Hedges is morally consistent, but that doesn't mean he's right about Russia.If Chris Hedges is on RT, then RT is better than any American box (TV) channel.
Hedges is morally consistent, but that doesn't mean he's right about Russia.
Holy cow guy, no they didnt, there was no international law 240 years ago.I'm sure the UK said much the same when America was drafting its constitution.
thanks for those links. I see you are doing your own research (excellent) but have to rely on non-traditional sourcesTo your question, some people in forums I have been in have. They say Russia put boots on the ground in Ukraine for its resources, for instance. The term invasion has other negative connotations as well, such as to conquer a place:
As to your second sentence, plenty of evidence that's not true. Here's 2 articles with said evidence:
The United States and Ukraine Started the War—Not Russia - CovertAction Magazine
For eight years, Ukraine terrorized the people of Eastern Ukraine with U.S. weapons but this was never reported on. Here is a timeline of events: October 2002 – “Full Spectrum Dominance” declared by the Pentagon to rule the world.January 2014 – U.S. military trainers arrive in Ukraine...covertactionmagazine.com
There are others as well.
absolutely. anyone that doesnt buy the institutional crap that got us into Libya,.Iraq, and babysitting Afghan for 2 decadesSo, the good money is on phoenyx as a motivated Russian shill, right?
Holy cow guy, no they didnt, there was no international law 240 years ago.
You are grasping at straws.
Cool. And? You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism by which arms transfers to willing recipients fighting off a military invasion, framed by the invaders as a desire to erase the existence of the invaded, is 'militarism'. Show your work, man. Slogans are for teenagers.Renowned linguist, Noam Chomsky, uses "militarism."
One can take a dim view if adventurism and still see that the Ukrainian people want arms to resist their invaders. But, by all means, consider to confuse the two because reasons.absolutely. anyone that doesnt buy the institutional crap that got us into Libya,.Iraq, and babysitting Afghan for 2 decades
can't possibly be an American
the referendums are being held in a war zone -yes- so they aren't according to HoyleNot really, International law holds that people have the right to self-determination.
as usual you (and most others)make these sweeping statement about the "Ukrainian people" when Ukraine has split loyaltiesOne can take a dim view if adventurism and still see that the Ukrainian people want arms to resist their invaders. But, by all means, consider to confuse the two because reasons.
These numbers were expected in these oblasts. Don't forget that in the last legitimate Ukranian election when Ukraine was still
whole 2010. The four oblasts now counting votes were almost unanimously supporting the Russian leaning candidate in 2010:
Donetsk: Yanukovich 90.44
Luhansk: Yanukovich 88.96
Kherson: Yanukovich 59.86
Zaporiz....: Yanukovich 71,55
How's your Ukrainian, bub? You got people in Ukraine? You want to meet the 'Russian-speaking' Ukrainian family (women only; the men were all kidnapped by gangsters and pressed into arms) from the Donbas staying three miles down the road with good friends, because the Russian 'liberators' are in fact raping, castrating, child-torturing beasts whose human provenance masks an inhuman monstrousness? Or do want to keep nattering on about Vlad ****ing Putin's side of things, like a good little gangster's shill?as usual you (and most others)make these sweeping statement about the "Ukrainian people" when Ukraine has split loyalties
These are pro-Russian (anti-Kyiv actions) - so the referendum just confirms the split loyaltyies seen in the east,southeast & Crimea
Wow.Was the Pax Romana not international law? That was more than a millenia ago.
Not sure what you are referring to as the 'same thing'.
Was the Pax Romana not international law? That was more than a millenia ago.
Very specifically, the world order that emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia.No. Pax Romana is considered the golden age of Roman imperialism.
Modern international law developed out of Renaissance Europe.
Cool. And? You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism by which arms transfers to willing recipients fighting off a military invasion, framed by the invaders as a desire to erase the existence of the invaded, is 'militarism'. Show your work, man. Slogans are for teenagers.
Don't try to blame me for your willing blindness.
"US militarism" isn't a slogan.
hysterical.you can find all kinds of propaganda and justifications for backing parties in war.How's your Ukrainian, bub? You got people in Ukraine? You want to meet the 'Russian-speaking' Ukrainian family (women only; the men were all kidnapped by gangsters and pressed into arms) from the Donbas staying three miles down the road with good friends, because the Russian 'liberators' are in fact raping, castrating, child-torturing beasts whose human provenance masks an inhuman monstrousness? Or do want to keep nattering on about Vlad ****ing Putin's side of things, like a good little gangster's shill?
My standing offer to all Putinists applies to you: I will pay for your passage to Kazan.
Please just try to show your work. Retreating to another fixed slogan position isn't the kind of work I'm talking about, either.Don't try to blame me for your willing blindness.
"US militarism" isn't a slogan.
I don’t really see where the Russians threatened it the people of the Donbas.The bottom line.....
“Any annexation of a state’s territory by another state resulting from a threat or use of force is a violation of the U.N. Charter and of international law.” -- United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on 9/22/22.