It’s true management holds more cards but I’d counter that the president is a “can do little good but great harm” type of player. Wait until he puts Tucker Carlson on the NMB & tell me he’s irrelevant.

Look, I don’t know he’s gonna be bad for us, I’m just saying the administration’s attitude toward labor gives very little indication that they have any intention of being good & I don’t see that as a reason to celebrate, even if we are saving a couple bucks on TSA salaries.

It is not true at all. In fact, Russia completely violated it. It is very short and simple. Please read it for yourself.

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/...f?m=1645824948

Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994

The following is the text of the Memorandum on Secu-
rity Assurances, known as the Budapest Memorandum,
in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed Dec.
5, 1994.

The United States of America, the Russian Federa-
tion, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-
nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to
eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a
specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situ-
ation, including the end of the Cold War, which have
brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear
forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE
[Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe]
Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty
and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain
from the threat or use of force against the territorial in-
tegrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that
none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine
except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE
Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by
Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and
thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek
immediate United Nations Security Council action to
provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon
State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim
of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggres-
sion in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine,
their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against
any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in
the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or
dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies,
by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear
weapon state.

6.The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation
arises which raises a question concerning these com-
mitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon
signature.

Signed in four copies having equal validity in the
English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.

I found this in the LA times from 2016 pertaining to 1990 info( so not like current revisionist history even though it's an op/ed). Info predates your Budapest memo of 1994 by 4 years ...

a teaser from article...

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open."


https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

So, 35 years later maybe a few ???

If you don't believe the transcript notes, ask Trump to release them. He has been more open to questions and openess than anybody else that I can remember. At least he will take an unscripted question, which is novel after the last 4 years.

Exactly, no formal deal was struck unlike the Budapest Memo that was at least in writing. At one point Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but as he grew more powerful, authoritarian and delusional he wanted to be the 2nd coming of Peter the Great. Russian propaganda.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-in-his-rule

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

This article is more than 3 years oldGeorge Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’Jennifer Rankin in BrusselsThu 4 Nov 2021 01.00 EDTVladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise Nato as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

Thank you for making my point with your AI generated response.

#2. Kinda hard to have economic strength when your economy is “bankrupt” and in the crapper

#3. As mentioned at the end of your AI generated response there are other players like BRICS who is actively trying to over turn the Dollar and make their countries the hub of global finance.

#4. Again, not much depth in the financial markets if our economy is in the crapper.

#5. Geopolitical power. We have a great Military now but if our economy is in the toilet there won’t be any money to fund military spending.

#6. Yea that confidence would be gone in a heartbeat if we go “bankrupt”.

Look I know I was being kinda harsh earlier with my responses. But what I said still holds true. We cannot keep spending money like there is no tomorrow because I guarantee if nothing changes that rooster will come home to roost and none of us will like what happens. A little recession that lasts a few years will be the least of our problems. Republicans and Democrats need to come together and realize this is unsustainable. But I’m afraid Dems won’t be able to get over their TDS and Republicans won’t get over their MAGA.

And here are the NATO members from 1990 and after from Notre Dame Security Center

1999

At this point, we must mention the Warsaw Pact—the Soviet Union’s response to and equivalent of NATO. In total, there were 8 members of the Warsaw Pact. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, so did the Warsaw Pact, and the Cold War ended.

Also noteworthy: Yugoslavia (in southeast Europe) collapsed in 1992—dissolving into 6 successor states; some of which would also be interested in joining NATO. Yugoslavia was not aligned with NATO nor the Warsaw Pact, hence acting as a “buffer” between the alliances.



No longer obliged to the Warsaw Pact, former Soviet allies turned their eyes toward NATO. Three former Warsaw Pact members were admitted into NATO:

1. The Czech Republic (formerly Czechoslovakia)
   

1. Hungary
   

1. Poland
   

2004

2004 brought the largest increase in NATO members since the Alliance’s foundation. Perhaps even more notable, though, is republics formerly of the Soviet Union were now joining (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania).

1. Bulgaria (formerly of the Warsaw Pact)
   

1. Estonia
   

1. Latvia
   

1. Lithuania
   

1. Romania (formerly of the Warsaw Pact)
   

1. Slovakia
   

1. Slovenia (successor to Yugoslavia)
   

2009

In 2009, NATO’s foothold in East Europe grew firmer:

1. Albania (formerly of the Warsaw Pact)
   

1. Croatia (successor to Yugoslavia)
   

2017 and 2020

These additions to NATO are both successor states to Yugoslavia:

1. Montenegro (in 2017)
   

1. North Macedonia (in 2020)
   

2023 and 2024

The Russo-Ukrainian War, and the escalation of which beginning on February 24, 2022, brought NATO’s growth into the foreground of foreign policy debates at the time. Russia’s full-scale invasion also prompted Finland and Sweden to officially apply and were eventually accepted into the alliance.

1. Finland (in 2023)
   
2. Sweden (in 2024)

https://ndisc.nd.edu/news-media/news...ime-1949-2023/

"

Where has the addition of NATO members led us?

With NATO recognizing Bosnia and Herzegovina (successor to Yugoslavia), Georgia, and Ukraine (both former Soviet Republics) as aspiring members, does Russia’s leadership feel a pressure of NATO coming right up to their western doorstep?

Did NATO’s eastward expansion directly lead to President Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine? If Russia’s goal was, in fact, to ensure a buffer between NATO and Russia, does the Finnish addition to NATO defeat the goal? What role may Serbia—another Yugoslav successor state: one closely aligned with Russia—play in the future? Does NATO’s expansion serve U.S. national security interests?

To investigate these questions study at NDISC. We provide a place for national security scholars to explore these pressing issues. If you’re interested in these topics and making a difference in the future of foreign policy, consider studying with us at the Notre Dame International Security Center.


It seems as if a least some people have questions by these two articles. Too many on APC are "head stuck in the sand" and don't even ask legitimate questions....reminds me of MSM. They didn't even question if Biden had dementia.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.... You conveniently left out the main thrust of the article. Let me help you..

According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.


This will not be decided on APC but at least acknowledge there might be a little more to the 35 year story.

all you seem to do is post stuff to stir the political pot.. you post nothing of a actual value. Go crawl into a cave with your tin foil hat.

Again, Trump was a massive debt queen the first go round (which is kind of in keeping w/ his 6 bankruptcies) so I remain skeptical that he’s actually come to Jesus on balancing the books. When I see actual reforms to the tax structure &/or cutbacks in defense/SS/healthcare I’ll perk up, because siccing Elon on foreign aid & the TSA is just noise.

He won't miss the salary. He will easily grift 1000 times that much.