Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?…
> 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…
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_crisis
> 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Diplomatic_crises_dur...
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.
Fact is, we genuinely do not trust you, to an even greater extent than we don't trust China. Because, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_crisis
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).