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.

 

[aupmanyav]

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.

I won't do that. I believe NATO/CIA had a role in the Orange Uprising.

The word you are looking for is "yes".

No. It is my opinion. That your view is different is OK.

Your posts, on the other hand, do not come with any understanding whatsoever.
The above purports to answer my question:

Technically, the border demarcation was unilateral.

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.

Tilting west had its consequences. Ukraine should have been careful.

That's not how rights work.

Rights work that way. See the effect of rights without any constraints.
They may drag us to a world war.

 

[barbos]

The EU didn't exist in the nineteenth century.

Are you sure? it certainly looked like Countries of Europe were United in their conspiracy against Russia at that time.
Don't be dense.

When defending your beliefs requires you to believe something absurd and impossible

It's not absurd. There is very little difference between 19 century and today in terms of Europe's foreign policy.

 

[Elixir]

I believe NATO/CIA had a role in the Orange Uprising.

Everyone’s best influencers have roles in most things. NATO/CIA made Ukraine desire protection from Russia, such that NATO members have. Why is it unreasonable to help them obtain such protection? It doesn’t cost Russia a single fucking ruble. They can go home and sleep well knowing Ukraine will not attack them.
This is only happening because Putin wants what is not his.

 

[barbos]

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

Did you just admit that Europe's war on Russia in 19 century was not just?

 

[barbos]

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.

LOL, you are projecting real hard here.

Yes, he was legally impeached by the Ukraine legislature.

No, he was not.

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.

Nope, he was not impeached. Moreover the whole thing was done under the threat of violence, hence is irrelevant to begin with.

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.

Which snipers? Who where these snipers, do you know?
Looks like you know who the were but don't want to mention it becasue it does not do any good to your "theory"
But I agree with you, Yanukovich was a weak leader and should have protect his country from Nuland's nazis better.

 

[bilby]

The EU didn't exist in the nineteenth century.

Are you sure?

Yes. The EU began in 1993 with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.

It was formed from countries of its predecessor, the EEC, which was formed by the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

Before that, the two most powerful EU states, France and Germany (and most of the others) were at war from 1939-45, and before that, they (or their predecessors) were at War from 1914-18 (with Russia allied with France against Germany on both occasions).

To suggest that the EU, or the mere concept of a European Union, predates 1945 would be an utterly batshit nutso rejection of reality; To suggest that the nations of Europe were intransigently opposed to Russia through the century following the end of the Crimean War would be equally counterfactual to the point of drooling insanity.

it certainly looked like Countries of Europe were United in their conspiracy against Russia at that time.

At what time? The 19th century included periods of conflict and of alliance between many of the European Powers. There was no unity between the Powers at any point; occasional treaties allied two or three together against the others, but the idea that "Countries of Europe" in the C19th were united against anyone is absurd.

Don't they teach any history in Russia?

Don't be dense.

Seriously? The guy who thinks Europe was "United in their conspiracy against Russia" in the C19th is accusing someone else of being 'dense'?? Have you no shame at all?

When defending your beliefs requires you to believe something absurd and impossible

It's not absurd. There is very little difference between 19 century and today in terms of Europe's foreign policy.

Ah. That explains why France and Germany are constantly fighting wars over Alsace and Lorraine. And why the French are busy paying the Tsar to build railways towards the border with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nothing much has changed.

 

[bilby]

I strongly recommend A J P Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 as a starting point for anyone who is so incredibly ignorant of C19th European history as to imagine that "united" is a suitable word to describe the nations of that continent in the C19th and early C20th.

A .pdf version is available at: https://hostnezt.com/cssfiles/europ...stery In Europe 1848-1918 By A J P Taylor.pdf

 

[aupmanyav]

Everyone’s best influencers have roles in most things. NATO/CIA made Ukraine desire protection from Russia, such that NATO members have. Why is it unreasonable to help them obtain such protection?

Should I take it that these influencers were active during the Maidan Revolution? OK, good, so kind of NATO and US.
Do you have any statistics of how many Ukrainians have been killed, maimed or displaced.
Now provide them enough armaments to save themselves from Russia. Also station nuclear missiles for their protection.
Put nuclear missiles in the other NATO countries also that border Russia. I suppose, that is being done - Lithuania.

 

[barbos]

The EU didn't exist in the nineteenth century.

Are you sure?

Yes. The EU began in 1993 with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.

It was formed from countries of its predecessor, the EEC, which was formed by the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

Before that, the two most powerful EU states, France and Germany (and most of the others) were at war from 1939-45, and before that, they (or their predecessors) were at War from 1914-18 (with Russia allied with France against Germany on both occasions).

To suggest that the EU, or the mere concept of a European Union, predates 1945 would be an utterly batshit nutso rejection of reality; To suggest that the nations of Europe were intransigently opposed to Russia through the century following the end of the Crimean War would be equally counterfactual to the point of drooling insanity.

it certainly looked like Countries of Europe were United in their conspiracy against Russia at that time.

At what time? The 19th century included periods of conflict and of alliance between many of the European Powers. There was no unity between the Powers at any point; occasional treaties allied two or three together against the others, but the idea that "Countries of Europe" in the C19th were united against anyone is absurd.

Don't they teach any history in Russia?

Don't be dense.

Seriously? The guy who thinks Europe was "United in their conspiracy against Russia" in the C19th is accusing someone else of being 'dense'?? Have you no shame at all?

Why should I be ashamed to parrot well established historical analysis?

When defending your beliefs requires you to believe something absurd and impossible

It's not absurd. There is very little difference between 19 century and today in terms of Europe's foreign policy.

Ah. That explains why France and Germany are constantly fighting wars over Alsace and Lorraine. And why the French are busy paying the Tsar to build railways towards the border with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nothing much has changed.

Yes, they still fighting, and are still in NATO.

 

[barbos]

Your side yesterday attacked Poland with 19 drones

No, we did not. Even NATO does not agree with your ridiculous claim.

Well, well, well, looks like it was actually Kiev Regime who "attacked" Poland.
Drones in question were cheap decoys with a range of 700km. While it's technically possible to reach Poland from Russia with that range, Russia has no need for that. So most likely scenario is nazi-clowns collected bunch of these drones from previous attacks, refueled them and then launched them into Poland during Russian attack.
Another possibility is electronic warfare, but these drones don't really have the range to do that.
The fact that NATO and even newly elected polish president are not talking about it points toward ukro-nazi-clowns.

 

[Elixir]

Now provide them enough armaments to save themselves from Russia.

Should have been done on Day one, when Putin started amassing his failed invasion force at the Ukraine border.

Also station nuclear missiles for their protection.

They exist. A funny thing about nukes - they need not be located in -or even near - the enemy’s target country at all.

Put nuclear missiles in the other NATO countries also that border Russia.

They’re there as far as you or I know.
Real world restraints exist that are currently keeping both sides from using them.
A sufficient price must be exacted upon Russia to dissuade Putin from his imperialist ambitions.

 

[Elixir]

Tilting west had its consequences. Ukraine should have been careful.

“Tilting” justifies genocide, land theft and subjugation. The thief gets to define what constitutes “tilting”.
Got it.
It’s fucking ignorance like this that ENABLES stuff like genocide, land theft and subjugation.
Fuck you, Aupy. You’re old enough to know better.

 

[bilby]

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

Did you just admit that Europe's war on Russia in 19 century was not just?

There was no "Europe" as a unified entity with a single policy in the 19th century.

Europe therefore did not, and could not, make war on Russia in the 19th century.

The British war against Russia known as the Crimean War was manifestly unjust, by today's standards, and probably even by the standards of the time. I have never once suggested otherwise.

That cannot constitute an "admission", because I wasn't born until more than a century afterwards. The Britain of that time was a completely different polity, with a world-spanning empire and the most powerful navy in history; Not a single person alive today was in any way a part of that country, nor is there any Russian alive today who lived under the Russian Empire that the British Empire attacked.

I did not, in fact, say that any particular war against Russia in the 19th century was unjust (because that wasn't the topic under discussion), though it was probably implied, and is certainly in some cases true; That you appear to think that would be significant is a deep concern, as it in no way supports your crazy narrative of Russia as eternal victim. No nation state, including Russia, has always acted only in a just and fair way towards her neighbours. Nor has any state always been he victim and never the aggressor.

I am quite impressed by your ability to squeeze five dumb propaganda implications into just one sixteen word sentence. Though it would be more impressive if you didn't in the process contradict the proof I just gave that your treatment of C19th Europe as a united entity is utterly batshit crazy.

No country should bully her neighbours; Particularly not if they need to utterly distort over 150 years of history, in order to find a justification based on absurdity.

You also snipped the other point I was making:

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 the eternal victim, nor has everyone else in Europe always been united against her.

Europe is united against Russia right now, because (and only because) Russia is engaged in an horriffic crime right now.

 

[bilby]

Why should I be ashamed to parrot well established historical analysis?

If you ever start doing that, you needn't be.

When defending your beliefs requires you to believe something absurd and impossible Click to expand... It's not absurd. There is very little difference between 19 century and today in terms of Europe's foreign policy. Click to expand... Ah. That explains why France and Germany are constantly fighting wars over Alsace and Lorraine. And why the French are busy paying the Tsar to build railways towards the border with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nothing much has changed.

Yes, they still fighting, and are still in NATO.

NATO also did not exist prior to 1949.

And as the Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist in 1918, your suggestion that they were part of NATO is as resonable as Trump's claim about airports being fought over during the US Revolutionary War.