We (The US) are the reason why Russia attacked Ukraine. Before this all started, cackling Kamala announces in a speech how Ukraine needed to join NATO. It was well known that Ukraine joining NATO was a hard line in the sand for Putin and he considers it a threat to Russia's sovereignty. Ukraine is the money laundering center of the world…
We (The US) are the reason why Russia attacked Ukraine. Before this all started, cackling Kamala announces in a speech how Ukraine needed to join NATO. It was well known that Ukraine joining NATO was a hard line in the sand for Putin and he considers it a threat to Russia's sovereignty. Ukraine is the money laundering center of the world for cronies of the New World Order and the NATO alliance puts them one step closer to Russia. Putin is not a good guy but he recognizes a threat when he sees it. Nothing would have happened had we not pushed Ukraine joining NATO.
You're basically saying that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation to do what it pleases, but should be understood to be a vassal state of Russia's. I don't accept that. And the Buda Pest memorandum guaranteed Ukraine's territorial soveriegnty in exchange for giving up their nukes after the fall of Russia, er, the Soviet Union (like there's a difference). Who guaranteed Ukraine's 1994 borders, which includes Crimea? Russia, the U.S. and Great Britain.
No. He is saying that it is not the place of the US to prevent it from being a vassal state. The Budapest agreement was just that. A memorandum agreement. Neither a pact nor a treaty. All concerned should have known the word of a Clinton meant nothing. But fast forward to Obama's administration and his meddling to overthrow a duly elected Ukrainian president, albeit a pro-Russian one, and all those Burisma dollars going to Biden's son. The quid pro is flowing now.
None of the more recent events you mention has anything to do with the 1994 Memorandum. Russia was a signatory, as was the U.K. Are you saying it was just a sham to get Ukraine to give up their nukes? Do you think Russia would be in the Donbass if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons? Do you know what they (the Russians) did to the Tatars in Crimea? Do you know about the Holodomor, where Russia starved millions of Ukrainians? Russia has many times forfeited any right to have anything to say about Ukraine.
No I am not saying it was a sham. I am saying it was merely an agreement and violations were not enforceable. I think Russia is in the Donbas because the West baited them into it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 I am not familiar with the Tatars but I know that Stalin deliberately starved people in Crimea in order to import a more favorable population. But that more fa orable population has been there almost a hundred years now. Contrary to Russia having no say in Ukraine, Ukraine for most of its history was a willing and important part of Russia. The most willing and most important part in many respects. Kiev was the capitol of Russia for centuries so this innocent victim role is disingenuous. That does not change simply because the West wants to play war games. But while we are playing twenty questions, how do you feel about Ukraine's embrace of Nazi's post WWII? Apparently even Jewish Nazi's for crying out loud. What about modern Nazi's in the Azov battalion. I am a lawyer so am steeped in the notion of clean hands. I see none there - not Russia's, not the Ukraine government's, and certainly not the US's.
So, as a self-professed lawyer, your position is that an agreement that is not backed by military force is null and void? Good to know. That would invalidate the United Nations. Russia is in the Donbass for reasons Putin has made clear for some 20 years. You can find a million links, but he is clear that he wants to reconstitute the Russian empire.
If you study Russian history, you will find that a common strategy over the last 100+ years is to depopulate areas (they want to dominate) of their local populations (Tatars in Crimea, Ukrainians, Siberian ethnics) and to insert ethnic Russians (all of the prior, Latvia, Estonia, etc.). China has used the same playbook in Tibet, Mongolia and Xinjiang, replacing local ethnic groups with Han Chinese by force. Stalin starved 4,000,000 Ukrainians to death in the early 1930's in order to feed starving Russians because they weren't successful growing wheat with communist practices. But he was moving in (and feeding) ethnic Russians all the while, most of whom settled close to Russia in the Donbass.
And no, for most of its history, Ukraine was NOT a willing part of Russia. Ukraine and Russia went to war at least 3 times in the 17th century and had another 3 wars in the 18th century. This is before the Crimean War where Ukraine revolted against Russian rule (19th century), or the Soviet-Ukraine war from 1917-1922. That doesn't sound like "willing" to me. Yes, Kiev was the capital of a loose Russian federation of tribes in the pre-medieval period until the Mongols rolled into town. So Russia owns Ukraine forever? Maybe Mongolia does? Vietnam was part of China for a millennium. India was part of Britain. You can let them know they are not entitled to their independence because once upon a time they were controlled by another nation.
As for there being Nazis in Ukraine, just shocking - round up the usual suspects. So what? There are nazis in many countries. Does that invalidate that country's sovereignty? That would have to include us as well. Ukraine is no more the moral equivalent of Russia than Denmark was of Nazi Germany or the Congolese were under Leopold II.
"Self-professed" lawyer? Really? The rest of your diatribe has nothing to do with anything I said. As you clutch your pearls about Ukraine sovereignity you very conveniently dismiss that Ukraine apparently has no sovereignty without US support. Bought from Joe Biden and paid for via Hunter Biden. Hence the no clean hands portion of my comment.
Well yes, you professed yourself to be a lawyer. That's not an insult, that's the English language. My facts were directed specifically to what you said, and you did not address the points I made, which become a "diatribe" because you don't agree. That's childish, not lawyerlike. You repeatedly imply that sovereignty is only valid if backed militarily. That's an odd position not many take, but, in addition to Ukraine, Europe "has no sovereignty without U.S. support", nor does Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Think about that for a moment. What you say about the Bidens is true, but that has no bearing on Ukraine's right to sovereignty. I hate to break it to you, but in the rough and tumble of world affairs and conflicts, there are no clean hands. Sometimes you have to stack up the pluses and minuses and pick a side.
No it was a diatribe because it was long-winded, rambling, and full of assumptions. Starting with unless an agreement is backed by military force it is null and void. No it was not backed by enforcement of any kind. It was mere empty promises. You are the one adding military force to the agreement. But do you think Russia would have signed it under those terms? You see everything from the POV of the US as if it is some sort of always beneficent player . It is not. Just ask the folks in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. What I do not understand is why the US should be expected to prop up Ukraine. (Other than they paid for it with quid pro Joe of course). Which is exactly what is occuring. So what if Russia depopulated areas in order to take them over? While that is abhorrent conduct, they did not do it to us or our allies. As a matter of fact they were our allies during part of that time. Are you a proponent of just randomly righting injustice in the world? And if so, why Ukraine out of all the injustice in the world? For the life of me this seems like an expansion of TDS to PDS. So what about Nazi's being in Ukraine? Really? You prefer Nazi's to communists is it? You are just a McCarthyite (1950s era). As for Putin's 20 years of making clear that he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union he took no such action until we meddled in affairs in which we had no business. And even now he has arguably taken no such action but rather is trying to enforce the 1994 pact you place so much stock in. Which brings us full circle to the 1994 agreement for Ukraine to surrender its nuclear arms. The purpose of that, as I understand it, was for Ukraine to be a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. Russia avoided having Nato arms along its very large border with Ukraine. NATO got existing nuclear weapons off its border. We reneged on that agreement, not Putin. I am not a Putin or Russia proponent but I am also not blind to the conduct my country engaged in to bring us to this point. With declining super-power with thousands of nuclear weapons. Who might now have reason to form alliances with China. Or Iran. An Iran which is a virulent theocracy can now reportedly enrich weapons grade uranium in 12 days. Lastly as to the moral equivalency statement about Denmark and the Congolese, exactly. I am certain you did so inadvertently but you have established my position that for us Ukraine would suffer a resounding defeat.. There is no such thing as a feel good war. You do realize that the US has caused Ukraine to rebuff every peace discussion, right?
This is deteriorating. You show yourself to be thin-skinned because you have to attack and personalize, and you are clearly not up on your history. You create a false equivalence I never raised, comparing nazis and communists, and now I've gone from a diatribe to a McCarthyite. Charming. You invented an understanding around NATO, nuclear arms and Ukrainian sovereignty that does not exist, and you imply Putin should get what he wants so he doesn't ally with China or Iran. Your arguments are emotional and unfocused. I don't think this subject is your strong suit, and I'm guessing you haven't spent much time abroad, certainly in some of the world's more difficult places. The world that suits your clean hands approach, unfortunately, does not exist.
No the scenario I posited is the one that existed. And the one that worked until we reneged. I do not "think Putin should get what he wants so he doesn't ally with China or Iran." I think we should have thought about that before we armed Zelensky to the teeth. Unintended consequences you know. It is still a diatribe the only thing that makes sense to me is you prefer Nazi's to communists and that is indeed McCarthyesque. Or you have bought the party line. Which is sad. Lastly my emotions are ill-focused and emotional and I have not spent much time abroad. Your enlightenment is underwhelming.
The constant grasping at straws to justify Russia's aggressive, inhumane, expansionist ambitions which they tried on Ukraine almost a decade ago when Kamala wasn't in the picture- very sad to see this cinstant criminalizing and slandering of Ukraine to excuse Putin's barbaric actions.
" Putin is not a good guy but he recognizes a threat when he sees it. Nothing would have happened had we not pushed a Ukraine joining NATO."
That's all you need to know. And I for one am joining the groundswell of Americans who are damned good and tired of American adventuring in foreign wars - especially this one, for THIS Ukranian puppet, who has all the receipts for Alleged President *'s graft and corruption.
As the undisputed most powerful nation on the planet, we have the obligation to use that power wisely and sparingly. We the citizens would do that, but the fact is that we have completely lost control of our government. They don't care what we think; it's not THEIR treasure nor THEIR children fighting these wars. Make me king for one day and I'll see to it that every member of congress - and the White House - has a dog in all the fights they start.
I know that what is being pushed right now by the press is pure propaganda. When you see that every public person and entity pushing for US involvement in Ukraine is a known bad actor, it isn't hard to figure out that "something is rotten in Denmark". The Deep state wants a war in Ukraine so that they can money launder public funds from the US government. We saw evidence of that with the Bankman-Freid crypto currency bust. Zelensky knows what is up and is happy to push it as far as it will go. I feel sorry for the people who are suffering, but throwing money and support at Ukraine is only feeding corruption.
'Corrupt to the core'? Strong words. What is driving your deep concern with the Ukrainian government? Have you always felt this way or did these ideas suddenly appear around the time you were exposed to pro- Putin propaganda regarding Russia's invasion?
What is your greatest criticism in relation to this corruption- ie: what are some of the worst crimes the Ukraine govt has commited so as to deserve a brutal Russian attack?
Do you understand the irony of pointing fingers relating to 'straw man' arguments when that is literally what you're doing here?
I don't think you understand what a straw man is. Maybe if you consumed independent media instead of the Western propaganda that is mainstream/legacy media, you'd be able to answer your own questions.
Lynne- you are outdoing yourself. Comrnents like your last one are ad hominem attacks. It doesn't contribute to the conversation. Maybe leave the petty bickering aside. It doesn't reflect well on you. If you have a point to make as relates to the topic, then make it. I f you have nothing of worth to contribute then excuse ypurself from the adult's table.
We (The US) are the reason why Russia attacked Ukraine. Before this all started, cackling Kamala announces in a speech how Ukraine needed to join NATO. It was well known that Ukraine joining NATO was a hard line in the sand for Putin and he considers it a threat to Russia's sovereignty. Ukraine is the money laundering center of the world for cronies of the New World Order and the NATO alliance puts them one step closer to Russia. Putin is not a good guy but he recognizes a threat when he sees it. Nothing would have happened had we not pushed Ukraine joining NATO.
You're basically saying that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation to do what it pleases, but should be understood to be a vassal state of Russia's. I don't accept that. And the Buda Pest memorandum guaranteed Ukraine's territorial soveriegnty in exchange for giving up their nukes after the fall of Russia, er, the Soviet Union (like there's a difference). Who guaranteed Ukraine's 1994 borders, which includes Crimea? Russia, the U.S. and Great Britain.
Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation; it's a vassal state of the US since (at least) 2014.
No. He is saying that it is not the place of the US to prevent it from being a vassal state. The Budapest agreement was just that. A memorandum agreement. Neither a pact nor a treaty. All concerned should have known the word of a Clinton meant nothing. But fast forward to Obama's administration and his meddling to overthrow a duly elected Ukrainian president, albeit a pro-Russian one, and all those Burisma dollars going to Biden's son. The quid pro is flowing now.
None of the more recent events you mention has anything to do with the 1994 Memorandum. Russia was a signatory, as was the U.K. Are you saying it was just a sham to get Ukraine to give up their nukes? Do you think Russia would be in the Donbass if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons? Do you know what they (the Russians) did to the Tatars in Crimea? Do you know about the Holodomor, where Russia starved millions of Ukrainians? Russia has many times forfeited any right to have anything to say about Ukraine.
No I am not saying it was a sham. I am saying it was merely an agreement and violations were not enforceable. I think Russia is in the Donbas because the West baited them into it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 I am not familiar with the Tatars but I know that Stalin deliberately starved people in Crimea in order to import a more favorable population. But that more fa orable population has been there almost a hundred years now. Contrary to Russia having no say in Ukraine, Ukraine for most of its history was a willing and important part of Russia. The most willing and most important part in many respects. Kiev was the capitol of Russia for centuries so this innocent victim role is disingenuous. That does not change simply because the West wants to play war games. But while we are playing twenty questions, how do you feel about Ukraine's embrace of Nazi's post WWII? Apparently even Jewish Nazi's for crying out loud. What about modern Nazi's in the Azov battalion. I am a lawyer so am steeped in the notion of clean hands. I see none there - not Russia's, not the Ukraine government's, and certainly not the US's.
So, as a self-professed lawyer, your position is that an agreement that is not backed by military force is null and void? Good to know. That would invalidate the United Nations. Russia is in the Donbass for reasons Putin has made clear for some 20 years. You can find a million links, but he is clear that he wants to reconstitute the Russian empire.
If you study Russian history, you will find that a common strategy over the last 100+ years is to depopulate areas (they want to dominate) of their local populations (Tatars in Crimea, Ukrainians, Siberian ethnics) and to insert ethnic Russians (all of the prior, Latvia, Estonia, etc.). China has used the same playbook in Tibet, Mongolia and Xinjiang, replacing local ethnic groups with Han Chinese by force. Stalin starved 4,000,000 Ukrainians to death in the early 1930's in order to feed starving Russians because they weren't successful growing wheat with communist practices. But he was moving in (and feeding) ethnic Russians all the while, most of whom settled close to Russia in the Donbass.
And no, for most of its history, Ukraine was NOT a willing part of Russia. Ukraine and Russia went to war at least 3 times in the 17th century and had another 3 wars in the 18th century. This is before the Crimean War where Ukraine revolted against Russian rule (19th century), or the Soviet-Ukraine war from 1917-1922. That doesn't sound like "willing" to me. Yes, Kiev was the capital of a loose Russian federation of tribes in the pre-medieval period until the Mongols rolled into town. So Russia owns Ukraine forever? Maybe Mongolia does? Vietnam was part of China for a millennium. India was part of Britain. You can let them know they are not entitled to their independence because once upon a time they were controlled by another nation.
As for there being Nazis in Ukraine, just shocking - round up the usual suspects. So what? There are nazis in many countries. Does that invalidate that country's sovereignty? That would have to include us as well. Ukraine is no more the moral equivalent of Russia than Denmark was of Nazi Germany or the Congolese were under Leopold II.
"Self-professed" lawyer? Really? The rest of your diatribe has nothing to do with anything I said. As you clutch your pearls about Ukraine sovereignity you very conveniently dismiss that Ukraine apparently has no sovereignty without US support. Bought from Joe Biden and paid for via Hunter Biden. Hence the no clean hands portion of my comment.
Well yes, you professed yourself to be a lawyer. That's not an insult, that's the English language. My facts were directed specifically to what you said, and you did not address the points I made, which become a "diatribe" because you don't agree. That's childish, not lawyerlike. You repeatedly imply that sovereignty is only valid if backed militarily. That's an odd position not many take, but, in addition to Ukraine, Europe "has no sovereignty without U.S. support", nor does Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Think about that for a moment. What you say about the Bidens is true, but that has no bearing on Ukraine's right to sovereignty. I hate to break it to you, but in the rough and tumble of world affairs and conflicts, there are no clean hands. Sometimes you have to stack up the pluses and minuses and pick a side.
No it was a diatribe because it was long-winded, rambling, and full of assumptions. Starting with unless an agreement is backed by military force it is null and void. No it was not backed by enforcement of any kind. It was mere empty promises. You are the one adding military force to the agreement. But do you think Russia would have signed it under those terms? You see everything from the POV of the US as if it is some sort of always beneficent player . It is not. Just ask the folks in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. What I do not understand is why the US should be expected to prop up Ukraine. (Other than they paid for it with quid pro Joe of course). Which is exactly what is occuring. So what if Russia depopulated areas in order to take them over? While that is abhorrent conduct, they did not do it to us or our allies. As a matter of fact they were our allies during part of that time. Are you a proponent of just randomly righting injustice in the world? And if so, why Ukraine out of all the injustice in the world? For the life of me this seems like an expansion of TDS to PDS. So what about Nazi's being in Ukraine? Really? You prefer Nazi's to communists is it? You are just a McCarthyite (1950s era). As for Putin's 20 years of making clear that he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union he took no such action until we meddled in affairs in which we had no business. And even now he has arguably taken no such action but rather is trying to enforce the 1994 pact you place so much stock in. Which brings us full circle to the 1994 agreement for Ukraine to surrender its nuclear arms. The purpose of that, as I understand it, was for Ukraine to be a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. Russia avoided having Nato arms along its very large border with Ukraine. NATO got existing nuclear weapons off its border. We reneged on that agreement, not Putin. I am not a Putin or Russia proponent but I am also not blind to the conduct my country engaged in to bring us to this point. With declining super-power with thousands of nuclear weapons. Who might now have reason to form alliances with China. Or Iran. An Iran which is a virulent theocracy can now reportedly enrich weapons grade uranium in 12 days. Lastly as to the moral equivalency statement about Denmark and the Congolese, exactly. I am certain you did so inadvertently but you have established my position that for us Ukraine would suffer a resounding defeat.. There is no such thing as a feel good war. You do realize that the US has caused Ukraine to rebuff every peace discussion, right?
This is deteriorating. You show yourself to be thin-skinned because you have to attack and personalize, and you are clearly not up on your history. You create a false equivalence I never raised, comparing nazis and communists, and now I've gone from a diatribe to a McCarthyite. Charming. You invented an understanding around NATO, nuclear arms and Ukrainian sovereignty that does not exist, and you imply Putin should get what he wants so he doesn't ally with China or Iran. Your arguments are emotional and unfocused. I don't think this subject is your strong suit, and I'm guessing you haven't spent much time abroad, certainly in some of the world's more difficult places. The world that suits your clean hands approach, unfortunately, does not exist.
No the scenario I posited is the one that existed. And the one that worked until we reneged. I do not "think Putin should get what he wants so he doesn't ally with China or Iran." I think we should have thought about that before we armed Zelensky to the teeth. Unintended consequences you know. It is still a diatribe the only thing that makes sense to me is you prefer Nazi's to communists and that is indeed McCarthyesque. Or you have bought the party line. Which is sad. Lastly my emotions are ill-focused and emotional and I have not spent much time abroad. Your enlightenment is underwhelming.
Thank you for making the point that the U.S. has promised to protect Ukraine's independence.
The constant grasping at straws to justify Russia's aggressive, inhumane, expansionist ambitions which they tried on Ukraine almost a decade ago when Kamala wasn't in the picture- very sad to see this cinstant criminalizing and slandering of Ukraine to excuse Putin's barbaric actions.
The constant burying of heads in the sand to avoid the obvious is stunning. Simply stunning.
" Putin is not a good guy but he recognizes a threat when he sees it. Nothing would have happened had we not pushed a Ukraine joining NATO."
That's all you need to know. And I for one am joining the groundswell of Americans who are damned good and tired of American adventuring in foreign wars - especially this one, for THIS Ukranian puppet, who has all the receipts for Alleged President *'s graft and corruption.
As the undisputed most powerful nation on the planet, we have the obligation to use that power wisely and sparingly. We the citizens would do that, but the fact is that we have completely lost control of our government. They don't care what we think; it's not THEIR treasure nor THEIR children fighting these wars. Make me king for one day and I'll see to it that every member of congress - and the White House - has a dog in all the fights they start.
Ukraine government is corrupt to the core. Making them out as a good guy is straw grasping.
BillS
You know nothing about Ukraine post 2019.
I know that what is being pushed right now by the press is pure propaganda. When you see that every public person and entity pushing for US involvement in Ukraine is a known bad actor, it isn't hard to figure out that "something is rotten in Denmark". The Deep state wants a war in Ukraine so that they can money launder public funds from the US government. We saw evidence of that with the Bankman-Freid crypto currency bust. Zelensky knows what is up and is happy to push it as far as it will go. I feel sorry for the people who are suffering, but throwing money and support at Ukraine is only feeding corruption.
'Corrupt to the core'? Strong words. What is driving your deep concern with the Ukrainian government? Have you always felt this way or did these ideas suddenly appear around the time you were exposed to pro- Putin propaganda regarding Russia's invasion?
What is your greatest criticism in relation to this corruption- ie: what are some of the worst crimes the Ukraine govt has commited so as to deserve a brutal Russian attack?
Do you understand the irony of pointing fingers relating to 'straw man' arguments when that is literally what you're doing here?
I don't think you understand what a straw man is. Maybe if you consumed independent media instead of the Western propaganda that is mainstream/legacy media, you'd be able to answer your own questions.
I surmise the only propaganda in this thread is yours. Even the moniker.
Someone should explain to you that ad hominems without any further evidence or argument are a waste of everyone's time- and childish. .
No ad hominem in use at all. And I doubt there is anything you can explain at all.
Lynne- you are outdoing yourself. Comrnents like your last one are ad hominem attacks. It doesn't contribute to the conversation. Maybe leave the petty bickering aside. It doesn't reflect well on you. If you have a point to make as relates to the topic, then make it. I f you have nothing of worth to contribute then excuse ypurself from the adult's table.
I made a point. You just do not like it. Talk about petty bickering! I stand by my comment. Both points and I am done with this conversation.
I just 'don't like it'. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Hilarious.what point did you make, Lynne? I think it got lost in the childish insults.