists.  Nor does anyone there in the room at the time claim there was. 

Those that tried to tell you that are lying and you should think very carefully about why they would want to lie about that to you.

[hazmatt]

Unlike you I admit that this is my opinion.

It appears that you have a monopoly on "facts"

[CptTrips]

Unlike you I admit that this is my opinion.

It appears that you have a monopoly on "facts"

Are you saying it is only my opinion that there is no signed treaty blocking NATO expansion into Former Soviet states?

Do you have a link to that signed treaty?  That is not an opinion.  It is an objective fact.  The treaty exists or it doesn't, right?

You can have your opinions, but we have to be able to share objective fact or else rational discussion is impossible.

[CptTrips]

This was the agreement:

The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:

* Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
* There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
* Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

See art. 5:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201696/volume-1696-I-29226-English.pdf

[artik]

Just small note to all who claim it is because of NATO expansion...

Russian-Ukrainian war had started way before 2022. It started in 2014 when Crimea was annexed and invasion to Donbas started. In 2014 nobody in Ukraine talked about NATO or Army or was remotely interested in it. There of course was discussion about European Union but not NATO. Finally there was infamous Budapest memorandum.

It is all about restoration of Soviet Union/Russian Empire by former KGB agent who didn't manage to live the former glory. As simple as it gets. You probably need to know better about internal former USSR politics to see how obvious it is. But it is way-way simpler.

[CptTrips]

Just small note to all who claim it is because of NATO expansion...

Russian-Ukrainian war had started way before 2022. It started in 2014 when Crimea was annexed and invasion to Donbas started. In 2014 nobody in Ukraine talked about NATO or Army or was remotely interested in it. There of course was discussion about European Union but not NATO. Finally there was infamous Budapest memorandum.

It is all about restoration of Soviet Union/Russian Empire by former KGB agent who didn't manage to live the former glory. As simple as it gets. You probably need to know better about internal former USSR politics to see how obvious it is. But it is way-way simpler.

And he obviously won't stop at Ukraine.

Transnistria would be the next easiest low fruit.  Poor, oppressed ethnic Russians were planted there years ago waiting for this.  That eventually will involve the parts of Romania Putin is interested in.  Bessarabian Gap.

Later, will make up casus belli against Poland.  Aiding Ukrainian Partisan Resistance I expect.    Polish Gap

Eventually there will be ethnic Russians in Kaliningrad Oblast being oppressed.  Putin will have no choice but to go into Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania to protect them.  Baltic Coast.