Kremlin Rejects Top UN Court's Order to Halt Ukraine Invasion

[Juin]

Utter BS. The people of Ukraine are in a war because Russia attacked them without reason or provocation.

What you mean without provocation? Ukraine invited a rival military alliance hostile to Russia to set up shop in Ukraine. That makes it Russia's business

 

[Peacenik]

What you mean without provocation? Ukraine invited a rival military alliance hostile to Russia to set up shop in Ukraine. That makes it Russia's business

That is pure propaganda.

Every nation is within it's own rights to create a defense system. Doing so is not a provocation for attack.

Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is simply defending it's own territory.

 

[Juin]

What you mean without provocation? Ukraine invited a rival military alliance hostile to Russia to set up shop in Ukraine. That makes it Russia's business

That is pure propaganda.

I prefer you address my actual arguments.

Every nation is within it's own rights to create a defense system. Doing so is not a provocation for attack.

Defense systems dont exist in a vacuum. Cuba's proposed defense system with the Soviet Union also threatened US' defense, since it exposed the US to nukes deployed in Cuba. That made it US' business.

Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is simply defending it's own territory.

It is questionable even what are legit Ukrainian territories. Some portions of Ukraine are legit Russian territories that Ukraine bolted off with in the hasty divorce of 1991

 

[Peacenik]

I prefer you address my actual arguments.





Defense systems dont exist in a vacuum. Cuba's proposed defense system with the Soviet Union also threatened US' defense, since it exposed the US to nukes deployed in Cuba. That made it US' business.






It is questionable even what are legit Ukrainian territories. Some portions of Ukraine are legit Russian territories that Ukraine bolted off with in the hasty divorce of 1991

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a different situation. Nuclear missiles right next to the USA was an unacceptable situation. Ukraine has no nukes. If NATO put nukes in Ukraine right next to Russia's border that would be an issue. Ukraine has done no such thing.

There was no threat to Russia as long as Russia keeps it's bombs, bullets and missiles within it's own borders.
Ukraine is Ukraine. There is no ambiguity about the borders. Those borders have been recognized for decades. And even if there is some dispute about a certain region, it does not justify a brutal military attack on civilians in the rest of the country. Any disagreements are properly worked out with diplomacy, not bombs.

Nobody should be under any illusion that there is any justification for this unprovoked attack.

The dedication and unity among Ukrainians in defending their country attests to how much they do not want to be part of Russia and they do not want Russia controlling them or dictating demands.

 

[iguanaman]

Because the UN is in a very embarrassing situation .

Ukraine never registered its borders and technically there has been no invasion .

I'm sorry Comrade this is not Russia....
Real Americans do not fall for propaganda.

Russian Facebook Users Claim Ukraine Does Not Have Internationally recognized borders​

https://mythdetector.ge/en/russian-...-not-have-internationally-recognized-borders/

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, war sucks, but it’s a legitimate means of resolving disputes and the civilians in Ukraine are only in danger because their government wants them to die so they can keep getting western money

Genocide against civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure is anything but "legitimate". Are you living in the 15th century? Putin wants Ukrainians to die just like Stalin did and for the same reasons. Their freedom is a threat to his reign as king of Russia. Ukraine was a much more prosperous and happy country than Russia and served as an example of why democracy and freedom are the best form of govt. Their success made them targets.

 

[NWRatCon]

I noted that one of our Russian propagandists has been banned. I wonder who will be next?

до свидания!

 

[NWRatCon]

Conflicts like this bring out the worst propagandists, fascists and other inhumane vermin, don't they?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Genocide against civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure is anything but "legitimate". Are you living in the 15th century?

There is no Genocide by Russian forces in the Ukraine

Putin wants Ukrainians to die just like Stalin did and for the same reasons.

This is two seperate propagandistic statements that have no real truth to them.

Their freedom is a threat to his reign as king of Russia. Ukraine was a much more prosperous and happy country than Russia and served as an example of why democracy and freedom are the best form of govt. Their success made them targets.

Ukraine is not a functioning democracy and was not prosperous. Mexico is richer than Ukraine.

 

[brianpatrick]

Because the UN is in a very embarrassing situation .

Ukraine never registered its borders and technically there has been no invasion .

Actually no. Organized peace takes a lot longer than say, pulling a weapon out and shooting or threatening with it. It involves both parties to get their needs met, often with compromise on both sides.

For instance, if I were to outlaw guns, and outlaw Trumpers, with a threat of violence or control, that wouldn’t be peace. Some of those people have legitimate concerns that would need to be addressed.

 

[Juin]

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a different situation.

You asserted a principle: "Every nation is within it's own rights to create a defense system. Doing so is not a provocation for attack." I gave you the Cuban example, a case where the US objected- and correctly so, in my opinion- to the notion that the defense system of its neighbour is no business of hers.

Both Cuba and the Soviet Union, by your principle, had every right to the defense system of their choice. The fact that you are now trying to make exceptions is in my opinion proof that your assertion fails the test. And I am correct in pointing out that defense systems do not exist in a vacuum, they can also threaten the defense systems of others.

Nuclear missiles right next to the USA was an unacceptable situation.

I agree. The defense system crafted by Cuba and the Soviet Union was a threat to the US' own defense system.

Ukraine has no nukes. If NATO put nukes in Ukraine right next to Russia's border that would be an issue. Ukraine has done no such thing.

And the Russian Federation is supposed to wait until Nato places nukes in Ukraine? Ukrainian acession to Nato means its territory is available for Nato nukes. It is the responsibility of the Russian Federation to preempt that situation.

There was no threat to Russia as long as Russia keeps it's bombs, bullets and missiles within it's own borders.

And how was there any threat to the US from Cuba if she kept her own bombs, bullets and missiles within her own borders back in 1962?

Ukraine is Ukraine. There is no ambiguity about the borders. Those borders have been recognized for decades. And even if there is some dispute about a certain region, it does not justify a brutal military attack on civilians in the rest of the country. Any disagreements are properly worked out with diplomacy, not bombs.

There is always ambiguities about borders. And as far back as 1991 the successor state of the imploded Soviet Union, the Russian Federation that is, had always pointed out to Nato that she objected to the relentless expansion towards Russia. Putin pointed out his red lines. All he got from Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was the declaration that it was Nato's Divine Right to expand anywhere, and everywhere it pleases her to expand, and that the Russian Federation had no say in the matter. When a power asserts a divine right to expand its neighbours are well advised to arm up.

Nobody should be under any illusion that there is any justification for this unprovoked attack.

I disagree. Nato gave ample provocation.

The dedication and unity among Ukrainians in defending their country attests to how much they do not want to be part of Russia and they do not want Russia controlling them or dictating demands.

LOL Ukraine is a deeply fractured country between an ethnic Ukrainian to the west, and a ethnic Russian to the east and south. The notion that Ukraine is united against Russia is a myth

 

[Rogue Valley]

You asserted a principle: "Every nation is within it's own rights to create a defense system. Doing so is not a provocation for attack." I gave you the Cuban example, a case where the US objected- and correctly so, in my opinion- to the notion that the defense system of its neighbour is no business of hers.

You are altering history.

The missiles the USSR was installing in Cuba were not defensive missiles, they were nuclear-capable offensive missiles. This constituted an existential threat to the US.

This was not the situation in regards to Ukraine. Nothing was transferred to Ukraine that could be considered an existential threat to the Russian Federation.

 

[iguanaman]

There is no Genocide by Russian forces in the Ukraine

This is two seperate propagandistic statements that have no real truth to them.

Ukraine is not a functioning democracy and was not prosperous. Mexico is richer than Ukraine.

Speaking of "no real truth" that seems to be your only comments. They are a bunch of lies. Targeting hospitals and civilian infrastructure is certainly genocide and the Govt. of Ukraine was fairly elected making them a functioning democracy.

 

[Rogue Valley]

LOL Ukraine is a deeply fractured country between an ethnic Ukrainian to the west, and a ethnic Russian to the east and south. The notion that Ukraine is united against Russia is a myth

That is a Putin propagation/misconception. As everyone can see, ethnic Russian Ukrainian citizens are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the UA.

When all is said and done, Ukraine is much more than language.

 

[Peacenik]

You asserted a principle: "Every nation is within it's own rights to create a defense system. Doing so is not a provocation for attack." I gave you the Cuban example, a case where the US objected- and correctly so, in my opinion- to the notion that the defense system of its neighbour is no business of hers.

Both Cuba and the Soviet Union, by your principle, had every right to the defense system of their choice. The fact that you are now trying to make exceptions is in my opinion proof that your assertion fails the test. And I am correct in pointing out that defense systems do not exist in a vacuum, they can also threaten the defense systems of others.

Every nation has a right to create a defense system. Attempting to establish that is not true is like saying that no nation has a right to create a defense system, which is certainly not true. The term 'a defense system' implies the system is intended for defense. That doesn't mean over-the-top first-strike weapons which could result in planetary destruction. It means enough to dissuade an aggressor.

The Cuban nuclear missile build up was not a defensive system. It was a provocation. There is a difference.

 

[iguanaman]

You asserted a principle: "Every nation is within it's own rights to create a defense system. Doing so is not a provocation for attack." I gave you the Cuban example, a case where the US objected- and correctly so, in my opinion- to the notion that the defense system of its neighbour is no business of hers.

Both Cuba and the Soviet Union, by your principle, had every right to the defense system of their choice. The fact that you are now trying to make exceptions is in my opinion proof that your assertion fails the test. And I am correct in pointing out that defense systems do not exist in a vacuum, they can also threaten the defense systems of others.





I agree. The defense system crafted by Cuba and the Soviet Union was a threat to the US' own defense system.





And the Russian Federation is supposed to wait until Nato places nukes in Ukraine? Ukrainian acession to Nato means its territory is available for Nato nukes. It is the responsibility of the Russian Federation to preempt that situation.





And how was there any threat to the US from Cuba if she kept her own bombs, bullets and missiles within her own borders back in 1962?






There is always ambiguities about borders. And as far back as 1991 the successor state of the imploded Soviet Union, the Russian Federation that is, had always pointed out to Nato that she objected to the relentless expansion towards Russia. Putin pointed out his red lines. All he got from Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was the declaration that it was Nato's Divine Right to expand anywhere, and everywhere it pleases her to expand, and that the Russian Federation had no say in the matter. When a power asserts a divine right to expand its neighbours are well advised to arm up.





I disagree. Nato gave ample provocation.





LOL Ukraine is a deeply fractured country between an ethnic Ukrainian to the west, and a ethnic Russian to the east and south. The notion that Ukraine is united against Russia is a myth

NATO has "expanded" because free nations demanded it expand. It is nothing but a defense treaty to protect nations from Russian expansionism and Russian behavior is the impetus for joining NATO. They have only themselves to blame and this war against Ukraine is a shining example.

 

[Juin]

You asserted a principle: "Every nation is within it's own rights to create a defense system. Doing so is not a provocation for attack." I gave you the Cuban example, a case where the US objected- and correctly so, in my opinion- to the notion that the defense system of its neighbour is no business of hers.

You are altering history.

The missiles the USSR was installing in Cuba were not defensive missiles, they were nuclear-capable offensive missiles. This constituted an existential threat to the US.

This was not the situation in regards to Ukraine. Nothing was transferred to Ukraine that could be considered an existential threat to the Russian Federation.

I am not sure where we differ. The thesis that a country has a sovereign right to craft a defense of its choice, which defense cannot and should not be the concern of its neighbours is False.

 

[iguanaman]

Every nation has a right to create a defense system. Attempting to establish that is not true is like saying that no nation has a right to create a defense system, which is certainly not true. The term 'a defense system' implies the system is intended for defense. That doesn't mean over-the-top first-strike weapons which could result in planetary destruction. It means enough to dissuade an aggressor.

The Cuban nuclear missile build up was not a defensive system. It was a provocation. There is a difference.

Yes the Putin lovers are using Cuba as a red herring. There are no nukes in Ukraine and never will be. We do not need them to wipe every Russian city off the face of the earth if they try to attack the west with nukes.

 

[NWRatCon]

You are altering history.

The missiles the USSR was installing in Cuba were not defensive missiles, they were nuclear-capable offensive missiles. This constituted an existential threat to the US.

This was not the situation in regards to Ukraine. Nothing was transferred to Ukraine that could be considered an existential threat to the Russian Federation.

Plus, Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for territorial guarantees. Guarantees that have been ignored.

"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]"

"1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 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 Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America 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 aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."

Is this what happens when one side unilaterally disarms?

 

[Juin]

Every nation has a right to create a defense system. Attempting to establish that is not true is like saying that no nation has a right to create a defense system, which is certainly not true.

What I am saying is that it is not a right.

The term 'a defense system' implies the system is intended for defense. That doesn't mean over-the-top first-strike weapons which could result in planetary destruction. It means enough to dissuade an aggressor.

The Cuban nuclear missile build up was not a defensive system. It was a provocation. There is a difference.

You keep making exceptions.

btw thanks exchanging your views with me. I appreciate that. I disagree with you, but most respectfully

 

[Peacenik]

And the Russian Federation is supposed to wait until Nato places nukes in Ukraine? Ukrainian acession to Nato means its territory is available for Nato nukes. It is the responsibility of the Russian Federation to preempt that situation.

NATO had no plans of placing nukes in Ukraine. Preemptive strikes by Russia are not defense. That crosses the line. The Russians transitioned from creating a defense system to attacking another country. Initiating an attack on another country is not a defense. Ukraine did not build up 150K troops on the border. Russia did. Ukraine did not provoke Russia. Russia attacked with no reason. Russia should have stuck to diplomacy. Putin simply launched an unjustified land-grab attempt. Putin has lost virtually all credibility all over the world. Most nations rightfully now want nothing to do with Russia. That shows how wrong what Russia did was and is.

 

[Peacenik]

NATO has "expanded" because free nations demanded it expand. It is nothing but a defense treaty to protect nations from Russian expansionism and Russian behavior is the impetus for joining NATO. They have only themselves to blame and this war against Ukraine is a shining example.

Obviously, the NATO defense system is now completely justified. Russia is a threat to other nations. No nation threatens Russia. No nation has ambitions of invading Russia. Russia had nothing to fear from NATO. The threat is to NATO by Russia. That's where the threat is.

Some peaceful nations (NATO, Ukraine) are like: "Live and let live." Other aggressive nations (Russia) are like: "I want to conquer you and force you to submit."

Peaceful nations have every right to defend themselves from aggressor nations like Russia.

 

[jaypatriot]

Kremlin Rejects Top UN Court's Order to Halt Ukraine Invasion - The Moscow Times

The Kremlin rejected on Thursday a top UN court’s order to halt its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

www.themoscowtimes.com

The Kremlin ignores an international court order as its military continues to commit vicious war crimes in Ukraine.

A pariah/rogue state.

Why are Russia and Iran still members of the United Nations.

Is the UN managed by idiots or cowards?

Article 1​

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles (Articles 1-2) | United Nations

www.un.org

 

[Peacenik]

What I am saying is that it is not a right.






You keep making exceptions.

btw thanks exchanging your views with me. I appreciate that. I disagree with you, but most respectfully

I'm glad we can share ideas in a respectful way. It would be a dull world if everyone agreed on everything. The details I have expanded upon are not exceptions because the original statement was not meant to be an absolute.
Treating it that way is an over-simplification of a very complex situation. At what point does a defense cease being a defense and become an offense? Which weapons are defensive and which are offensive? There is some overlap.

Russia claimed it's actions to be defensive before it crossed the border with attacks. 'Just conducting some drills,' they claimed. Nobody piles 100's of thousands of troops and equipment on the border and starts running attack training as a defense. That was a precursor to war. Everybody knew it. Russia made themselves liars the moment they attacked. A preemptive attack is not a defense. It is an offensive action.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I am not sure where we differ. The thesis that a country has a sovereign right to craft a defense of its choice, which defense cannot and should not be the concern of its neighbours is False.

There is a profound difference between "defensive systems" and "offensive systems".

Either you are not versed in military terninology, or you are being purposefully and painfully disingenuous.