Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 2

a reply to: Cutepants

So when Ukraine tried to enslave Donbas where were you calling for supporting Donbas.

Ukraine called for genociding them. It think there is some charter or agreement saying nations are obligated to step in at that point.

There is just far too much hypocrisy going on for me to agree with your reasoning.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Iraq was also a soverign nation. The justification for invading it was fabricated.

The topic here is Russia and their belligerence and brutality focussed on the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

Are you able to agree Ukraine is a sovereign nation? Maybe start at the beginning.

Sovereign:

a: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty

b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere

c: an acknowledged leader : ARBITER

Were they sovereign during the past 8 years of political and civil strife?

Were they sovereign before and/or after the 2014 coup?

Were they sovereign when they were killing their own civilian citizens?

The willful ignorance on display would be laughable if it werent also so sad.

Any actual sovereign nation should be steering well clear of this war. Many of us know however why Biden has such incentives.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Well I don't see Donbas people as a nation of their own. Aren't they mostly just Ukrainians and Russians?

Ukraine didn't call for genociding them, that's stupid. But what do you mean you can't agree with my reasoning because of hypocrisy? Why does it prevent you from agreeing with my reasoning in particular?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ukraine never did that so please provide your evidence supporting your claim.

Also using your, and several others logic, Russia had absolutely no right to invade Chechnya. Care to explain the difference?

I help some people out - there is no difference other than the fact Russia is the one doing it. The fake Republics were never sovereign and Ukraine had every right to put down an insurrection (courtesy of Russia). Just as Russia had every right to put down an insurrection in Chechnya.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Grimpachi

Well I don't see Donbas people as a nation of their own. Aren't they mostly just Ukrainians and Russians?

Ukraine didn't call for genociding them, that's stupid. But what do you mean you can't agree with my reasoning because of hypocrisy? Why does it prevent you from agreeing with my reasoning in particular?

Genocide was the lie Russia used to justify their bs invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Ambassador to the UN repeated that lie to the UNSC and said evidence would be provided.

Russia never provided any evidence at all and as a matter of fact we are still waiting for it.

a reply to: Cutepants

I see Donbas as their own nation. After the coupe the government was illegitimate. People voted for a leader and instead they had one installed by a fringe group and our government. They had every right to split away from it not be enslaved by them.

My own country came into being because of taxation without representation. The founders also had to fight for it.

The president of Ukraine installed made speeches about how the children of Donbas would have to hide in cellars from bombs while theirs went to school. Their national TV would have people speak about doing away with the entire section of the population. They said it was cruel but necessary. During this war on their national TV they talked about killing all the children while quoting a WW2 Nazi.

You can try to excuse it, ignore it but it happened and they were certainly set on genociding them. The 8 years of Ukraine targeting civilians is proof enough.

a reply to: Grimpachi

That's nice but it is not how things work and you know this. Russia is the only country to recognize the 2 fake Republics.


UN - recognition of a new country

About UN Membership
How does a country become a Member of the United Nations?

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
How does a new State or Government obtain recognition by the United Nations?

The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.

The procedure is briefly as follows:

* - The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
* - The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.
* - If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.
* - Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

At each session, the General Assembly considers the credentials of all representatives of Member States participating in that session. During such consideration, which routinely takes place first in the nine-member Credentials Committee but can also arise at other times, the issue can be raised whether a particular representative has been accredited by the Government actually in power. This issue is ultimately decided by a majority vote in the Assembly. It should be noted that the normal change of Governments, as through a democratic election, does not raise any issues concerning the credentials of the representative of the State concerned.

The fake Republics will not be recognized by any country that matters, nor will any territorial gains made by Russia.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Grimpachi

there is no difference other than the fact Russia is the one doing it.

At least you are finally admitting it.

Except there are a couple differences from what they are doing and what we have done all across the world.

They were actually threatened and the problem was right on their border. They didn't need to travel to the other side of the world.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ah, the UN. It is a good thing that wasn't around when the US was formed. I doubt they would have agreed.

So what is it? Is the UN a joke that we shouldn't be beholden to or is it a necessity with all-mighty power? They seem to be both it just depends on if we like what they say.

The world is on the cusp right now and we may not like how things turn out in the end.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
At least you are finally admitting it.

No I am calling you and Russia out. Chechnya declared their independence from Russia and Russia still invaded - why? You are desperately trying to downplay / ignore / somehow change the narrative with what Russia did in Chechnya because it destroys your argument for Russia in Ukraine. If Russia had every right to invade a breakaway region of Russia then Ukraine has every right to invade and retake the 2 breakaway regions in Ukraine.

Secondly Putin just came out and said he is only doing what Peter the Great did - seizing territory and nothing else.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander eh?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Except there are a couple differences from what they are doing and what we have done all across the world.

No, really there is not. Like I said you are going to try verbal gymnastics to somehow excuse what Russia is doing while ignoring Chechnya - Gee, I wonder why.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
They were actually threatened and the problem was right on their border. They didn't need to travel to the other side of the world.

No, they were not threatened. Like I said - verbal gymnastics. Russia and the US share a border. I guess the US has every right to act in Russia because of how unpredictable a nuclear armed Putin is.

See how that works...

a reply to: Grimpachi

No I am showing you the steps a "new" country must take for international recognition. The 2 fakes Republics wont be recognized.. Just like Abkhazia and S. Ossetia arent recognized as sovereign countries and wont be.

By the way what you just did with the UN post is in fact called deflection.

You have been called out numerous times for doing that in your defense of Russia. Tell us, what part of Moscow do you call home?

a reply to: Grimpachi

OK, I was honestly hoping we'd agree about the nationhood of Donbas at least, but then we need to take a step back and ask what your criteria are for that? What is a nation for you?

The idea that America installed a leader is fake. But I'm surprised by your naivety if you think Russia honestly wants Donbas to be sovereign but not Ukraine? Like, a tiny area in between what they view as different regions of Russia. They'd have way better chances of independence as part of Ukraine.

My own country came into being because of taxation without representation. The founders also had to fight for it.

What's your general philosophy, do you think we should support any group that wants to break away from a state? I don't necessarily think that's wrong, but it's impractical in the same way anarchism is.

You can try to excuse it, ignore it but it happened and they were certainly set on genociding them. The 8 years of Ukraine targeting civilians is proof enough.

No need to excuse something that didn't happen. I'm honestly worried about your mental health, you spend so much time reading about this you might actually start believing it.

a reply to: Cutepants

You have a pm.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You bring up Chechnya all the time. In the past, you have falsely claimed I held positions on it or supported it.

Here is the thing. I don't know jack about Chechnya and I certainly don't trust what you claim about it after you have slandered me over it.

In fact, you never once asked me what I knew about it.

One day maybe I will look up what happened but until then you can stop lying and claiming I expressed or hold some position about it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

and once again you are a liar because I never made such a comment about you and Chechnya. What I did ask is how much you get paid by the Kremlin.

I dont bring up Chechnya all the time. This is only like the second time it was brought up and just like the first time you try to ignore it because it destroys your position on Donbas, Ukraine and Russia.

As far as asking you questions your the one who threatened me about asking if the youtube account named Grim was you. Youtried telling me it was a violation of ATS T&C when it wasnt as nothing personal was requested.

As far as your claim you dont know jack about Chechnya - thats nothing but a convenient way for you to deflect. You said that because, as I stated, it completely destroys your position on Ukraine, Donbas and Russia.

Maybe you should try and learn something instead of deflecting.

a reply to: Cutepants

OK, I was honestly hoping we'd agree about the nationhood of Donbas at least, but then we need to take a step back and ask what your criteria are for that? What is a nation for you?

The idea that America installed a leader is fake. But I'm surprised by your naivety if you think Russia honestly wants Donbas to be sovereign but not Ukraine? Like, a tiny area in between what they view as different regions of Russia. They'd have way better chances of independence as part of Ukraine.

23.02.2014 – Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Ukr Parliament) announces that the Russian language will no longer have the status of a regional language (prior to that Russian could be used for documentation and meetings in the local councils and local authorities where historically that was the language of everyday communication and use)

29.08.2015 – Ukrainian national passports will no longer have a page with the passport holder’s details in Russian (prior to that in both languages)

16.06.2016 – Introduction of quotas for radio and TV (25% for programs in Russian)

05.09.2017 – Use of the Russian Language is banned in the sphere of education

25.04.2019 – All civil servants, staff in shops and services, education, health care and culture will no longer use Russian when doing their jobs. All cultural events will be conducted only in Ukrainian.

25.04.2019 – All websites and social media pages will be in Ukrainian or will be duplicated.

16.04.2020 – All advertisements will be in Ukrainian.

16.07.2020 – All scientific (including medical research) will be published only in Ukrainian and/or English.

16.07.2020 – Transport navigation will be in Ukrainian.

06.07.2020 - «There are aspects, like the language aspect, that are principal for the state. We cannot have Russian as the second state language because no one should know the Russian language.’ – announced the Secretary for the National Security Council (Mr Danilov)

16.01.2021 – All businesses will use only Ukrainian including online shops.

16.07.2021 – A mandatory Ukrainian language exam is introduced for all civil servants.

16.07.2021 – Tour guiding and excursions will be only in Ukrainian (apart from those for foreign tourists)

16.07.2021 – Not less than 50% books sold should be in Ukrainian

16.07.2021 – All movies and films will be in Ukrainian only

16.01.2022 – Quotas are introduced for printed press

16.04.2022 – A proposal that in those schools where Russian is still taught as a subject, this has to be replaced.

25.05.2022 – Ukrainian institute for books will take out of circulation/access 100 mln books including Russian classical literature, fairy-tales etc

Hopefully, that fixes some of your naivety

What's your general philosophy, do you think we should support any group that wants to break away from a state? I don't necessarily think that's wrong, but it's impractical in the same way anarchism is.

I say an illegitimate government is reason enough to break away.

Let't imagine Jan 6 had been a real insurrection and they had succeded. IMO any state that had broken away after would have every right to.

Let's flip it and it had been found that the election was proven beyond all doubt to be fraudulent and Biden kept power.

Again, IMO any state that had broken away after would have every right to.


Would you disagree with that? If not then why?

No need to excuse something that didn't happen. I'm honestly worried about your mental health, you spend so much time reading about this you might actually start believing it.

Everything I stated is a matter of record. On video. In fact, I have saved some of those videos.

You are not just ignoring it you are denying the facts that anyone can take the time to verfy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and once again you are a liar because I never made such a comment about you and Chechnya.

Lie

In fact, last time you did it I called you out on it.

You could have taken a lot of different approaches but you decided to flat-out lie.

This is only like the second time it was brought up and just like the first time you try to ignore it because it destroys your position on Donbas

Now you dive right back into lying about what I know after I just stated that I don't know jack about Chechnya.

You are a habitual liar.

As far as your claim you dont know jack about Chechnya - thats nothing but a convenient way for you to deflect. You said that because, as I stated, it completely destroys your position on Ukraine, Donbas and Russia.

Lie number 3 in a single post.

Find a single post of mine anywhere on these boards where I claimed to know something about the situation in Chechnya.

You will not find one but my guess is you won't even look and instead you make some weak excuse for not looking.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Hopefully, that fixes some of your naivety

Please, you don't need to spam the thread. Isn't all that common knowledge by now? In fact the language issues would only have made it easier for Russian-speaking minorities to strengthen their separate identity and get support in Europe. Do you honestly think this has any chance of happening if they're under Russian control? Your average Russians would just be totally confused at best, why would Russian-speakers want to break away?

I say an illegitimate government is reason enough to break away.

Let't imagine Jan 6 had been a real insurrection and they had succeded. IMO any state that had broken away after would have every right to.

Let's flip it and it had been found that the election was proven beyond all doubt to be fraudulent and Biden kept power.

Again, IMO any state that had broken away after would have every right to.


Would you disagree with that? If not then why?

Why did you avoid answering my question? Do you think all aspiring nations should be supported?

I neither agree nor disagree with what you wrote, because I don't think the success of an insurrection or the legitimacy of an election affects the right to break away. It can be part of the motivations for people to get involved. But I can't really imagine a scenario where it would be wrong and then suddenly right only because an insurrection happened.

a reply to: Cutepants

Please, you don't need to spam the thread. Isn't all that common knowledge by now? In fact the language issues would only have made it easier for Russian-speaking minorities to strengthen their separate identity and get support in Europe. Do you honestly think this has any chance of happening if they're under Russian control? Your average Russians would just be totally confused at best, why would Russian-speakers want to break away?

You thought that is common knowledge?
You think that banning the Russian language that is part of their identity one piece at a time is for their own good? That is simply delusional. To top it off you insult Russian speaker's intelligence.

Sounds like Western European snobbery to me.

I neither agree nor disagree with what you wrote, because I don't think the success of an insurrection or the legitimacy of an election affects the right to break away.

We fundamentally disagree right there. No one needs to be subject to an illegitimate government. That is a hill I will die on.