4 ms·

> though it was not a legally binding assurance Oh no, really? > The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the reque

by troupo 7mo ago

> though it was not a legally binding assurance Oh no, really? > The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further? Or that multiple NATO members opposed Ukrainian membership (you have to get approval from all NATO members)? Or that the whole thing was derailed by Russian involvement in Georgia? > And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation. I've yet to see you assign any responsibility to Russia for its actions. > You forgot to quote "Just like". 1. you have to actually provide a source that what happened in Ukraine was a coup. Hint: Ukrainians are quite happy to remove anyone in power through popular movements 2. I clearly literally described what Russia was doing. You keep trying to move the discussion to your own very narrow (and quite invalid) definition of a coup. 3. I've yet to see you assign any reponisbility to Russia for Russia's actions. Russia is blameless, spotless, and purely justified in its 4-year invasion of Ukraine.

drysine 7mo ago
>Oh no, really? Maybe you should reread my first comment? I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing
- troupo 7mo ago
  Yes, yes you do. If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"? I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.
  - drysine 7mo ago
    You really should reread my first comment. As for the treaty you could read other articles in that treaty[0] while you at it: Article 6 Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party. Article 7 If a situation arises which, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, poses a threat to peace, violates the peace or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity, it may propose to the other High Contracting Party that consultations on the subject be held without delay. The States shall exchange relevant information and, if necessary, carry out coordinated or joint measures with a view to overcoming the situation Article 11 The High Contracting Parties shall, in their territory, take the necessary measures, including the adoption of appropriate legislative acts, to prevent and suppress any activities that constitute an incitement to violence or violence against individuals or groups of citizens, based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance. Article 12 The High Contracting Parties shall protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity. Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their will. [0] https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b7nedx/pdf https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b7nedx/pdf
    - troupo 7mo ago
      So: 1. Ukraine had a very strong ipposition to joining NATO prior to 2014. And according to Putin himself, other countries (Ukraine, Sweden, Finland etc.) joining NATO is those countries' own decision and he's okay with it. If he was against it, has he called any consultation etc.? No he didnt't. He waited until all the way of the end if Yanukovich's term to bribe him... to not sign association agreement with the EU (not even NATO). As it turns out, Ukraine should've joined NATO waaaay before 2014. 2. Any "action to affect security" calls for a consultation. Russia instead invaded and grabbed Crimea, and invaded and made Donbass a permanent gray zone. And then started a full-scale invasion 3. Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution. Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war. To the point that National Russian Drama Theater didn't change its name or repertoire until Russia's invasion. See how you keep absolving Russia of literally any responsibility.

by troupo 7mo ago

drysine 7mo ago

>Oh no, really? Maybe you should reread my first comment? I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing

troupo 7mo ago
Yes, yes you do. If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"? I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.
- drysine 7mo ago
  You really should reread my first comment. As for the treaty you could read other articles in that treaty[0] while you at it: Article 6 Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party. Article 7 If a situation arises which, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, poses a threat to peace, violates the peace or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity, it may propose to the other High Contracting Party that consultations on the subject be held without delay. The States shall exchange relevant information and, if necessary, carry out coordinated or joint measures with a view to overcoming the situation Article 11 The High Contracting Parties shall, in their territory, take the necessary measures, including the adoption of appropriate legislative acts, to prevent and suppress any activities that constitute an incitement to violence or violence against individuals or groups of citizens, based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance. Article 12 The High Contracting Parties shall protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity. Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their will. [0] https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b7nedx/pdf https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b7nedx/pdf
  - troupo 7mo ago
    So: 1. Ukraine had a very strong ipposition to joining NATO prior to 2014. And according to Putin himself, other countries (Ukraine, Sweden, Finland etc.) joining NATO is those countries' own decision and he's okay with it. If he was against it, has he called any consultation etc.? No he didnt't. He waited until all the way of the end if Yanukovich's term to bribe him... to not sign association agreement with the EU (not even NATO). As it turns out, Ukraine should've joined NATO waaaay before 2014. 2. Any "action to affect security" calls for a consultation. Russia instead invaded and grabbed Crimea, and invaded and made Donbass a permanent gray zone. And then started a full-scale invasion 3. Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution. Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war. To the point that National Russian Drama Theater didn't change its name or repertoire until Russia's invasion. See how you keep absolving Russia of literally any responsibility.