1 Party 1 War 4 lines of reasoning

The party is the Democratic Party
The war is in Ukraine,
and the lines of reasoning are these: Pragmatic, Moral, Ecological, and the one we don't mention.

1. Pragmatic
It will be easy to win after all little Ukraine is defeating big Russia all on its own already.

So as long as we send them more weapons than Russia has, and better weapons, and send them money to hire mercenaries, some of which are very good, and get help from NATO, and some from ourselves, we might, maybe, win. After all, NATO has thirty times the GDP of Russia.

 

2. The Moral Argument
Russia knows they are in the wrong, Joe Biden told them.

Every American knows how evil the USSR was, and Russia is the same because Russia ran the USSR. Joseph Stalin was Russian, well, not actually, but he looked sort of Russian. And Russia really is not the same as the USSR was, and Russians don't want the bad old days, even though with the US wanting to crush them sometimes now it looks even worse.

The only reason any Russian would want to re-militarize would be if it faced a real threat, and the Gen Sec. of NATO stated that its intention was to destroy as much of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine as possible, discredit Vladimir Putin, produce regime change in Russia, and break up Russia into a number of small republics. And if you are cynical you will know what happens to small weak republics rich in oil.

 

3. Ecological

By blowing up 3 of the 4 Nordstream pipelines we were making it easier for Germany to keep its own declared carbon emissions goals.

Russia was a big supplier of low-cost fossil fuels so conflict with Russia will ultimately save the planet.

 

4. An Internal Reason

i) National unity - against a common foe. Haiti was too small, Iraq and Afghanistan were both really just targets.

The 'defense industries' needed a country that could be claimed to be a real threat. Iran didn't fit the bill, too religious, no WMDs.

Russia was the right size.
The US generals said we could do it.
Now just list the times the generals were wrong.

 

Getting it Right

Tell the truth. It really is that simple.

We live in the 1984 world of doublespeak and doublethink.

So when we send 'aid' to Ukraine, we literally send weapons to Kyiv, not both sides of the conflict in Ukraine of course, that would be counter-productive. We send weapons to Western and Central Ukraine while Russia helps Eastern and Southern Ukraine. But we can call it 'Ukraine' because we are sending the weapons to the capital, or to be more precise the government we installed.

When we say we allocated X billion dollars for defense, 99% is for offense. As we discovered on 9/11, the Department of Defense is not responsible for defense, unless specifically authorized, so the Department of Homeland Security was set up, although set up within the DOD.

It could be claimed that the best method of defense is offense, but it really has not worked out that way. Perhaps in theory if we destroyed all the other 194 countries in the world we would then be completely safe.

 

Questions For The Washington Uniparty On Ukraine, One Year Later

'On the one-year anniversary of the culmination of Europe’s first extended land war since World War II, here are some pressing questions for establishment politicians from both major political parties..'

The Washington War Party always find a reason for the US to be at war with someone

No. 1: What is the meaning of “as long as it takes”?
'Biden promised a new tranche of military aid to Ukraine, on top of the $113 billion in aid U.S. taxpayers dispensed with in 2022, and on top of recently announced top-tier materiel such as Patriot missile defense systems. But items such as Patriot missile defense systems and M142 HIMARS rocket launchers don’t grow on trees; resources are necessarily scarce, and each additional item we ship off into a proxy war against a nuclear-armed hegemon necessarily depletes our own military arsenal. Furthermore, America is massively indebted with soaring annual budget deficits. And Chinese leader Xi Jinping surely grins as America strips bare our military and ships off the parts to Europe, not Asia. So how long is “as long as it takes”—and, related, do we simply not care at all about the costs?'

The Washington War Party does not care about the costs. If we want the cost cared about, it will be up to the House.

No. 2: Is the U.S. national interest in the conflict synonymous with Ukraine’s national interest?
'The bipartisan foreign policy establishment’s absolutist stand with Ukraine—at seemingly all costs, “as long as it takes,” and so forth—implicitly conflates the national interests of the United States and Ukraine. After all, if the United States is that existentially committed to Ukrainian “victory”—whatever precisely that entails, and however Zelensky defines it.' But, 'the national interests are not coterminous. Ukraine’s national interest is indeed the maximalist stance Zelensky espouses. There is exceedingly little (if any) U.S. interest in where the exact national boundary lines are drawn in eastern Ukraine, where the population is often closely divided between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians.'

 

No. 3: Is the United States fearful of all-out war with Russia?
'Russia is the country with the single most confirmed nuclear weapons in the entire world: 6,255, as of 2021. (The United States was second, with 5,550 at that time.) As Zelensky sometimes flirts with openly calling for World War III, and continually endeavors to drag NATO—and thus, the United States—further into the conflict, does the prospect of cataclysmic nuclear war with Russia not cross the minds of the Washington uniparty and bipartisan foreign policy “blob”? Is no one here interested in de-escalation and avoiding what Biden not-so-reassuringly referred to last October as nuclear “Armageddon”?'

No. 4: Has the United States learned anything about “endless wars”?
'The American public is naturally war-weary after decades of failed regime change wars and moralistic nation-building crusade boondoggles. There is simply no political appetite right now for a dramatically prolonged military engagement—especially one in Europe, while our actual top geopolitical threat, China, flies spy balloons over our continent unimpeded and tests nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles around the world. The Washington uniparty’s desire for escalation in Eastern Europe may aid rapacious Beltway defense contractors, but it is manifestly contrary to the expressed interests of the American people, who would rather our elected officials focus instead on our own porous southern border with Mexico.'

No. 5: What is the United States’ long-term plan to deal with Russia?
'It is unclear at best whether anyone in a foreign policy decision-making capacity has given a second of thought to what U.S.-Russian relations might possibly look like when this war is finally over. At this rate, and absent a course correction toward de-escalation and direct mediated negotiation between the warring parties, Moscow will loathe America and Europe after the conflict even more than they did prior to the conflict’s onset. But given that China, and not Russia, is this century’s dominant threat to America, a shrewder and more forward-looking approach to the conflict would at least lay the groundwork for possibly peeling Russia away from China and slightly closer to the Western sphere of influence after the war is over.'

 

I keep asking this but the pro-Russians always refuse to answer:

Should the US ignore agreements we made with Ukraine to have them relinquish their nuclear arsenal?

 

Should the US ignore agreements and promises made decades ago to the Russians regarding the eastward encroachment of NATO?

Oh wait! It already did, decades ago.

 

Just as important, why should Russia be permitted to get away with breaking this agreement after they guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty in return for the nukes.

If they lied about that, how can they be trusted at all ? Maybe Ukraine needs its nukes back.

 

Can you list the agreement name? I would like to read it

And while we are waiting you can return to my previous question that you dodged and try again.

 

It was spoken, not written. Numerous people have referenced it in historical papers.

To answer your question in a way that you won't be able to handle, Russia is asserting its version of our Monroe Doctrine. Russia is defending its territories from the advancing barbarians armed by our tax dollars. Any nation has the right to defend itself from advancing barbarians.

If you knew anything about the history of that area you would know that in Donbas and Crimea the residents speak Russian, and that they have voted in favor of rejoining Russia.

Do you care about that, or would you prefer to pretend otherwise?

 

Could you likewise provide a link to the Ukrainian agreement the United States signed onto?

 

Ah, so you have nothing. Global agreements are written not spoken. While it is sad Russia was too inept to have a written agreement as Ukraine does it is largely irrelevant.

They 100% have the right to defend their borders they however do not have the right to attack a much smaller country to seize their land.

[/QUOTE]If you knew anything about the history of that area you would know that in Donbas and Crimea the residents speak Russian, and that they have voted in favor of rejoining Russia.

Do you care about that, or would you prefer to pretend otherwise?[/QUOTE]You mean people in occupied cities that were allowed to vote by Russia voted to join Russia? That changes everything! (I hope you can detect the heavy sarcasm)

Even if what you were saying was voted on legitimately — it wasn’t — why is Russia attacking other areas of Ukraine?

That said, I would support a referendum being held in these areas and results being honored under three conditions.

1) The area must not be occupied by a foreign force
2) No pressure is placed upon the voters and no one is denied the ability to vote
3) Polling is to be overseen by a joint commission of Russian, Ukrainian and United Nations representatives

Deal?


And you still haven’t answered my original question

 

Absolutely

Budapest Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

Direct text:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf

 

Thanks. I refer you to paragraph four on page 170 of the memoranda agreement. Am I mistaken that our assistance is predicated on the basis where nuclear weapons are used against them? Have such weapons been used?

 

Zelenskyy would be dead and the war would be over by now if the US had not become involved. There is no way Ukraine could have stopped Russia without US military aid. How it plays out from here, however, seems pretty inevitable. Ukraine, which would never really be a western ally except for their own convenience of the day, will blame the US for a negotiated settlement ceding territory, Russia will crow that they got more territory than they ever planned to thanks to the dumb Americans so the settlement is a bigger victory than hoped for, and life will go on to the next conflict.

 

This is a completely false dichotomy because it assumes pro US means anti Russia.


Vladimir Putin has allowed the US to gain control of most of the former Soviet republics.
He tolerated the low level of bombardment of eastern Ukraine by the pro US regime we set up in Kyiv.
Until Biden sent over a whole bunch more weapons (euphemistically called 'aid').

And how are things going right now. Lots of people are being killed daily and there is a lot of destruction.
A brief look at the time line will reveal that Russia did not upset the apple cart,
that was the CIA with the agreement of Victoria Nuland and in therefore also of H.C. and Joe Bidet and Barack Obama.

 

The war in Ukraine is just another in a long line of wars that keeps our 'defense industry' (weapons makers) wealthy.
Just look at whose earnings have gone up again.

Each war starts with a convincing story, which gradually unravels but it is the nature of human thinking that having accepted a particular narrative,
a person sticks with that narrative almost no matter how untenable it becomes.

 

? those weapons wouldn't still work even if stored at exactly the right temperature, i don't get the reason for retaining non functional weapons

and again you are assuming that Americans who do not want to get destroyed by Biden's crazy plans are actually pro Russian, that's just nuts.

 

I don’t see how assistance is only predicated on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (which Russia has done) as there are other stipulations

It says:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. Violated by Russia
   
   
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Violated by Russia
   
   
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. Violated by Russia
   
   
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. Depends on the reading of the final clause being separate after the word “or”. In Tennessee contract law it is typically read to the benefit of the individual receiving the contract but don’t know on international law.

 

Almost everyone was for us sending funds to fend off Russia until fox entertainers came out against it.

And you still didn’t answer the question.

 

Ah yes, Russia invading and seizing other countries isn’t the one at fault! No no! It’s other meddling nations that are helping Ukraine defend their own borders of which several nations have made prior agreements to do so.

You are not pro-Russian at all, if makes complete sense that we should let enemy foreign nations take other countries my military force especially seeing that this has never caused issues when looking at historical events. What’s the worse that can happen?

 

Borders still exist whether it's convenient to the argument of not.

Russia does not get to attack a neighboring country because they perceived advance. Russia is not Ukraine.

Sham referendum or not, even if the people wanted to join Russia from Donbas region thats their fight with Ukraine, not Russia.

If the people of Vermont voted to join Canada, that isn't an authorization for Canada to attack the United States.

Russia has zero legitimate reason or justification for invading another sovereign nation and the attempt require mental cartwheels.

 

I'm not sure what Russian violating the agreement has to do with us giving assistance to Ukraine. Russia has not used nuclear weapons, have they?