Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

We lied to Ukraine. We got them to give up their nukes by guaranteeing their safety. Then we broke that treaty.

We took away their ability to defend themselves, and now are berating them for starting a conflict they didn't start.

Your continual inability to grasp that we are the bad guys here, that Ukrainians are DYING BECAUSE WE ARE LIARS WHO TRICKED THEM INTO RELYING ON US, is pathetic.

Now the whole world has to begin building nuclear stockpiles, because our word is worthless. Everyone in the world is less safe because of our actions. It wasn't just an attack on Ukrainians, it was an attack on the future of humanity.

The US is *NOT* the "Bad guys" in the Ukraine war. Not yet. It is certainly reprehensible for the US to ignore its political declarations under the Budapest memorandum including to refrain from "Economic Coercion" as the memorandum prohibited economic coercion designed to subordinate Ukraine's sovereignty or secure advantages inconsistent with its independence. However, the US failing to meet its declared intent under the Budapest memorandum is not a treaty violation. Russia on the other hand broke several binding treaties and directly attacked Ukraine it violated at least 4 actual treaties:

1. United Nations Charter
2. Helsinki Final Act (1975)
3. Minsk Agreements
4. Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership (1997)

To have the US serve as "the bad guys" in this war the US would need to at minimum directly aid and abet the still ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine or would have to initiate its own campaign against Ukraine that would not mostly offset or otherwise counter Russia's campaign or would have to aid and abet another separate state in doing the same.

To see if we can ever really be on the same page in this regard consider the following.
In 1939 the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact split Poland between the Third Reich and the USSR and both aggressively invaded and conquered about half of the country. In this case I think we are comfortable asserting that in 1939 Poland both the third Reich and the USSR were "the bad guys".

Now imagine a different scenario. Imagine that instead Stalin had refused to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and instead when the third Reich invaded Poland that Stalin had responded by pouring military aid into Poland until it looked as if Poland might halt the Nazi advance with a loss of only about 20% of polish territory and observers began to think that the Nazi assault might collapse within a year hopefully allowing the poles to drive them back out of the country. Certainly, at this point the Nazis are the bad guys and the USSR are not. Let's then imagine that a disgruntled soviet rival deposed Stalin and announced that the war in Poland would need to be ended and demanded a ceasefire from both parties. For a few weeks a reduced level of Soviet military aid to Poland continued but at one point in association with the new soviet leader's demand for a cease fire all soviet aid and cooperation with the polish government ceased. The new soviet leader suggested that in exchange for payment from Poland for prior aid more military aid might be considered for Poland. In the meantime, the Nazis persisted in their relentless campaign to conquer more polish territory and met with representative of the new soviet leader to discuss Nazi demands in the absence of any representation by Poland or its allies.

Tell me, in this scenario who are the "bad buys" in Poland? would it be the Nazis and the Soviets or would it still just be the nazis?

Would it be the soviets for tricking Poland into relying on unlimited indefinite Soviet military aid?

[Aeson]

I didn't respond to the earlier portions of this post because for the most part they simply established that we were in agreement and that depending on context and how they say it a president can cite diplomatic debts accrued under a prior administration when dealing with the same state later as a later US president.

...

The rest of your post seems to establish that we agree on everything else. Help me understand how you disagree here.

No, we disagree on a lot. You apparently do not understand what you or I are saying because I specifically disagreed with and refuted you on many, many points.

[Aeson]

We lied to Ukraine. We got them to give up their nukes by guaranteeing their safety. Then we broke that treaty.

We took away their ability to defend themselves, and now are berating them for starting a conflict they didn't start.

Your continual inability to grasp that we are the bad guys here, that Ukrainians are DYING BECAUSE WE ARE LIARS WHO TRICKED THEM INTO RELYING ON US, is pathetic.

Now the whole world has to begin building nuclear stockpiles, because our word is worthless. Everyone in the world is less safe because of our actions. It wasn't just an attack on Ukrainians, it was an attack on the future of humanity.

[Geronimo]

meanwhile the war rages on and russia is bombing without mercy

that's the trump legacy

also US is no friend of Ukraine at this point (hell friend to noone)

I agree that the US under Trump is not acting as a "friend" to anyone. That's terrible and the consequences will be deep for the US most of all. This is not equivalent to the US being an "enemy" to anyone apart from Canada, the Houthis rebels, Hamas and Iran at the moment. I do not agree that the US has as yet engaged in any attacks on anyone else. Even Canada it's only an attack because the consequences of the trade war are much worse than almost anyone apart from Mexico and the demands are far less reasonable for Canada than for Mexico,

[Geronimo]

It is an attack. Verbally and psychologically. Not physically.

It is a type of theft. It's a pretty straightforward mob protection scheme.

"That sure is a nice country you have, it sure would be a shame if it were destroyed by my buddy Putin. Give me $500 billion and I'll talk to him for you." - corrupt police commissioner Trump

The fact that the previous police commissioner Biden had helped in the past in no way condones Trump's course of action.

I didn't respond to the earlier portions of this post because for the most part they simply established that we were in agreement and that depending on context and how they say it a president can cite diplomatic debts accrued under a prior administration when dealing with the same state later as a later US president.

I disagree with any assertion that the US under Trump has attacked Ukraine (apart of verbally) so far. Cutting off all aid is tragic but it is not an attack. Holding both the invading/occupying aggressor and the invaded victim as somehow equally responsible for bringing about "peace" of any kind is surely insulting and morally bankrupt and undermines almost all diplomacy but it is not really an attack either. The original assertion that I took great exception to was that Trump's negotiating for painful economic concessions from Ukraine as the price for future US aid is like someone grabbing a gold necklace from a dead stabbing victim and even more so to your contestation that it more like Trump joining in to assault and rob a victim already under assault. I offered my own analogy inspired by mob crime but in hindsight even this overstates the degree to which Trump's foolish betrayal of Ukraine's war effort and interests resemble an attack in that organized crime sidesteps government and rule of law acting outside of the protections of both and usurping their legitimacy for the interests of a private party with no legitimate role in either government or law. Diplomacy can occur under the protections of "international law" but not of government. there is no government with jurisdiction in these interstate conflicts. So in that sense Trump's betrayal of Ukraine's war efforts by cancelling assistance and offering verbal abuse and offering to trade further assistance for expensive concessions from Ukraine can't really be called attacked or compared to Putin's conduct. non-treaty agreements like the Budapest memorandum do establish that Trump doing so could fairly be described as betrayal of written diplomatic agreements and waste of diplomatic credibility but that's about as far as it can be taken.

The rest of your post seems to establish that we agree on everything else. Help me understand how you disagree here.
[/QUOTE]

[Bereta_Eder]

meanwhile the war rages on and russia is bombing without mercy

that's the trump legacy

also US is no friend of Ukraine at this point (hell friend to noone)

[Aeson]

I don't understand why we can say US policy=Trump policy but not say that Ukraine owes any thanks (because he didn't do anything).

Trump policy = US foreign policy now.

US foreign policy (as a whole throughout time) != Trump policy.

You are confusing the two. They are not the same thing.

Are you saying all debts are cancelled to the US each time a new president takes office?

No. Debt to the US or US debt to others persists. Debt to a new President never existed and would only be transfered inasmuch as the new President persisted with whatever arrangements brought about the debt.

In this case there is no debt. We sent money and equipment without any strings attached. Any implied debt of thanks had already been repaid many, many times before Trump even got there.

There are many reasons Trump should *not* be shaking Ukraine down for payment for services rendered but you can't try to say that because a previous president presided over giving those services that no services were given by the organization Trump represents as president (god help us) in diplomacy.

That was not what was being said.

Trump should not be portrayed as a stranger in this scenario.

Yes he should. The organization is not a stranger, but Trump is.

but it is not any kind of attack or theft against the victim

It is an attack. Verbally and psychologically. Not physically.

It is a type of theft. It's a pretty straightforward mob protection scheme.

"That sure is a nice country you have, it sure would be a shame if it were destroyed by my buddy Putin. Give me $500 billion and I'll talk to him for you." - corrupt police commissioner Trump

The fact that the previous police commissioner Biden had helped in the past in no way condones Trump's course of action.

Why can't presidents cite previous presidents' actions in their diplomacy in this way?

They can. Whether or not they are doing so ethically and honestly is up to the details.

If Biden had suffered a psychotic break and did this to Ukraine at the end of his term how would that be completely different vs now that Trump did it?

It would be the same. Though we tend to confuse personalities with physical persons. (Consider the hypothetical where Trump had uploaded his mind to Biden and the result were the same.)

Is that the way presidents are intended to perform statecraft with a clean break at each transition?

Constitutionally the president is "intended" to perform statecraft in whatever manner they choose, within bounds set by law. How they do so is up to the President and how aligned their policy is with what has come before. In this case Trump has reversed course and broken treaties. Of course US policy is now different than it was before. Trump has made it so.

If a NATO member had to invoke article 5 and Trump said "yeah? well, you've never answered article 5 for us!" simply because the leader invoking article 5 now was not leading that country when it answered article 5 in Afghanistan your reasoning, Aeson, would seem to suggest that Trump would be right to dismiss that NATO member's claim to have responded to the US invoking article 5 simply because there had since been a change in leadership in the country that previously answered the US's article 5 call.

Trump is wrong to break the treaty with Ukraine. He would be wrong to break a treaty with NATO. There is no contradiction there. A treaty exists independently of an administration. The treaty (lawfully) is not reliant on who is in office.

Trump broke the treaty with Ukraine. That is now officially US policy in the matter.

[Aeson]

Trump is the most appalling president of my lifetime at least and his overt campaign against Canadian sovereignty is inexcusable but I don't understand why we can say US policy=Trump policy but not say that Ukraine owes any thanks (because he didn't do anything). Are you saying all debts are cancelled to the US each time a new president takes office?

There are many reasons Trump should *not* be shaking Ukraine down for payment for services rendered but you can't try to say that because a previous president presided over giving those services that no services were given by the organization Trump represents as president (god help us) in diplomacy.

B_E was clearly claiming that what the US is doing under Trump is the same as looting a dead body and I protested that it's nothing like that. We can make all kinds of allegories but that one doesn't fly.

Sure, what the US is doing is like a mob that offers complimentary (gift) requested assistance to the victim of a rival's unprovoked assault and theft in concert with some allies against that rival which in turn offer below market rates for additional assistance all conspiring against the rival, until finally it looks like the squeeze might be enough to eject the rival from victim's property. Then when a new boss takes over (Trump) he suddenly announces that the fighting must end and that the victim must pay a rate the new boss accepts for any future assistance and that the boss expects compensation for the complimentary services offered by his predecessor in addition to any new assistance going forward.

On the other hand, you're describing a scenario where a victim of a horrible unprovoked assault is suddenly accosted by another stranger out of nowhere demanding payment for non existent services or he will continue to attack the victim with the original assailant.

Trump should not be portrayed as a stranger in this scenario. He took over an organization that was gifting enormous help to one side of a conflict along with allies of that organization that offered relatively generous loans or limited access to the aggressors seized property. If he stops further assistance and demands the victim both pay a negotiated fee in exchange for any future assistance along with thanks for all prior assistance by his organization and further that the victim must accept an ill-advised ceasefire or he may renew business with the aggressor this is reprehensible, but it is not any kind of attack or theft against the victim,

Why can't presidents cite previous presidents' actions in their diplomacy in this way? If Biden had suffered a psychotic break and did this to Ukraine at the end of his term how would that be completely different vs now that Trump did it? Is that the way presidents are intended to perform statecraft with a clean break at each transition? I'm sorry but that's nuts. Does it apply to other leaders? If a NATO member had to invoke article 5 and Trump said "yeah? well, you've never answered article 5 for us!" simply because the leader invoking article 5 now was not leading that country when it answered article 5 in Afghanistan your reasoning, Aeson, would seem to suggest that Trump would be right to dismiss that NATO member's claim to have responded to the US invoking article 5 simply because there had since been a change in leadership in the country that previously answered the US's article 5 call. I can't believe that you really believe that. You just feel good trying to spin everything in the evilest non-reality you can describe for our hated enemy president so you go with it. I don't really think that helps. at all.

Trump's foreign policy is currently US foreign policy. Not all US foreign policy has been Trump's foreign policy.

[Geronimo]

If you permit Canada, you would have to permit Denmark via the claims Trump is making on Greenland.

the difference is that while so far Trump hasn't actually put the Greenlanders or the Danes in general out that much his sudden high tariffs against Canada are nearly catastrophic but still utterly unjustified. I would also add that the tariffs against Canada obviously violate a trade agreement he personally negotiated, signed and praised. While I would maintain that the threatened tariffs against Denmark and other EU members do indeed violate treaties they are far less of an egregious violation than those against Canada.

[Dauphin]

At what stage of the Third Reich did the statecraft of Hitler remind you of Trump's betrayal of Ukraine? I would maintain that nothing Trump's done in Europe or anywhere really sinks to the "nazi" standard. Perhaps we could characterize his open dismissal of Canadian sovereignty that way if we make large allowances for how much standards of foreign relations have improved since then but not any of the betrayals in Europe. not yet at least.

why does everyone want to load everything up with massive hyperbole? Aren't Trump's failings appalling enough as they are without all of this embellishment?

If you permit Canada, you would have to permit Denmark via the claims Trump is making on Greenland.

[Geronimo]

absolutely

that's why I said the victim was bleeding to death while trump and yes that means the US is stealng his necklage.


also I didnt read all of that that geronimo wrote but if you want to go further and judge the whole US attidue towards ukraine then it's two times trump because it actively fostered an insurection and then now it is abandoning the one who it incityed to rebel and let him die


despicable any way you look at it. US has been subverted by far right wimng imbeciles POS and ghe whole wolrd sees it and it will hurt it.

It will hurt 1st republican states because it's unfair to penalize innocents but those states must suffer immensly untill the nazi has been squeezed out of them

some are not nazis, I see that. They will be punsihed by trump's idiocy but I am glad that the EU will add an immense punishment to it too

At what stage of the Third Reich did the statecraft of Hitler remind you of Trump's betrayal of Ukraine? I would maintain that nothing Trump's done in Europe or anywhere really sinks to the "nazi" standard. Perhaps we could characterize his open dismissal of Canadian sovereignty that way if we make large allowances for how much standards of foreign relations have improved since then but not any of the betrayals in Europe. not yet at least.

why does everyone want to load everything up with massive hyperbole? Aren't Trump's failings appalling enough as they are without all of this embellishment?

[Bereta_Eder]

In any case, what Trump did is worse than just showing up and looting a corpse. A corpse isn't going to care, and the deed was already done. Trump is actively bullying sentient victims while they are in dire straights, demanding thanks for things he didn't do, lying about what was done, trying to leverage their desperation to get them to pay an absurd amount, and not even guarantee they get anything in return.

absolutely

that's why I said the victim was bleeding to death while trump and yes that means the US is stealng his necklage.


also I didnt read all of that that geronimo wrote but if you want to go further and judge the whole US attidue towards ukraine then it's two times trump because it actively fostered an insurection and then now it is abandoning the one who it incityed to rebel and let him die


despicable any way you look at it. US has been subverted by far right wimng imbeciles POS and ghe whole wolrd sees it and it will hurt it.

It will hurt 1st republican states because it's unfair to penalize innocents but those states must suffer immensly untill the nazi has been squeezed out of them

some are not nazis, I see that. They will be punsihed by trump's idiocy but I am glad that the EU will add an immense punishment to it too

[Dauphin]

I think the sitting President can reference actions of prior Presidents. I refer to the office, not to the office holder.

Trump is demanding this stuff as if he is the State.

May not have a practical difference, but the optics and the flavour it leaves in the mouth... ooph.

[Geronimo]

Slight tangent, but Trump doesn't think as 'us', but as 'me':

Zelensky: [to Vance] Can I ask you [something]? Okay, so he occupied big parts of Ukraine, parts of the East and Crimea. So he occupied it on 2013 so during a lot of years, I'm not speaking about just Biden, but in those times there President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now the President Trump. And God bless President Trump will stop him. But during 2013 nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took he killed people.

Trump: “2015!”

Vance: “2014 to 2015.”

Trump: “I was not here.”

it's a big deal and I recognize that but even if we allow that the rules about these things are set by trump his inconsistent application of whatever those rules are wouldn't rule out trying to collect on 'debts' for favors and gifts that his organization rather than he himself had tendered.

[Dauphin]

Trump is the most appalling president of my lifetime at least and his overt campaign against Canadian sovereignty is inexcusable but I don't understand why we can say US policy=Trump policy but not say that Ukraine owes any thanks (because he didn't do anything). Are you saying all debts are cancelled to the US each time a new president takes office?

Slight tangent, but Trump doesn't think as 'us', but as 'me':

Zelensky: [to Vance] Can I ask you [something]? Okay, so he occupied big parts of Ukraine, parts of the East and Crimea. So he occupied it on 2013 so during a lot of years, I'm not speaking about just Biden, but in those times there President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now the President Trump. And God bless President Trump will stop him. But during 2013 nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took he killed people.

Trump: “2015!”

Vance: “2014 to 2015.”

Trump: “I was not here.”