Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by kpv1974

The beginning is taken from the time of the collapse of the USSR. Adventurers in Ukraine told the population this way - in 2 years Ukraine will become the "second France". And all our misfortunes are because the Russians spoiled everything for us. Because of them, we have such a low standard of living. If Ukraine did not feed Russia, then everything would be fine with them.
But let me - and who ruled the USSR?
Yes, the same Ukrainians!
Khrushchev is Ukrainian.
Brezhnev is also from Ukraine (if my memory serves me from Depropetrovsk).
Chernenko is also Ukrainian.
Andropov is that Jew.
Russians actually never ruled their state.
Stalin was a Georgian. Gorbachev is probably the only Russian, and he destroyed the USSR
)))
They simply forgot their history. They abandoned it.

You know more about Soviet and Russian history than I do.

I do know however that the Ukrainian voted for independent in 1991 and Russia approved this.

So is following wiki link wrong ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_U...nce_referendum

Right thereafter this Budapest memorandum came.
Here it was three countries, including Russia acknowledge Ukraine and it's border. and to provide security assurances by its signatories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Markus

[kpv1974]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

no! no!LEFT!
Yup he is!
Could U enumerate which cities R "razed to the ground" or are U exaggerating in true leftist fashion? Bear in mind, the standard for "Razing" still remains Sodom or Hiroshima. Well that gotta rise outta the bugger!

"The bombings damaged bridges, roads and railways, as well as 25,000 houses, 69 schools and 176 cultural monuments.In addition, 19 hospitals and 20 medical centers were damaged, including the University Hospital Center of Dr. Dragisha Mišović."

Of course it's not Hiroshima.

[les green01]

Originally Posted by kpv1974

the war was inevitable. if they had chosen not Trump, but Clinton's wife, it would simply have started much earlier.

oh please obama/biden/clinton was busy getting an embassy attack then blaming it on a movie,Trump was busy sending mean tweets and getting impeach twice,Biden and harris can't even find the southern border of the US and raising the price on everything doubt they could even pour pee out of a boot but they sucker Putin to attack Ukraine,several pages back you was acting like you was from Paris French now your in russia on the line.i think everyone here can see your putin butt buddy and preaching his filth bs now i'm going pop my feet up get some pretzels and pour some jack and laugh at all your posts

[kpv1974]

Originally Posted by mapuc

You know more about Soviet and Russian history than I do.

I do know however that the Ukrainian voted for independent in 1991 and Russia approved this.

So is following wiki link wrong ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_U...nce_referendum

Right thereafter this Budapest memorandum came.
Here it was three countries, including Russia acknowledge Ukraine and it's border. and to provide security assurances by its signatories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Markus

Complex issue…
Most likely violated. There are many interpretations.

This is how the Russian authorities see it.
S. Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, said that Russia had not violated the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum. After all, the only obligation of Russia included in this document is the obligation not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and threats to use them. No threat, no use of nuclear weapons by Russia was carried out.


Russia officially denies all accusations of violating the Budapest Memorandum. On March 4, 2014, President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin expressed the opinion that if the events associated with the Euromaidan are qualified as revolutionary, then it follows that a new state has been formed on the territory of Ukraine, in relation to which Russia has no contractual obligations . On March 19, 2014, the Russian Foreign Ministry accused the United States and the European Union of violating the provisions of the memorandum, which supported the opposition during the Euromaidan. In particular, they expressed threats of imposing sanctions against the Ukrainian authorities. All this, according to the department, had a pronounced orientation against the sovereignty and political independence of the country. As mentioned above, the Russian side emphasizes the fact that the Russian Federation had no obligation to force the local population to remain part of Ukraine against their will, especially since not only was nuclear weapons not used, but not a single shot was fired during Crimean events. Thus, there is no need to talk about Russia's violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

[Aktungbby]

Well I see persistent humor hath moved you...sllghtly. Now get diggin" that shelter before we lose our favorite leftist propagandist who gives us ignorant rightwing boors precious insight into true Kremlin moronthology as espoused by that 21 century Peter the Grate! I'd presume it will be wider; enough to fit U since getting fattened up by peasant Czechs with 'clean' turnips!

[kpv1974]

There are also more radical views.
"In November 1994, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the law “On Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”. In practice, this meant abandoning the nuclear arsenal that Ukraine inherited from the USSR. The deputies, in their opinion, made a good hedge by including the following clause in the text: “This law comes into force after the nuclear states provide Ukraine with security guarantees issued by signing the relevant international legal document.” And already on December 5, the famous Budapest Memorandum was signed. To begin with, let's pay attention to the name itself — “Budapest Memorial on Security Assurances". Some commentators wonder why this supposedly most important document, which is based on the agreement on the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Republic, has not been ratified by any of the countries that signed it. Even Ukraine itself. So after all, such documents do not require further action — it's just a memorandum! That is, one of the lowest documents of the diplomatic paper circulation, most often interpreted as a “statement of the views of the government.” But often this is just an “information and reference statement of cases”, or even a “memo" at all. (From the Latin memorandum, literally: something to remember). No one is going to observe it sacredly, at best it is a “friendly agreement”: “Dear gentlemen are going to behave like true gentlemen. If it pleases the Lord. And it won't — so sorry!” The choice of the English term is also alarming: soft “assurances”, often interpreted as “assurances”, instead of firm guarantees — “guarantees". Another diplomatic smile — “We assure you — everything will be OK!” Next, let's see who benefited from the fact of Ukraine's renunciation of nuclear weapons. At first glance, this is obvious — to Ukraine itself. She was throwing off a huge financial yoke, because the care of nuclear facilities cost serious money. And unlike the ships, tanks and planes that remained after the partition of the USSR and were sold out quite quickly (so that by 2014 there was little left of them), it was impossible to trade nuclear missiles on the international arms market (otherwise, of course, they would have been sold). Plus painful memories of Chernobyl: you never know what else can happen to the conquered atom. It is better to get rid of him quickly out of harm's way. Whereas Russia gained little. Note the time of signing: December 1994. A little more than a year before, Yeltsin triumphantly won by shooting the opposition from tanks, and the euphoria is not over yet. It's still a long way to the 1996 election, when difficulties will suddenly come out of all the cracks. Their nuclear missiles in bulk — the presence or absence of a nuclear arsenal, even if the nearest neighbor, does not change much. “The war with Ukraine” does not even pull an anecdote — this, in principle, cannot be. But “good friends from the West” asked — and the Russian president respected. So the main engines of the entire operation to rid Ukraine of nuclear weapons were the United States and Great Britain. The strategists of Washington and London reasoned much more far-sighted than inexperienced post-Soviet leaders. The main reason lay on the surface: the fewer countries have nuclear weapons, the better — there is less temptation to use them. Besides, for Russians, Ukraine was a kind of, as they would say now, “comical” country of Gogol's characters. With pastoral Ukrainians, wrapping dumplings in sour cream under a pickled gorilka, with a funny devil in a blacksmith's bag and divchins dancing in meadows in flower wreaths to charming Ukrainian songs. Historians of the rest of the world knew this territory as a long-standing hotbed of instability and a place of regular slaughter. The descendants of immigrants who fled the pogroms, who got jobs in the US State Department, as well as well-educated British parliamentarians, did not need to be reminded about the native Ukrainian Khmelnichina, Koliivshchyna, Petliura and, by historical standards, the very recent adventures of Bandera. No one wanted a new “monkey with a grenade”. The grenade should have been carefully removed, having exchanged it with the holder for sweets and compliments to her beauty and intelligence. But there were also hidden springs. About them below, but first let's finally read the text of the memorandum carefully. Behind the verbal nonsense like “welcoming Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, we will highlight the main point under No. 2: “The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America confirm their commitment to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and that none of their weapons will ever They will be used against Ukraine, except in self-defense or in any other way in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” Diplomatic formulations have, as you know, many gradations. They can be as hard as steel or, on the contrary, hazy and vague. It was possible to choose: from the brutal “firmly guarantee“ to the old-fashioned ”forever and ever not to violate." In this case, the text sounds almost ironic. The signatory countries undertake only... to abstain! (And this is not a quirk of translation, in the English text it is the same — to refrain). Most of all, this reminds the doctor's advice to the patient — to “abstain” from alcohol, for example. That is, if possible, try not to drink. But if you really want to — a couple of glasses won't hurt, right? The simplified wording of the “promises" is supplemented by conditions under which even abstinence is not required. It turns out that it is not only impossible, but on the contrary, it is very possible to encroach on Ukrainian territory for the good purposes of “self-defense or in any other way in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” And in the UN Charter, there have always been enough cases when it is possible and necessary to send troops into a kind of sovereign country. The implementation of the genocide of national minorities, for example. “Neither katsap, nor Jew, nor lyakh" — remember the main Bandera slogan? Well, that's just it — genocide. And not only its presence, but also the very threat of its appearance is a legitimate pretext for invasion. “They are about to start another mass massacre - how many of them have already been there! We urgently need to save the unfortunate!”By the way, on the third day after the victory of the Maidan, the Crimean Tatars-Mejlis members have already held a training Russian pogrom. Two Russians, Igor Postny and Valentina Korneva, were stabbed to death in Simferopol on February 26, and they were killed precisely “by nationality.” And if the “polite people” had not entered urgently, the account of those killed would have gone to at least dozens. So we will have to upset the opponents of the return of Crimea — the entry into de jure Ukrainian territory took place in full compliance with the Budapest Memorandum. Which Ukrainians also signed. Do you remember even BEFORE the Crimea moved to Russia, the "friendship trains" and "friendship buses" from Ukraine, completely packed with Ukrainian nationalists? This is precisely the threat of genocide. Of course, Ukraine was also given guarantees of assistance in case of an attack on its territory — how can it be without this! In paragraph 4, the partners: “... confirm their commitment to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council to assist Ukraine as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the event that Ukraine becomes a victim of an act of aggression or the object of a threat of aggression with the use of nuclear weapons.” Therefore, they can only help in a nuclear conflict. In the absence of it — sort it out, they say, yourself. Everything is logical, Ukraine is losing its nuclear arsenal, it seems to have plenty of conventional weapons at the time of signing. The future sale doesn't count. In the last, 6th paragraph of the memorandum, the final apotheosis of the entire document looks like a frank mockery. The accomplice countries undertake to “consult in the event of a situation affecting the issue of these obligations"! That is, there are zero real actions, but to talk and “express concern” is as much as you want. These are the realities of international guarantees of Ukraine's territorial integrity. Under whom were the points of the Budapest Memorandum prescribed, and who was subsequently planned to be the beneficiary of the entire process of disarmament of Ukraine? Clearly not Russia. Under Yeltsin, no one hoped for its revival, moreover, no one was even afraid of it. Further disintegration was expected. The most obvious contender for most of the failed state Ukraine is, of course, Poland. It was to her that most of the territory of the former Soviet republic was to be transferred. What there were even some precedents in history, when “Polish lords ruled the Ukrainian cattle.” Another small part is Hungary, and a small piece is Romania. Everything is fair: the last two countries would get back exactly those territories that were torn away from them and incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR by Stalin. Khrushchev's gift of Crimea could have gone to Turkey, in case of its “good behavior” (few people foresaw bad at that time either). Everything would have happened in full accordance with the document signed in Budapest: another mess would have started in Kiev (the word "Maidan" had not yet come into use), "real" Ukrainians would have beaten several Poles, and Tatars would have been looted in the Crimea — that's the desired conditions for the entry of troops. It remained only to wait a little for the imminent degradation of the Ukrainian government. But the subsequent history developed according to this scenario only partially. Ukraine is expected to roll downhill. But Russia suddenly took off and, having recovered a little from the shocks, began to look around, and by 2014 it had already become so comfortable that it was able to quickly and bloodlessly regain Crimea. The most interesting thing, however, is that today the Budapest Memorandum has not lost its relevance at all. The division of Ukraine programmed in it is waiting in the wings. And the general concept has not changed. Only the emphasis has shifted significantly from Poland to Russia. It is to her that most of it will go. But, of course, Poland, Hungary and even Romania should get their share. Instead of the expected “Russian aggression”, which the Western media are tirelessly clamoring about, there will be a neat division of an increasingly degraded territory. With Russia at the head, but also with the active participation of three member states of the European Union and NATO, whose peoples have long been waiting for the return of their ancestral lands. Actually, now we are talking not so much about the theoretical possibility of such a scenario, as about its particulars. They are trying to limit Russia in advance in appetites, so that the Russian bear, who has been walking too far in recent years, would not have thought of taking over the entire territory of the ex-Ukrainian SSR in general, without sharing it with neighbors."

[August]

wOt?

[Skybird]

[kpv1974]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Well I see persistent humor hath moved you...sllghtly. Now get diggin" that shelter before we lose our favorite leftist propagandist who gives us ignorant rightwing boors precious insight into true Kremlin moronthology as espoused by that 21 century Peter the Grate! I'd presume it will be wider; enough to fit U since getting fattened up by peasant Czechs with 'clean' turnips!

what am I promoting?
Russia is good and the West is bad?
Because I don't quote BBC or CNN?
Can I cite other sources as an example?
So the BBC and SNN, too, are not the ultimate truth.
Do you think they will not create the desired picture?
Do you really believe in the independence of the media.
Such media simply does not exist.

no matter how you have to dig a bomb shelter.
Be afraid of your desires - sometimes they tend to come true.

[August]

Originally Posted by kpv1974

what am I promoting?
Russia is good and the West is bad?
Because I don't quote BBC or CNN?
Can I cite other sources as an example?
So the BBC and SNN, too, are not the ultimate truth.
Do you think they will not create the desired picture?
Do you really believe in the independence of the media.
Such media simply does not exist.

Certainly not in a country like russia where they imprison anyone who speaks against its warmongering.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by kpv1974

Do you really believe in the independence of the media.
Such media simply does not exist.

There are countries where the press is controlled by government and are therefore not free.

The press here in Denmark has some rules they have to follow-Otherwise they are free not controlled by government.

The same goes for media in Sweden and Germany-Have some regulation they must follow otherwise free to write almost what they want.

Markus

[kpv1974]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You know - this is an American song about some kind of farmer (if my memory serves me right). More precisely, a translation of the words of an American song. But the Politburo decided that it was not worth singing about American workers. And the lyrics were changed to this stupid troll. And they called it vocalization. I was at the concert of this artist in 1970 in Evpatoria (Crimea) - Edward Khil.

[kpv1974]

Originally Posted by mapuc

There are countries where the press is controlled by government and are therefore not free.

The press here in Denmark has some rules they have to follow-Otherwise they are free not controlled by government.

The same goes for media in Sweden and Germany-Have some regulation they must follow otherwise free to write almost what they want.

Markus

I do not read the state media - they always lie there.

[kpv1974]

Originally Posted by August

Certainly not in a country like russia where they imprison anyone who speaks against its warmongering.

The judicial system of St. Petersburg issued the first decision on the claim of a mobilized citizen, the United Press Service of the Courts of St. Petersburg reported. He failed to challenge the mobilization call.


The Petersburger, in his statement of claim, asked the court to recognize the summons to the military registration and enlistment office illegal, to invalidate the decision of the military registration and enlistment office on his mobilization, and also to replace his military service with an alternative civilian service, since, according to the plaintiff, military service is contrary to his convictions.

The Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg considered Berezin's administrative claim and denied all of his claims to the plaintiff.

Recall that, according to the law, alternative civilian service in certain cases can only be assigned to a conscript subject to military service, but does not apply to cases of mobilization of citizens liable for military service.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by mapuc

There are countries where the press is controlled by government and are therefore not free.

The press here in Denmark has some rules they have to follow-Otherwise they are free not controlled by government.

The same goes for media in Sweden and Germany-Have some regulation they must follow otherwise free to write almost what they want.

Markus

The press in the USA is an arm of the democratic party, just like the FBI.