1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Biden opened the door to NATO membership. The last match. Go do some homework. 

So in your mind opening the door for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO makes it a-ok for Russia to invade and for the US president to become a mouthpiece for Putin?

Ok.

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

So in your mind opening the door for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO makes it a-ok for Russia to invade and for the US president to become a mouthpiece for Putin?

Ok.

Never said it was ok. I've said Putin chose to invade but you can't ignore 30 years of US policy including Bush backing out of the missile deal, admitting countries until the last one on their doorstep, or Biden opening the door to their membership in the face of it all. The US would not have put up with any of that if Russia or China was moving up LATAM to our doorstep.

Now Z wants NATO under a new name with US troops on the ground and broke a deal on live TV to push for it.

GFY

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Never said it was ok. I've said Putin chose to invade but you can't ignore 30 years of US policy including Bush backing out of the missile deal, admitting countries until the last one on their doorstep, or Biden opening the door to their membership in the face of it all.

The missile deal was signed with the Soviet Union, which no longer existed, and moving past it was one of multiple attempts on the part of the US to "reset" relations with Russia.

In each case we've regretted trying to reset with Russia and Putin.

And now Trump thinks he and only he can have a constructive relationship with Putin. 

And you're walking blindly into making the same mistakes the rest of us have learned: Russia lies, and Putin cannot be trusted. 

What we have now is a President who wants what Putin has: a media that echos the state messaging, a propaganda apparatus that controls narratives through social media platforms, and marginalization or even downright elimination of competing messages by threatening to rescind broadcast licenses.

And you're being brainwashed by this.

20 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

BS. You are ignoring NATO membership being on the table

And also, his push for a security deal while backing out of a deal in front of cameras is NATO membership under another name. So yeah, he has turned out to be a POS that wasn't evident a week into the war that Biden did lit the match on.

15 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Never said it was ok. I've said Putin chose to invade but you can't ignore 30 years of US policy including Bush backing out of the missile deal, admitting countries until the last one on their doorstep, or Biden opening the door to their membership in the face of it all. The US would not have put up with any of that if Russia or China was moving up LATAM to our doorstep.

Now Z wants NATO under a new name with US troops on the ground and broke a deal on live TV to push for it.

Yea i wonder if we would have an issue with Russia teaming up with someone in Latin America. 

 

https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-russia-navy-ships-cuba-d594c7c8fc97a903e5dc90754970b8c0#

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

It was just leaked instead. 

Screw Z when he came in there trying to renegotiate in front of the cameras and push for essentially the same thing that started this war in the first place except with US troops on the ground. 

You don't see a difference between a POTUS showing some irritation behind a closed door (leaked a long time after the event) and a fully live streamed event going all over the world?

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You don't see a difference between a POTUS showing some irritation behind a closed door (leaked a long time after the event) and a fully live streamed event going all over the world?

Z chose to back out of a deal for the 3rd time on live TV while pushing NATO under a different name with US troops on the ground.

12 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

Yea i wonder if we would have an issue with Russia teaming up with someone in Latin America. 

 

https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-russia-navy-ships-cuba-d594c7c8fc97a903e5dc90754970b8c0#

So after playing with countries on their border for 30 years and supporting a country they are fighting in a war they decided to team up with Cuba and that proves what? If for the last 30 years they were admitting countries in LATAM into a defense pact with them and trying to put missiles down there (like the 60s) you'd have a point.

23 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The missile deal was signed with the Soviet Union, which no longer existed, and moving past it was one of multiple attempts on the part of the US to "reset" relations with Russia.

In each case we've regretted trying to reset with Russia and Putin.

And now Trump thinks he and only he can have a constructive relationship with Putin. 

And you're walking blindly into making the same mistakes the rest of us have learned: Russia lies, and Putin cannot be trusted. 

What we have now is a President who wants what Putin has: a media that echos the state messaging, a propaganda apparatus that controls narratives through social media platforms, and marginalization or even downright elimination of competing messages by threatening to rescind broadcast licenses.

And you're being brainwashed by this.

So Bush ending the missile deal and trying to move missiles in was the US trying to reset relations with Russia? Yeah, I think we agree that certainly did reset things. All the Russians had to say in the 60s was they were for defense. Expanding eastward by admitting all the other countries Baker promised not to in the 90s was a good reset as well. If we were involved in the regime changes in the Ukraine those were good resets.

Wow, this is quite the „debate". Lots of info that goes all the way back to the 90s. 

Let’s get some facts straight. In 1990 J. Baker did make that statement, but it had no binding significance to the 1990 Treaty between the 4 WW2 powers and East/West Germany. That Treaty was signed for the reunification of Germany and would allow entire Germany to become part of NATO. Russia was given a large sum of money for their agreement. (Russia was broke and needed every penny). That treaty was signed by Gorbatschow and Kohl.

In 1997 another treaty was signed between NATO and Russia (Jelzin). Here the Russians signed and agreed that they would waiver their right to veto against a former Warschau Pact country entering NATO. The also put in framework that would see Russia and NATO cooperating together instead of against. Again, Russia received money and also one major point in the treaty: no nukes could be put on land from a former Warschau Pact country.

And let’s not forget that Ukraine was one of the first countries that declared their independence from Russia in 1991. They also gave up all of their nukes in Budapest Treaty of 1994, with security insurances from RUSSIA and the US.

So before Putin turned into the ruthless dictator that he is, Russia had no issue with countries joining NATO. That’s why I said that the poor Russian population, which is partially an innocent bystander to this lunatic, had a short opportunity to turn their country into a free democratic one. Most of their population is being suppressed and have no choice but to be cannon fodder in this ridiculous war.

 

Facts have to remain facts! Regardless, Russia is the aggressor and reason this war is going on. You guys want to blame Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and whoever else… ITS PUTINS WAR AND HIS F.cking fault!

10 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Z chose to back out of a deal for the 3rd time on live TV while pushing NATO under a different name with US troops on the ground.

There was never any deal without the security agreements.  That was always Zelensky's position.  The discussions were supposed to take place on Friday.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

There was never any deal without the security agreements.  That was always Zelensky's position.  The discussions were supposed to take place on Friday.

According to Rubio that's incorrect. He was there to sign a deal. There is no way Trump would have him there to sign a deal that would be NATO under a different name.

14 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Z chose to back out of a deal for the 3rd time on live TV while pushing NATO under a different name with US troops on the ground.

He never agreed to the deal, there was no backing out. 

Trump and Putin have been negotiating without Ukraine at the table. Zelensky never agreed to any of their language or terms.

Stop gobbling Russian propaganda parroted by a compromised president.

3 minutes ago, Frankfurteagle89 said:

Wow, this is quite the „debate". Lots of info that goes all the way back to the 90s. 

Let’s get some facts straight. In 1990 J. Baker did make that statement, but it had no binding significance to the 1990 Treaty between the 4 WW2 powers and East/West Germany. That Treaty was signed for the reunification of Germany and would allow entire Germany to become part of NATO. Russia was given a large sum of money for their agreement. (Russia was broke and needed every penny). That treaty was signed by Gorbatschow and Kohl.

In 1997 another treaty was signed between NATO and Russia (Jelzin). Here the Russians signed and agreed that they would waiver their right to veto against a former Warschau Pact country entering NATO. The also put in framework that would see Russia and NATO cooperating together instead of against. Again, Russia received money and also one major point in the treaty: no nukes could be put on land from a former Warschau Pact country.

And let’s not forget that Ukraine was one of the first countries that declared their independence from Russia in 1991. They also gave up all of their nukes in Budapest Treaty of 1994, with security insurances from RUSSIA and the US.

So before Putin turned into the ruthless dictator that he is, Russia had no issue with countries joining NATO. That’s why I said that the poor Russian population, which is partially an innocent bystander to this lunatic, had a short opportunity to turn their country into a free democratic one. Most of their population is being suppressed and have no choice but to be cannon fodder in this ridiculous war.

 

Facts have to remain facts! Regardless, Russia is the aggressor and reason this war is going on. You guys want to blame Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and whoever else… ITS PUTINS WAR AND HIS F.cking fault!

And who pulled out of the missile deal and tried to move them? Bush. Who pushed for Ukraine to be in NATO and lit the last match? Biden. Obama didn't even think that was a good idea in 08 or 09 when his people were pushing it. So you have nothing.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

According to Rubio that's incorrect. He was there to sign a deal. There is no way Trump would have him there to sign a deal that would be NATO under a different name.

There is no way Zelensky was going to sign a deal that excluded security guarantees. This has been stated numerous times.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

And who pulled out of the missile deal and tried to move them? Bush. Who pushed for Ukraine to be in NATO and lit the last match? Biden. Obama didn't even think that was a good idea in 08 or 09 when his people were pushing it. So you have nothing.

So your position is that you blame America? 

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

He never agreed to the deal, there was no backing out. 

Trump and Putin have been negotiating without Ukraine at the table. Zelensky never agreed to any of their language or terms.

Stop gobbling Russian propaganda parroted by a compromised president.

He was invited to sign the deal. That's why he was there. The terms were agreed to or he wouldn't have been. Again, no way in hell would he have been there to agree to a deal that's NATO under a different name.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

So your position is that you blame America? 

For our part of it? Absolutely. @we_gotta_believe graciously just posted what I said in 2022 proving I'm not a fan of Russia and was proud of the Ukrainian people including Z until he turned out to be a POS. Thanks WGB!!! 

But yeah, we played a big part of this BS.

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

There is no way Zelensky was going to sign a deal that excluded security guarantees. This has been stated numerous times.

Then the MOFO lied to get to the WH because he was there to sign an agreement that he knew did not include NATO under a different name. No one disputes he was there to sign a deal not negotiate one. He turned it into a negotiation on live TV.

3 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

He was invited to sign the deal. That's why he was there. The terms were agreed to or he wouldn't have been. Again, no way in hell would he have been there to agree to a deal that's NATO under a different name.

He was not invited to just sign on the dotted line. He was there to negotiate, that was what the invitation was for.

There was no agreed upon deal before Zelensky arrived. Anybody who tells you differently is straight up lying.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Then the MOFO lied to get to the WH because he was there to sign an agreement that he knew did not include NATO under a different name. No one disputes he was there to sign a deal not negotiate one. He turned it into a negotiation on live TV.

HE F'ING WAS NOT. you're accepting BS lies.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

HE F'ING WAS NOT. you're accepting BS lies.

At the start of the meeting Trump says he's there to sign a deal. Z was right there and didn't dispute it. So Rubio and other US officials who say he was there to sign a deal and the media saying Z was there to sign a deal are all lying as well? OK. That's why they had a press conference and not a closed deal meeting to negotiate, dude.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

And who pulled out of the missile deal and tried to move them? Bush. Who pushed for Ukraine to be in NATO and lit the last match? Biden. Obama didn't even think that was a good idea in 08 or 09 when his people were pushing it. So you have nothing.

What are you even talking about? What is tried to move them? What kept master Bush from moving them?

You omit that Russia started the proxy war in 2014! Long before Biden. Ask yourself if this would even be an issue if Putin didn’t want parts of Ukraine to begin with. Offering NATO happened because Russia took land from Ukraine. And even if not, Russia signed the Treaty of 1997 with the Veto Waiver. FACTS

1 minute ago, Frankfurteagle89 said:

What are you even talking about? What is tried to move them? What kept master Bush from moving them?

You omit that Russia started the proxy war in 2014! Long before Biden. Ask yourself if this would even be an issue if Putin didn’t want parts of Ukraine to begin with. Offering NATO happened because Russia took land from Ukraine. And even if not, Russia signed the Treaty of 1997 with the Veto Waiver. FACTS

You mean after the regime change the US was part of? Yeah, we can dive into that as well if you'd like.