Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's security because like YOU he was convinced just the threat would be enough to scare Germany off.
It wasn't.
Putin knows NATO is a paper tiger without the US. Without the US committed any security guarantee from NATO is an empty threat.
Because you're a moron you don't see the danger here.
you really need to read about what happened at Munich and why it was important
youre ability to confuse cause and effect is limitless at this point but since you absolutely refuse to engage with the historical record it is really not at all surprising
Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's security because like YOU he was convinced just the threat would be enough to scare Germany off.
It wasn't.
Putin knows NATO is a paper tiger without the US. Without the US committed any security guarantee from NATO is an empty threat.
Because you're a moron you don't see the danger here.
you really need to read about what happened at Munich and why it was important
youre ability to confuse cause and effect is limitless at this point but since you absolutely refuse to engage with the historical record it is really not at all surprising
The treaty of versaille set the stage for Munich in 38...
You lecture about cause and effect while apparently having absolutely no idea that 1918-1937 were more significant to creating the conditions which started world war 2 than a single agreement in 1938...
Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's security because he thought the empty threat would be enough.
It was not.
And Germany crushed them.
Put your little thinking cap on now.
Any guarantee made by the EU would be an empty threat without the US's support.
While you might feel good that Starmer says he'll send the 6 deployable soldiers he has to keep the peace in Ukraine it is a toothless guarantee.
Much like the Sudetenland, Ukraine is not worth going to war over.
Creating conditions where we could even potentially have to go to war over Ukraine would be completely idiotic.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Nothing in this article says that Trump purposely proposed a deal Ukraine couldn't agree to - if so, why is Zelensky suddenly interested in making the minerals deal if they "can't" do it? Trump was just being firm about his refusal to provide security guarantees, would would drag the US into a war with Russia immediately because Ukraine is already in the middle of a war.
Also, Trump called off the signing ceremony AFTER ZELENSKY RAN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. This was literally stated one line above your quote, which you chose not to include.
You're either a liar or just....not the brightest.
Ukraine can make the deal, they want to make the deal. The US does not want the deal. I’ve posted a source and you’ve posted a source that both agree on that.
The US's deal was contingent on peace negotiations, which Zelensky does not want. These are two different propositions. Therefor, no deal. Zelensky knew on Friday that Trump was only interested in making a deal if it meant ensuing peace negotiations, and so Zelensky started arguments with Trump and Vance Friday morning.
funny attempt at face saving, pretty pathetic per usual
Who does the fighting if Russia violates your little kumbaya security guarantee?
Ukraine had a treaty protecting it when Russia took the Crimea under Obama. It had a treaty protecting it when Russia invaded under Biden. Why does Russia take a piece out of Ukraine every time a Democrat is in power in the US?
Ukraine can make the deal, they want to make the deal. The US does not want the deal. I’ve posted a source and you’ve posted a source that both agree on that.
The US's deal was contingent on peace negotiations, which Zelensky does not want. These are two different propositions. Therefor, no deal. Zelensky knew on Friday that Trump was only interested in making a deal if it meant ensuing peace negotiations, and so Zelensky started arguments with Trump and Vance Friday morning.
“Zelensky started arguments with Trump and Vance Friday morning”.
No.
That is not what happened. It’s even in the title of this very thread, posted by the most pro-Trump person on here.
Even with that ridiculous excuse, you seem to agree that the US is the opposed to the deal as written. The only possible explanation of the available facts is that Ukraine wants to make the deal, and the US does not.
you really need to read about what happened at Munich and why it was important
youre ability to confuse cause and effect is limitless at this point but since you absolutely refuse to engage with the historical record it is really not at all surprising
The treaty of versaille set the stage for Munich in 38...
You lecture about cause and effect while apparently having absolutely no idea that 1918-1937 were more significant to creating the conditions which started world war 2 than a single agreement in 1938...
Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's security because he thought the empty threat would be enough.
It was not.
And Germany crushed them.
Put your little thinking cap on now.
Any guarantee made by the EU would be an empty threat without the US's support.
While you might feel good that Starmer says he'll send the 6 deployable soldiers he has to keep the peace in Ukraine it is a toothless guarantee.
Much like the Sudetenland, Ukraine is not worth going to war over.
Creating conditions where we could even potentially have to go to war over Ukraine would be completely idiotic.
And Chamberlain had no credibility at that point Why?
its fascinating your ability to not follow basic basic lessons of history.
Neither the Nazis or the Soviets took Chamberlain seriously for a reason.
You cant grasp the reason it seems but ive pointed you to it many times now
Who does the fighting if Russia violates your little kumbaya security guarantee?
Ukraine had a treaty protecting it when Russia took the Crimea under Obama. It had a treaty protecting it when Russia invaded under Biden. Why does Russia take a piece out of Ukraine every time a Democrat is in power in the US?
There was no treaty.
The Budapest agreement provided no guarantees to anyone.
you really need to read about what happened at Munich and why it was important
youre ability to confuse cause and effect is limitless at this point but since you absolutely refuse to engage with the historical record it is really not at all surprising
The treaty of versaille set the stage for Munich in 38...
You lecture about cause and effect while apparently having absolutely no idea that 1918-1937 were more significant to creating the conditions which started world war 2 than a single agreement in 1938...
Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's security because he thought the empty threat would be enough.
It was not.
And Germany crushed them.
Put your little thinking cap on now.
Any guarantee made by the EU would be an empty threat without the US's support.
While you might feel good that Starmer says he'll send the 6 deployable soldiers he has to keep the peace in Ukraine it is a toothless guarantee.
Much like the Sudetenland, Ukraine is not worth going to war over.
Creating conditions where we could even potentially have to go to war over Ukraine would be completely idiotic.
many many things happened between the waning days of WW1 and the invasion of Poland
but as usual you cant grasp only ever hitch your wagon to one shiny object at a time
kinda the motif here for your intellectual tour de force
Who does the fighting if Russia violates your little kumbaya security guarantee?
Ukraine had a treaty protecting it when Russia took the Crimea under Obama. It had a treaty protecting it when Russia invaded under Biden. Why does Russia take a piece out of Ukraine every time a Democrat is in power in the US?
because when you get everything you want with the other guy your less apt to make trouble
The treaty of versaille set the stage for Munich in 38...
You lecture about cause and effect while apparently having absolutely no idea that 1918-1937 were more significant to creating the conditions which started world war 2 than a single agreement in 1938...
Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's security because he thought the empty threat would be enough.
It was not.
And Germany crushed them.
Put your little thinking cap on now.
Any guarantee made by the EU would be an empty threat without the US's support.
While you might feel good that Starmer says he'll send the 6 deployable soldiers he has to keep the peace in Ukraine it is a toothless guarantee.
Much like the Sudetenland, Ukraine is not worth going to war over.
Creating conditions where we could even potentially have to go to war over Ukraine would be completely idiotic.
And Chamberlain had no credibility at that point Why?
its fascinating your ability to not follow basic basic lessons of history.
Neither the Nazis or the Soviets took Chamberlain seriously for a reason.
You cant grasp the reason it seems but ive pointed you to it many times now
You're simply too stupid to understand the lesson.
I understand that appeasement leads to more bad behavior.
But unlike you I understand that empty threats are no more effective than appeasement.
No one took Chamberlain seriously because they knew his threats were empty...
A 120 pound man can threaten you all day long. At the end of the day he's still a 120 pound man and if the violence starts he's going to get embarrassed.
So I ask you for the 50th time.
WHO IS GOING TO CARRY OUT THE VIOLENCE TO MAKE YOUR SECURITY GUARANTEE WORTH A DAMN THING?
The US's deal was contingent on peace negotiations, which Zelensky does not want. These are two different propositions. Therefor, no deal. Zelensky knew on Friday that Trump was only interested in making a deal if it meant ensuing peace negotiations, and so Zelensky started arguments with Trump and Vance Friday morning.
“Zelensky started arguments with Trump and Vance Friday morning”.
No.
That is not what happened. It’s even in the title of this very thread, posted by the most pro-Trump person on here.
Even with that ridiculous excuse, you seem to agree that the US is the opposed to the deal as written. The only possible explanation of the available facts is that Ukraine wants to make the deal, and the US does not.
There were no security guarantees made in the minerals agreement. Zelensky wants security guarantees. Trump Refuses. No deal.
Zelensky says he wants to make the deal, but Trump knows there's going to be strings attached and that this deal is not going to lead to peace which is the entire point.
Before meeting Trump, Zelensky met with anti-Trump Democrats who advised him to reject the terms of the mineral deal the president was offering, according to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn).
Behind the scenes Democrats sabotaging a peace deal with Ukraine. Also sabotaging the efforts of Democratically elected president, indicating Democrats are indeed anti democracy, if not treasonous.
The treaty of versaille set the stage for Munich in 38...
You lecture about cause and effect while apparently having absolutely no idea that 1918-1937 were more significant to creating the conditions which started world war 2 than a single agreement in 1938...
Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's security because he thought the empty threat would be enough.
It was not.
And Germany crushed them.
Put your little thinking cap on now.
Any guarantee made by the EU would be an empty threat without the US's support.
While you might feel good that Starmer says he'll send the 6 deployable soldiers he has to keep the peace in Ukraine it is a toothless guarantee.
Much like the Sudetenland, Ukraine is not worth going to war over.
Creating conditions where we could even potentially have to go to war over Ukraine would be completely idiotic.
many many things happened between the waning days of WW1 and the invasion of Poland
but as usual you cant grasp only ever hitch your wagon to one shiny object at a time
kinda the motif here for your intellectual tour de force
How do we get Hitler without the Treaty of Versaille?
This is a rhetorical question... I'm more likely to get a cat to do calculus than get you to answer a question honestly or with any semblance of intelligence.
This post was edited 55 seconds after it was posted.
And Chamberlain had no credibility at that point Why?
its fascinating your ability to not follow basic basic lessons of history.
Neither the Nazis or the Soviets took Chamberlain seriously for a reason.
You cant grasp the reason it seems but ive pointed you to it many times now
You're simply too stupid to understand the lesson.
I understand that appeasement leads to more bad behavior.
But unlike you I understand that empty threats are no more effective than appeasement.
No one took Chamberlain seriously because they knew his threats were empty...
A 120 pound man can threaten you all day long. At the end of the day he's still a 120 pound man and if the violence starts he's going to get embarrassed.
So I ask you for the 50th time.
WHO IS GOING TO CARRY OUT THE VIOLENCE TO MAKE YOUR SECURITY GUARANTEE WORTH A DAMN THING?
again your skipping ahead to the conclusion: why did ppl think Chamberlains threats were empty?
many many things happened between the waning days of WW1 and the invasion of Poland
but as usual you cant grasp only ever hitch your wagon to one shiny object at a time
kinda the motif here for your intellectual tour de force
How do we get Hitler without the Treaty of Versaille?
This is a rhetorical question... I'm more likely to get a cat to do calculus than get you to answer a question honestly or with any semblance of intelligence.
The exact terms of the Treaty of Versailles matter a lot less than the fact of German military defeat in the First World War. The reparations crisis and hyperinflation were over by 1924, far from 1933.
And Chamberlain had no credibility at that point Why?
its fascinating your ability to not follow basic basic lessons of history.
Neither the Nazis or the Soviets took Chamberlain seriously for a reason.
You cant grasp the reason it seems but ive pointed you to it many times now
You're simply too stupid to understand the lesson.
I understand that appeasement leads to more bad behavior.
But unlike you I understand that empty threats are no more effective than appeasement.
No one took Chamberlain seriously because they knew his threats were empty...
A 120 pound man can threaten you all day long. At the end of the day he's still a 120 pound man and if the violence starts he's going to get embarrassed.
So I ask you for the 50th time.
WHO IS GOING TO CARRY OUT THE VIOLENCE TO MAKE YOUR SECURITY GUARANTEE WORTH A DAMN THING?
We know you dont think NATO means anything, so why is Putin so upset about its expansion? If the guarantees are paper tigers whats all the fighting about, in your formulation since you buy the Putin line that its all about NATO
You're simply too stupid to understand the lesson.
I understand that appeasement leads to more bad behavior.
But unlike you I understand that empty threats are no more effective than appeasement.
No one took Chamberlain seriously because they knew his threats were empty...
A 120 pound man can threaten you all day long. At the end of the day he's still a 120 pound man and if the violence starts he's going to get embarrassed.
So I ask you for the 50th time.
WHO IS GOING TO CARRY OUT THE VIOLENCE TO MAKE YOUR SECURITY GUARANTEE WORTH A DAMN THING?
again your skipping ahead to the conclusion: why did ppl think Chamberlains threats were empty?
Are you brain dead?
Even if the Sudetenland appeasement had never happened Chamberlain's threats would STILL have been empty because he didn't have any means to enforce them.
Europe cannot enforce any security guarantees on their own.
The threats are empty because if Russia decides to break the peace deal and take the rest of Ukraine Europe wouldn't do a damn thing about it without the US and EVERYONE but the American left knows it.
