3 ms·

First of all it's not a proxy war Second Russia started it, not the US, not the EU, not Ukraine Russia and Putin Third and most importantly defeating Russia

by rat87 2y ago

First of all it's not a proxy war Second Russia started it, not the US, not the EU, not Ukraine Russia and Putin Third and most importantly defeating Russia and restoring peace is of vital importance to both EU and UK. Far more important then it is to the US even though obviously making sure Ukraine wins is important to the US as well (not that Trump understands or cares that it's in America's interests). Restoring relationship with Russia before Russia chose to end this idiotic war would make them even stupider then Putin was for starting it. It would be incredibly harmful to their interests. If Putin was willing to end the war and give up on conquering Ukraine then restoring relationship would be a useful carrot

lovegrenoble 2y ago
>> conquering Ukraine Really? Minsk agreements I, II, Istanbul... All Russian attempts to reach a compromise have failed, both in 2014-15 with the Western sabotage of the agreements reached in Minsk. As well as Istanbul peace negotiations.
- rat87 2y ago
  This is absolutely 100% backwards. Minsk 2 agreement was needed because Minsk 1 fell apart because Russia violated it. They also violated Minsk 2 agreement. Russia also had the audacity to claim the agreements didn't apply to them but to their warlord puppet states in part of Luhansk and Donestk. More recent negotiations fell apart largely because Russia would not agree to reasonable measures and could not be trusted to even the measures they claimed they might agree to. Even that ignores the fact that this was not needed at all if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine in 2014(which was against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Frie... where they agreed to Ukranian sovereignty and borders).
  - lovegrenoble 2y ago
    Oh, I’m really glad you brought that up actually. Yeah that Memorandum became a roll of toilet paper when the US sanctioned Belarus in 2007 and again in 2013 because they were unhappy with election outcomes and lack of “Le democracy”. Want to know how the US responded? It was essentially “uh we were only sanctioning specific individuals and companies who we were unhappy with, not the entire nation so lol”, and their second argument was that the Memorandum “IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING”. Yes, the US said that. Just as a refresher, the third clause of the full Memorandum reads that signatories will: ‘Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.’ So the US had already violated this by 2007. And the memorandum was again disregarded in 2014 when the Ukrainian constitution was also used as toilet paper, since it fundamentally altered the nature of Ukrainian sovereignty. So again, remind us why Russia should feel compelled to follow this mythical Budapest memorandum (non-binding btw) when the other parties were clearly violating the terms or acting in bad faith? If you can’t explain why, I’ll just assume that you don’t have a valid response.
    - rat87 2y ago
      I mean Belarus isn't a democracy and doesn't uphold human rights. None of that is particularly controversial. Not about outcomes, but about Dictatorship. Also since I expected you might try to wave it away I noted Russia also violated a bilateral treaty it had with Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Frie... > the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. Russia has never felt compeled to follow anything. As you note one party has consistently acted in bad faith, but that party is Russia. The question is not why Russia should trust the West with regards to a fantasy of NATO invasion, it's how West or Ukraine can trust it to abide by any deals when it repeatedly violated them and started this war for no reason other then seeking to conquer or dominate Ukraine

by rat87 2y ago

lovegrenoble 2y ago

>> conquering Ukraine Really? Minsk agreements I, II, Istanbul... All Russian attempts to reach a compromise have failed, both in 2014-15 with the Western sabotage of the agreements reached in Minsk. As well as Istanbul peace negotiations.

rat87 2y ago
This is absolutely 100% backwards. Minsk 2 agreement was needed because Minsk 1 fell apart because Russia violated it. They also violated Minsk 2 agreement. Russia also had the audacity to claim the agreements didn't apply to them but to their warlord puppet states in part of Luhansk and Donestk. More recent negotiations fell apart largely because Russia would not agree to reasonable measures and could not be trusted to even the measures they claimed they might agree to. Even that ignores the fact that this was not needed at all if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine in 2014(which was against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Frie... where they agreed to Ukranian sovereignty and borders).
- lovegrenoble 2y ago
  Oh, I’m really glad you brought that up actually. Yeah that Memorandum became a roll of toilet paper when the US sanctioned Belarus in 2007 and again in 2013 because they were unhappy with election outcomes and lack of “Le democracy”. Want to know how the US responded? It was essentially “uh we were only sanctioning specific individuals and companies who we were unhappy with, not the entire nation so lol”, and their second argument was that the Memorandum “IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING”. Yes, the US said that. Just as a refresher, the third clause of the full Memorandum reads that signatories will: ‘Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.’ So the US had already violated this by 2007. And the memorandum was again disregarded in 2014 when the Ukrainian constitution was also used as toilet paper, since it fundamentally altered the nature of Ukrainian sovereignty. So again, remind us why Russia should feel compelled to follow this mythical Budapest memorandum (non-binding btw) when the other parties were clearly violating the terms or acting in bad faith? If you can’t explain why, I’ll just assume that you don’t have a valid response.
  - rat87 2y ago
    I mean Belarus isn't a democracy and doesn't uphold human rights. None of that is particularly controversial. Not about outcomes, but about Dictatorship. Also since I expected you might try to wave it away I noted Russia also violated a bilateral treaty it had with Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Frie... > the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. Russia has never felt compeled to follow anything. As you note one party has consistently acted in bad faith, but that party is Russia. The question is not why Russia should trust the West with regards to a fantasy of NATO invasion, it's how West or Ukraine can trust it to abide by any deals when it repeatedly violated them and started this war for no reason other then seeking to conquer or dominate Ukraine