Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.

This has nothing to do with anything. My statement is a commentary on the current value of US guarantees and/or promises of such.

What guarantees or promises were made towards Ukraine or Georgia?

With the Ukraine you have the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances where we were supposed to initiate some type of UN action if the Ukraine was ever attacked.

With Georgia we had train and equip agreements, and they helped in the Balkans and Iraq (had the 3rd most forces in Iraq at one point, and their guys actually fought). We didn't have a defense agreement with them, but they were being looked at for NATO membership and there were actually some US forces (trainers) in country when Russia invaded. We still work with them quite a bit (they sent forces to Afghanistan, we send guys to their mountaineering school for example).

I literally linked in my post a reason for why that's not really accurate for the Ukraine.

 Ouze wrote:
I literally linked in my post a reason for why that's not really accurate for the Ukraine.

Really, what part of what I typed is inaccurate?

The Russians violated at least three points of the agreement. That should have triggered some UN 'action' which is never really defined.

I know I can't make you read the words, so I'm not going to try.

I did read them. The Russians violated the first three points of the agreement, which should have triggered consultations between Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. Maybe my assumption that meant at the UN is wrong.

But what else do you think I am getting wrong?

Interesting little story, apparently Sanders is out spending Clinton by a large margin. Not what I expected at all.
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016

 CptJake wrote:
I did read them. The Russians violated the first three points of the agreement, which should have triggered consultations between Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. Maybe my assumption that meant at the UN is wrong.

But what else do you think I am getting wrong?

The agreement only triggers that if Ukraine is attacked with (or threatened with) nukes, hence the reference to the treaty of nonproliferation.
Beyond that there are no assurances of support if one of the parties instigates non-nuclear action against Ukraine.

About time for another politeness warning in here. Everyone remember rule 1

Apparently the Ukraine was led to believe UNSC action would be taken even if an aggressor did not use nukes as part of the aggression. At least that's what they're claiming. They're not the first to make a bad deal with the US *cough* indian tribes *cough* and we can only guess at what they were told versus what ended up in the actually text.

EDIT: IGNORE ME!

This reply no longer needed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
EDIT: IGNORE ME!

This reply no longer needed.

Always give me a five minute window to edit my stuff.

 Breotan wrote:
Apparently the Ukraine was led to believe UNSC action would be taken even if an aggressor did not use nukes as part of the aggression. At least that's what they're claiming. They're not the first to make a bad deal with the US *cough* indian tribes *cough* and we can only guess at what they were told versus what ended up in the actually text.

I can get behind that. I imagine that the USA and UK, however, were very eager to make sure that they were not legally tied to offer support as I'm sure that the negotiators at the time were well aware that what we are seeing now was a distinct possibility and having that back door to wiggle out of if it did go down would be very advantageous.

Indiana Governor Endorses Ted Cruz

Hard to believe the governor that has passed religiously motivated laws at the last minute behind closed doors would come out in support of the theocratic candidate.

 Ahtman wrote:
Indiana Governor Endorses Ted Cruz

Hard to believe the governor that has passed religiously motivated laws at the last minute behind closed doors would come out in support of the theocratic candidate.

Wow, from just looking at his record on LGBT stuff on wikipedia, the guy is an donkey-cave

An endorsement for Cruz is unwise now. You are hitching your wagon to a dead horse.

Well, jasper76, I guess this means it's time for Dakka to officially endorse Ted Cruz. After all, dead horses are what we do here.

You know, Breotan might be on to something there

Though, if that were the case wouldn't it be more appropriate to hitch up with Jeb Bush? Does a horse get deader than that campaign?

 Breotan wrote:
Well, jasper76, I guess this means it's time for Dakka to officially endorse Ted Cruz. After all, dead horses are what we do here.

I like it! Ted Cruz is the official unofficial "Dead Horse" candidate of dakkadakka. Consider my delegation pledged!

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.

This has nothing to do with anything. My statement is a commentary on the current value of US guarantees and/or promises of such.

What guarantees or promises were made towards Ukraine or Georgia?

When Russia annexed the Crimea, Obama said it wasn't a done deal. I remember watching that press conference.

When the Ukraine military asked the USA for heavy weaponry, they got night vision goggles and medical aid. Useful stuff, but not what they wanted.

When the Baltic NATO members asked America for some symbolic backup (one suggestion was to send the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the region for publicity purposes) they got nothing.

When chemical weapons were used in Syria, Obama talked about red lines...and nothing happened.

The point that I, and others are making is this: if an American president talks the talk, he has to walk the walk, otherwise he is made to look a chump, and doubts enter the minds of US allies. Can we rely on the USA?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When Russia annexed the Crimea, Obama said it wasn't a done deal. I remember watching that press conference.

Saying "it isn't a done deal" - I'm going to assume you're accurately reporting it - doesn't sound like a promise to militarily defend another country to me, much less a properly ratified treaty agreement.

The US is not obligated to defend Ukraine, or Georgia, or Syria in the event of conventional attacks. The treaty covering Ukraine indicated that the signatories would meet to discuss the situation, and that's exactly what happened - the US, UK, and Ukraine met and Russia declined to attend. There is a clause indicating that any sort of nuclear event would be referred to the UN Security council, but no such nuclear situation occurred.


So far as "can we trust the USA?", I'd personally prefer you didn't. I'd love it if you'd petition your government to spend more money so you can send some more of your own troops and weapons to Asia, and the Middle East and so on and so forth as you so generously suggested we do earlier in the thread. Maybe if some of our allies carried a little more of their weight militarily, we could afford socialized medicine as well.

 Ouze wrote:
Maybe if some of our allies carried a little more of their weight militarily, we could afford socialized medicine as well.

Pretending that the amount the US spends on its military is what prevents it from having socialised health care is asinine. Socialised healthcare is cheaper, more efficient and produces better results for the population. The reasons for the US not having socialised healthcare are purely ideological to the detriment of the majority.
That isn't to say that other countries shouldn't take a greater responsibility for security spending. Indeed I agree they should. But trying to pin a major failing in the US on the unrelated interests of other countries is contemptible.

So far as "can we trust the USA?", I'd personally prefer you didn't. I'd love it if you'd petition your government to spend more money so you can send some more of your own troops and weapons to Asia, and the Middle East and so on and so forth as you so generously suggested we do earlier in the thread. Maybe if some of our allies carried a little more of their weight militarily, we could afford socialized medicine as well.

I made a mistake here. When I wrote "can we trust the USA?" I should have added that's what Saudi Arabia/Israel/other gulf states will be asking themselves. I wasn't focusing on my own individual view, I was merely speculating on behalf of America's allies.

For the record, if you read my earlier comments. you'll see that I sympathise with the USA for feeling short-changed at doing the bulk of heavy lifting when it comes to defence spending. My country (UK) does hit the 2% GDP target for defence, but I am in favour of countries like Germany spending more on defence, and allowing the USA to shift its focus away from Europe.

As for socialized medicine, any country that spends $600 billion a year on defence could spend an equal amount on an American version of our NHS. If the political will is there, it can happen, but that's an argument for another day.

 Ahtman wrote:
Indiana Governor Endorses Ted Cruz

Hard to believe the governor that has passed religiously motivated laws at the last minute behind closed doors would come out in support of the theocratic candidate.

You mean it isn't a ringing endorsement?

It's interesting that both dinghies apparently are clinker built but I think perhaps it is "artistic licence".

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.

This has nothing to do with anything. My statement is a commentary on the current value of US guarantees and/or promises of such.

What guarantees or promises were made towards Ukraine or Georgia?

When Russia annexed the Crimea, Obama said it wasn't a done deal. I remember watching that press conference.

When the Ukraine military asked the USA for heavy weaponry, they got night vision goggles and medical aid. Useful stuff, but not what they wanted.

To be fair, Ukraine doesn't have a shortage of weapons & equipment. In fact, in the mid 90's they had a hundred rifles to each Ukrainian soldier as the Soviet Army retreated through Ukraine after pulling out of Europe and dumped literally hundreds trainloads of weapons and equipment there (though granted, much of it was stolen/sold since then). They have a problem with effectively using what they have in addition to logistical and corruption issues. Simply giving them weapons would have been a silly idea, as there's no guarantee they'd go where they were needed or that they'd be able to effectively use them (or that they wouldn't just end up getting resold halfway down the logistics or command line), and such has been a consistent problem with the Ukrainian army throughout the conflict. Weaponry supply is also made more difficult given that Ukraine uses pretty much entirely Soviet pattern equipment that NATO generally does not have a means to supply & support in large, consistent quantities, and new equipment would be dramatically more expensive and resource intensive to train the Ukrainians on and subsequently supply them.

When the Baltic NATO members asked America for some symbolic backup (one suggestion was to send the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the region for publicity purposes) they got nothing.

Why just this week it was announced that nearly 4,000 NATO troops from the US, German, and UK militaries would be deployed to Poland and the Baltic states, flew F-22's through there, and the US Navy has been increasing naval patrols and having run-ins with Russian aircraft in the region.

When chemical weapons were used in Syria, Obama talked about red lines...and nothing happened.

Except that Syria turned over a buttload of chemical weapons after the Russians hopped in and explained it would be in their best interests too prevent a US attack, and the OPCW appears to be satisfied at this point that Syria has turned over its stockpiles.

The point that I, and others are making is this: if an American president talks the talk, he has to walk the walk, otherwise he is made to look a chump, and doubts enter the minds of US allies. Can we rely on the USA?

It's a complicated issue when both sides can annihilate each other in a couple of hours with the press of a couple of buttons, particularly when for one side it's pretty much their only meaningful card to play because they're dramatically overmatched in every other measure.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I made a mistake here. When I wrote "can we trust the USA?" I should have added that's what Saudi Arabia/Israel/other gulf states will be asking themselves. I wasn't focusing on my own individual view, I was merely speculating on behalf of America's allies.

And the truth is, no, they can't. America's allies cannot trust the USA, and America's enemies cannot trust the USA, either. Any political agreement/treaty/deal we make may only last as long as the next election, if the opposing party even lets it get that far out of pure political spite. I hate to sound like I'm giving an endorsement here, but at least Trump has the balls to say "America First" out loud, when the rest are just putting party first, then America.

And, on the subject of not-endorsements, Whembly, you ought to get a huge kick out of this: It just hit me the other day that, with regards to my severe loathing of Ted Cruz, I realized that the car I drive is...a Chevy Cruze.

Actually it's a basic principle of international law that successor governments are bound by the treaties and agreements made by their predecessors.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually it's a basic principle of international law that successor governments are bound by the treaties and agreements made by their predecessors.

The US does not ratify treaties, pretty much by reflex.

The USA ratifies some treaties and not others. For example the USA adopted SALT 1 but decided not to ratify SALT 2 after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The US a treaty member of NATO.

Apart from treaties there are agreements such as free trade areas and international unions on standards (postal, telegraphic, and so on.)

The basic point is that a new President doesn't get to throw all the toys out of the pram, just because wah wah wah. Things don't work like that in the real world outside Trump's groupthink support bubble.