On Feb 19th 2022 Zelensky said Ukraine would put into question the decision to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. 5 days later Russia invaded.
to put that another way - If Cuba, Mexico or Canada said today that they would pursue Nuclear Weapons, how do you think the US would respond tomorrow?
If you want historical context - Cuba, Ukraine.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 21 2026 06:10am

Lol you guys watch the same podcast er what?

The US and UK agreed to respect Ukraine's borders, they did not agree to defend them. This was explicitly stated during negotiations for the Budapest Memorandum. America has upheld their end of the bargain, and actually went FAR above and beyond that with all the military aid.



This is also total nonsense... Zelenskyy made that comment BECAUSE of the imminent invasion, the invasion was not due to the comment. Everyone in the world knew Russia was about to invade them lol you're re-writing history.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Jan 21 2026 10:01am

double post

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Jan 21 2026 10:00am

in your opinion. The Western calculation was that Russia would never invade if we made it too costly to invade. The notion was to make Ukraine as dangerous looking as possible sothat if Russia invaded it would suffer a massive cost, that was the plan. The west still refuses to reflect on the outcome.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 21 2026 10:40am

What? No. Those are both verifiable facts.

Someone should have told Biden that "The Western calculation was that Russia would never invade." lol



"I believe Russia will invade Ukraine." -Joe Biden(a month before the invasion)

Do you really want to do this? again?

1. I dont know what pod cast you are talking about but it is a fact that the US breaks deals - Just look at the Iran Deal - Broken by the US.
(if you know of a podcast just link it and ill go watch it)
2. I dont know the user who you are grouping with me (edit: oh, i had a couple of debates with him the other day), and I have not watched a podcast recently related to the US and habit of breaking deals.
3. I am not sure why you are defending the US in its relations with Ukraine, noting the coup back in 2014, the rare earth minerals bullshit, and EVERYTHING ELSE.
(the US has used Ukraine's men for a proxy war vs Russia this is not news).
4. It does not matter WHY he made the comment the point is he MADE the comment. Its the same principal - it does not matter if NATO is a "defensive alliance" if Russia perceives it as a threat, Russia sees it as a threat.
5. Finally, spending 7 years arming a country to make another country not invade, but knowing that said country, Russia, would invade is pretty far down the rabbit hole. The US, Nato and most of Europe expected everything short of invasion, which is why they did what they did. People that opined that Russia would invade were fringe.

If you want to speak to the weeks/months prior to the invasion for educated people yes the writing was on the wall. To say that they knew their long term strategy (7 years!) would lead to war - this would make the EU, Nato and America - the bad guys.
(if you provoke a war, knowing what you know, and doing it anyway, what does that make you).

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 21 2026 10:55am

1. The US did not break the deal they made with Ukraine on nuclear disarmament, which is what we are talking about.

2. The implication was that you both seem to believe the same thing with no basis in reality.

3. Ukraine sucks, we(this includes Europe) only associate with them in order to fuck with Russia. I wish we would just leave both of these shitty countries alone. But that's not what's happening. All I did was state historical facts. If you consider that to be "defending America" then I guess the truth is on our side.

4. You're going to have to be more clear. Your other post implied that Russia invaded in response to the comment. This is not true. I don't understand what your argument is now that it's been made clear that it is not true.

5. Is Joe Biden "fringe"? This point makes no sense.


Calling the EU, NATO and America the bad guys implies the existence of good guys. Russia and Ukraine are both also bad guys. But yes, this was a longterm NATO plan to, as I've said to you before, fuck with Russia.

I don't like that, and I don't like that our justification for fucking with Russia is to pretend that we care about Ukraine, or to pretend that they're the good guys.

briefly:
1. I was outlining that the US is not a safe bet.
2. You do not believe that the U.S. has a long history of breaking or abandoning international deals when they become inconvenient. You are entitled to this opinion. I already gave examples to refute.
3. no issue here (skimming over the later element)
4. someone else mentioned nukes, i responded to them. you interjected. I see no value in continuing this point. Russia has security concerns and Nukes would be a security concern. if its not a trigger, its a factor.
5. Im talking about long term strategy, i even put a caveat in
6. nope, its ok for everyone to be bad. I dont live in a black and white world, my view is the world is an infinite shade of grey.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 21 2026 11:29am

1. It's by far the safest bet in world history. If you disagree then let me know who is better.

2. I believe everyone has a long history of breaking international deals when they become inconvenient. But "inconvenience" is an over-simplification. Your example was Iran, who we agreed(this was not legally binding, it wasn’t a treaty, it was only a statement of intent) not to sanction on the condition that they stop trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

So long as we felt the need to honor this agreement, Iran was free to sponsor terrorists around the globe with impunity, which they did.

It was a stupid deal. Our choice was either to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons by force and limit their ability to contribute to terrorist organizations through sanctions, or to accept their promise not to acquire nuclear weapons and just let them contribute massive funds to every major terrorist organization you’ve ever heard of. Not what I would call a difficult decision.

3-

4. It’s not a factor, it’s a total irrelevancy. If he had said it a year before the invasion, it may have appeared to be a factor. He made the comment when the invasion was already imminent and obvious.

5. I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean.

6. Are you saying you’d describe the United States of America as “50 shades of grey”?