How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Elixir]

Have you been in a coma?
Putin recently invaded a land, murdered its citizens and declared it his own property (after signing a promise to respect its sovereignty).
Now you wish to put Pootey on equal moral footing with his victims. That’s just flat out perverted. It makes you his equivalent.

Oh, I thought you were talking about Kashmir/India. Yes, Russia invaded Ukraine and we are very sad about it and trying to find a solution to the conflict

It’s not a fucking “conflict”, it’s a goddam criminal invasion and genocide.
Russia needs to be condemned and sent home, not coddled with your “both sides” fantasy.

 

[bilby]

Or are you just parroting Russian propaganda?

I am just giving history a post-event look.
Had Yuschenko or Yanukovich continued, there would not have been a Ukraine war.

The word you are looking for is "yes".

 

[bilby]

@aupmanyav is, and I am asking for the allegedly relevant text from this alleged treaty.

"Russia and Ukraine had not finalized a border between the two countries. The border was delineated in the 2003 Treaty on the Russian-Ukrainian State Border, but Ukraine has started the agreed-upon demarcation unilaterally after Russia dragged its feet."
Treaties come with understandings.

Treaty on the Russian–Ukrainian border - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your posts, on the other hand, do not come with any understanding whatsoever.

The above purports to answer my question:

Removal of Yuschenko and induction of Poroshenko invalidated the treaty.

Really? How?

Can you quote the provision of the treaty that rendered it invalid when this change occurred?

Or are you just parroting Russian propaganda?

But is in fact entirely unrelated to it. Unless "Removal of Yuschenko and induction of Poroshenko" is synonymous with "Ukraine has started the agreed-upon demarcation unilaterally".

In place of support for your claim, we have a completely different and unrelated claim. The ONLY commonality between these two claims is that they are utterly inadequate as an excuse for Russia invading Ukraine.

 

[bilby]

It has all the rights, but will also have to bear the results of its decisions.

That's not how rights work.

If you are told that you have the right to remain silent, but remaining silent results in the assumption that you are guilty, and in your having to "bear the result of that decision" by being thrown in jail, then you do NOT, in fact, have the right to remain silent.

 

[bilby]

Could do the same with Alaska.

Alaska sale was technically legal. In practice of course it was a result of british invasion into .... Crimea.

Oh come now. It was not just the British. The French and Italians stuck their oars in the water.

Yes, the whole EU.

The EU didn't exist in the nineteenth century. Your claim here is less sensible and rational than blaming the RAF for bombing Russia during the Crimean War.

When defending your beliefs requires you to believe something absurd and impossible, it is time to stop defending them.

The Crimean War is of zero relevance here; Since that war, there have been long periods when the "eternal enemies of Russia" in your paranoid propaganda, were in fact staunch allies of Russia.

Russia is not currently the victim of bullying; She is currently the bully.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Or are you just parroting Russian propaganda?

I am just giving history a post-event look.
Had Yuschenko or Yanukovich continued, there would not have been a Ukraine war.

So are you trying to say that a sovereign country doesn't have a right to lawfully impeach a President if he is not following their laws? Or maybe they have to get permission from their neighbor?

First of all, he WAS following the law. Second he was not impeached, there was not enough votes and these who voted did so under the guns of the nazi mob. And yes, according to EU own rules they (Ukraine) have to get permission of the their neighbor when it comes to security.

Again, not only can you not correctly spell the capital of Ukraine, but you also don't know its history. Yes, he was legally impeached by the Ukraine legislature. The reason why they impeached him was because he failed in his required presidential duties and then voluntarily gave up his post! Just google it. Listen to his statement. After he did this, they impeached him. 329 to 29 was the vote. Then after that, he tried to retract his statement of resignation; and started to fight the impeachment. But it was over. Every single country agreed with the action except for Russia. I'm sure it was Putin who told him to retract his resignation statement. Regardless. He was a scum bag. He had stole from the state and could not protect his citizens. 80 protestors were killed by snipers while he did nothing. Please study up on the subject.