Russia is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

https://www.conservapedia.com/Ukraine#Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances:_1994

At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,800 strategic warheads, 176 long-range ballistic missiles, and 42 strategic bombers.

To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the December 5, 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The memorandum included assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine's territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States took custody and control of Ukraine's obsolete nuclear stockpiles for disposal in exchange for assurances by the United States and NATO to safeguard Ukraine's independence. Ukraine was coaxed to give up it nuclear weapons in exchange for a written pledge, should Ukraine ever be threatened or invaded, the United States would be there to intervene with military power.

By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its operational nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances, and Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapon state party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle in Ukraine was eliminated in 2001 under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It took years of political maneuvering and diplomatic work, starting with the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, to remove the weapons and nuclear infrastructure from Ukraine.[101]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Main article: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly commented on the Budapest Memorandum by arguing that it provides no true guarantee of safety due to Russia's coercive power. On 19 February 2022, Zelenskyy made a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he said "Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. ... If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt."[42] Putin used Zelenskyy's comments as part of his claims that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons. Critics have disputed Putin's claims.[43] This treaty has since been violated by Russia at the outbreak of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

--------------------------------------------------------- Wikipedia intro section:

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[2]

Annexation of Crimea by Russia Further information: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

US Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia after hosting the Budapest Memorandum Ministerial on the Ukraine crisis in Paris, France, on 5 March 2014. In February 2014, Russian forces seized or blockaded various airports and other strategic sites throughout Crimea.[32] The troops were attached to the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea,[33] which placed Russia in violation of the Budapest Memorandum. The Russian Foreign Ministry had confirmed the movement of armoured units attached to the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea but asserted that they were acting within the scope of the various agreements between the two countries.[citation needed] Russia responded by supporting a referendum on whether the Crimea should join it. Russia announced the referendums were being conducted by "local forces". On 16 March, Russia annexed Crimea and Ukraine vigorously protested the action as a violation of Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum.

In response to the crisis, the Ukrainian parliament requested the Memorandum's signatories to reaffirm their commitment to the principles enshrined in the political agreement and asked for them to hold consultations with Ukraine to ease tensions.[34]

On 24 March 2014, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the G7 partners in an ad hoc meeting during the Nuclear Security Summit, at The Hague, for a partial suspension of Russian membership due to Russia's breach of the Budapest Memorandum. He said that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons "on the basis of an explicit Russian guarantee of its territorial integrity. By breaching that guarantee, President Putin has provided a rationale for those elsewhere who needed little more than that already furnished by pride or grievance to arm themselves to the teeth." Harper also indicated support for Ukraine by saying he would work with the new Ukrainian government towards a free trade agreement.[35]

In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes."[36] However, Canadian journalist Michael Colborne pointed out that "there are actually six obligations in the Budapest Memorandum, and the first of them is 'to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'". Colborne also pointed out that a broadcast of Lavrov's claim on the Twitter account of Russia's embassy in the United Kingdom actually "provided a link to the text of the Budapest Memorandum itself with all six obligations, including the ones Russia has clearly violated – right there for everyone to see." Steven Pifer, an American diplomat who was involved in drafting the Budapest Memorandum, later commented on "the mendacity of Russian diplomacy and its contempt for international opinion when the foreign minister says something that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds of Google fact-checking?"[37] Russia argued that the United States broke the third point of the agreement by introducing and threatening further sanctions against the Yanukovych government.

On 20 April 2016, Ukraine established the Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories,[38] to manage occupied parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions, which are affected by Russian military intervention of 2014.

“The guy was trolling me and harassing across thread boundaries while I was posting on this thread.”
- And that’s relevant to my posts because...?

“He’s on your side.”
- So opinions on a geopolitical conflict are now somehow the equivalent of being part of a political party? I’m supposed to be an arbiter for the behavior of other posters? I can only speak for myself; to pretend I can speak for other people is silly tribalism on your part.

“You quoted me. So there, you kinda did mention sides.”
- You’re the one talking about ‘sides’, not me. I only made a comparison of your posts with AC’s based on my observation of tone. That’s it.

“But look at what your side is doing this whole time. Feel free to admonish your own side, but I doubt you will.”
- I’m not responsible for anyone’s posts but my own. I don’t hold you responsible for anyone else’s posts but your own. That’s my final word on this whole silly talk about “sides” (as though the whole geopolitical conflict with Ukraine-Russia can be boiled down to *just* two sides).

“And if you continue to remain silent on that, you’re just bein’ a hypocrite. Go ahead, let me see how you roll, one way or another. What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.”
- You’re bringing up things I’ve literally had no involvement with. Keep me out of whatever beef you have going with other Freepers, because it’s just vapid drama that doesn’t do anyone involved any favors. The ones with jurisdiction are the FR Moderators; go complain to them if you believe you’re being genuinely harassed.

“Since when do you hold FReepers accountable to seeing your posts when it is most convenient to YOU?”
- You literally responded to other people after they pointed out to you that the Budapest Memo isn’t a legal treaty, and you kept calling it a treaty. Your rejoinder is irrelevant.

“I’m including your cohort you have surrounded yourself with.”
- How is having an opinion on Ukraine-Russia that you disagree with equivalent to surrounding myself with a “cohort”? What are you on about?

“America’s best interest is in preventing this, and the simplest path towards that is to defend the Ukes like we said we would.”
- We’re not the America of 1994. We not only lack the political will after two decades of drawn-out military endeavors overseas, but we’ve also displayed our current weakness with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that left the Taliban more powerful than when we first arrived. Not only do I not trust our current capacity to “defend the Ukes”, we never said that we *would* defend the Ukrainians, at least insofar as the Budapest Memo is concerned; it *never* provided for mutual defense of **any kind.**

“Should they treat it such a way? Or should they just bend over?”
- I think the Ukrainians should pursue whatever just means are available for them to defend their country, but America needs to stay out of it. I don’t think getting involved is in our national interest at this point in time.

Also, I think ‘should’ was a perfectly appropriate word to use, given what you said in post 81: “If I were a Uke I’d be building a Nuke and I’d blow the hell out of Moscow with a suitcase bomb.”

“NOW are ya gonna consider that treating this thing like it’s just toilet paper to send down the river we sold the Ukes is not a very pretty idear?”
- **No one** has acted in good faith. Not America, not Ukraine, not Russia, and not the EU. America would have needed to have a lot more forces present and more political willpower to serve as a deterrent. But America’s not the same nation we were in 1994; we’re weaker, our military’s command staff has been consumed by wokeness, and our societal institutions are conducting cultural civil war against American citizens. We have more important things to worry about domestically in 2022 than getting involved in a conflict we have no business (or realistically, the capacity) to intervene in. Whereas American intervention in 1994 would reasonably have kept nuclear war from occurring if Russia had invaded Ukraine (all other things being equal), recent performance indicates that further military escalation on our part would only result in matters getting worse, not better.

“Not so hot, because it is true.”
- Kyle Rittenhouse literally did nothing wrong. The same can’t be said for Ukraine; their tensions with Russia have been brewing since 2014, likely even longer; the actions of Ukraine, Russia, *and* America have contributed to the current conflict to some degree or another.

“Bullsnot. 68 entries. I answered your post in order. I’ve been calling it a non-treaty ever since.”
- You kept calling it a treaty after *other* people pointed out that you were incorrect in doing so; it was a perfectly fair observation for me to make. It’s literally a matter of public record now. To put it another way: if I were to make a factually incorrect point on something and *keep* doing so after other posters contradicted me, you’d be perfectly within your right to call me out on it.

“Then how do we prevent this nuke war from happening. We caused it by acting in an untrustworthy manner, and here you are pushing to KEEP treating it in an an untrustworthy manner.”
- Telling you that the Budapest Memorandum isn’t a mutual defense treaty (because it factually isn’t) is somehow being untrustworthy? I can’t speak for the boneheaded decisions and the malfeasance of our government officials; the reality, like I’ve stated previously, is that the America of 2022 is not the America of 1994. I think getting involved militarily will only *increase* the chances of nuclear conflict; I don’t know why you think getting America involved in her current state will *decrease* the chances of nuclear war.

[insert more comments about Freeper tribalism that I’ve already dealt with above]

“You didn’t seem to have much interaction with those guys whose posts you counted in order and held a nitpicking review of, so why does it apply on one thing but not the other?”
- You’re the one who counted all mentions of the word treaty to begin with? I’m not sure what your complaint here is.

“Then pull yourself out of the crowd you are in.”
- I’m not part of a ‘crowd’.

“You don’t like it, then do something about the guys from your side who are harassing me. It’s not like you’re unaware of it now.”
- As I stated further above: if you believe you’re being genuinely harassed, escalate the matter to the Mods, because they’re the ones with jurisdiction. I’m not responsible for other Freepers; I’m only responsible for *my* content, just like you’re only responsible for *your* content.

“The guy was trolling me and harassing across thread boundaries while I was posting on this thread.”
- And that’s relevant to my posts because...?
***Because it’s all part of the context. Look how many posts I sent your way, “your side” right during the middle of you acting all nitpicky.

“He’s on your side.”
- So opinions on a geopolitical conflict are now somehow the equivalent of being part of a political party?
***Maybe, maybe not. Probably not material to our discussion.

I’m supposed to be an arbiter for the behavior of other posters?
***Now that you are aware of the context, and can see where you were inside that context, now you can find ways to separate yourself from the crowd of rioters that surround you.

I can only speak for myself; to pretend I can speak for other people is silly tribalism on your part.
***You can speak to others just by responding to those posts sent your way. Simple as that. You just don’t WANT to because you don’t MIND that they’re being jerks.

“You quoted me. So there, you kinda did mention sides.”
- You’re the one talking about ‘sides’, not me.
***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.

I only made a comparison of your posts with AC’s based on my observation of tone. That’s it.
***Comparison of YOUR SIDE. There was even one post on this thread I sent your way. Your Side.

“But look at what your side is doing this whole time. Feel free to admonish your own side, but I doubt you will.”
- I’m not responsible
***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.

for anyone’s posts but my own. I don’t hold you responsible for anyone else’s posts but your own.
***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.

That’s my final word on this whole silly talk about “sides” (as though the whole geopolitical conflict with Ukraine-Russia can be boiled down to *just* two sides).
***Good to know that’s the end of it from you.

“And if you continue to remain silent on that, you’re just bein’ a hypocrite. Go ahead, let me see how you roll, one way or another. What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.”
- You’re bringing up things I’ve literally had no involvement with.
***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.

Keep me out of whatever beef you have going with other Freepers,
***You inserted yourself.

because it’s just vapid drama that doesn’t do anyone involved any favors.
***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?

The ones with jurisdiction are the FR Moderators; go complain to them if you believe you’re being genuinely harassed.
***I did. It’s well known that it’s against the rulez to cross thread boundaries in harassing a fellow freeper but the mods don’t seem to want to enforce it. Unless their “side” is offended, so we’re all somehow supposed to know which side the mods are on.

“Since when do you hold FReepers accountable to seeing your posts when it is most convenient to YOU?”
- You literally responded to other people after they pointed out to you
***AGain, I responded IN ORDER. And I pointed out that you were nitpicking, so now you’re doubling up on the nitpicking.

that the Budapest Memo isn’t a legal treaty, and you kept calling it a treaty.
***Bullsnot. I stopped when I GOT TO THAT POST. You keep going on and on about it, AFTER I HAVE STOPPED. You are TRIPLY Nitpicking here.

Your rejoinder is irrelevant.
***Your nitpicking is becoming a form of harassment. Are you here to debate the points in the article?

What are you on about?
***I posted it to you, I explained it to you. It’s not my problem you don’t wanna see the issue. And of course, it doesn’t stop you from nitpicking.

“Uhh, they HONORED it by giving up NUKEs which can kill tens of millions of people but you seem to wanna focus on nitpicky items...how about that there organization that monitors nuclear proliferation? Isn’t it more important to consider sumthin that could kill tens of millions of souls than some stupid monetary fund?”
- The ouster of a democratically-elected president in a foreign-backed coup is hardly nitpicky.
***I don’t recall you saying “ouster of some prez”. Now you’re ADDING to what you wanted to say. Can I add a few more tens of millions of victims of those nukular interactions you guys are so nonchalant about?

“America’s best interest is in preventing this, and the simplest path towards that is to defend the Ukes like we said we would.”
- We’re not the America of 1994.
***Then let’s give back those nukes we accepted in 1994. Let’s allow this stupid country into NATO and flush out their worst corruption.

We not only lack the political will after two decades of drawn-out military endeavors overseas, but
***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.

we’ve also displayed our current weakness with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that left the Taliban more powerful than when we first arrived.
***Yeah, I see what you’re talkin about.

Not only do I not trust our current capacity to “defend the Ukes”, we never said that we *would* defend the Ukrainians,
***Oh, I’m certain we SAID it. 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.

at least insofar as the Budapest Memo is concerned;
***There is a very distinct possibility I will be holding your feet to the fire on that item.

it *never* provided for mutual defense of **any kind.**
***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.

“Should they treat it such a way? Or should they just bend over?”
- I think the Ukrainians should pursue whatever just means are available for them to defend their country,
***Then they are incentivized to build up those nukes they gave up.

but America needs to stay out of it.
***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.

I don’t think getting involved is in our national interest at this point in time.
***I do, since we pushed the Ukes into agreeing to this toilet paper nontreaty. We sold them down the river.

“Should? Well, that’s a bit stronger than I would promote. I’d say they’re well within their rights to do so, since guys like you are saying they have no rights under that there non-treaty.”
- ...what? No one here has said the Ukrainians have no right to defend themselves. What are you talking about?
***YOU said the nontreaty is nonbinding. So if they don’t have rights in that nontreaty, they’re free to pursue the nuke option of obliterating tens of millions. All because guys like you are too pipsqueaky to help them after we said we would help them.

Not America, not Ukraine, not Russia, and not the EU.
***The Ukes did, they handed over their Nukes.

America would have needed to have a lot more forces present and more political willpower to serve as a deterrent.
***Baloney. 2 F35’s could have established air superiority, a few hundred Javelins and artillery batteries and the Russians would be stopped cold.

But America’s not the same nation we were in 1994;
***That’s no reason to sell a country down the river when we accepted their goodfaith measures to turn over nukes.

we’re weaker, our military’s command staff has been consumed by wokeness, and our societal institutions are conducting cultural civil war against American citizens.
***Yeah I see that. But it’s not a consideration up against tens of millions of lives lost in mushroom clouds.

We have more important things to worry about domestically in 2022 than getting involved in a conflict we have no business
***WE ARE ALREADY INVOLVED by accepting those Nukes and signing that agreement.

(or realistically, the capacity) to intervene in.
***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.

Whereas American intervention in 1994 would reasonably have kept nuclear war from occurring if Russia had invaded Ukraine
***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.

(all other things being equal), recent performance indicates that further military escalation on our part would only result in matters getting worse, not better.
***That’s nonsense. Just as it was nonsense in 1938 with Sudetenland. Sickening pantywaist appeasers.

“Not so hot, because it is true.”
- Kyle Rittenhouse literally did nothing wrong.
***He defended himself with lethal force.

The same can’t be said for Ukraine;
***They gave UP their lethal force for empty promises from us.

their tensions with Russia have been brewing since 2014,
***They were invaded in 2014, with a large portion of their country annexed.

likely even longer; the actions of Ukraine, Russia, *and* America have contributed to the current conflict to some degree or another.
***Now you’re delivering mumbly pablum.

“So now we can be anal about non-treaties and just toss around tens of millions of nuke-plume casualties like they mean nothing.”
- I’m not the one encouraging American involvement in a conflict that’s currently staying within conventional parameters.
***This conflict wouldn’t even happen if the Ukes had kept the Nukes, or if the Ukes had joined NATO. Either path would have saved lives.

“Bullsnot. 68 entries. I answered your post in order. I’ve been calling it a non-treaty ever since.”
- You kept calling it a treaty after *other* people pointed out
***This again? Why all the obsessive nitpicking? Does it bolster your case for Ukraine somehow? I got to it when I got to it, and I’ve been calling it a NONtreaty ever since so shut the hell up about it.

that you were incorrect in doing so; it was a perfectly fair observation for me to make.
***At one time, but we are 2 times past that so shut the hell up. You are trolling.

It’s literally a matter of public record now.
***Then do the math. Look at when I was responding to EACH post, you’ll see the ORDER I was responding, You’ll see that I responded IN ORDER that I got to it, You’ll see I’ve been calling it a non-treaty ever since, contrary to your bullshiite assertions that I have been INSISTING. Now your nitpicking is just being disingenuous trolling.

To put it another way: if
***to put it one more way, you are trolling like a complete jerk, knowing what the context you were in when you responded so it is time to shut the hell up and focus on the issues of Ukraine instead of how good a nitpicking troll you are. How’s that for addressing your hypothetical? Care to nitpick further or are you gonna drop your trolling?

I were to make a factually incorrect point on something and *keep* doing so after other posters contradicted me,
***I responded IN THE ORDER the posts came in. This is the 4th time you haave trolled on this nitpicking issue so shut the hell up.

you’d be perfectly within your right to call me out on it.
***Then I AM calling you on your nitpicking trolling behavior. Shut the hell up about it.

“Then how do we prevent this nuke war from happening. We caused it by acting in an untrustworthy manner, and here you are pushing to KEEP treating it in an an untrustworthy manner.”
- Telling you that the Budapest Memorandum isn’t a mutual defense treaty (because it factually isn’t) is somehow being untrustworthy?
***Yes. Absolutely. You blithely overlook that the Ukes lived up to their side of the bargain, removing tens of millions of possible casualties from the equation. But it is SO IMPORTANT to you to talk about how it is not a treaty. So that opens it up wide for them to do their own nuke program, just because nitpicking appeasers like you don’t care enough to prevent tens of millions of nuclear casualties.

I can’t speak for the boneheaded decisions and the malfeasance of our government officials;
***And yet you are defending them with your nitpicking and focus on nontreatiness.

the reality, like I’ve stated previously, is that the America of 2022 is not the America of 1994.
***You like to repeat yourself. It is a form of trolling.

I think getting involved militarily will only *increase* the chances of nuclear conflict;
***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.

I don’t know why you think getting America involved in her current state will *decrease* the chances of nuclear war.
***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.

[insert more comments about Freeper tribalism that I’ve already dealt with above]
***Well thank God you aren’t repeating it here, which is your tendency.

I’m not sure what your complaint here is.
***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.

“Then pull yourself out of the crowd you are in.”
- I’m not part of a ‘crowd’.
***Yes you are.

escalate the matter to the Mods, because they’re the ones with jurisdiction.
***you can admonish your side all ya want. But you won’t. Because you don’t want to, you don’t mind that the guys next to you are first class jerks. You are quickly becoming indistinguishable from them.

I’m not responsible for other Freepers;
***We shall keep that in mind. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I’m only responsible for *my* content, just like you’re only responsible for *your* content.
***Then start posting on the issue. You started commenting on my treatment of other posters on this thread. That goes directly against what you just said. MYOB.

“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.

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.