4 ms·

Who broke the Budapest memorandum? Russia was all alone in that. It's impossible to make an agreement with Russia, as a state actor or not, while being sure tha

by tokai 4y ago

Who broke the Budapest memorandum? Russia was all alone in that. It's impossible to make an agreement with Russia, as a state actor or not, while being sure that Russia won't break it the second it is beneficial for them. Claiming the contrary is pure ideology.

paganel 4y ago
> It's impossible to make an agreement with Russia Other people have mentioned it bellow me, but see what Merkel herself ("accused" of being on Putin's side, funnily enough) had to say about the Minsk accords.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tokai 4y ago
  Others has also cleared up the lies and misquotes. Why do you jump directly to tangent lies, instead of dealing with the main argument - that we are where we are because of Russia not upholding its promises?
  - dmpk2k 4y ago
    It seems to me that neither side was upholding its promises. There are no angels here.
    - tokai 4y ago
      Well in any non-delusional interpretation of the events Russia broke their promise of Ukrainian independence and security in 2014. Don't mention any terror bombings of Donetsk, as they have never taken place and civilians has not been dying in any numbers since '14 when Russia went into Ukraine. As documented by numerous ngos. Only Russia is in the wrong here. Full Stop. People like you are cheering on killings of civilians and colonialism.
    - randomname93857 4y ago
      Well, when one side continue breaking their promises, it makes it hard to keep your promises too! Also, the other side did not invade russia, did it?
01ce8c91872dd6d 4y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Russia tried to pull that shit in the United States, and "do nothing" was largely our response.
  - 01ce8c91872dd6d 4y ago
    you had a pretty long investigation that concluded that Russian involvement was a bit of money here and there I assume having Russian equivalent of McCain, Nuland and CIA running around would provoke a more vigorous response
  - orbital-decay 4y ago
    And 20 years before that, the US tried to pull that shit in Russia, with Yeltsin's second term in 1996. Not covertly, mind you, but while advertising it on every corner and in every media like NYT as a "fight against communism". (which it partly was!) By that point, Yeltsin was universally hated for turning Russia back towards autocracy, for botched privatization, and the Chechen war. His rating rose from 6% to 53% in mere half a year before the elections, with the help of a massive campaign he organized using the stolen money. But the fact that the Clinton administration aligned with him and tried to "help" him with the massive NGO and media work (that's only the overt part) has been remembered by most who supported the democratic change. Instead of Yeltsin, it could have been Nemtsov, who was truly popular during that time, but refused to run exactly because Clinton+Gore supported Yeltsin... Nemtsov, remember that name? US administration suddenly did, in 2015. Too bad they didn't before. "Do nothing" was also Russians' response at the time (except for the brief investigation that was quickly stopped by the autocrat), but that was one of the turning points in the people's minds. History truly rhymes.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Democracy has a well-known blatantly US backing. Not just being punchy: if you accuse pro-democracy movements of being US-backed coups, then that's a low bar for association. The US even tries to foist democracy where it's a terribly ineffective idea, from a US interests standpoint, see efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

by tokai 4y ago

paganel 4y ago

> It's impossible to make an agreement with Russia Other people have mentioned it bellow me, but see what Merkel herself ("accused" of being on Putin's side, funnily enough) had to say about the Minsk accords.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tokai 4y ago
Others has also cleared up the lies and misquotes. Why do you jump directly to tangent lies, instead of dealing with the main argument - that we are where we are because of Russia not upholding its promises?
- dmpk2k 4y ago
  It seems to me that neither side was upholding its promises. There are no angels here.
  - tokai 4y ago
    Well in any non-delusional interpretation of the events Russia broke their promise of Ukrainian independence and security in 2014. Don't mention any terror bombings of Donetsk, as they have never taken place and civilians has not been dying in any numbers since '14 when Russia went into Ukraine. As documented by numerous ngos. Only Russia is in the wrong here. Full Stop. People like you are cheering on killings of civilians and colonialism.
  - randomname93857 4y ago
    Well, when one side continue breaking their promises, it makes it hard to keep your promises too! Also, the other side did not invade russia, did it?

01ce8c91872dd6d 4y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 4y ago
Russia tried to pull that shit in the United States, and "do nothing" was largely our response.
- 01ce8c91872dd6d 4y ago
  you had a pretty long investigation that concluded that Russian involvement was a bit of money here and there I assume having Russian equivalent of McCain, Nuland and CIA running around would provoke a more vigorous response
- orbital-decay 4y ago
  And 20 years before that, the US tried to pull that shit in Russia, with Yeltsin's second term in 1996. Not covertly, mind you, but while advertising it on every corner and in every media like NYT as a "fight against communism". (which it partly was!) By that point, Yeltsin was universally hated for turning Russia back towards autocracy, for botched privatization, and the Chechen war. His rating rose from 6% to 53% in mere half a year before the elections, with the help of a massive campaign he organized using the stolen money. But the fact that the Clinton administration aligned with him and tried to "help" him with the massive NGO and media work (that's only the overt part) has been remembered by most who supported the democratic change. Instead of Yeltsin, it could have been Nemtsov, who was truly popular during that time, but refused to run exactly because Clinton+Gore supported Yeltsin... Nemtsov, remember that name? US administration suddenly did, in 2015. Too bad they didn't before. "Do nothing" was also Russians' response at the time (except for the brief investigation that was quickly stopped by the autocrat), but that was one of the turning points in the people's minds. History truly rhymes.
ethbr0 4y ago
Democracy has a well-known blatantly US backing. Not just being punchy: if you accuse pro-democracy movements of being US-backed coups, then that's a low bar for association. The US even tries to foist democracy where it's a terribly ineffective idea, from a US interests standpoint, see efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.