Posted on 03/13/2022 7:54:25 AM PDT by McGruff
They've said that Nazis have a lot of influence in Ukraine. (which they do). They have not said the entire Ukrainian government is a Nazi government or that Zelensky is.
Russia has said they will “wipe out” the Nazis in Ukraine. By extension, those who support the Ukrainian government will be see as Nazis, as well. It’s Russian logic.
What you claim is their "logic" they have not said. In fact, they went out of their way not to cause mass casualties among Ukrainian troops early on. For example, they could have hit their barracks with cruise missiles first thing. They didn't.
But, you are on record advocating for Ukraine’s surrender, and thus its elimination as an independent nation
Another false assumption on your part. The terms they have offered definitely would not eliminate Ukraine as an independent nation. They require it to recognize the independence of the two eastern provinces Luhansk and Donetsk, recognize Crimea as part of Russia, get rid of the Nazis - like the Azov Battalion which is part of the Ukrainian military - and to be neutral. Austria and Finland had similar terms imposed on them in the past. They are independent nations.
“Another false assumption on your part. The terms they have offered definitely would not eliminate Ukraine as an independent nation. They require it to recognize the independence of the two eastern provinces Luhansk and Donetsk, recognize Crimea as part of Russia, get rid of the Nazis - like the Azov Battalion which is part of the Ukrainian military - and to be neutral. Austria and Finland had similar terms imposed on them in the past. They are independent nations.”
First: Russia has demanded that the present Ukrainian government be removed (Russia wants to install a puppet who defers to Moscow); that is hardly independent.
Second: Russia calls on Ukraine to forever give up any claim to Crimea; Russia calls for the independence of Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic, with a referendum from the rest of the Donbas to align with Russia. In other words, Russia calls on Ukraine to give up its entire eastern territory as well as the crucial Crimean Peninsula.
Third: Russia calls for the demilitarization of the “rest” of Ukraine (i.e., that part of Ukraine that will be controlled by the puppwet government).
Fourth: Red herring re: Austria and Finland. Austria was never part of Russia and was neutral from the end of WWI until it was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, and ceased exist as a nation (the area that was formerly known as Austria was called Ostmark). At the conclusion of WWII the Anschluss and Ostmaerk were rendered null and void and Austria resurfaced, but under the control of the four Allied powers (US, UK, France, and USSR). A few years later Austria recovered its independence. It has a military, but is not a member of NATO. Finland has been independent for over 100 years. During WWII it briefly aligned with Nazi Germany, and fought against Russia, and later, against Germany. For a brief period USSR tried to install a puppet government in Finland, but it was short-lived. It has remained neutral, but is pro-West, and has recently announced its desire to join NATO.
This would be the reverse of the "Maidan revolution" when the US/Globalists overthrew a democratically elected Ukrainian government in a color revolution and did so via constitutionally highly dubious means. It wouldn't be a "puppet" any more than Zelensky is a "puppet" of the US.
Second: Russia calls on Ukraine to forever give up any claim to Crimea; Russia calls for the independence of Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic, with a referendum from the rest of the Donbas to align with Russia. In other words, Russia calls on Ukraine to give up its entire eastern territory as well as the crucial Crimean Peninsula.
Crimea was given from Russia to Ukraine by the Ukrainian Nikita Kruschov in the 1950s. There was never any referendum held. Nobody asked the locals what they wanted. That, and the composition of the eastern part of Ukraine never mattered when it was part of the Russian Empire or the later Soviet Union. As a newly independent country however, the Ukrainian government....the one that came in after the Maidan Revolution overthrew a democratically elected government backed by the Russian speaking east of Ukraine...incorporated the ultranationalist and openly Nazi Azov Battalion. It recognized Bandera as a national hero - a guy who was a Nazi collaborator during WWII. It passed discriminatory laws against the speaking of Russian. When Luhansk and Donetsk declared independence, it tried to suppress this by violence.
Even after agreeing to a more loose federal structure that would have granted much more autonomy to those two regions in the Minsk agreement in 2015, it basically ignored that agreement. Zelensky - who was heavily backed by George Soros - got elected promising peace and tolerance. Then immediately started military attacking those two regions. They had in fact shelled those regions 2,000 times right before the Russian invasion. If a plebiscite were held there or in the Donbas, which way do you think the people would vote? There was a plebiscite in Crimea. They voted over 90% to join Russia. That's hardly surprising given that those people are Russians. The same would happen in the Donbas. Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
Russia calls for the demilitarization of the “rest” of Ukraine (i.e., that part of Ukraine that will be controlled by the government elected by actual Ukrainians).
FIFY
Fourth: Red herring re: Austria and Finland.
Its not a red herring at all - and I'm quite well aware of the histories of Finland and Austria. What matters about these countries is that they were A) Neutral and B) did not have governments that were openly hostile to Moscow. That does not mean they were controlled by Moscow. That does not mean their governments were puppets of Moscow. It means they were non aligned buffer states. By the terms offered to the Ukrainian government, that is obviously Moscow's intention with Ukraine. They are not seeking to annihilate Ukraine as an independent country. They are not seeking to reabsorb it into a reconstituted Soviet Union. They are seeking to neutralize it....it make it a buffer state between them and NATO. Given the reality of living next door to a major power, Kiev should accept those terms - just as Cuba accepted that the US could insist they would not host Soviet missiles. Ukraine can keep its independence just as Cuba kept its independence.
“This would be the reverse of the “Maidan revolution” when the US/Globalists overthrew a democratically elected Ukrainian government in a color revolution and did so via constitutionally highly dubious means.”
The Maidan Revolution was the Ukrainian people — who wanted closer ties to the West and the EU, which was approved by the Ukrainian parliament — rising up against the Yanukovych government, which opposed ties to the West and instead promoted pro-Russian alignment in a Eurasian Economic Union. Yeah, I can see why you oppose a popular plebiscite, as that flies in the face of Russian authoritarianism.
“Crimea was given from Russia to Ukraine by the Ukrainian Nikita Kruschov in the 1950s. There was never any referendum held. Nobody asked the locals what they wanted.”
Actually, it was the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet that transferred Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic. Kruschev was the Soviet premier, but the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet was Kliment Voroshilov.
“(Moscow is) not seeking to annihilate Ukraine as an independent country.”
Tell that to the Ukrainian people; I think they would disagree with you.
“(It is) not seeking to reabsorb it into a reconstituted Soviet Union.”
Your hero Vlad would disagree with you.
“(It is) seeking to neutralize it....make it a buffer state between them and NATO.”
Which is was before Russia invaded it.
“Given the reality of living next door to a major power, Kiev should accept those terms - just as Cuba accepted that the US could insist they would not host Soviet missiles.”
Cuba had absolutely nothing to say about it; that call was strictly the USSR’s.
“Ukraine can keep its independence just as Cuba kept its independence.”
As a Russian satellite.
Oh please. It was a CIA/State Department operation. Everybody knows it. That conversation between Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine that was leaked makes that abundantly clear. Oh and I don't oppose a popular plebiscite. You have that exactly backwards.
Actually, it was the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet that transferred Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic. Kruschev was the Soviet premier, but the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet was Kliment Voroshilov.
Kruschov was the head honcho. He ordered it. The point still stands. It was historically Russian and was filled with Russians. Its no surprise they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
Tell that to the Ukrainian people; I think they would disagree with you.
The same Ukrainian people who were offered terms that fell way short of obliterating Ukraine as an independent sovereign country?
Your hero Vlad would disagree with you.
You obviously haven't followed the news or heard what the proposed terms are. Your hero George Soros tells you all you need to know I guess.
Which is was before Russia invaded it.
The globalists placed their puppet in charge and have continued to ignore the Minsk agreement and shelled Luhansk and Donetsk.
Cuba had absolutely nothing to say about it; that call was strictly the USSR’s.
The US imposed a naval blockade - violating Cuba's national sovereignty. But Cuba is in America's back yard. Get used to it because that's how its going to be. Its the same with every major power.
As a Russian satellite.
Ukraine can be an independent country just like Cuba is independent from America, just like Finland or Austria.
“The US imposed a naval blockade - violating Cuba’s national sovereignty.”
Uh, no. The blockade line (it was a rough oval) was closer to Key West than it was to Cuba. The main quarantine line was hundreds of miles east of Cuba, and ships with non-proscribed cargo were allowed through. The only ships affected were ships approaching the main quarantine line east of Cuba. All ships with proscribed cargo turned back before they reached the quarantine line. No Cuban-flagged or registered vessels were molested. There was no violation of Cuba’s national sovereignty.
Nice try, though. Better luck next time.
“The same Ukrainian people who were offered terms that fell way short of obliterating Ukraine as an independent sovereign country?”
Some terms! Give up a third of your country, demilitarize, surrender your independence, and get a different government or we’ll wipe you out! Yeah, some terms. But exactly the kind of terms pro-Russian trolls like you love.
“Your hero George Soros tells you all you need to know I guess.”
Nice try. I loathe Soros more than I loathe Putin.
uhh Yes. A naval blockade is an act of war. It is a violation of a nation's sovereignty. Stopping another nation's ship on the high seas is an act of war. No country has a "right" to prevent anything from going to another sovereign country.
Nice try, though. Better luck next time.
LOL! I suggest you actually study the law of the sea.
Some terms! Give up a third of your country, demilitarize, surrender your independence, and get a different government or we’ll wipe you out! Yeah, some terms. But exactly the kind of terms pro-Russian trolls like you love.
A part of your country filled with people who do not want to be a part of your country? Nowhere are they told they must surrender their independence. As for trolls, that'd be you. I've been around on this board a helluva lot longer than you have.
Nice try. I loathe Soros more than I loathe Putin.
Then look and see who is backing Zelensky.
“Yes. A naval blockade is an act of war. It is a violation of a nation’s sovereignty. Stopping another nation’s ship on the high seas is an act of war. No country has a “right” to prevent anything from going to another sovereign country.”
A country may legally blockade another country only if it is acting in self-defense, or to maintain international peace, or the U.N. Security Council accepts it. Clearly, with the USSR on the UN Security Council, it would veto any such discussion. Our argument that the quarantine (blockade) was in self-defense and necessary to maintain international peace (i.e., to prevent a global nuclear war) was accepted by the UN, the USSR notwithstanding. So, you have to ask yourself, Why didn’t the UN condemn the US for the blockade? Because it agreed with it.
“Then look and see who is backing Zelensky.”
Pretty much the whole world; except, of course, for Russia, and a handful of Putinistas on FR.
No. Only the establishment in the West. None of the rest of the world took sides or applied any sanctions. Who runs the establishment in the West? Oh.
Tough to call it defensive when we were not at war with Cuba or the Soviet Union and neither had committed an act of war against us. But OK, assuming that argument holds.....not to mention the various US invasions of Latin American countries over the years, how is that logic any different wrt Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine is their backyard every bit as much as the entire western hemisphere is America's back yard. If our actions were "defensive" or "to maintain peace" then they can make the same argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.