Trump Slams NATO, Floats Russia Nuke Deal in European Interview

[Slant]

Contracts are international norms now?

Anywho in Russia if at least one thing in the contract is legally wrong - the whole contract is null and void.

Savages... this is why we have things like Salvatorian Clauses (severability, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) in modern contracts. In the civilised world at least.

[JohnBrown1917]

Your source?

The NATO Agreement.

[Slant]

Europe should have to spend money on their own defense. Stop using the USA as your welfare queen.

The US should also deal with the refugees it produces... it's a give and take. Don't bitch about being permitted to station your troops here, and make no mistake, it's the US that wants to be here just as much as we want them to be here and then we won't bitch that we've got to clean up the shit you leave behind when you do wars in the Middle East.

[Shalcker]

You have a very loose view on how the international law works. A memorandum like this being violated leads to the actual consequences; you can't say, "We won't dispute your territorial claims", and then just say, "Oh well, we changed our mind, sorry".

Yes, consequences of Ukraine losing nuclear weapons. And if anyone else would attack them, Russia definitely would help, no doubt. For example if Poland would :P

That's how international law works. If there are no penalties and/or no mechanics of enforcing them defined, only consequences are "diplomatic" and "whatever penalties we can get away with if that runs counter to our interests".

[Deleted]

The NATO Agreement.

There's nothing in it concerning internal NATO disputes, it only triggers if the attacker is non-NATO member.

This is Erdogan's objective:

[Shalcker]

That is not how it works.

Yet that's how it worked in previous Turkey-Greece conflict, while both already were part of NATO - NATO as a whole didn't take sides there.

[JohnBrown1917]

There's nothing in it concerning internal NATO disputes, it only triggers if the attacker is non-NATO member.

This is Erdogan's objective:

Turkey attacking a NATO member will, infact, trigger it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet that's how it worked in previous Turkey-Greece conflict, while both already were part of NATO - NATO as a whole didn't take sides there.

Annexing part of Greece will be completely different.

[Shalcker]

Annexing part of Greece will be completely different.

But Turkey annexed half of Cyprus from Greece last time, i don't exactly see what is "completely different" here.

[Elim Garak]

About 5 days election campaign, do that sound fair? Unknown armed men who claim they are not russian troops on the streets, it is not a good place to hold a pro Ukrainian election speech...

Most fair election of secession fail, becuse the goverment overwhelms them with increased autonomy and privileges to make them stay.....

Why is it so difficult to answer a simple yes/no question?

Was Crimean people forced to join Russia and remain in it for more than 2 years now?

It's pretty obvious by now that the answer is no. Anything else is just irrelevant rhetoric.
Irregardless of international opinion on how referendum was done - it was real and the result was true. De facto.
And if international community doesn't feel like FORCING Crimean people back to Ukraine - it's only logical to accept it de jure.
Or continue being irrational to spite Russia like little children do. That's also an option.

[Kellhound]

The NATO Agreement.

NATO generally stays out of Greek-Turkish issues. The only reason either country was accepted into the alliance during the Cold War was to secure the Southern Flank.

- - - Updated - - -

Turkey attacking a NATO member will, infact, trigger it.

- - - Updated - - -



Annexing part of Greece will be completely different.

Not really. Most of NATO would have no desire to come to the aid of either country in a conflict between themselves. They have long been the redheaded stepchildren of the alliance.

- - - Updated - - -

But Turkey annexed half of Cyprus from Greece last time, i don't exactly see what is "completely different" here.

Greece tried to annex the entire island, so......

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it so difficult to answer a simple yes/no question?

Was Crimean people forced to join Russia and remain in it for more than 2 years now?

It's pretty obvious by now that the answer is no. Anything else is just irrelevant rhetoric.
Irregardless of international opinion on how referendum was done - it was real and the result was true. De facto.
And if international community doesn't feel like FORCING Crimean people back to Ukraine - it's only logical to accept it de jure.
Or continue being irrational to spite Russia like little children do. That's also an option.

I do not know about irrational, but it is very satisfying to see Russia smacked down for what ever reason, or even no reason at all.