- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 24,891
- Reaction score
- 10,598
- Location
- daily dukkha
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Russia will help the rebellious Donbas region should it be attacked by Ukrainian government forces. The support will be in form of supplies and long range artillery assaults on Ukrainian troop concentrations.For the past 15 years, ever since the Munich speech, Russian officials have been arguing against the unilateral use of force and demanding a UN-centered security system founded on international law. Were we to wake up one day and find that Russian tanks were rolling towards Kiev without any kind of excuse, it would amount to a complete abandonment of 15 years of argumentation as well as a negation of the entire legal/moral position built up by the Russian Federation in that period, a position reinforced just this month in the Putin/Xi statement.
It would also be very odd. For you can hardly achieve the objective of a multipolar world based on the principles of UN supremacy and international law by means of a massive breach of those very same principles. It would be extraordinarily self-defeating. A certain skepticism about the allegedly “imminent” Russian invasion of Ukraine is therefore due. It’s not impossible, but one has to wonder why, after so many years of consistency, Putin would suddenly change his position in such a drastic way.
German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday < ---source
West promised not to expand NATO – Der Spiegel
Newly discovered document proves existence of pledge not to expand NATO eastward towards Russia, proving Moscow rightwww.rt.com
About as binding as was the Budapest Memorandum. We saw how that worked out in 2014.
Isn't it strange how those who bang on remorselessly about the 'rules based order' and base their policies on 'values' so casually dismiss verbal commitments given to other world leaders?
I mean, it's almost as if the West's policy amounts to 'we must obey the law unless we don't feel like it'. I could name a few illegal military actions here ......... but we all know about them.
So for me the moral of the story is that the West can't be trusted, its leaders are casually hypocritical and dismissive of international agreements they don't like.
Which gets us to Minsk. Ukraine needs to implement it, and Biden should pick up the phone to its puppet in Kiev and tell him to get on with it. Unless of course he actually wants to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Such a noble policy!
I don’t care what promises were made. Russia is a dictatorship and is not a valid party to negotiate with on such matters.
you should look at the one source. it's Der Spiegle. The other is an interview.the last is documentationAnother Trump supporter spouting pro-Russian propaganda. And from RT.com no less.
What will you say once thousands of Ukrainians start dying? Will you continue with your lies and excuses?
Please show the treaty or other document that has the force of law.Oh - I see.
So Western agreements with states they don't really like are completely meaningless if the West feels like ignoring them at some point in the future.
I think we all knew that, but its great that you made it clear.
Oh - I see.
So Western agreements with states they don't really like are completely meaningless if the West feels like ignoring them at some point in the future.
I think we all knew that, but its great that you made it clear.
OMG. straight out of the neocon playbookPlease show the treaty or other document that has the force of law.
Also it is the duty of the western world to spread human rights to countries of a lesser moral order.
Then that’s a good rule they had (even if their other rules were often screwed up)OMG. straight out of the neocon playbook
you should look at the one source. it's Der Spiegle. The other is an interview.the last is documentation
The document features statements by all six ministers in the Two-Plus-Four process – Shevardnadze (the host), Baker, Hurd, Dumas, Genscher, and De Maiziere of the GDR – (much of which would be repeated in their press conferences after the event), along with the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – “special military status” for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a “minute” that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word “deployed” should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the “minute” was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the “spirit” of this Final Settlement treaty.If you want an agreement with the full force of law you need AT LEAST the Secretary of State in the room.
You haven't got that? Crimea river.
Please show the treaty or other document that has the force of law.
Also it is the duty of the western world to spread human rights to countries of a lesser moral order.
I am ok with this point of view as it results in liberation from oppressive governments (at least as a goal)I'm with you there.
But this reeks of "white man's burden" and I reject it. Western nations can apply pressure, to spread their preferred values but nothing good ever came of overthrowing regimes in the hope their people would embrace democracy, freedom, capitalism or really anything.
What the West fails to get is that people are happier under moderately evil dictators like Gaddafi or Castro or Saddam, providing Western conveniences like sewers and electricity are getting rolled out at an acceptable pace. The West has to concentrate on economic development not Western values like free speech or democracy, or the West will be a minority in a world dominated by the East.
It led to war on Libya, war in Iraq ( the motivation was spreading democracy -the excuse was WMD)Then that’s a good rule they had (even if their other rules were often screwed up)
I do not support going to war over this duty though.
The document features statements by all six ministers in the Two-Plus-Four process – Shevardnadze (the host), Baker, Hurd, Dumas, Genscher, and De Maiziere of the GDR – (much of which would be repeated in their press conferences after the event), along with the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – “special military status” for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a “minute” that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word “deployed” should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the “minute” was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the “spirit” of this Final Settlement treaty.
Did you miss the second half of the post you quoted?It led to war on Libya, war in Iraq ( the motivation was spreading democracy -the excuse was WMD)
and meddling n other states governments ( US presense at the Euromaidan)
Amazing your leap of thoughts. No i dont "support" a Russian invasion. i get it because of prior NATO expansion, and the threat (to Russia) of NATO on it's land border -500 mile from Russia where land forces could be launched against RussiaYou're promoting and justifying Russian agression against a sovereign country. Is that how you get yoir kicks?
Trump supporters on this board are constantly ourdoing themselves. This is just another example. Sickening.
OMG. straight out of the neocon playbook
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?