Posted on 03/22/2022 5:32:04 PM PDT by Conservat1
BREAKING: Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov says Russia would use nuclear weapons if faced with "existential" threat.
“…If it is an existential threat, a threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our concept."pic.twitter.com/X5Z6XBlSnq— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 22, 2022
So would’ve you damned Russkie
Yet Vlad the hypocrite has no problem with himself and Russia posing an existential threat to Ukraine and the lives of Ukrainians.
Kevmo: The ukes had nukes in 1994.
Wood: The Ukes had Russian nukes. Now they have huge mounds of rubble instead of cities.
***Proof positive that nukes are a deterrent, absence of nukes are an invitation to walk all over a country when your neighbor is simply a bully.
They have Russia next door. It seems Russia objects to their saber rattling about joining NATO.
***They can object all they want. They INVADED. Twice.
Good luck with that bomb making plan.
***Thanks.
And designing a nuclear bomb is not making a nuclear bomb.
The kid could not go to the hardware store and get the parts.
***But a country with 15 nuke power plants and a Chernobyl could do so.
It seems difficult to build one of those things
***Not so difficult. Just clumsy yields of kilotons rather than megatons, that’s all.
and keep it a secret.
***We kept ours a secret until we used it. The nuke pathway of the Ukes hasn’t been all that much of a secret.
The Ukes had fifteen nuclear power plants. It seems some of those are under new management.
***Yup. The Ukes are running out of time.
We were not in an existential war. We were not threatened with extinction at the end of WW2.
***Interesting take. We WERE threatened with extinction throughout WW2 alongside the rest of Europe while that whole program was being developed. And when the time came to blow the frack out of the japs, it was an easy decision to make in terms of expected American casualties versus expected Jap casualties, somewhere in the realm of 100,000 to 1. In addition, since the japs showed a propensity for fighting to the last half dozen men, we saved about 5 million jap lives as well as 1 million American lives. But... we’re just getting nuanced now.
We would have had to lose a lot of troops to fight it to a finish. We dropped nukes on cities and ended the war. As Patton said, nobody wins a war by dying for his country, wars are won but making the other dumb bastard die for his country.
***And your point is???
Since we stopped being the sole nuclear power, there was been a recognition of mutual assured destruction (MAD) if there be one.
***And MAD is within reach of Ukraine because while the Rukes are in a position to turn Ukraine into glass, the Ukes are in a position to turn Ruke POLITICAL landscape into glass just by nuking a couple cities.
The idea that the Ukes would nuke Russia might make Russia object to them having nukes.
***They already have.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4044173/posts
We have never had any obligation to go to war for Ukraine.
***We signed that Budapest thing. We could help them avoid a nuke war. That is our obligation.
Even Ukraine has admitted that.
***WHere?
The Budapest Memorandum is a Memorandum, not a Treaty.
***Semantics. Tell that to the tens of millions of lives you directly threaten by doing nothing to honor an agreement that left them high & dry. We had a vital interest in not jeopardizing hundreds of millions of lives with those nukes, so we signed that agreement. The Ukes HONORED that agreement; the Rukes VIOLATED that agreement and invaded twice; and Pukes like you are busy trying that there pantywaist appeasement semantics approach to abrogate our end of that agreement.
There is no military obligation even spoken about.
***Then give them back their nukes. Make the whole thing their problem.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
There’s a memorandum worth its weight in paper. It commits to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine. Sounds like a plan. You never know though. Somebody might veto the idea.
***Yup, the whole Budapest Memorandum thing might be just completely void, like you are arguing above. Which means the Ukes are free to pursue their nukes. And start a nuclear war, because... they are in an existential war.
The only way Russia is getting beaten out of the Ukraine is if NATO or the US become an ACTIVE player in the conflict. That’s the only way, and if you think that Russia won’t view NATO or US troops on the ground in Ukraine as an existential threat, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Did you read my post at all?
Putin views Ukraine becoming a NATO nation as being an existential threat to Russia... so much so that he started a war to ensure it won’t happen. You think actual NATO or US troops on the ground in Ukraine actively fighting won’t be viewed as an existential threat by Russia/Putin?
Russia has made its stand very very clear, there is no ambiguity to how they perceive this. NATO or the US can claim all they want we’re just going in to push Russia back, but Russia will NOT view it that way, and have made that very very clear.
You can think, all you like that, external force involvement is no existential threat to Russia, but Russia has made it abundantly clear they think otherwise. If external forces get directly involved, and Russia feels cornered, there is absolutely no doubt they will utilize tactical nuclear weapons, at the very least.
Your attempt to play semantics that Putin being existentially threatened, is somehow separate from Russia being existentially threatened, belies the very simple fact, Russia is controlled and run by Putin, period. From his seat any threat to his existence is a threat to Russia’s existence, and as long as he is in power, that’s how it is.
Reality is Ukraine is on its own, a entirely preventable war, created by a foolish Ukrainian leader, who didn’t understand his countries Geopolitical realities, and a Mental Marshmallow in the White HOuse and Sycophants in Europe all marched the world to this state.. Russia may have invaded anyway, but why did it take your country being leveled for you to admit you won’t join NATO? Which was one of the biggest demands Putin had placed on the table from the start??
Why? Simple, Z is a fool, who bought into the BS he was being fed by European leaders, and the White House... we’ll be there if Russia comes, they won’t, we won’t let them.
Competent leader would know, geopolitically a war with RUSSIA is a lost errand for Ukraine. They can resist, they can make it hurt, they can engage in asymmetrical war long after the actual hot war is over, but they cannot win... no its not right, no its not fair, but it is reality. Without external involvement, Ukraine cannot win.... and Russia is enough of a threat that external involvement is not likely to come.
Yes, NATO or the US would crush Russia in a hot war, and Russia knows this... however, Russia is a nuclear nation and if cornered will make sure that the war is exceedingly costly.. for that reason don’t expect anyone to do anything other than the things currently being done.
“...so sub-Saharan Africans and South Americans...”
When you consider that those two areas, completely different on the societal scale, may not be the most positive representation of a lifestyle consistent with the rest of the world displaying a growing world population. We aren’t taking a step forward, we taking all steps back.
wy69
“If Trump were still in the WH, none of this would be happening. NO ONE messed with The Donald.”
___
Correct
They have Russia next door. It seems Russia objects to their saber rattling about joining NATO.
***They can object all they want. They INVADED. Twice.
I'm neither Russian nor Ukranian so I do not have a dog in this fight. But if I were Ukranian, I would not enjoy being pounded into rubble. Russia INVADED. TWICE. Building Back Better™ and getting caught trying to build a bomb could demonstrate that third time's a charm.
The kid could not go to the hardware store and get the parts.
***But a country with 15 nuke power plants and a Chernobyl could do so.
What's holding up Iran? The lack of power plants or a Chernobyl?
How does one build a bomb with a Chernobyl?
***Interesting take. We WERE threatened with extinction throughout WW2 alongside the rest of Europe while that whole program was being developed.
Threatened with extinction by whom? None of the states were fired upon much less threatened with extinction. The war did not come to North America. We dropped the bomb after Germany had already surrendered. The war in Europe ended May 8, 1945. We dropped the bombs on Japan in August. You fantasize that we dropped the bomb because Japan threatened our existence? Or was our continued existence threatened by the surrendered nation of Germany?
The Budapest Memorandum is a Memorandum, not a Treaty.
***Semantics.
Not semantics in international law. They are legal terms of art, and a Treaty and a Memorandum have differing significance. Not surprisingly, not a single one of the parties sees any requirement to intervene militarily in defence of Ukraine.
Any such guarantee was ruled out at the time of the Memorandum.The Ukes HONORED that agreement; the Rukes VIOLATED that agreement and invaded twice; and Pukes like you are busy trying that there pantywaist appeasement semantics approach to abrogate our end of that agreement.
At your #78 you ignorantly made the following claim to which I responded:
When we were in an existential war, we dropped our nukes. Who are we to scorn them for doing the same thing — even the rukes say they’d do it under those conditions — especially when we were the ones who betrayed them?
Who the heck is WE? The United States is under NO obligation to intervene militarily on behalf of Ukraine. Neither is anybody else. The Budapest Memorandum neither mentions nor requires anybody to intervene militarily. I quoted the Memorandum to you.
Ukraine poked the bear one time too many and THEY have a problem.
Andriy Yermak, transcript, January 14, 2022
I can’t not talk about the questions of the NATO. I think it’s time to have a very honest, very proper, very transparent conversation with Ukraine about our perspective in NATO. I think that during this period of the war of the old history of our starting conversation about NATO, Ukraine show by our principles, by our positions, that we are absolutely ready, able, to be a membership of the NATO. It’s mean that in Madrid summit this year we hope to see and to listen absolutely concrete terms, absolutely concrete information about it because, today, especially today, I wanted to repeat it, that now it’s questions of the life and the death of our country.
It is not a United States problem. If you think it is YOUR problem, you can always go sign up for their foreign legion.
We signed that Budapest thing. We could help them avoid a nuke war. That is our obligation.
That is a load of crap. There is no nuke war. They are the victim of an act of aggression by Russia. Pursuant to the Budapest Memorandum, they had a commitment that their situation would be brought before the UN Security Council.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
They are entitled to UN Security Council consideration. There is no obligation for anybody to send troops and start WW3 to save them. While Russia may have violated the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, neither the United States or any other signatory appears to have done so.
Nuclear weapons only become relevant to that Memorandum if they "are used." They have not been used.
There is no military obligation even spoken about.
***Then give them back their nukes. Make the whole thing their problem.
They made the agreement, I didn't. They live with the consequences. They will have to take that up with the folks who have the nukes. They are currently haggling over place settings at the negotiating table. This next time they may give their situation more attentive care.
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum
Steven Pifer Thursday, December 5, 2019
Brookings.edu
[excerpt]
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
***Yup, the whole Budapest Memorandum thing might be just completely void, like you are arguing above. Which means the Ukes are free to pursue their nukes. And start a nuclear war, because... they are in an existential war.
I did not argue it was void. I quoted what it said and did. It did not offer military assistance to Ukraine. It commited a relevant issue to be raised before the UN Security Council. Their grave situation was gravely considered by the UN security Council.
In the particular valley where the Ukranians reside, the Russians are the biggest, baddest SOB's in the valley. If you are not the biggest, baddest SOB in the valley, you do not strut about the valley and fear no evil.
They can call for membership in NATO, but that's not happening precisely because of what is now happening, a not entirely unexpected event. Russia wants a buffer zone for security. Ukraine happens to be that buffer zone. If Ukraine wants to put NATO on the border with Russia, or seek nukes, or start a nuclear war, they will have to finish what they start.
As for a buffer zone, Russia is not entirely unreasonable. The United States has thousands of miles of ocean on each side and claims two continents as a buffer zone. Over the centuries, it seems to have worked to keep European wars away from the two continents.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019
Monroe Doctrine. (1850) The principle that the United States will allow no intervention or domination in the Western Hemisphere by any non-American country.• This principle, which has some recognition in international law (though not as a formal doctrine), was first announced by President James Monroe in 1823. Cf. POLK DOCTRINE.
"The Monroe doctrine is a policy which the United States has followed in her own interest more or less consistently for more than a century, and in itself is not contrary to international law, though possible applications of it might easily be so. But it certainly is not a rule of international law. It is comparable to policies such as the 'balance of power' in Europe, or the British policies of maintaining the independence of Belgium or the security of our sea-routes to the East, or the former Japanese claim to something like a paramount influence over developments in the Far East. Apart from other objections, it is impossible to regard as a rule of law a doctrine which the United States claims the sole right to interpret, which she interprets in different senses at different times, and which she applies only as and when she chooses. Nor is the doctrine, as Article 21 of the Covenant described it, a 'regional understanding,' for the other states of the region concerned, that is to say, the Continent of America, have never been parties to it and indeed have often resented it." J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations 314 (5th ed. 1955).
- - - - - - - - - -
Polk Doctrine. Int'l Law. The principle by President James K. Polk that the Monroe Doctrine (dating from 1823) remained sound and that the United States would oppose any European interference in North America. Cf. MONROE DOCTRINE."In his annual message of December 2, 1845, President Polk, referring to our dispute with Great Britain as to the Oregon territory, and to the possible intervention of European powers in consequence of our annexation of Texas and possibly of other territory southward, sought to give President Monroe's announcement on the subject of colonization the meaning popularly but erroneously conveyed by the expression 'no more European colonies on this continent.' But, in so doing, he restricted its application to North America, saying that 'it should be distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy, that no future European colony or dominion shall, with our consent, be planted or established on any part of the North American continent: It is obvious that President Polk, in pronouncing against the establishment of any 'dominion' by a European power — a term which includes the acquisition by voluntary transfer or by conquest of territory already occupied — asserted something quite different from Monroe's declaration against 'colonization.' He asserted something which should be cailed the Polk doctrine rather than the Monroe doctrine; and it was, perhaps, the consciousness of this fact that led him to restrict the new doctrine, which was to be maintained by us without regard to other American powers, and not merely by each of those powers 'by its own means,' to the North American continent." John Bassett Moore, "The Monroe Doctrine: Its Origin and Meaning," in 1 The Collected Papers of John Bassett Moore 334, 338-39 (1944).
ahh, geez, you expect someone to reply to all that gobbledegook?
What’s holding up Iran? The lack of power plants or a Chernobyl?
***They have a lack of knowledge, plus a first rate enemy in the Mossad trying to prevent them from building nukes. Also, they have obambam who gave them piles of cash to slow down and hide their program a tad better.
How does one build a bomb with a Chernobyl?
***Chernobyl is already radioactive, so any accident can be blamed on a leak. Plus, the invading forces don’t know where to go inside the exclusion zone — see how long it took them to publish this? And seein’ a bunch of guys in nuke bunny suits is not gonna attract attention in Chernobyl.
They are entitled to UN Security Council consideration.
***They are entitled to build their own nukes since that “agreement” has been voided twice by invasion.
There is no obligation for anybody to send troops and start WW3 to save them.
***There is an obligation to send everything we can to PREVENT a nuclear engagement, which seems to be about a 30% likelihood that the Ukes are building suitcase Nukes in their existential fight against the Rukes. When Pootypoot whines about the nuke plume in his favorite Ruke city, we can all go to folks like you and ask why you were so petulant and semantical about not preventing a nuke war.
ahh, geez, you expect someone to reply to all that gobbledegook?
Of course not. I expected you to make a pantywaisted run and diversion. Judging by what you post, you do not read much. You think the United States dropped two atom bombs in August 1945 because of an existential threat to the United States, after the war in Europe ended in June 1945.
And, of course that gobbledygook, such as the quoted content of the Budapest Memorandum, combined with your lack of knowledge of what you are talking about, leaves you with no rational response.
What’s holding up Iran? The lack of power plants or a Chernobyl?
***They have a lack of knowledge, plus a first rate enemy in the Mossad trying to prevent them from building nukes. Also, they have obambam who gave them piles of cash to slow down and hide their program a tad better.
You do have a vivid imagination. The Ukranians did not build a bomb and did not know what to do with the ones they found themselves with. Mossad does not seem to be quite the same enemy as Russia. Mossad does not come to a city like Mariupol and level it.
Obama? Stopping them from making a bomb for the last five years? Get that crap outta here. They do not have the means and material to make much of anything right now.
How does one build a bomb with a Chernobyl?
***Chernobyl is already radioactive, so any accident can be blamed on a leak. Plus, the invading forces don’t know where to go inside the exclusion zone — see how long it took them to publish this? And seein’ a bunch of guys in nuke bunny suits is not gonna attract attention in Chernobyl.
Guys that glow in the dark attract attention. No Virginia, they cannot make a bomb from the ruins of Chernobyl. They cannot make a bomb next door to Russia in secret. Nobody is giving them a nuke. For those keeping score, nobody is giving them an old MIG.
A leak from Chernobyl would get massive attention. Hiding a nuclear bomb factory inside the Chernobyl containment structure is pure genius.
They are entitled to UN Security Council consideration.
***They are entitled to build their own nukes since that “agreement” has been voided twice by invasion.
The is nothing quite like a keyboard commando who has never served spouting off about how to start a nuclear war.
Please quote what entitles anybody to nukes.
There is no obligation for anybody to send troops and start WW3 to save them.
***There is an obligation to send everything we can to PREVENT a nuclear engagement, which seems to be about a 30% likelihood that the Ukes are building suitcase Nukes in their existential fight against the Rukes. When Pootypoot whines about the nuke plume in his favorite Ruke city, we can all go to folks like you and ask why you were so petulant and semantical about not preventing a nuke war.
Your stated position is lunacy.
If you feel an obligation to go to war for Ukraine, go right ahead. I'm military retired and staying that way. Saving the world via one war at a time is for keyboard commandos only.
If it is an existential fight as you say, then Ukraine is going the way of Mariupol.
The essence of siege warfare is to encircle a location, cut it off, and starve them out. That is as nasty as it sounds.
When a nuke plume rises over a Russian city, nothing will stop the return fire of Russian nukes. Russia is almost twice the size of the United States. It is more than 27 times the size of Ukraine. Just how many Ukranian nukes exist in your imagination? How does your imagination stop Russian nukes?
There are no countermeasures for hypersonic missiles.
Russia does not need to use nukes, and Ukraine has none to use. Ukraine has not demonstrated that they can deliver any of the fight to Russia.
Ukraine has not demonstrated the existence of a Ukranian Air Force. At the early stages it was announced they were sending 60 Ukranian pilots to pick up fighter jets. And then those jets just didn't exist. Then it was claimed they were getting all of Poland's MIGs. And Poland said, not from us they aren't. The then the U.S. said they were not touching that one, even if Poland donated the planes to the U.S. But what were all those Ukranian pilots doing with no planes? Did their planes get shot out of the sky without them? Were their planes destroyed on the ground on Day One? Or are they hidden in barns all over Ukraine, just waiting for the war to really begin?
How is Ukraine going to deliver its nuke? With an imaginary missile or dropping it from an imaginary plane? Or is NATO, an organization not crazy enough to admit Ukraine as a member, supposed to have some imaginary obligation to do that for them?
I understand why you run from the facts.
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum
Steven Pifer Thursday, December 5, 2019
Brookings.edu
[excerpt]
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.
The Budapest Memorandum:
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
I reckon next you will imagine that the American taxpayer has the obligation to rebuild all of Ukraine.
Kevmo: ahh, geez, you expect someone to reply to all that gobbledegook?
Woodsucker: Of course not.
***I figured as much.
Judging by what you post, you do not read much.
***I read enough of your garbage to know you’re just a twit.
You think the United States dropped two atom bombs in August 1945 because of an existential threat to the United States, after the war in Europe ended in June 1945.
***See now: Twit. You start off by telling me what I think. A straw argument. I do not think this way, ya little twit. I say we were in an existential war from ‘41 to ‘45, and we started our nuke program at that time. There WAS an existential threat to the country at that time. We got the bomb ready after Europe fell, yes, but we still had to fight those a@@hole japs who were gonna kill a million of us so... time to drop this terrible thing on them and end the war. The nuke PROGRAM was developed during our existential war, we properly ended that war with very very few casualties to America, and you can kiss my ass. The ukes are in an existential war, which you seem to acknowledge although I expect some twit semantics from you in that regard because ... well because you’re a twit. So when the ukes develop and deploy their nuke bomb we’ll look to twits like you to ask what you did to prevent that. You’ll point to your twit semantics and mumble sumthin, that’s what you will do.
And, of course that gobbledygook, such as the quoted content of the Budapest Memorandum, combined with your lack of knowledge of what you are talking about, leaves you with no rational response.
***I am saying precisely the same thing about you, adding that you’re simply mixing in twit semantics to the argument.
Wood: What’s holding up Iran? The lack of power plants or a Chernobyl?
Kevmo: ***They have a lack of knowledge, plus a first rate enemy in the Mossad trying to prevent them from building nukes. Also, they have obambam who gave them piles of cash to slow down and hide their program a tad better.
Wood: You do have a vivid imagination.
***That’s all ya got, twit? I posted facts, and you post some oblique comment. Tired of your twittiness.
The Ukranians did not build a bomb
***Yes. POTO: Pointing Out The Obvious. Twit maneuver.
and did not know what to do with the ones they found themselves with.
***They knew enough. They had Chernobyl. They were NOT in an existential war. They wanted neutrality and thought they got it. The A-Bomb kid designed his bomb within 1 semester as a 3rd year physics student. They coulda done that and CHOSE NOT TO. They relied on twits like you, not realizing how twitty and $#itty you types are.
Mossad does not seem to be quite the same enemy as Russia.
***You just lay down pablum wherever ya want, eh? What a twit.
Mossad does not come to a city like Mariupol and level it.
***Throwing around twitty $#it. Please tell me what twits do not do so that I can at least have some minimalist expectations.
Obama? Stopping them from making a bomb for the last five years?
***Did I SAY he stopped? NO. Typical twit straw argument. I said he slowed it and helped them hide it. Besides, that entire thing is just a red herring twit maneuver by you.
Get that crap outta here.
***STFU, twit.
They do not have the means and material to make much of anything right now.
***They have enough to make some suitcase bombs. And thanks to twits like you they have the motivation to use them. Thanks, @$$#o/es. By not lifting a finger and abrogating the Budapest Agreement you pushed a country into a nuke corner and a suitcase nuke is a likely result. Because of twits like you.
Woodtwit, in a typical twitty sarcastic piece of shiite twit question:How does one build a bomb with a Chernobyl?
Kevmo:***Chernobyl is already radioactive, so any accident can be blamed on a leak. Plus, the invading forces don’t know where to go inside the exclusion zone — see how long it took them to publish this? And seein’ a bunch of guys in nuke bunny suits is not gonna attract attention in Chernobyl.
Woodtwit: Guys that glow in the dark attract attention.
***Oh look, yet another twit comment from the twit brigade.
No Virginia, they cannot make a bomb from the ruins of Chernobyl.
***Straw argument, twit. The assertion is that Chernobyl is the perfect place to HIDE the building of a nuke. But a twit like you twists things around time after time with straw twit arguments. Twit.
They cannot make a bomb next door to Russia in secret.
***Yes they can. And it’s twits like you that are pushing them in that direction.
Nobody is giving them a nuke.
***Why are you arguing this? I never brought it up, it’s a stupid twit straw argument. Yet again.
For those keeping score, nobody is giving them an old MIG.
***Now an additional twit remark on top of your twit straw argument.
A leak from Chernobyl would get massive attention.
***No it wouldn’t. They’ve had leaks in the past and no one cares, similar to the leaks that take place at Fukushima.
Hiding a nuclear bomb factory inside the Chernobyl containment structure is pure genius.
***Did I say “containment structure”? Nope. I said Inside the Exclusion Zone. And yes, you are right, it was pure genius and they got away with moving the project before they were captured.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4049162/posts
The is nothing quite like a keyboard commando who has never served spouting off about how to start a nuclear war.
***There is nothing quite like a twit who throws down an argumentum ad nauseum.
Please quote what entitles anybody to nukes.
***Just as soon as you stop being a twit. Thanks in advance.
Woodtwit: There is no obligation for anybody to send troops and [typical twitty shiitebird remark:]start WW3 to save them.
Kevmo:***There is an obligation to send everything we can to PREVENT a nuclear engagement, which seems to be about a 30% likelihood that the Ukes are building suitcase Nukes in their existential fight against the Rukes. When Pootypoot whines about the nuke plume in his favorite Ruke city, we can all go to folks like you and ask why you were so petulant and semantical about not preventing a nuke war.
Woodtwit:Your stated position is lunacy.
***Okay then, twit, you say that doing all we can to PREVENT a nuclear war is lunacy. Now I have heard everything, twitbird.
If you feel an obligation to go to war for Ukraine, go right ahead.
***I will. And I will use twit money to do it. So get right on that GoFundMe account for sending me on my way. Thanks in advance, twit.
I’m military retired and staying that way. Saving the world via one war at a time is for keyboard commandos only.
***This is the first war in my lifetime that could have turned nuclear, so I’m drawing the line here. Especially interesting to me is how many twits like you are on the wrong side of this one.
If it is an existential fight as you say, then Ukraine is going the way of Mariupol.
***I expected twittyness regarding existential war, and sure enough, you produced a twit remark about existentialness of this war. What a twit. You’re sickening.
The essence of siege warfare is to encircle a location, cut it off, and starve them out. That is as nasty as it sounds.
***Now it appears the twit is going on about some side issue.
When a nuke plume rises over a Russian city, nothing will stop the return fire of Russian nukes.
***Probably true. Which is why we need to prevent this by stopping the @$$#o/e who invaded the country that could start the next nuclear war, this time a 2 sided [lopsided] nuke war. Risking a full-out nuke exchange. All because twits like you won’t help the little country that’s getting bullied by the next would-be Hitler.
Russia is almost twice the size of the United States. It is more than 27 times the size of Ukraine.
***More side twit bullshiite.
Just how many Ukranian nukes exist in your imagination?
***I’m thinking 5 or 6 suitcase nukes. When are you gonna quit using twit twisting argumentation like the use of “imagination”? I imagine you’ll never stop being a twit. Is that realistic imagination enough for ya? Ya twit.
How does your imagination stop Russian nukes?
***What are you even going on about? You’re so wrapped up in your twit maneuvers that your pretzel logic doesn’t even make sense.
There are no countermeasures for hypersonic missiles.
***That and 50 cents won’t even get you a cup of coffee but it doesn’t prevent you from producing side twit remarks.
Russia does not need to use nukes,
***POTO: Pointing Out The Obvious
and Ukraine has none to use.
***Perhaps some kind of development point, but more likely just a side twit comment.
Ukraine has not demonstrated that they can deliver any of the fight to Russia.
***They felt like they were covered by that there Budapest Agreement that they HONORED, we are abrogating, and the Rukes VIOLATED by invading twice. So they are pushed into a corner and it’s a vicious corner. All because of semantics-driven twits like you.
Ukraine has not demonstrated the existence of a Ukranian Air Force.
***More twit background stuff, longwinded twit remarks from you.
At the early stages it was announced they were sending 60 Ukranian pilots to pick up fighter jets. And then those jets just didn’t exist.
***Blah blah blah.
Then it was claimed they were getting all of Poland’s MIGs. And Poland said, not from us they aren’t.
***More blah blah blah.
The then the U.S. said they were not touching that one, even if Poland donated the planes to the U.S.
***Somewhere in here there’s a pony.
But what were all those Ukranian pilots doing with no planes? Did their planes get shot out of the sky without them?
***Are you ever gonna come to your twit point?
Were their planes destroyed on the ground on Day One? Or are they hidden in barns all over Ukraine, just waiting for the war to really begin?
***Apparently you are never getting to your point. What a twit.
How is Ukraine going to deliver its nuke?
***Suitcase. Use all those refugees as cover.
With an imaginary missile or dropping it from an imaginary plane?
***Well, at least some discernible point to your ridiculous blah blah blah twit remarks. But the suitcase nuke approach covers it already, so it just ends up being more repetitive twit stuff from you. Yawn.
Or is NATO, an organization not crazy enough to admit Ukraine as a member, supposed to have some imaginary obligation to do that for them?
***More twit remarks. What a twit.
I understand why you run from the facts.
***I understand you throw down an endless line of twit. I run from twit.
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum
***Because it is the basis of this entire conflict. If the ukes had not given up their nukes, they never woulda been invaded. Even twits like you can see that much is true.
Steven Pifer Thursday, December 5, 2019
Brookings.edu
[excerpt]
***I can see this is just yet another twit exercise in argumentum ad nauseum that you use in your twit style. I think it’s just throwing spaghetti against the wall.
Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense.
***True in a larger sense, ya twit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.