… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.
A proxy war by definition has both parties non active and letting others fight for them. So this is no proxy war from the Russian side, they are bleeding heavily. NATO on the other side is perhaps not very upset that Ukrainian blood stops the expansionist dreams of Russia with NATO gear. But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.
… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.
Not sure what your point here is, pretty much all western politicians have these sorts of backgrounds.
A proxy war by definition has both parties non active and letting others fight for them. So this is no proxy war from the Russian side
It’s a proxy war by NATO against Russia, and yes this war is costing Russia lives. However, it’s becoming clear that this war is starting to cost the west quite a bit as well. The economy in Europe is suffering quite a bit right now, and the cost of living continues to climb which is leading to a lot of political unrest.
But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia tried Ukraine and the west to respect the Minsk agreements for nearly a decade. Now western leaders openly admit that they never intended to, and this was all a ploy to arm Ukraine for the coming conflict.
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.
Not sure what your point here is, pretty much all western politicians have these sorts of backgrounds.
Interesting statement of fact. Let’s check it.
Joe Biden: Lawyer, in politics since the age of 27
Kamela Harris: in public service and politics directly after law school
Ron DeSantis: Law school, millitary, poltician
Ursula von der Leyen: LSE, housewife, politician
Charles Michel: Member of parliament at age 23
Olaf Scholz: Lawyer, in national politics since 1998
Justin Trudeau: Son ;-) , teacher, non profit, politician
Emmanuel Macron: public servant, banker (5 years), public service and politician
Anthony Albanese: politics after uni
Giorgia Meloni; politics after uni
A list of 10 not so influential western politicians. Ok, you said “pretty much all”, I am waiting for at least 20. I’ll give you Trump and Sunak.
My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.
It’s a proxy war by NATO against Russia, and yes this war is costing Russia lives. However, it’s becoming clear that this war is starting to cost the west quite a bit as well. The economy in Europe is suffering quite a bit right now, and the cost of living continues to climb which is leading to a lot of political unrest.
It’s a war by Russia against Ukraine, where Ukraine gets help from NATO and other countries. And of course it’s costly, but you are getting off course. Which seems to be systemic to your argumentation.
But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia tried Ukraine and the west to respect the Minsk agreements for nearly a decade. Now western leaders openly admit that they never intended to, and this was all a ploy to arm Ukraine for the coming conflict.
Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.
In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.
Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.
I’ll ignore the rest about NATO and warnings and so on. You are just flooding the zone because you want to distract from the fact that
you are defending the invasion of an independent country by Russia.
A list of 10 not so influential western politicians. Ok, you said “pretty much all”, I am waiting for at least 20. I’ll give you Trump and Sunak.
Not really sure what those backgrounds are supposed to signify in this context. The original point, in case you missed it, was that a former high level US official openly stated that this is a proxy war.
My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.
That’s not how this works, what he says obviously carries weight given his status, and most importantly what he said is the truth. If you’re trying to claim that the former US ambassador doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then surely academics such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky do. They happen to agree with him.
It’s a war by Russia against Ukraine, where Ukraine gets help from NATO and other countries. And of course it’s costly, but you are getting off course. Which seems to be systemic to your argumentation.
That’s a false narrative and I’ve provided you lots of sources explaining why in detail. Please spend the time to educate yourself on the subject.
Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.
Perhaps you’re not aware of what the Minsk agreements are?
Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.
Very convenient of you to forget that prior to annexation of Crimea, the west sponsored a coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine after which point a civil war started.
Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.
I’ll ignore the rest about NATO and warnings and so on. You are just flooding the zone because you want to distract from the fact that you are defending the invasion of an independent country by Russia.
Ah yes, you’ll ignore all the history and the context for the war. That’s how we know that you’re not actually arguing in good faith here. Also, I’m not defending anything here. What I’m doing is explaining why the war happened and the role NATO played in creating the situation that led to the conflict.
Very convenient of you to forget that prior to annexation of Crimea, the west sponsored a coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine after which point a civil war started.
Even when this was true - this would have been a inner Ukrainian affair.
Is this in your eyes a justification for breaking the Budapest Memorandum and invading another country?
My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.
That’s not how this works, what he says obviously carries weight given his status, and most importantly what he said is the truth. If you’re trying to claim that the former US ambassador doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then surely academics such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky do. They happen to agree with him.
That is how it works. He has no political weight, he was a trophy ambassador. And your Mearsheimer and Chomsky are, let’s say, “controversly” discussed.
Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.
In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.
Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.
You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.
You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.
Russia honoured the Budapest Memorandum right up to the point when NATO ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which caused a civil war. I wonder why you would ignore this important context…
There was and it’s a well documented fact. Meanwhile, the invasion was modelled on the precedent set by NATO invading Yugoslavia. NATO recognized independence of the breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for assistance. Russia did exactly the same thing in Donbas.
… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.
A proxy war by definition has both parties non active and letting others fight for them. So this is no proxy war from the Russian side, they are bleeding heavily. NATO on the other side is perhaps not very upset that Ukrainian blood stops the expansionist dreams of Russia with NATO gear. But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.
Not sure what your point here is, pretty much all western politicians have these sorts of backgrounds.
It’s a proxy war by NATO against Russia, and yes this war is costing Russia lives. However, it’s becoming clear that this war is starting to cost the west quite a bit as well. The economy in Europe is suffering quite a bit right now, and the cost of living continues to climb which is leading to a lot of political unrest.
Russia tried Ukraine and the west to respect the Minsk agreements for nearly a decade. Now western leaders openly admit that they never intended to, and this was all a ploy to arm Ukraine for the coming conflict.
And of course, RAND published a whole study on extending Russia where it suggests precisely the kind of conflict that we’re seeing https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Furthermore, plenty of western experts have been warning about NATO expansion for decades. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Interesting statement of fact. Let’s check it.
A list of 10 not so influential western politicians. Ok, you said “pretty much all”, I am waiting for at least 20. I’ll give you Trump and Sunak.
My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.
It’s a war by Russia against Ukraine, where Ukraine gets help from NATO and other countries. And of course it’s costly, but you are getting off course. Which seems to be systemic to your argumentation.
Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.
In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.
Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.
I’ll ignore the rest about NATO and warnings and so on. You are just flooding the zone because you want to distract from the fact that you are defending the invasion of an independent country by Russia.
Not really sure what those backgrounds are supposed to signify in this context. The original point, in case you missed it, was that a former high level US official openly stated that this is a proxy war.
That’s not how this works, what he says obviously carries weight given his status, and most importantly what he said is the truth. If you’re trying to claim that the former US ambassador doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then surely academics such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky do. They happen to agree with him.
That’s a false narrative and I’ve provided you lots of sources explaining why in detail. Please spend the time to educate yourself on the subject.
Perhaps you’re not aware of what the Minsk agreements are?
Very convenient of you to forget that prior to annexation of Crimea, the west sponsored a coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine after which point a civil war started.
The part where Ukraine was committing war crimes against the civilian population of Donbas which western outlets such as CNN openly reported on https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
Ah yes, you’ll ignore all the history and the context for the war. That’s how we know that you’re not actually arguing in good faith here. Also, I’m not defending anything here. What I’m doing is explaining why the war happened and the role NATO played in creating the situation that led to the conflict.
Even when this was true - this would have been a inner Ukrainian affair.
Is this in your eyes a justification for breaking the Budapest Memorandum and invading another country?
NATO running a coup in a country is not an inner Ukrainian affair.
That is how it works. He has no political weight, he was a trophy ambassador. And your Mearsheimer and Chomsky are, let’s say, “controversly” discussed.
🤣
You are again diverting and misleading.
I wrote:
You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.
Did Russia honour the Budapest Memorandum?
I’m doing no such thing.
Russia honoured the Budapest Memorandum right up to the point when NATO ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which caused a civil war. I wonder why you would ignore this important context…
So an invasion and annexation of parts of another country is justified, when there is a coup? (There wasn’t, btw. )
There was and it’s a well documented fact. Meanwhile, the invasion was modelled on the precedent set by NATO invading Yugoslavia. NATO recognized independence of the breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for assistance. Russia did exactly the same thing in Donbas.
You could not find a more reputable source? Greyzone author, really?
And it is news to me, that NATO troops were in Yugoslavia. Got a source for that? Or again a lie by you as the background of western politicians?