Trump's Cabinet

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, SocialD said:

Was there a signed promise with Russia?  Legit question, I'm still trying to educate myself on the history.  So far, this just seems like Putin being Putin in an attempt to restore Russia to their "former glory."

Yes, many. Among them are the UN Charter, the 1975 Helsinki act, the 1990 Charter of Paris, and the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act. None of which place any limit on NATO's expansion or which exclude Ukraine from joining NATO. All of them recognize each nation's sovereign right to determine their own alliances and allegiances. Russia is a party and signatory to every one of these treaties and agreements.

Make note, Bashi didn't provide any treaty or agreement that limited NATO's expansion - no such document exists. He provided you a video of a guy saying that Putin (Putin, specifically) warned us not to. That's different.

There is no reading of the facts which alleviates Russia's full responsibility as the aggressor in this conflict. They are in direct violation of every one of those treaties. One could argue, as Bashi does, that it was unwise to allow NATO to expand eastward, and that can be a basis for a good argument, but it's also fully opinion, and there is no treaty or arrangement that Ukraine or any other NATO member state has violated that Bashi can point to which places any legal blame on the West. Ask him to provide a receipt. He'll be unable.

In 1999, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia (all former Soviet satellites) joined NATO. Czech and Poland also join the same year. In particular, Poland's accession into NATO had been underway for the entire decade - starting in 1990. Notably, Russia signed the NATO-Russia founding act in 1997 - which as far as years are concerned, comes after 1990 the last time I checked. Also of note, Poland was once a former Soviet satellite. Hey, the more you know! Right? Tough for me to know how long and on what setting I would have to microwave my brain in order to believe that Russia was super upset about its former satellites joining NATO, but would also simultaneously sign an agreement saying it's cool, but then again, I'm no statesman. Hence, why the entire line about them being upset over Ukraine joining NATO is total horse shit.

In 2008, Ukraine (and Georgia) were "invited" to NATO at something called the Bucharest summit. As his final act as President before stepping down, Putin expressed discontent that Ukraine would be invited to NATO. Understandable. Falls squarely into Bashi's opinion that "we provoked" this conflict. We get it. Putin didn't want Ukraine in NATO. And because Putin didn't want it, it's our fault. This is the one fact Bashi can lean on and which comprises the totality of his argument. Putin didn't want it. Undisputed.

Flash forward to 2014 and Vlad is back in power pushing little green men into Ukraine. I, for one, can always tell who the good guys are in any conflict by who's soldiers are wearing unmarked uniforms, occupying another state's parliament buildings, and then holding "elections" for them which in turn result in the dissolution of their government.

Flash forward to 2022, and Putin has his full-on invasion. Personally, my opinion is that Putin is concerned about Ukraine becoming (more) Westernized because of the enormous economic power they wield both in terms of agriculture and energy. Putin (or Russia) losing a substantial amount of their economic leverage over Europe would be strategically devastating for Russia. NATO expansion is a pretext because Ukraine can continue down the path of Westernization with or without being a NATO member state.

Yeah, there is a complicated relationship between NATO and Russia given the legacy of warfare in Europe in the 20th century, but there is nothing which has ever limited any state from choosing their own alliances - and this includes Ukraine. Anyone who wants to read them can find them on the internet. Russia has signed all of them.

I predict two things. First, that this war will end with Russia annexing eastern Ukraine (Crimea), permanently. As the trade to achieve peace, what is on the west side of the front (Ukraine) will eventually be allowed to join NATO. The second prediction I have is that Bashi will down vote this comment.

[Longhorn15]

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

“led to believe NATO would not expand east”

Read and decide for yourself whether we “agreed” to anything or not.

[SocialD]

12 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

23:00

 

28:00

 

 

So this guy says Putin doesn't want to take over Ukraine, yet at the beginning of the war he tried to take over Kyiv.  That makes it seem like he was either wanting to take the place over or install his own puppet government.  Either way, the speech at those minutes don't show a signed promise that NATO wouldn't expand east.  

 

 

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Make note, Bashi didn't provide any treaty or agreement that limited NATO's expansion - no such document exists. He provided you a video of a guy saying that Putin (Putin, specifically) warned us not to. That's different.

There is no reading of the facts which alleviates Russia's full responsibility as the aggressor in this conflict. They are in direct violation of every one of those treaties. One could argue, as Bashi does, that it was unwise to allow NATO to expand eastward, and that can be a basis for a good argument, but it's also fully opinion, and there is no treaty or arrangement that Ukraine or any other NATO member state has violated that Bashi can point to which places any legal blame on the West. Ask him to provide a receipt. He'll be unable.

 

 

This was more my point.  Everything I've found says there isn't a signed agreement that limits NATO from expanding east.  Even Gorbachev himself seems to agree that there was nothing agreed to about NATO and their eastward expansion.  

[TreeA10]

Some background on the Gaetz accusations and, more importantly, the accusers.  

https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/17/house-probe-into-matt-gaetz-relies-on-witnesses-doj-found-lacked-credibility/

[BashiChuni]

not an agreement, but minutes of a conversation between sec state baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze in 1990. 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16115-document-04-memorandum-conversation-between

why is it in NATO's interest to expand up to the borders of Russia? what does that possibly gain?

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/04/nato.russia

"The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, today repeated his warning that Moscow would view any attempt to expand Nato to its borders as a "direct threat". - 2008

https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/

Senior US government officials knew as far back as 2008 that the possibility of adding Ukraine to NATO was seen as a serious “military threat” by Russia, one that crosses Moscow’s security “redlines” and could force it to intervene.

Yet Western leaders continued insisting that Ukraine would join the US-led military alliance, right up until Russia did indeed intervene in February 2022.

But privately, US diplomats knew that this move would be seen as an existential threat by Moscow, and could provoke Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

The former US ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, who is now director of the CIA, warned in a February 2008 embassy cable that Ukraine constituted a security “redline” for Moscow.

below is now CIA director Burns memo in 2008

---

Edited November 19 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

so way back in 2008 our intelligence people were saying that adding ukraine to nato or even talking about adding them will touch off instability in the region. and a possible civil war.

why do it?

is that really spreading peace and democracy? or are other factors at work.

we knew there was a hornet nest on the ground and decided to kick it. then blame the hornets.

 

and now that the russians are reacting precisely the way our CIA predicted they would, some of you want to start WW3. you're being played and manipulated.

Edited November 19 by BashiChuni

[raimius]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

so way back in 2008 our intelligence people were saying that adding ukraine to nato or even talking about adding them will touch off instability in the region. and a possible civil war.

why do it?

is that really spreading peace and democracy? or are other factors at work.

we knew there was a hornet nest on the ground and decided to kick it. then blame the hornets.

 

and now that the russians are reacting precisely the way our CIA predicted they would, some of you want to start WW3. you're being played and manipulated.

I think you are misinterpreting that quote.  It argues that Russia did not want to intervene, but may feel compelled to in a Ukrainian CIVIL WAR.  It does not imply that Russia would feel forced to invade to keep them out of NATO.  

Invading was Putin's choice to try to regain a puppet state/buffer zone.  The idea that Ukraine's choice in alliances is an act of war against Russia remains, as it always was, dumb.

[GrndPndr]

Meanwhile, in a not so far-fetched scenario, Russia continues their regional hegemony and overruns Ukraine - and then ends up with NATO on her border after all.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, GrndPndr said:

Meanwhile, in a not so far-fetched scenario, Russia continues their regional hegemony and overruns Ukraine - and then ends up with NATO on her border after all.

AND they will own Europe's bread basket. 

If Putin owns the energy and the food...

[tac airlifter]

7 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

AND they will own Europe's bread basket. 

If Putin owns the energy and the food...

Then Europe will get what it deserves. 
 

why should we fund their defense when they could do it themselves but choose not to?

[bfargin]

Ukraines taken over Trumps cabinet.

[disgruntledemployee]

47 minutes ago, bfargin said:

Ukraines taken over Trumps cabinet.

Sorry bud.  It's a topic and it deserves discussion.

Back to the topic, I don't see Gaetz getting confirmed.   He pissed off too many Rs with his Speaker battles, and other various clowning.  The underage sex thing provides justification excuses.  Other that pure loyalty to Trump,  and there are tons of other acolytes he could have picked, why him? And whomever I made that beer bet with (4fans?, too lazy to look back) looks like "hackers" (aka, inside job) got the report and will leak it.

SecDef is probably going to turn into a battle, but it was probably always going to be a battle because, well, Trump picked a complete outsider.

Kennedy... smells like some sort of back room promise fulfillment. Or a plot to fire him 6 mo in and neuter his political life.

Tulsi... why pick a former D?  Aren't they always a D for life on the inside?

As for the UKR issue, Biden not only pulled the gutter guards, he shouted out loud that he did.  He could have done it without we/them knowing, but no.  UKR has to be careful with the rules removed, lest they get an unintended reaction. Maybe Biden (his staff really) wants to hand Trump a gigantic can of can of worms with 2 forks and laugh, saying, good luck trying to unfuck this mess, MFer. 

October surprises are nothing, it'll be interesting how many January surprises Biden (his staff, really) unleashes just to fuck with Trump.

[uhhello]

Show is just the gift that keeps on giving

[ClearedHot]

14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Then Europe will get what it deserves. 
 

why should we fund their defense when they could do it themselves but choose not to?

Yeah that isolationism worked out great in the past.

I certainly don't think we should be the world police or that we should pay for the defense of Europe.  Clearly Most NATO countries have failed to meet the 2% Defense spending guideline.  Thanks to Trump they now spend $50B more that they did before his first term.  I am in favor of a policy that strongly encourages (arm twisting), them to meet their obligations with out us throwing up our arms and saying take it all Vlad.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Yeah that isolationism worked out great in the past.

I am in favor of a policy that strongly encourages (arm twisting), them to meet their obligations with out us throwing up our arms and saying take it all Vlad.

Your reply didn’t answer the question; why should we fund the defense of those unwilling to do it themselves?  
 

you can call it isolationism with a snarky jab, but try explaining your reply in a way that convinces a voter.  Keep in mind we’re broke as a nation, unwilling/unable to rebuild in WNC & Maui, etc.  Go with an unemotional argument for why I should pay taxes to help Europeans (instead of US citizens) defend themselves when they are perfectly capable but choose not to.

[SurelySerious]

Your reply didn’t answer the question; why should we fund the defense of those unwilling to do it themselves?  
 
you can call it isolationism with a snarky jab, but try explaining your reply in a way that convinces a voter.  Keep in mind we’re broke as a nation, unwilling/unable to rebuild in WNC & Maui, etc.  Go with an unemotional argument for why I should pay taxes to help Europeans (instead of US citizens) defend themselves when they are perfectly capable but choose not to.

Let’s be honest, you’ve worked with the European partners: they are not capable of the coordination required to integrate forces between countries in a timely or effective manner for a collective defense. Therefore, their inability to maintain stability in that region then impacts us when trade/travel/etc are degraded due to countries taking advantage of other smaller countries. It’s the overall premise of our umbrella of deterrence, and you’re smart enough to know it.

[FourFans]

15 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Sorry bud.  It's a topic and it deserves discussion.

Then go discuss it in the thread specifically intended for that discussion.

[brabus]

I’m between Tac and Surely. We are spending an egregious amount on UKR, with a major reason being war is profitable for the elite class. But Surely is completely accurate on Europe’s inability to perform without US help. The answer to this shitshow is probably somewhere in the diplomatic/economic realm. We can’t let RUS run amok in Europe, but we have to immediately stop completely fucking over our own people, which is exactly what we’re doing with our current UKR actions.

Trump may be the guy who can tell Putin and Zelensky to knock the shit off, borders are now where the current lines are, and UKR can fuck off on joining NATO. Sucks for you UKR, but your loss is not our problem at this point, be thankful we enabled you to not lose half your country, Kiev, etc. RUS will be in a massive deficit for generations to come, we don’t need to do/enable anymore on that front. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:29 PM by brabus

[Day Man]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/19/trump-names-former-wrestling-executive-linda-mcmahon-as-his-pick-for-education-secretary.html?qsearchterm=mcmahon

can't make this shit up

[Clark Griswold]

22 minutes ago, brabus said:

I’m between Tac and Surely. We are spending an egregious amount on UKR, 

Yup, good article reference this idea:

https://www.twz.com/air/conflicts-eating-into-critical-munitions-stockpiles-needed-for-china-fight-top-u-s-officer-in-pacific-warns

Ukraine, Houthis and other kinetic engagements are / have drawn on our supply of high end goodies.  

The lead time for replenishment is significant, the costs are real, for the bigger picture to secure the new de facto Free World it’s time to bring this to a frosty, tenuous peace like Korea.  Which is somewhat analogous to this situation, we the US, weren’t going to fully re-mobilize after we pushed north of the 38th and the NK, PRC and USSR pushed us back so settling at the 38th was the long term strategic answer.  Not perfect but acceptable.  

Same for Ukraine, settle it for now.  Re-arm, train and re-build.

[Vito]

Day Man,

  She was an executive in the WWF, she also ran for political office, ran a big organization and was in Trump’s Administration as the SBA head. She ran for Senate as a Republican in  Uber Democrat Connecticut and lost to Richard Blumenthal ( Perhaps you may think he’s more qualified, being he was a Vietnam Vet hero🤣). You’re gaslighting calling her a WWF personality. Just like people called Reagan, an actor, or Trump, a reality TV personality. Her and her husband built the WWF into a multi-million dollar organization. She’s no dummy. Probably not as Qualified as Pete Buttigieg, but her WWF days are long gone. Trump is a disruptor, and his picks are usually non-politicians and from the business world, ie. People who work, built things and aren’t on the government dole.

Edited Wednesday at 05:17 PM by Vito

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

 

Trump may be the guy who can tell Putin and Zelensky to knock the shit off, borders are now where the current lines are, and UKR can fuck off on joining NATO. Sucks for you UKR, but your loss is not our problem at this point, be thankful we enabled you to not lose half your country, Kiev, etc. RUS will be in a massive deficit for generations to come, we don’t need to do/enable anymore on that front. 

Agreed.  Neither side is going to 'win' at this point.  UKR is at the mercy of those willing/un-willing to fund their attrition war at this point.  Short of Europe pushing all in and funding/manning the UKR offensive to retake UKR territory I'm not sure what they expect.  I wonder what would have happened if RUS had been halfway competent and taken Kyiv as they set out to do.  

[disgruntledemployee]

2 hours ago, FourFans said:

Then go discuss it in the thread specifically intended for that discussion.

My words came off wrong.  I was agreeing, hence the word sorry, but saying it was a worthy topic, and then tried to steer it back with subsequent paras.  I should have added, a worthy topic in it's own thread. 

PS, anonymous transition teamsters are leaking that they're not happy with Hesgreth (unforthcoming on past) and someone unearthed a mean tweet from Tulsi (D) calling Trump Saudi's Bitch, both headlines in today's Drudge.  ......... <--grains of salt.

[Lord Ratner]

On 11/19/2024 at 7:12 AM, TreeA10 said:

Some background on the Gaetz accusations and, more importantly, the accusers.  

https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/17/house-probe-into-matt-gaetz-relies-on-witnesses-doj-found-lacked-credibility/

Hemingway is a great journalist. Has been for years. I take her reporting seriously in a way I don't most other mainstream journalists.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Day Man said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/19/trump-names-former-wrestling-executive-linda-mcmahon-as-his-pick-for-education-secretary.html?qsearchterm=mcmahon

can't make this shit up

What's she going to do? Destroy the department of education? 

 

That would be ideal. It shouldn't exist.