Lotta
peopleblue checkmarks repeating "flagrant violation of international law" as if there's any set precedent or hard rule for how a nation-state is made. It's not always signatures and polite handshakes fellas, it's all about authority and the ability to wield that authority in defense of any claims you've staked.I'm not wholly in agreement with Putin on this, as it's basically a carte blanche for invasion in all but name on the basis of defending the LPR and DPR from Ukraine, but someone's gonna have to back down and it ain't gonna be Putin.
I mean not mentioning that the Ukraine was always in violation of international law by declaring it will never follow the Minsk agreements, and have been launching attacks and skirmishes against the breakaway oblasts for like the past 8 years, it's obviously Russia's fault
God Clinton must be thinking blowback fuckin sucks after refusing to let Russia into nato
Ukraine was always in violation of international law
Yep, and the whole time they were crowing about how they didn't have to follow Minsk because the breakaway regions were themselves violating "international law". Ukraine, buddy, if you can't retake your lost territory by force or treaty it's no longer yours, no matter how much you whine about it.
idk about that last part. wouldn't that be true of, say, Israel and Palestine?
political power is like a barrel full of crackers
oh wait same :same-picture: sorry
I was honestly shocked to find out Russia hadn't recognized LPR and DPR before now. The timing of this is really awkward and makes it look like he's doing exactly what he's doing, just begging to be called out on it. But this is probably the best case scenario-- Ukraine hasn't controlled those regions in nearly a decade, and if Russia stops right at the border of the separatist regions major war should be completely avoided, as long as the Ukrainian Nazi brigades don't try to Rambo the land back
You have to keep in mind that Putin isn't in charge of a Borg-like hivemind with him on top, he has to appease some internal Russian actors too. A lot of important actors in Russia probably felt like they should be getting something out of this whole mess.
Why do you think war would be avoided?
NATO will now pump Ukraine full of everything under the sun when it comes to weapons.
They were holding back before. This is not going to end except in an even hotter civil war.
What makes you think they were holding back? I assumed NATO was going to continue to pump Ukraine up regardless of what Russia did.
NATO is holding back because the US aren't the only ones in charge, and after the shit show in Afghanistan most NATO partners don't trust the US.
If Putin continues down this path he will lose any sort of semblance of sanity from Germany and France when it comes to European NATO expansion.
NATO is shit and all, but Putin is not a master genius or a hero here. Putin will likely force NATO's European leadership into full-tilt brinkmanship along the entire Russian border.
NATO was already aggressing lol. They're very clearly attempting to place Russia in a position of either pulling back entirely or stepping in as the Minsk II agreement is ignored and Ukraine continues shelling.
"Holding back" only applies in the sense that they wanted to have propaganda efforts in place for how they weren't doing any of those things, walking a thin line bordering on the absurd. They will continue to do the exact same things.
Putin is doing this now to show that the diplomatic framework of the Minsk agreements isn't worth keeping after attempts at diplomacy using that framework have failed.
There are alternatives than stanning for Biden or Putin on the Ukraine crisis.
Neither leader has the Ukrainian people's interests at heart.
Consider the overwhelming cultural similarity between Russians and Ukrainians and the complete lack of similarities between Americans and Ukrainians
Also consider the power balance in the world: America is like 3x more powerful than Russia geopolitically. To say literally "neither Washington nor Moscow" is to support Washington implicitly: neutrality is nothing more than supporting the winning side
I'm sorry, but not supporting Russia in escalating a civil war is not supporting the United States implicitly.
Cultural similarity isn't a reason to invade a country.
Well there is the Minsk deal as an alternative diplomatic solution and route thats already signed by Ukraine. Oh wait they shitted every day for the last 7 years ? Nevertheless
Yeah. This is literally an escalation by fascists. Hilarious to see libs bending over backwards to justify more blood for the military.
A reading of the timeline would make this better described as a response to escalation.
If you watch a bully beat up a kid and pledge neutrality, who are you really supporting? If you watch the kid fight back and condemn the kid's actions, who are you really supporting?
You also can't describe this conflict as if it's just Great Man Theory lol.
Remember the fucking fall of the USSR and the crimes, atrocities that followed. Russia is the little kid fighting back against the bully in every shape and form. You condemn Russia because they are giving America a bloody nose, after Russia was raped (both figuratively and literally), torn apart, and dismantled. America deserves no influence, no influence at all in Eastern Europe.
Again, analogies don't work for this.
What exactly are you talking about?
"Analogies don't work for this"
Give me a fucking reason why the analogy of bully vs victim doesn't work here. Give me an actual argument rather than plain assertions.
Explain to me why Russia isn't the bullied here. America literally tried to dismantle Russia in its entirety. Russia is simply taking back what was once theirs.
Do you not know anything about the fall of the USSR? Do you not know about the Russian cross? Do you not know about anything related to Eastern Europe? I suggest you look at a map of the world before declaring that Russia is no more fit to influence Ukraine than America, halfway across the world.
There is no reason for America to be in Eastern Europe at all. Period. Asserting otherwise means you are supporting American imperialism. And if you do, you are no comrade of mine.
Honestly, Russia officially allying/occupying DNR/LNR would at least mean people there can live their lives without daily ceasefire violations.
In terms of regular life, I think this is the most peaceful outcome.
Who gets to decide if this is Russian occupation vs actual peacekeeping? DNR/LNR are both Russian speaking countries that have under attack by Ukrainian neo-nazis for almost a decade.
Same kind of peacekeeping the US engages in without any international support?
I don't think I understand what you meant, could you explain? Are you saying the US should decide?
Earlier the Ukrainians sent mercenary forces on recon onto Russian soil, they're literally asking to get denazified.
And Ukraines already denying they tried that lol. Like where'd the 2 destroyed vehicles and 5 dead bodies come from then? Space?
Ukraine could try, but they already got slapped in 2014, don't think the comedian is that suicidal, especially his citizens and the Ukraine economy is in shamble. Likely going down proxy war with Ukraine Nazi back by the west against the two republic back by Russia
Can't wait for the Nazi Arming and Training Organization to come out with "there is only one Ukraine and the Donbass is an inseparable part of Ukraine. Anyway, hands off Taiwan Xinnie!"
The United States recognizes Juan Guaido as the rightful President of a unified Ukraine.
When will hex bear twitter recognize the sovereignty of the LPR and DPR? :sicko-hexbear:
it was going to happen eventually, Putin probably made it to slow down the escalation in the ukranian conflict, because now Russia can claim to act in defence of the separatist republics when they get bombed again
this is going to make the ukraine want to join Nato more
They can't though, as long as there's territory conflict, they'll not able to join NATO. By doing this, Russia cut off path for them to join unless they retake them back.
Is the provision that NATO can't admit members who have a border conflict real? I just heard that from a podcast about the russo-georgian war which I don't take as authoritative. If this was really true, then was Ukrainian membership ever a possibility since they don't recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea? It seems like a cut and dry case of "no NATO for you". Why was both sides of this debate ever taking this seriously?
States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.
Interesting...so...Spain and the UK can't be in NATO, because Gibraltar?
Like any other part of international law, it's mostly just a rule that is kept as long as it's convenient for the real powers. If you start looking at it as a natural law of the universe, it falls apart pretty quickly, so instead try to think of it as an american traffic law instead. It theoretically applies to everyone, however de facto it doesn't.
Nato invited Ukraine, who said they would join, and now NATO doesn't make it official.
"Ukraine, youre invited to the party but we won't give you the address." Makes sense.
America didn't like it when Cuba had missiles, why the fuck would Russia want the same shit near them? It's just more American hypocrisy.
Will Biden recognize the freedom of all nation's to join the Axis of Evil?
It's a really clever move, diplomatically. Now he can say he's protecting the sovereignty of Donetsk and Luhansk to counter the western claims that he's threatening Ukrainian sovereignty.
this is going to make the ukraine want to join Nato more
What Ukraine wants doesn't really matter to Russia or to America, unfortunately. It hasn't for a long time.
LPR and DPR are in the far east of Ukraine, and have a large entholinguistically Russian population who tend to be more friendly toward Russia than the West (a political hot topic in Ukraine, as you may imagine). Ukraine has been shelling these regions in spite of a ceasefire signed in 2015.
Putin has used the situation to talk up defending these people which has played well to his base (I'm not going to assume any particular altruistic motive to him come to their defense). This is where things started picking up a few weeks back although Western media has left out everything I've said up to this point and is acting like Putin wants to invade the entirety of Ukraine for no particular reason.
Today's development of recognizing the independence of these regions is another escalation on Putin's part, since they're claiming the territory as independent ("not Ukraine")
The situation in LPR and DPR is America's fault
Source: you just know :amerikkka:
Did Putin take the NATO bait with the recognition of the Donbass republics? The reasoning seems rather rash and emotional and brings us closer to war.
On the other hand, Russia has met next to no understanding for their concerns and the Ukraine has blatantly ignored the Minsk agreement for years so short of capitulation there was little Russia could do. Still, this is going to make things worse for all parties economically and military.
So, anyway, assuming LPR/DPR decision holds for the forseeable future, I think this will mean mainland Ukraine will be joining NATO pretty fuckin sharpish. Not sure whose own-goal this is, but I don't see that as especially advantageous for Russia.
They could just change the rules. The rules don't really matter, either, obviously.
Because rules aren’t just an abstract cudgel for the ruling class that can be tossed away whenever convenient
I mean normally sure, but they’ll need other members to agree on rule changes and exemptions. I don’t think it will bode well for NATO if the US decided to take charge of accepting Ukraine while other countries are hesitant.
“Given the extraordinary circumstances, a majority of NATO member countries have agreed that in this unprecedented situation, Ukrainian membership to NATO must be granted not despite its conflict status, but because of it. Russian aggression and destabilization must be countered, for the good of the Ukrainian people.” — there, done. Problem solved. Rules mean nothing
The point of having Ukraine in NATO in the first place would be to legitimise war with Russia. An illegitimate entry of Ukraine into NATO would delegitimise the war in the eyes of the public.
Right, this would only work if the Ukrainian govt recognizes the LPR and DPR
won't happen, see georgia, it will block any accession to nato
