> Second, yes the Budapest Memorandum was violated. Why didn’t the other parties do anything or immediately declare war on Russia besides just the United States?
The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
> Here’s a better question though: why didn’t the EU do something when Russia violated it?
The EU isn't party to the Budapest Memorandum.
> Is your gear ready?
It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over.
> Are you ready to deploy to the front lines?
We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
> Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
About 500 million Europeans are living in a NATO state. For them, if war came to them (which it has not yet done so!), the answer is "Article 5". We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
It's almost like you think, as the Russians keep claiming, NATO was never really a mutual defence treaty, but a way for the USA to be stronger.
That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
"Divide and conquer, baby. Isolate the big scary army from all their allies who are also their industrial suppliers and FOBs!"
> The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
Other Western parties, I should have written.
Wikipedia list of parties to the Budapest Memorandum: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Russia, United States, United Kingdom
Oh look, Germany, France, Poland, Finland, they are not on that list. And yet, still supply more support to Ukraine than the US government is currently supplying.
> The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
Well the US and UK rushed munitions. But aside from that it just makes Western Europe culpable for failing
> It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over. We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed throughout Europe. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
Not really
> We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
If the military presence, continued training exercises, continued well, functioning of NATO means you now don't trust us, then why are we there? You don't trust us, we could just turn on you any moment! Your belief does not reflect reality.
> That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
You're the one saying "we don't trust you" "you don't support Ukraine" etc. and neither of those are true. You're purposefully driving divisions when none need exist.
> But aside from that it just makes Western Europe culpable for failing
Of Western Europe, one nation was party to the Budapest Memorandum.
That one party is the UK.
> You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed throughout Europe. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
Zero of which are currently fighting Russia.
Despite what Russian propaganda claims about this war, NATO is not a belligerent, therefore the USA is not a belligerent.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand this. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> > > Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
> > This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
> Not really
Yes really.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the front lines and belligerents, and that NATO isn't on that list. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> If the military presence, continued training exercises, continued well, functioning of NATO means you now don't trust us, then why are we there? You don't trust us, we could just turn on you any moment! Your belief does not reflect reality.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed in and around Greenland in direct response to the attempt by your president to, and I need to emphasise this, ILLEGALLY ANNEX IT LIKE PUTIN IS DOING TO BITS OF UKRAINE. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> You're the one saying "we don't trust you" "you don't support Ukraine" etc. and neither of those are true. You're purposefully driving divisions when none need exist.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the problem and that your president has been purposefully driving divisions when none need exist. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
You may not take that seriously, we did. If you can't understand that, we (personally) are done.
What I can't work out, and don't care to, is how much of this is you treating the USA like it's the only power that matters and everyone else can be disregarded (common failing in all nations), or if you're actually here to push the Russian efforts to cause America to needlessly isolate itself from, and outright alienate, its allies.
Like, least you could do is admit that the Greenland crisis is a serious crisis that drove a wedge between us, that needs to be resolved. If the USA can't bring itself to admit that, it's going to be full of people very surprised allies rapidly (as fast as slow moving ships of state can) stop being allies when you threaten to take their territory.
And that actually taking it means war.
Real, hot, war.
I don't know which is better, you having a normal level of nationalist myopia (which would mean a lot of Amis think like you, leads to high risk of hot war), or you being an agent (actively manipulating opinions, leading to aforementioned).
> Of Western Europe, one nation was party to the Budapest Memorandum. That one party is the UK.
So what? The US and UK should go to war with Russia while, what, Europe does nothing? Not going to happen. Maybe the US and Uk shouldn’t have been the only ones to sign on.
> Zero of which are currently fighting Russia.
Right… because they are providing deterrence against Russia. The US is doing that. Without American forces Russia takes further action, possibly invading the Baltic states or worse.
You seem to be confused about the point that was established.
> Yes really.
Nuh uh!
> You may not take that seriously, we did. If you can't understand that, we (personally) are done.
Ok! We are done. I now support the US withdrawing from NATO and would like to bring our troops home except where it benefits us to the degree we so choose.
We should lower energy prices and remove sanctions and no longer target Russian shadow fleet tankers.
We should also pursue further accommodations with China with respect to Taiwan since we know Europe is cozying up to China (your words, enjoy! [1]) and fighting an all-out war to save one tiny island without any support from Europe seems like a bad idea. That’s what you are advocating for.
> Like, least you could do is admit that the Greenland crisis is a serious crisis that drove a wedge between us, that needs to be resolved. If the USA can't bring itself to admit that, it's going to be full of people very surprised allies rapidly (as fast as slow moving ships of state can) stop being allies when you threaten to take their territory. And that actually taking it means war. Real, hot, war.
In America (sorry if that’s triggering) we pass from one crises to the next every 10 minutes. I disagreed with the President's actions and rhetoric, as did the Senate which shut him down there. Totally uncalled for. On the other hand he (as he was with NATO) is right to point out this European territory which is a matter of American security also needs to be much more strongly defended. Saying “you Americans can put whatever troops you want on the island” is bullshit - it’s not our territory. Europe needs to defend it to a level we find acceptable.
There is no chance that Europe would fight a hot war against the United States over Greenland (and it would lose decisively and embarrassingly) but it’s always curious to me how Europeans seem so confident and eager to fight America but are so tepid when it comes to Russia who is actually on your doorstep. Maybe get your priorities straight yea? Maybe wake up a bit and stop being so delusional about the current state of the world. China is eating your manufacturing base and Russia is at your doorstep and while Trump is a dumb ass you are focusing way too much energy, criticism, and sensationalism over him while ignoring real, tangible threats.
The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
> Here’s a better question though: why didn’t the EU do something when Russia violated it?
The EU isn't party to the Budapest Memorandum.
> Is your gear ready?
It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over.
> Are you ready to deploy to the front lines?
We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
> Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
About 500 million Europeans are living in a NATO state. For them, if war came to them (which it has not yet done so!), the answer is "Article 5". We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
It's almost like you think, as the Russians keep claiming, NATO was never really a mutual defence treaty, but a way for the USA to be stronger.
That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
"Divide and conquer, baby. Isolate the big scary army from all their allies who are also their industrial suppliers and FOBs!"