re: Ukrainians have now attacked a second critical Russian nuclear early warning radar.

quote:

---

RiverCityTider

---

Your revisionist history synopsis is sickening.

You pretend Russia didn't agree that, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nukes it had on its soil when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia would not only respect but to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.

That was the "Budapest Memorandum" signed in 1994 by Russia and numerous other countries.

quote:

---

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 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.

---

LINK

I don't think invading a country and unilaterally annexing a significant part of its territory complies with the idea of "refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity."

You are continuing to convince me that you're a Russian propaganda bot assigned to create division in support of Putin's agenda.

quote:

---

You are continuing to convince me that you're a Russian propaganda bot assigned to create division in support of Putin's agenda.

---

Whether he is or not, we don't know. But most assuredly there is Russian propaganda out there working on our population. Has been and likely always will be. They are good at it.

If you cant rely on snopes who can you rely on

quote:

---

We made assurances about not continue to move NATO eastward.

---

Another total lie by you. You continue to parrot Putin's lies in the hopes that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will become accepted as the truth.

The only "NATO" assurance was West Germany pledged not to allow foreign NATO troops to be stationed on East German soil if Russia would agree to allow the reunification of East and West Germany.

quote:

---

The treaty they signed in 1990 extended NATO into East Germany, which had been zoned to the Soviet Union. To appease the Soviets, it also granted the territory a "special military status" that ruled out the stationing of foreign NATO forces there.

---

quote:

---

The agreement said nothing about NATO’s ability to expand farther east, a process that began with the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as members in 1999. Subsequent agreements, like the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, also made no mention of a prohibition on eastward expansion.

"Such an agreement was never made," NATO says in a fact page on its website, one of multiple pages that addresses the Russian allegations. "NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 — and that has never changed."

---

LINK

quote:

---

"Such an agreement was never made," NATO says

---

Well if NATO says it we must believe

Only a snopes fact check could make this more legit

quote:

---

Your hands are bloody man.

---

Nah

quote:

---

We destroyed the Misk Accords.

---

Nah

quote:

---

Pulled out of the intermediate missle treaty. 

---

After a decade of negotiations about it with Russia where they appeared to completely disregard the US's reasons for why they wanted it amended, and after a terrorist attack which settled our commitment to fight things 'over there.' And one of the reasons for our exit, nuclear blackmail, the Russians continually try to do. So who turned out to be right?

quote:

---

We made assurances about not contining to move NATO eastward.

---

The only signed agreement between NATO and Russia , the NATO Founding Act, comes with the explicit agreement that Russia could not dictate whether NATO expanded or not. And expanding NATO was the right move, considering your description of Russia as a toddler who has no agency.

Burns certainly thought it was a red line.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Is Trump an agent of Russia?

---

No, I don't think he is. I think the evidence suggests they tried to get leverage on him unsuccessfully, the attempt of which Democrats used to disrupt his presidency because they couldn't seem to deal with the fact that no one liked Hiliary.

Nah not really. You just don't like the fact it exists.

The only thing you've consistently shown is that you think the way to peace is for the West to capitulate. Putin's December 2021 ultimatum showed he was never serious about peace.