111
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
111 points (95.9% liked)
World News
2316 readers
177 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
"Permissible"? Not according to international law, but if your adversaries completely ignore the law and receive no punishment for doing so, why should you continue to follow it? (Worth noting that Russia kept NordStream open despite the sanctions because they wanted to honour contracts with European countries, despite the latter's hostility)
Okay. Using that logic, if Russia completely ignores the law by invading neighboring countries, tampering in our elections, and assassinating residents of our countries, why should we continue to be bound by law in how we deal with them?
You chuds are the ones constantly bleating about the rules based order, yet you never follow the rules you preach. Literally everything you moan about in your comment is something that the burger empire constantly does around the world. So, the question is why should other countries respect your rules while you prance around and play world police.
I don't completely disagree with that. A lot of US foreign policy is the same type of naked exercise of lawless power that's all of a sudden a big emergency when someone else does it to our guys, yes.
That said, I wasn't the one who started "bleating about the rules" in this instance. My whole point was, it's a little weird to start shooting, bombing, and raping your neighbors, run away with whatever property you happen to have inside your borders, and then say the West "stole" the frozen sanction-money, when you can still up until the present day have it back any time you stop breaking international law in a big hundreds-of-thousands-of-dead-people way.
It's weird because it's a false narrative divorced from reality. It was NATO that continued expanding towards Russia until eventually Russia said enough is enough. NATO has been invading and destroying countries for decades since the end of USSR. Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria are just a few examples of that. So, why would anybody expect Russia to tolerate an aggressive and hostile military alliance on its borders?
Furthermore, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
I can partially agree with the context you want to add to the situation, yes. That doesn't change the fact the Russia is in a very literal sense shooting and bombing Ukrainian cities right now. Their explanation for why they're doing it doesn't mean it's all of a sudden not what they're doing.
Surely we can agree on that much?
Ukrainian negotiators are now admitting that Russia and Ukraine had a tentative agreement last March and then Ukraine decided to sabotage it because of the pressure from the west. The west is literally the reason the war started and continues today.
Could Russia have continued to try and find a diplomatic solution after a decade of being lied to, perhaps they could've tried longer. However, we now know for a fact that the west and Ukraine never intended to have good faith negotiations.
To sum up, Russia tried to find a peaceful solution for close to a decade. The west refused to play ball. Then Russia did a show of force and brought Ukraine to negotiating table. The west sabotaged negotiations. Now, Russia is fighting a proxy war with NATO in Ukraine because of that.
Do you have a source for this?
Why did Russia not explain this at the start of the war? They claimed they had no plans to invade Ukraine at all and it was all a Western lie. Why?
Do you believe that "pogroms" or similar against ethnic Russians in east Ukraine were the motivation for the invasion? To what extent do you think that they were going on?
here's Arestovich saying it https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1975okx/ua_pov_arestovich_in_english_says_he_and_the_rest/
here's another member of negotiating team confirming this https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/24/7430282/
They did explain this many times and very clearly. Why did the west not listen is the actual question.
Absolutely, and it was going on to an extent that even CNN reported on this back in 2014, here's a clip you can watch https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
There's also an hour long documentary from France on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN68OfFKaWs
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on Teddit and Libreddit, which are Reddit frontends that protect your privacy.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Are you seriously arguing about another country breaking laws as a resident of the US? Even if we just limit it to this conflict, planning and funding a fascist coup in Ukraine in 2014 was a blatant violation of international law
Citations needed; specifically, citations containing some kind of evidence, not just anecdotes