Posted on 06/19/2022 5:59:37 PM PDT by entropy12
“There is one card to play here and that is to acknowledge Minsk II. Only one.”
Minsk II was flawed and unworkable, as the three main requirements that were specified were not put in any order (i.e., which would come first, then second, then third). That was a HUGE deal, as one would affect the other, and no one could come to an agreement, so each side claimed the sequence that benefitted itself the best. Minsk II was a rushed attempt to “do something.”
You want Minsk II as Russia wanted it; but not how Ukraine wanted it.
So, let’s look at the controlling LAW that was in play.
Russia and the separatists demanded referenda on autonomy. Ukraine agreed to that, pursuant to and subject to the existing law (i.e., the Ukrainian constitution).
Ukrainian law allowed for autonomy under a UNITED Ukraine. That means, ALL of Ukraine.
That means, by the very language of the Ukrainian Constitution, refereda by ALL Ukrainian citizens, not just a select few.
The Ukrainian Constitution of 1996 specifically set out the law re: autonomy: “According to article 73 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine, and article 3 of the 2012 law on referendums, territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum if all citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote, including those that do not reside in the area.”
So, have the referenda on autonomy, but pursuant to the Ukrainian constitution. But, no; the so-called separatist republics and their sponsor, Russia, rebelled at that; they insisted the referenda could only be put to the people of the affected areas, and not include Ukrainians at large, in contravention of the Ukrainian constitution! Thus, how the separatists and Russia interpreted “referenda for autonomy” was unconstitutional — and thus, illegal — on its face.
The pro-Russia posters here on FR ALWAYS ignore that very pertinent fact.
I knew we were saying the same thing too, but for anyone else following the thread, I wanted to defend the idea of Trump “making it all about himself”. There are a lot of people saying he is wrong to “obsess” over the stolen election, and that he’s too self-absorbed - “making everything about him”.
It’s a mistake for people to view his instinct to counter-punch in a negative way like that. By defending himself, he’s defending us. By demanding justice regarding the impeachment hoaxes and the stolen election, he’s fighting for us.
I really hope he makes the election all about getting to the bottom of the five-year long coup against his Presidency, which culminated in a stolen election and a false flag psy-op of Jan 6th. It’s not a distraction from the Democrats’ crashing economy and foreign policy failures. The policy failures are a direct result of stealing the election - it’s all tied together.
We are definitely on the same page! :)
You’ll have to take that up with Russia because they are prepared to fight and they’ve been saying that clearly for a long time. The way I see it they don’t give a damn what loudmouthed duplicitous Americans have to say about *yet another* disastrous foreign policy adventure thousands of miles from their shores that effect their security concerns.
You can describe things as “pro-russia” or “pro-this” or “pro-that”. I can describe what you are saying is just not knowing right from wrong.
“You can describe things as “pro-russia” or “pro-this” or “pro-that”. I can describe what you are saying is just not knowing right from wrong.”
You can say whatever you like. But if someone habitually posts pro-Russia sentiments, I think it’s a pretty good bet that person is pro-Russia in his or her leanings.
However, right from wrong is purely subjective. Likewise, TRUTH is mostly subjective. What is generally NOT subjective, is fact.
If you feel so strongly about this why haven’t you grabbed your rifle and travelled the 4000 miles to join this glorious cause?
Not one single solitary intervention of this sort in decades has been of any legitimate benefit to anyone but you evidently support all of them as a matter of civic duty or patriotism.
“If you feel so strongly about this why haven’t you grabbed your rifle and travelled the 4000 miles to join this glorious cause? Not one single solitary intervention of this sort in decades has been of any legitimate benefit to anyone but you evidently support all of them as a matter of civic duty or patriotism.”
Oh, you’re one of those guys. So many fallacies in there. But, common with pro-Russia talking points. You have no valid argument, so you pull out the talking points. (Do you actually have a list of such questions? I ask that because the former is one of the most oft-repeated fallacious questions posed by pro-Russia posters. As for the latter, that is Fallacy 101, because it can be one of many.) Such fallacies are generally the result of assuming facts not in evidence, which you folks do routinely. That, and simple ignorance.
Forget all that war making crap. Trump would have simply negotiated with the Russians to alleviate their concerns.
Trump would have tried, but I think most of the Russian “concerns” like NATO expansion were just propaganda. And I get the impression Russia didn’t negotiate in good faith. Russia was making rediculous demands in negotiation while amassing troops and claiming they had no intention of invading.
The real concerns were oil and gas, restoring the greater Russia, and getting Ukraine to officially surrender the lands Russia invaded in 2014 by taking over the rest of Ukraine.
Trump would have tried negotiating, but he would have ended up walking away and arming Ukraine. Which if you think about it, is exactly what he did when Trump was in office.
There are two sides to this issue. I’ve looked at it and have concluded one side is right and one side is wrong. I don’t switch back and forth, one side one day, and the other side the next. Using consistency as a “fair and balanced” metric the way you do is tortured pretzel logic, as is your habit.
You have not picked up your rifle to join the glorious cause. That is not a fallacy. It is what it is.
“You have not picked up your rifle to join the glorious cause. That is not a fallacy.”
Yeah, it is. There is no foundation for it.
If I were Ukrainian, your question might have some validity. But, I’m not. If I had demanded US boots on the ground in Ukraine and American helmets in the air above Ukraine, then your question may have some validity. But I have never made such demands, and in fact have posted many times on FR since February that I oppose any American boots on the ground in Ukraine and American helmets in the air above Ukraine. So, you see, you just pull @#$% out of your ass, probably from some list of talking points, and toss it out there. You’re being used, son.
We’ve reached an impasse and for the time being you’ve had the last word.
Zelinsky helped Trump?
Not so much:
“...it seems clear that Zelensky also played a key role in bringing the matter to light. The week before Democrats launched an investigation into the withheld aid, Zelensky told Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy that Giuliani had pressed him to investigate Biden and that the security aid was still being withheld—he essentially tattled on the Trump’s personal attorney as a last resort....”
I agree with you on Trump making it personal, especially this far out from the actual election for President. But I think the argument about the economy and security is that President Trump has already proven he knows how to fix the economy and knows better than anyone how to secure the borders. He has a proven track record on these.
“He has a proven track record on these.”
Exactly. The reasoning for choosing Trump is his proven track record on the economy, national security, putting America First and keeping his promises. There’s no debating that.
I think what people are debating is not his qualifications, but what should the campaign be centered on. Some are saying don’t bring up the stolen election or impeachments because it sounds like Trump whining about his own reputation rather than focusing on the issues.
I think these people are wrong - he needs to make it all about the acts of treason perpetrated against him (us).
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.