[Ultra Sonic 007]

“now you can find ways to separate yourself from the crowd of rioters that surround you.”
- ????

You’ve linked posts made by *two* separate people (wildcard_redneck and WMarshal)...from two different threads. That qualifies as a “crowd of rioters” in your eyes? Are you for real?

“You can speak to others just by responding to those posts sent your way. Simple as that.”
- But they haven’t responded to me. At all. I haven’t posted *at* them, either. Are you sure you’re not mixing me up with someone else?

“You just don’t WANT to because you don’t MIND that they’re being jerks.”
- Why would I insert myself into whatever feud you have with those other two? I literally have no reason to do so. (Also, a cursory look at those other threads kind shows that you’re all kind of being jerk-ish to each other, but overall it’s INCREDIBLY mild compared to FR’s heyday during the 2000s. I honestly don’t know how that qualifies as harassment in your eyes, but who am I to judge?)

“Yes I am, and you were operating on one side. You quoted me about sides. If it’s so important for you to ignore then ignore it.”
- ...you’re clearly the one being obsessive about it. I keep telling you that I only speak for myself, yet you’re insisting otherwise.

“Just as I predicted. I doubted you’d do it, and here you are, not doing it. But somehow you want me to listen to your justification or somesuch yammering.”
- How is saying that I’m only responsible for my own posts (when I’ve not been a part of whatever ongoing feud you have with other Freepers) ‘justifying’ the behavior of others? What’s with the collectivist mentality?

“You didn’t like that I brought up “sides”, you coulda just left it at that. But you didn’t. So you kinda had to comment on it, therefore it is commentable.”
- And you’re taking it way out of proportion.

“Yup, that’s how you’re rolling. Justification. Not your problem, etc. What’s sauce for the goose aint necessarily sauce for you because you don’t care or whatever your justification is. Got it.”
- What are you trying to get at? You seem to be implying a sort of mutual coordination or interaction on my part with other Freepers simply because of an incidental position regarding an ongoing geopolitical conflict; not only is such coordination with “my side” (as you keep calling it) utterly absent, it’s pure *fiction*.

“You inserted yourself.”
-By commenting on your tone in this *one* particular thread? Seriously?

“You don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I didn’t ask if YOUR mom was a whore, did I? But that didn’t stop you from commenting on my quote of the “be nice” video, did it?”
- Believe it or not, I can comment regarding a point you made that seemed hypocritical without further consideration of whatever “sides” you seem to have a beef with (because seriously, asking if a Freeper’s mother is a whore is uncalled for, don’t you think?). That you seem to have taken it to such a deep level is rather bizarre, but again: my remark was utterly unconnected with whatever feud(s) you have ongoing (especially with regards to threads and/or Freepers I’ve had no interaction with). Period.

“Your nitpicking is becoming a form of harassment.”
- ????

This is your threshold for what constitutes “harassment”? Seriously?

“I posted to you several times what “your side” was up to. that’s how.”
- And I have nothing to do with them. Just because you assert I’m part of a “cohort” does not make it so.

“Now you’re ADDING to what you wanted to say.”
- Huh? No I’m not: I already said in post 95 that the actions of various Western entities “helped foment a revolution that ousted former Ukrainian President Yanukovych in 2014.” All I did was distill what I had already posted in simpler terms, because you apparently found that “nitpicky.”

“Can I add a few more tens of millions of victims of those nukular interactions you guys are so nonchalant about?”
- I don’t think anyone here is nonchalant about the possibility of nuclear war.

“Then let’s give back those nukes we accepted in 1994.”
- Slight problem: America didn’t take *any* of those nukes. They were transferred back to Russia, because they had originally belong to the USSR. I don’t think America got a single bit of Ukraine’s nuclear stockpile, because it wasn’t ours to begin with.

“Let’s allow this stupid country into NATO and flush out their worst corruption.”
- Absolutely not. NATO’s eastward expansion has been a longstanding complaint by Russia since the 1990s; *multiple* analysts and foreign policy experts across the political spectrum have gone on record saying that such eastward expansion after the Cold War would be seen as intrinsically antagonistic by Russia (and even Boris Yeltsin was of the opinion that allowing NATO to expand eastward would be seen as a betrayal of Russia’s interests!). This Twitter thread is a good compendium of such opinions: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592

“We have commitments. Our failure to keep those commitments, in particular nuke commitments, could lead to a nuke exchange. We have the means to do it, but like you say we lack the will. Changing minds like yours generates such political will. When your side can see that preventing nuke deaths of tens of millions is worth it to defend a nation we said we would defend, then things can fall properly into place.”
- The only thing that the Budapest Memorandum offers in terms of a ‘commitment’ to action is seeking assistance from the UN Security Council; otherwise, the USA, Ukraine, UK, and Russia are to “consult” with each other in the event questions arise “concerning these commitments”. How’s that working out?

Besides, I legitimately think that in the current state of things, and with our current political leadership, getting militarily involved with the Ukraine will *increase the chances* of nuclear warfare.

“But now that nitpickers like you are going over that nontreaty with a finetooth comb with an eye towards the exits, don’t be surprised if a Uke Nuke changes your entire viewpoint on that situation.”
- I don’t think the Ukrainians currently have the capacity for nuclear weapons. If they actually do have some being developed in secret, and end up deploying one without warning against a Russian population center like Moscow (instead of openly advertising it as a threat to stop *or else* they’ll go nuclear on the Russians), then they’re more deranged than I thought.

And again, none of this is new: it’s been known *for years* that the Memorandum does not oblige any of the parties to military action. Neither the administrations of Bush 41 nor Clinton were willing to extend a military commitment to Ukraine, in light of perceived Senate opposition to such a measure; the Budapest Memo did not change that political calculus in the slightest. The US government’s official position as lately as 2013 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140419030507/http://minsk.usembassy.gov/budapest_memorandum.html) is that the Budapest Memorandum “is not legally binding.”

“There is a very distinct possibility I will be holding your feet to the fire on that item.”
- Feel free to do so. The record is there with regards to what level the Memorandum is binding on the parties involved.

“That’s fine, just give the Ukes back their Nukes. They handed them over in good faith and we got guys like you negotiating in bad faith. They have enough nuke knowledge, it can get real ugly real fast because of appeasers like you.”
- Every party involved acted in bad faith to some degree or another in the years following the issuing of the Memorandum, especially as Ukraine became money-laundering central for American Democrats. Besides, as you well know, I’m of the belief that they shouldn’t have handed over the nukes to begin with: the Budapest Memorandum as formulated was a terrible idea to begin with, and not worth the paper it’s written on (because again, it carries no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties for violations...nothing, nada, zilch).

“When America is staring at 20 million dead Russians and Ukes, because we nitpicked on a “non treaty”, I’ll be getting back to you on that. You are as wrong as the appeasers in 1938 were wrong.”
- Not every geopolitical conflict is reducible to Hitler and/or World War II.

“We sold them down the river.”
- Because America and other European nations strung them along with the prospect NATO membership when there was no serious intention of doing so, just going by what’s known. (And when Ukraine *had* a president more favorable of Russia than EU/NATO, we supported a coup that ousted him.) America *is* guilty of using Ukraine as not only a means of corrupt financial muckery, but also as a proxy for poking at the Russians, and we should stop doing it.

“YOU said the nontreaty is nonbinding.”
- Don’t shoot the messenger for telling you the plain facts.

“So if they don’t have rights in that nontreaty, they’re free to pursue the nuke option of obliterating tens of millions.”
- There’s a *lot* of operational and tactical options between “American military intervention” and “Ukraine nukes tens of millions of people.” Ease off the trigger finger.

“The Ukes did, they handed over their Nukes.”
- Not subsequently. Part of the Budapest Memorandum is Section 3, related to the use of economic pressure to influence Ukraine’s politics. When American and Ukrainian elements cooperated to oust the democratically-elected president that just *happened* to be more pro-Russia in 2014 (because it’s not like America’s never had issues with political leaders of other countries whose interests don’t align with the US, oh no no...), do you think that was acting in good faith?

“Baloney. 2 F35’s could have established air superiority, a few hundred Javelins and artillery batteries and the Russians would be stopped cold.”
- I’ll take your word for it, hoss. It’s not like we just had a highly public incident of an F-35 crashing onto the USS Carl Vinson and sinking into the South China Sea...

“But it’s not a consideration up against tens of millions of lives lost in mushroom clouds.”
- You think intervening militarily will decrease the chances of nuclear war; fair enough. I think intervening will increase the chances; and so we’re at cross purposes.

I will say that our military’s recent performance does not fill me with whatever confidence you seem to have, especially when we have woke Generals claiming our military’s biggest problem is “white supremacy” and a lack of diversity.

“We have the capacity. And we can just stop this whole thing by waving around one piece of appeasment paper & claim “peace in our time” by allowing Ukraine into NATO.”
- Russia has stated for years that Ukraine getting into NATO would be deemed an existential threat; this is not a perspective that was unique to Putin. Allowing Ukraine into NATO will only make things worse, not better.

“We had plenty of forces to deter Russia from invading this year. We have a larger air force, larger army, all kinds of stuff bigger than muh Russia.”
- After a 20 year war in Afghanistan, we literally pulled out with shame and left behind billions of dollars worth of military equipment to bearded **goat herders**. Where are you getting your confidence from?

“They gave UP their lethal force for empty promises from us.”
- Lack of nukes != lack of lethal force. The US has literally provided $2.7 billion worth of military aid to the Ukraine since 2014. In terms of total manpower as of 2021, Ukraine is the second largest military on the European continent, outpaced only by Russia (when considering Reserve forces, Ukraine is still second; in terms of Active military members, Ukraine drops to third behind Turkey). As we’ve seen from insurgencies throughout the Middle East and Asia over the past two decades, a lack of nukes does not translate to an inability to fight lethally or effectively.

“They were invaded in 2014, with a large portion of their country annexed.”
- Notwithstanding the complicated history of the Crimean Peninsula (which had been in Russia’s possession since the late 1700s, prior to the Soviet Union’s internal transfer of the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, the year after Khrushchev became the Secretary of the Communist Party; I’m sure the fact that Nikita grew up in Ukrainian territory and was the appointed head of Ukraine’s Communist Party had nothing to do with it...), it’s not that difficult to see that the annexation of Crimea was a direct response to President Yanukovych getting ousted from Ukraine not even a month prior, because why would any Great Power risk losing access to its closest warm-water port after a government they were friendly with just got ousted in a revolution aided by foreign support?

“Now you’re delivering mumbly pablum.”
- Obama Admin officials were literally caught on tape talking about who they wanted to put in charge after ousting Yanukovych: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Don’t blame me just because the facts happen to be inconvenient.

“You are trolling...You like to repeat yourself. It is a form of trolling.”
- Oh come on now, you’re an FR veteran of many years. The idea you would call this ‘trolling’ is downright bizarre.

“And I think Russia would have backed off. History proves that appeasement like yours doesn’t work, so you are risking tens of millions of lives here.”
- Again with the WW2 comparisons, as though that’s the only conflict that ever mattered (a more apt comparison would be how World War I erupted and spiraled out of control from a matter that initially only involved Serbia and Austria-Hungary, namely the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand; were it not for the military commitments between the other nations, it’s probable that the matter would have been restricted only to Serbia and Austria-Hungary, instead of involving all of the other Great Powers). How about the more recent history of America’s war performance in Iraq and Afghanistan being utter crap? If Trump were still in office, the dynamics would be much different, I’ll grant you; but with Biden and his cohort at the helm, would *you* trust them to engage in another foreign military intervention with our current cadre of woke military commanders?

“Because Russia won’t invade NATO, wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if it were in NATO, wouldn’t have invaded if the Ukes kept their Nukes, and wouldn’t have invaded if we set up a deterrent force with only half a dozen F35’s.”
- Russia has viewed and continues to view NATO’s eastward expansion as an intrinsic threat, and they have said so repeatedly. Given their history with European powers invading them from the west, I can understand why; rather than deterring Russia, I think Ukraine joining NATO would have only started a hot war earlier. That they wouldn’t have invaded if Ukraine had kept their nukes, I’ll grant. I can only take your word as to whether or not six F-35’s would have been sufficient to keep the entirety of Russia at bay, but that seems a wee bit too optimistic. (I mean, we’re not that far removed from July 2020, where a $2 billion warship — the Bonhomme Richard — had to be scrapped due to a fire because of the **incompetence of the crew.** You seem to have a much higher opinion of how our military would perform in a hypothetical conflict given recent performance than I am, clearly...)

“I have plenty of complaints against you. You repeat yourself. You nitpick. You ignore the context. You blithely overlook simple facts. You’re long winded. You troll. You focus on nitpicky interactions rather than the issues at hand. You don’t care about tens of millions of possible nuke casualties because you’re an appeaser. There’s more.”
- *rolls eyes* What rubbish.

In all seriousness: strategic disagreement over how to approach the current Ukraine-Russian conflict != not caring about “tens of millions of possible nuke casualties”, especially when my entire viewpoint is *rooted* in the desire to avoid a nuclear war (your plain disagreements to the contrary). You’re also assuming the Ukranians even have nuclear weapon capabilities at the moment, which has not been established (move out of the realms of “what if-ery” and stick to what’s known).

So you can kindly shelve that sort of incendiary rhetoric.

“And yet you are defending them with your nitpicking and focus on nontreatiness.”
- Your impassioned rhetoric doesn’t change the legal force of the Memorandum or the facts regarding what powers it provided. Being truthful about objective reality is not “defending” them.

“Yes you are.”
- Your assertion does not make it so.

“You can’t pretend you’re unaware of it any more.”
- And what would you like me to do? I’ve not interacted with them, they’ve not interacted with me. Whatever beef you have with wildcard_redneck and WMarshal is between you three; but to be honest, what you call “harassment” and “trolling” would have been deemed just a somewhat impassioned debate back in the 2000s. You’re basically asking me to intervene in a “conflict” I literally have no part in, and have no *desire* to get involved with; that you seem to be under the impression I have anything to do with them is your problem, not mine.

“You started commenting on my treatment of other posters on this thread. That goes directly against what you just said. MYOB.”
- I made one side comment about your tone (in *this* particular thread) with regards to *one* poster (Alberta’s Child), simply because you decided to imply their mother was a whore. Given the apparent hypocrisy, all I did was make one brief note about it, and would have left it at that. You, however, have blown it **way out of proportion**, bringing in people, threads, and ongoing Freeper feuds I literally didn’t know existed until you started aggressively shoving them into my proverbial face.

And those comments in no way infringe or contradict my stance: I’m only responsible for the things I say (such as the alleged nitpicking you apparently find so disagreeable). You’re only responsible for the things you say: including calling someone’s mother a whore, and accusing me of being a troll.

“Not only ‘your side’ but I didn’t even call it a treaty.”
-I find it ironic that after all of your complaining about ‘nitpicking’ and ‘trolling’ you *still* can’t let it go.

But I digress: you were *literally* the first person in the thread to refer to it as a treaty. From post #10, you said: “Wow, that’s some seriously convoluted evil thinkin’ ya got goin’ there, the treaty doesn’t apply because Russia invaded in 2014. Just dayamn.”

“your side” [posted twice in the time since I began replying]
- I think you have an unhealthy obsession.

[Kevmo]

I see you are attempting to use the time-honored internet tactic of just plain being long winded, repetitive, and endless.

Hence, I will separate your statements into 2 distinct cases.

Case 1 will be URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, repetetive Nitpicking.
Case 2 will be CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.

We shall see which one is more prevalent.

[Kevmo]

You DO have a lot of case 1 bullsnot posts.

“now you can find ways to separate yourself from the crowd of rioters that surround you.”
-You’ve linked posts made by *two* separate people (wildcard_redneck and WMarshal)...from two different threads. That qualifies as a “crowd of rioters” in your eyes? Are you for real?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“You can speak to others just by responding to those posts sent your way. Simple as that.”
- But they haven’t responded to me. At all. I haven’t posted *at* them, either. Are you sure you’re not mixing me up with someone else?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“You just don’t WANT to because you don’t MIND that they’re being jerks.”
- Why would I insert myself into whatever feud you have with those other two? I literally have no reason to do so. (Also, a cursory look at those other threads kind shows that you’re all kind of being jerk-ish to each other, but overall it’s INCREDIBLY mild compared to FR’s heyday during the 2000s. I honestly don’t know how that qualifies as harassment in your eyes, but who am I to judge?)
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“Yes I am, and you were operating on one side. You quoted me about sides. If it’s so important for you to ignore then ignore it.”
- ...you’re clearly the one being obsessive about it. I keep telling you that I only speak for myself, yet you’re insisting otherwise.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“Just as I predicted. I doubted you’d do it, and here you are, not doing it. But somehow you want me to listen to your justification or somesuch yammering.”
- How is saying that I’m only responsible for my own posts (when I’ve not been a part of whatever ongoing feud you have with other Freepers) ‘justifying’ the behavior of others? What’s with the collectivist mentality?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“You didn’t like that I brought up “sides”, you coulda just left it at that. But you didn’t. So you kinda had to comment on it, therefore it is commentable.”
- And you’re taking it way out of proportion.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“Yup, that’s how you’re rolling. Justification. Not your problem, etc. What’s sauce for the goose aint necessarily sauce for you because you don’t care or whatever your justification is. Got it.”
- What are you trying to get at? You seem to be implying a sort of mutual coordination or interaction on my part with other Freepers simply because of an incidental position regarding an ongoing geopolitical conflict; not only is such coordination with “my side” (as you keep calling it) utterly absent, it’s pure *fiction*.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“You inserted yourself.”
-By commenting on your tone in this *one* particular thread? Seriously?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“You don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I didn’t ask if YOUR mom was a whore, did I? But that didn’t stop you from commenting on my quote of the “be nice” video, did it?”
- Believe it or not, I can comment regarding a point you made that seemed hypocritical without further consideration of whatever “sides” you seem to have a beef with (because seriously, asking if a Freeper’s mother is a whore is uncalled for, don’t you think?). That you seem to have taken it to such a deep level is rather bizarre, but again: my remark was utterly unconnected with whatever feud(s) you have ongoing (especially with regards to threads and/or Freepers I’ve had no interaction with). Period.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“Your nitpicking is becoming a form of harassment.”
- ????
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

This is your threshold for what constitutes “harassment”? Seriously?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“I posted to you several times what “your side” was up to. that’s how.”
- And I have nothing to do with them. Just because you assert I’m part of a “cohort” does not make it so.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“Yes you are.”
- Your assertion does not make it so.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“You can’t pretend you’re unaware of it any more.”
- And what would you like me to do? I’ve not interacted with them, they’ve not interacted with me. Whatever beef you have with wildcard_redneck and WMarshal is between you three; but to be honest, what you call “harassment” and “trolling” would have been deemed just a somewhat impassioned debate back in the 2000s. You’re basically asking me to intervene in a “conflict” I literally have no part in, and have no *desire* to get involved with; that you seem to be under the impression I have anything to do with them is your problem, not mine.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“You started commenting on my treatment of other posters on this thread. That goes directly against what you just said. MYOB.”
- I made one side comment about your tone (in *this* particular thread) with regards to *one* poster (Alberta’s Child), simply because you decided to imply their mother was a whore. Given the apparent hypocrisy, all I did was make one brief note about it, and would have left it at that. You, however, have blown it **way out of proportion**, bringing in people, threads, and ongoing Freeper feuds I literally didn’t know existed until you started aggressively shoving them into my proverbial face.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

And those comments in no way infringe or contradict my stance: I’m only responsible for the things I say (such as the alleged nitpicking you apparently find so disagreeable). You’re only responsible for the things you say: including calling someone’s mother a whore, and accusing me of being a troll.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“Not only ‘your side’ but I didn’t even call it a treaty.”
-I find it ironic that after all of your complaining about ‘nitpicking’ and ‘trolling’ you *still* can’t let it go.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

But I digress: you were *literally* the first person in the thread to refer to it as a treaty. From post #10, you said: “Wow, that’s some seriously convoluted evil thinkin’ ya got goin’ there, the treaty doesn’t apply because Russia invaded in 2014. Just dayamn.”
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

“your side” [posted twice in the time since I began replying]
- I think you have an unhealthy obsession.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.

[Kevmo]

“But it’s not a consideration up against tens of millions of lives lost in mushroom clouds.”
- You think intervening militarily will decrease the chances of nuclear war; fair enough. I think intervening will increase the chances; and so we’re at cross purposes.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. This strikes me as the central disagreement so I will post this as its own separate paragraph.

[Kevmo]

Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.

“Can I add a few more tens of millions of victims of those nukular interactions you guys are so nonchalant about?”
- I don’t think anyone here is nonchalant about the possibility of nuclear war.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You don’t think folks are nonchalant but they go out of their way to be Putinist Apologists. Just like what happened in 1938 with Germany. Appeasement.

“Then let’s give back those nukes we accepted in 1994.”
- Slight problem: America didn’t take *any* of those nukes. They were transferred back to Russia, because they had originally belong to the USSR. I don’t think America got a single bit of Ukraine’s nuclear stockpile, because it wasn’t ours to begin with.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.Only a slight problem. And when the Ukes build their Nukes & USE them we can all look to guys like you as the cause of sending them down this path.

“Let’s allow this stupid country into NATO and flush out their worst corruption.”
- Absolutely not. NATO’s eastward expansion
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You seem very capable when it comes to looking at things from the PUtinist viewpoint, very INcapable when looking at it from the Uke standpoint. Earlier you claimed NATO was on its way to becoming defunct so who cares if it expands eastward? Which is it? Falling apart or expanding?

has been a longstanding complaint by Russia since the 1990s;
***Lookin’ at it from Russia’s viewpoint and not Ukraine’s. Russia lost their right to complain about how their former satellite countries broke free from them when the USSR broke up.

*multiple* analysts and foreign policy experts across the political spectrum
***I sincerely doubt that. It would be a very narrow spectrum.

have gone on record saying that such eastward expansion after the Cold War would be seen as intrinsically antagonistic by Russia
***Wow you’re long winded and repetitive.

(and even Boris Yeltsin was of the opinion that allowing NATO to expand eastward would be seen as a betrayal of Russia’s interests!).
***What do we care about Russia’s Interests? Each individual nation cares about its OWN interests, which is why so many of them joined NATO. It was in their own best interest.

This Twitter thread is a good compendium of such opinions: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592
***No thanks. I doubt you’ll be going to the URLs I send you. Who the hell cares about a bunch of opinions anyways?

“We have commitments. Our failure to keep those commitments, in particular nuke commitments, could lead to a nuke exchange. We have the means to do it, but like you say we lack the will. Changing minds like yours generates such political will. When your side can see that preventing nuke deaths of tens of millions is worth it to defend a nation we said we would defend, then things can fall properly into place.”
- The only thing that the Budapest Memorandum offers in terms of a ‘commitment’ to action is seeking assistance from the UN Security Council; otherwise, the USA, Ukraine, UK, and Russia are to “consult” with each other in the event questions arise “concerning these commitments”. How’s that working out?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Your claim is that we’re not obligated. There was never a treaty. It was a paper tiger deception enough to pull nukes from Ukes. Well, that’s gonna bite appeasers like you in the ass when they build their own nukes because they gave up their nukes in exchange for what you’re calling bullsnot.

Besides, I legitimately think that in the current state of things, and with our current political leadership, getting militarily involved with the Ukraine will *increase the chances* of nuclear warfare.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. It sure as hell is more likely when we overtly sell the Ukes down the river and claim that, after we’ve disposed of their nukes, that it wasn’t a legit treaty all along. When people wanna go fight for Ukraine, they likely will fight by joining the Nuke program and putting the Ukes in a position to kill tens of millions of your precious Russians.

“But now that nitpickers like you are going over that nontreaty with a finetooth comb with an eye towards the exits, don’t be surprised if a Uke Nuke changes your entire viewpoint on that situation.”
- I don’t think the Ukrainians currently have the capacity for nuclear weapons.
***They have Nuke power planets, they have Chernobyl over there so they know the dangers. You claim that the Agreement was never valid in the first place, so it’s possible they’ll find some nukes they “forgot” to give back. All because appeasers like you wanna sell them down the river.

If they actually do have some being developed in secret, and end up deploying one without warning against a Russian population center like Moscow (instead of openly advertising it as a threat to stop *or else* they’ll go nuclear on the Russians), then they’re more deranged than I thought.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. I think they’ll be pretty straightforward in their demands that whatever is in Ukraine stays in Ukraine, but the Russians ride home on the bicycles provided. Escorted by blue helmets and Ukes in tanks.

And again, none of this is new: it’s been known *for years* that the Memorandum does not oblige any of the parties to military action.
***Then the Ukes have had years to rebuild their nuke program and assert their own sovereignty when they can. I didn’t know it for years. I doubt most of the Uke team knows it. It would seem your phrase “it’s been known for years” only applies to a small sliver of human excrement that wants to appease Russia, sell the Ukes down the river, and pretend as if they were never obligated.

Neither the administrations of Bush 41 nor Clinton were willing to extend a military commitment to Ukraine,
***What happened in Ukraine during Clinton or Bush41 days? Not much that I recall...

in light of perceived Senate opposition to such a measure; the Budapest Memo did not change that political calculus in the slightest.
***Your position is that it was just enough language to separate the Ukes from their Nukes but not enough to compel us to aggressively defend their security and sovereignty. So when they blow the hell out of PUtin’s army with nukes, will you be a standup guy and admit you were wrong about it? It’s amazing that you so blithely go over the bullshiite that the Russians put out, claim that Ukes are “provoking them”, claim that giving up nukes was just a sideshow in our obligations towards nuclear nonproliferation, claim that since it never was a treaty we don’t have to concern ourselves with this former and future nuke power that could introduce Nuke War. It’s like dealing with someone who’s so aggressively hidebound and stuck on stupid that you’ll never see the consequences of your position, just like Chamberlain never really did.

The US government’s official position as lately as 2013 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140419030507/http://minsk.usembassy.gov/budapest_memorandum.html) is that the Budapest Memorandum “is not legally binding.”
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. The onus is now on the Ukes to defend their own sovereignty when they were sold down the river by us, and if they do so in a nuke manner we can look to obambam administration and appeaser PUtinists like you for the blame of 20 million Russian nuke casualties.

“There is a very distinct possibility I will be holding your feet to the fire on that item.”
- Feel free to do so. The record is there with regards to what level the Memorandum is binding on the parties involved.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. I will feel free to do so.

“That’s fine, just give the Ukes back their Nukes. They handed them over in good faith and we got guys like you negotiating in bad faith. They have enough nuke knowledge, it can get real ugly real fast because of appeasers like you.”
- Every party involved acted in bad faith to some degree or another
***That is such horse shiite. Nukes represent death of tens or hundreds of millions of people. The Ukes honored the agreement, and when it came time for us to honor our side, we bring out appeasement pukes like you that start mumbling about how it was never a “real treaty”. The bad faith shown by Russia is far and beyond any bad faith by the Ukes and us.

in the years following the issuing of the Memorandum, especially as Ukraine became money-laundering central for American Democrats.
***Let’s see. Maybe about 100 people could luze their lives over money laundering. About 100 million could luze their lives over nuke execution in the field. That makes one side a million more culpable. To do some simple math. You’re swallowing a camel while straining at a gnat.

Besides, as you well know, I’m of the belief that they shouldn’t have handed over the nukes to begin with:
***Interesting that we agree on this. Your longwinded defenses of PUtinism and appeasement hide our commonalities.

the Budapest Memorandum as formulated was a terrible idea to begin with, and not worth the paper it’s written on (because again, it carries no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties for violations...nothing, nada, zilch).
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Don’t be surprised if those Ukes show up with Nukes as a result of all this.

“When America is staring at 20 million dead Russians and Ukes, because we nitpicked on a “non treaty”, I’ll be getting back to you on that. You are as wrong as the appeasers in 1938 were wrong.”
- Not every geopolitical conflict is reducible to Hitler and/or World War II.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Snide way of trying to induce Godwyn’s Law but this particular geopolitical instance of appeasement has tremendous parallels to the Sudetenland.

“We sold them down the river.”
- Because America and other European nations strung them along with the prospect NATO membership when there was no serious intention of doing so,
***I’ve never heard of this ... aspect.

just going by what’s known.
***Once again it seems that you might be drawing from a very very very thin slice of people who supposedly “know”.

(And when Ukraine *had* a president more favorable of Russia than EU/NATO, we supported a coup that ousted him.)
***This strikes me as pretty pure bullshiite.

America *is* guilty of using Ukraine as not only a means of corrupt financial muckery, but also as a proxy for poking at the Russians, and we should stop doing it.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But it’s just an opinion without any fact to back it up at this point.

“YOU said the nontreaty is nonbinding.”
- Don’t shoot the messenger for telling you the plain facts.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Since the treaty was never binding, if the Ukes had kept some Nukes they’d be well within their rights to blow some Russian military concentrations to smithereens.

“So if they don’t have rights in that nontreaty, they’re free to pursue the nuke option of obliterating tens of millions.”
- There’s a *lot* of operational and tactical options between “American military intervention” and “Ukraine nukes tens of millions of people.” Ease off the trigger finger.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. I have no need to ease off the trigger finger. One simple nuke demo by the Ukes should be enough for them to establish sovereignty and kick the Russians to the curb.

“The Ukes did, they handed over their Nukes.”
- Not subsequently.
***Horse manure.

Part of the Budapest Memorandum is Section 3, related to the use of economic pressure to influence Ukraine’s politics. When American and Ukrainian elements cooperated to oust the democratically-elected president that just *happened* to be more pro-Russia in 2014 (because it’s not like America’s never had issues with political leaders of other countries whose interests don’t align with the US, oh no no...), do you think that was acting in good faith?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You failed to make the connection between this conspiracy theory of some ‘ousted president’ and any reluctance to had over Uke Nukes.

“Baloney. 2 F35’s could have established air superiority, a few hundred Javelins and artillery batteries and the Russians would be stopped cold.”
- I’ll take your word for it, hoss. It’s not like we just had a highly public incident of an F-35 crashing onto the USS Carl Vinson and sinking into the South China Sea...
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. One highly public crash does not a fleet make.

“But it’s not a consideration up against tens of millions of lives lost in mushroom clouds.”
- You think intervening militarily will decrease the chances of nuclear war; fair enough. I think intervening will increase the chances; and so we’re at cross purposes.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. This strikes me as the central disagreement so I will post this as its own separate paragraph.

I will say that our military’s recent performance does not fill me with whatever confidence you seem to have, especially when we have woke Generals claiming our military’s biggest problem is “white supremacy” and a lack of diversity.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. And frankly, I don’t care because the whole puropose in Ukraine is deterrence. If actual fighting takes place then we can dupe the LGBQ crowd just like we Duped the Ukes and the blacks in WW2 and JapaneseAmericans in WW2 to fight that much harder and take disproportional casualties in the fighting.

“We have the capacity. And we can just stop this whole thing by waving around one piece of appeasment paper & claim “peace in our time” by allowing Ukraine into NATO.”
- Russia has stated for years that Ukraine getting into NATO would be deemed an existential threat;
***Then let it be an existential threat. They invaded Ukraine ANYWAYS. Don’t you see that?

this is not a perspective that was unique to Putin. Allowing Ukraine into NATO will only make things worse, not better.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Keeping Ukraine OUT OF Nato made things worse, not better, for THEM. So now we’ll be peering down the rabbit hole of a covert rapid deployment nuke program all because appeasers like you don’t want to do the right thing.

“We had plenty of forces to deter Russia from invading this year. We have a larger air force, larger army, all kinds of stuff bigger than muh Russia.”
- After a 20 year war in Afghanistan, we
***There was a perfectly good plan in place, put in by Trump, which Biden threw in the trash so that he could bring a bunch of future democraps here to America rather than Afghan Patriots.

literally pulled out with shame and left behind billions of dollars worth of military equipment to bearded **goat herders**. Where are you getting your confidence from?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. We are talking here about what SHOULD happen, right? You don’t have to convince me that Biden is a jackass.

“They gave UP their lethal force for empty promises from us.”
- Lack of nukes != lack of lethal force.
***SUre it was, otherwise Russia would never have invaded.

The US has literally provided $2.7 billion worth of military aid to the Ukraine since 2014.
***Looks like they needed more than that PRIOR to 2014 when Russia invaded them for the first time, in Ukraine. The whole democrap strategy has been ‘too little, too late’.

In terms of total manpower as of 2021, Ukraine is the second largest military on the European continent, outpaced only by Russia (when considering Reserve forces, Ukraine is still second; in terms of Active military members, Ukraine drops to third behind Turkey). As we’ve seen from insurgencies throughout the Middle East and Asia over the past two decades, a lack of nukes does not translate to an inability to fight lethally or effectively.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But look at countries like Pakistan, who have not been invaded since they had nukes. Nukes are a much better deterrent than goatherders with AK47s.

“They were invaded in 2014, with a large portion of their country annexed.”
- Notwithstanding the complicated history of the Crimean Peninsula
***So here you’re just trying to obfuscate.

(which had been in Russia’s possession since the late 1700s, prior to the Soviet Union’s internal transfer of the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, the year after Khrushchev became the Secretary of the Communist Party;
***That was 1954. We’re talking 60 years later and more. Simply obfuscation.

I’m sure the fact that Nikita grew up in Ukrainian territory and was the appointed head of Ukraine’s Communist Party had nothing to do with it...),
***Simply engaging in long winded distraction. You are tedious.

it’s not that difficult to see that the annexation of Crimea was a direct response to
***it is far easier to see that it was a direct response to appeasement by the obambam administration, and appeasement you have been demonstrating.

President Yanukovych getting ousted from Ukraine not even a month prior, because why would any Great Power risk losing access to its closest warm-water port after a government they were friendly with just got ousted in a revolution aided by foreign support?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But unfortunately, it includes the logical fallacy of obfuscation and distraction. All this longwindedness doesn’t win you anything.

“Now you’re delivering mumbly pablum.”
- Obama Admin officials were literally caught on tape talking about who they wanted to put in charge after ousting Yanukovych: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Except that obambam officials ousting someone is not material to the agreement Russia is in violation of.

Don’t blame me just because the facts happen to be inconvenient.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Don’t blame me that you’re exhibiting classical fallacies. Take a critical thinking class.

“You are trolling...You like to repeat yourself. It is a form of trolling.”
- Oh come on now, you’re an FR veteran of many years.
***Oh come on now, you are simply trolling.

The idea you would call this ‘trolling’ is downright bizarre.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.
I would steer you to the FR definition of trolling but, unfortunately, not even our moderators follow the definition so it’s useless. But suffice it to say you’re fitting within the definition, very snugly.

“And I think Russia would have backed off. History proves that appeasement like yours doesn’t work, so you are risking tens of millions of lives here.”
- Again with the WW2 comparisons, as though that’s the only conflict that ever mattered
***It is the one most applicable.

(a more apt comparison would be how World War I erupted and spiraled out of control from a matter that initially only involved Serbia and Austria-Hungary, namely the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand;
***Horse manure. One madman assassinating someone is not an act of war. One country INVADING another sovereign country IS an act of war.

were it not for the military commitments between the other nations, it’s probable that the matter would have been restricted only to Serbia and Austria-Hungary, instead of involving all of the other Great Powers).
***Obfuscation. Logical fallacies. Distraction, red herring, “Look, a squirel!”

How about the more recent history of America’s war performance in Iraq and Afghanistan being utter crap?
***Whataboutism. More Obfuscation, Logical fallacies. Distraction, red herring, “Look, a squirel!”

If Trump were still in office, the dynamics would be much different, I’ll grant you; but with Biden and his cohort at the helm, would *you* trust them to engage in another foreign military intervention with our current cadre of woke military commanders?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Yes, I would trust them because as stupid as they are, they know that risking tens of millions of lives in a nuke engagement is far more salient than nitpicking on the minutiae of a treaty that wasn’t a treaty.

“Because Russia won’t invade NATO, wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if it were in NATO, wouldn’t have invaded if the Ukes kept their Nukes, and wouldn’t have invaded if we set up a deterrent force with only half a dozen F35’s.”
- Russia has viewed and continues to view NATO’s eastward expansion as an intrinsic threat,
***Does not address the point. Straw argument.

and they have said so repeatedly. Given their history with European powers invading them from the west,
***You seem to ONLY be able to look at things from Russia’s perspective. You’ve developed a true blind spot.

I can understand why; rather than deterring Russia, I think Ukraine joining NATO would have only started a hot war earlier.
***That’s just pure poppycock.

That they wouldn’t have invaded if Ukraine had kept their nukes, I’ll grant.
***It is like pulling teeth, getting you to see the value of deterrence.

I can only take your word as to whether or not six F-35’s would have been sufficient to keep the entirety of Russia at bay,
***Certainly their air force, the Ukes would have air superiority.

but that seems a wee bit too optimistic.
***Almost all your positions seem a wee bit too optimistic in appeasing pootypoot.

(I mean, we’re not that far removed from July 2020, where a $2 billion warship — the Bonhomme Richard — had to be scrapped due to a fire because of the **incompetence of the crew.** You seem to have a much higher opinion of how our military would perform in a hypothetical conflict given recent performance than I am, clearly...)
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Unfortunately, it’s more Obfuscation. Logical fallacies. Distraction, red herring, “Look, a squirel!”

“I have plenty of complaints against you. You repeat yourself. You nitpick. You ignore the context. You blithely overlook simple facts. You’re long winded. You troll. You focus on nitpicky interactions rather than the issues at hand. You don’t care about tens of millions of possible nuke casualties because you’re an appeaser. There’s more.”
- *rolls eyes* What rubbish.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You’re the one pushing rubbish here.

In all seriousness: strategic disagreement over how to approach the current Ukraine-Russian conflict != not caring about “tens of millions of possible nuke casualties”,
***I think it is. Very much so.

especially when my entire viewpoint is *rooted* in the desire to avoid a nuclear war
***Your entire viewpoint is *rooted* in appeasement, which has proven in history NOT to work.

(your plain disagreements to the contrary). You’re also assuming the Ukranians even have nuclear weapon capabilities at the moment,
***They had the capability 30 years ago. They have nuke power plants. It’s not that big of an assumption. The only hard part is getting the fissionable material, and they have some of that. They could even dig up Chernobyl and drop dirty nuke bombs on Russians.

which has not been established (move out of the realms of “what if-ery” and stick to what’s known).
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But no, we can’t move out of what-ifery because those are secret programs. It’s not like we can walk up to the generals in every army and ask them for specifics about their nuke programs.

So you can kindly shelve that sort of incendiary rhetoric.
***Case 1 stuff...

“And yet you are defending them with your nitpicking and focus on nontreatiness.”
- Your impassioned rhetoric doesn’t change the legal force of the Memorandum or the facts regarding what powers it provided. Being truthful about objective reality is not “defending” them.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Yes you are defending the Putinists and appeasers. It’s easy enough for anyone else to see, since you’re looking for objectivity.