Has Ukraine collapsed

[Creaky]

Your daft AI-generated nonsense can't even get the phrase correct.

It's "There is light at the end of the tunnel." LoL

And the claim that "90% of peace negotiations are agreed" seems like bulls@it.

There is no verified framework close to completion.

So far, talks have produced little more than limited prisoner swaps.

Not a peace deal or anything reminiscent of the sorts.

And Ukraine has not accepted Russian conditions.

Especially the loss of territory, which remains the red line.

Putin's refusal to negotiate isn't about EU optics.

It's about his unchanged maximalist war mongering.

Well here is your favourite AI generated YouTube fan boy 



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-u...=128421271

[sahgwa]

So, posting videos from JFK jnr is any better than the facebook drivel you post? The guys a total nut job.  

You make claims you know the truth more than anyone else here. If this is were you get all your info from, you're welcome to it!! 

You are saying that RFK is making up out of whole cloth what I and others have been saying for years, with friends and family working there on THAT PROJECT, that we were all working and supporting a fantasy, the USA did not pick and choose the new government and aid the Maidan coup? You're saying it was totally home grown and no help from the USA?    We were 'advising' and training troops with veterans like my dad, and other soldiers from NATO countries that I met personally, from Germany etc and even South Korea.  Why? They knew Russia was being poked , we were poking them, and defense would soon be needed.  Simple as that.     I am editing this to preface that i was there visiting in 2003 or 4, and so we were prepping to help this 'homegrown revolution' for years. 

I just want to get your once-again-one-sided-fantasy world correct, thank you.

I have some time to kill so I am back to this retarded tug of war going nowhere.

[sahgwa]

Just for some colour here is a fun trip down memory lane

https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcc...ne-2013-12

As Max Fisher of the Washington Post has noted, the situation in Ukraine is amplified by numerous ethnic and linguistic issues that tie into a not-always-pretty history of nationalism and subjugation. In the past, McCain has sometimes revealed a simplistic, Cold War viewpoint of Russia. You have to wonder if, by going to Ukraine and standing on stage with a man accused of being an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi, he may have shown that trait again.

[andy06shake]

Well here is your favourite AI generated YouTube fan boy [Video: https://youtu.be/Z4WnlXTb5h0?si=kSPv2rqz8hLG2j7_]


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-u...=128421271

 

Only a small fraction of issues that need to be resolved regard territory.

Im sure you can see the operative word.

Starts with a T ends with a Y.

But hey'ho if Trumps ""US officials"" say so im sure everyone will be home for Christmas.

[rickymouse]

[Video: https://youtu.be/RBpPPki-7Rc?si=JPBtc6HWtcy45qoo]

I was watching all of this before the war broke out in Ukraine, and what Kennedy is saying pretty much says the same thing as I was reading on what was going on over there.  The info I had was pretty much legit too, it was not propaganda.

I cannot say all he is saying is real, but most of it does match what I was reading years ago before the war broke out and between the time that Ukraine first went independent.  After the war broke out, all we got was propaganda from our government during the Biden administration and from NATO which was mostly just BS.

If Russia stuck hundreds of major weapons and nukes  in countries that border us, we would do the same thing as Russia is doing, Ruussia wanted a neutral area between western weapons and their country so they would have time to respond to an attack.  Is that bad?  We would go to war with Canada if they joined Russia and they had major weapons and nukes near the border...instantly.

I do not agree with everything Russia is doing, and I will back our country...the USA, but that does not mean I would agree with the BS that is being played out by the west.

Most people did not pay attention before the war broke out there, I spent four years watching all I could find in articles of what was happening in Ukraine, avoiding the wests propaganda and searching for what Truth I could find on the issues.

Like I said, I think that Kennedy is telling a lot of the truth in the video, although I cannot verify the exact methods he is talking about I saw this unfolding.

My main study is health, medicine, and pharmacology and it's tie to food chemistry and chemicals added to food.  I am seeing a lot of deception in that, and since it directly effects me and my family, I am more concerned about finding out the truth about how they have been messing with people's comprehension by allowing food chemistry and medications to dampen people's ability to reason correctly.  They want us to believe in their lies, because if we cannot think on our own, we tend to believe in lies more readily.

I hope that Kennedy can fix the food supply and stop the government from allowing chemistry to dampen people's comprehension, but the left, which is highly effected by this chemistry is trying to block fixing the issue.  One thing I will tell you guys, if something is classified as a super food, only eat it in low moderation.  Someone or some big business...like healthcare...is trying to expand their pocketbooks by saying that some foods are great for us, but changing the diet too fast can make people delusional and need medications to fix the problem.  Chemicals added in the production of foods or to preserve foods can effect the mind too.

And of course, who profits from us needing medicines.  The pharma companies profit, doctors profit, and right now over a quarter of our GNP in this country comes from medical and Pharma sales and services.  We are becoming a country where we either work for the medical field or we are being treated by the medical field.  And the chemicals that are added to our foods, some are produced by subsidiaries of Pharma companies.

Now for the kicker, those food labels...peope will look for the labels with the least amount of chemicals.  If a chemical is gras or neutralized from it's active form, it does not need to be listed on the label.  Some grass chemistry only has to be listed if it exceeds a certain percentage of the food.  People will avoid buying something if it has a chemical listed, and buy one that does not list the chemical, yet the company with it listed might have less of that chemical than one that didn't list it.  If a label on a can states ten chemistries under two percent, that can mean the total of those ten chemicals can be twenty percent of the weight of the product too.....people do not realize that.  It applies to pharma side effects too.

[Oldcarpy2]

I was watching all of this before the war broke out in Ukraine, and what Kennedy is saying pretty much says the same thing as I was reading on what was going on over there.  The info I had was pretty much legit too, it was not propaganda.

I cannot say all he is saying is real, but most of it does match what I was reading years ago before the war broke out and between the time that Ukraine first went independent.  After the war broke out, all we got was propaganda from our government during the Biden administration and from NATO which was mostly just BS.

If Russia stuck hundreds of major weapons and nukes  in countries that border us, we would do the same thing as Russia is doing, Ruussia wanted a neutral area between western weapons and their country so they would have time to respond to an attack.  Is that bad?  We would go to war with Canada if they joined Russia and they had major weapons and nukes near the border...instantly.

I do not agree with everything Russia is doing, and I will back our country...the USA, but that does not mean I would agree with the BS that is being played out by the west.

Most people did not pay attention before the war broke out there, I spent four years watching all I could find in articles of what was happening in Ukraine, avoiding the wests propaganda and searching for what Truth I could find on the issues.

Like I said, I think that Kennedy is telling a lot of the truth in the video, although I cannot verify the exact methods he is talking about I saw this unfolding.

My main study is health, medicine, and pharmacology and it's tie to food chemistry and chemicals added to food.  I am seeing a lot of deception in that, and since it directly effects me and my family, I am more concerned about finding out the truth about how they have been messing with people's comprehension by allowing food chemistry and medications to dampen people's ability to reason correctly.  They want us to believe in their lies, because if we cannot think on our own, we tend to believe in lies more readily.

I hope that Kennedy can fix the food supply and stop the government from allowing chemistry to dampen people's comprehension, but the left, which is highly effected by this chemistry is trying to block fixing the issue.  One thing I will tell you guys, if something is classified as a super food, only eat it in low moderation.  Someone or some big business...like healthcare...is trying to expand their pocketbooks by saying that some foods are great for us, but changing the diet too fast can make people delusional and need medications to fix the problem.  Chemicals added in the production of foods or to preserve foods can effect the mind too.

And of course, who profits from us needing medicines.  The pharma companies profit, doctors profit, and right now over a quarter of our GNP in this country comes from medical and Pharma sales and services.  We are becoming a country where we either work for the medical field or we are being treated by the medical field.  And the chemicals that are added to our foods, some are produced by subsidiaries of Pharma companies.

Now for the kicker, those food labels...peope will look for the labels with the least amount of chemicals.  If a chemical is gras or neutralized from it's active form, it does not need to be listed on the label.  Some grass chemistry only has to be listed if it exceeds a certain percentage of the food.  People will avoid buying something if it has a chemical listed, and buy one that does not list the chemical, yet the company with it listed might have less of that chemical than one that didn't list it.  If a label on a can states ten chemistries under two percent, that can mean the total of those ten chemicals can be twenty percent of the weight of the product too.....people do not realize that.  It applies to pharma side effects too.

Ukraine gave up it's nukes in return for Russia guaranteeing it's Sovereignty and security.

Which agreement Russia reneged on.

Russia already has NATO on it's borders and has had for a while now.

[sahgwa]

Ukraine gave up it's nukes in return for Russia guaranteeing it's Sovereignty and security.

Which agreement Russia reneged on.

Russia already has NATO on it's borders and has had for a while now.

That's true and it's a shame.
 One has to wonder if NATO had not kept poking Russia by infiltrating foreign governments with provocateurs , and sending over warmongers like McCain and Nuland, if Russia would have felt the need to invade in the first place.  Chicken or egg kind of thing.

I find it interesting that we also were stationing military 'advisors' in Georgia ,but then Russia drove in tanks there too. Not many people talk about that. But it's the same situation.


-


one poster in the USA says that Russia didn't break the agreement because it never made one with the existing gov in Ukraine in 2014, but a previous gov. something something
 Russia didn’t break or violate the Budapest memorandum.
Appeals to the Budapest memorandum are like spreading an urban myth — when spoken, their superficial appearance might sound reasonable enough, if it’s just assumed the claim has been presented according to the facts. But any validity of them dissipates when the facts are actually looked at — just as any validity of an appeal to the BM does when what the BM actually was, and what Russia’s actions actually were are looked at.
The Budapest memorandum was never a binding agreement because none of the signatories to it ratified it and it never acceded into law — and ratification and accession are what officiates an agreement and makes it legally-binding and a treaty. The US didn’t want to be bound by the terms of the Budapest memorandum and have to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, and so the Budapest agreement didn’t go forward to become a treaty.
Also, the state of Ukraine to which the Budapest memorandum applied, even as a non-binding agreement, no longer existed at the time of Russia’s action in Crimea. Former Ukraine’s constitution was nullified in February 2014, right before the events in Crimea happened. The current Ukrainian state doesn’t have constitutional continuity with the pre Kiev-coup Ukrainian state.
It would be impossible for Russia to violate an agreement concerning a state which no longer existed.

---

But even if Ukraine had still existed at the time of Russia’s action in Crimea, Russia’s action in Crimea, in 2014, would have been fully lawful and not a violation of the BM.
Since the dissolution of the USSR, Russia has had a large military base in Crimea and was allowed up to 25,000 troop in Crimea by treaty with Kiev. At the time of the US-backed coup in Kiev, there were 15,000 Russian troops already stationed in Crimea, lawfully.
When the coup in Kiev started, Ukraine’s president formally requested Russia to militarily intervene in Crimea.
Here’s the post Kiev-coup Ukrainian government’s Chief Prosecutor confirming that Yanukovych officially authorised Russia’s action in Crimea. He argues that the agreement proves Yanukovych was a traitor — but that’s entirely besides the point that Russia’s presence and action in Crimea were fully lawful.



 As I already said, the legal state of Ukraine had ceased to exist when its constitution was nullified — and so, permission from the Ukrainian government concerning Crimea wouldn’t relevant to Crimea at that point, much as the Budapest memorandum wouldn’t be. However, if someone makes an appeal to the Budapest memorandum, then they’re starting from a premise that Ukraine existed. So, I’m pointing out here that even if you start from that premise, flawed as it is, the conclusion is still that Russia’s presence and action in Crimea were fully lawful, authorised by Ukraine’s president, and so wouldn’t be a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

---

But Russia’s presence and action in Crimea didn’t make Crimea choose to become part of Russia. What it did was afford Crimea the safe opportunity to hold the sovereignty referendum which they’d repeatedly tried to hold for 2.5 decades, but which Kiev had repeatedly, forcefully obstructed them from holding.
Crimea was entitled to hold that referendum under international law, and also under Ukraine’s own law - because Ukraine was / is signatory to the very international treaty which guaranteed Crimea that right.
International law, and Ukraine’s own law both state the following:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART I
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
…
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
By the way, this might surprise you, but the US also justified Crimea’s declaration of independence and sovereignty referendum, when the US declared, in 2009 at the UN, the following:
As you can see there, the world’s most authoritative court, the International Court of Justice, has also justified Crimea’s declaration of independence and declared any opposition to it to be without basis in international law.

---

So, I hope I’ve shown that Russia didn’t violate the Budapest memorandum, and that it even would have been impossible for Russia to violate the Budapest memorandum. And that, even if the BM had still been in place at the time of Crimea’s referendum, Russia’s action, authorised by Ukraine’s president, would’ve still been lawful and respecting of Ukraine’s sovereignty. And that Crimea’s right to self-determination, their independence declaration, their referendum, and their choice to apply for accession to Russia were never taken away by the BM.
However, I would say that the US violated the Budapest memorandum in backing an illegal (of course) coup in Kiev, which resulted in the disintegration of the former legal state of Ukraine (again, the post Kiev-coup Ukrainian state is legally distinct from the pre Kiev-coup Ukrainian state, having no constitutional continuity with it), and so ended the applicability of the Budapest memorandum in regards to any of former Ukraine’s territory.
And, as an aside, nukes have a shelf-life of around 10 years. After that, they need to be rebuilt in order to continue being usable — something Ukraine doesn’t have the capability to do. So the nukes Ukraine handed over in 1991 would've been decommissioned by the year 2000 at the latest and wouldn't have played a role in Ukraine-Russia relations in 2014 and afterwards, even if Ukraine hadn't given them up.

[Kurokage]

That's true and it's a shame.
 One has to wonder if NATO had not kept poking Russia by infiltrating foreign governments with provocateurs , and sending over warmongers like McCain and Nuland, if Russia would have felt the need to invade in the first place.  Chicken or egg kind of thing.

Wonder all you like, and make up as many excuses as you need to believe Facebook and Russian propaganda, Russia had the ex-prime minster in their pocket and half of Ukraine run by Russian oligarchs. As soon as Ukraine voted in a leader who wasn't a Russian puppet, they invaded. That was after Russia guaranteed they wouldn't in 91.

[sahgwa]

Wonder all you like, and make up as many excuses as you need to believe Facebook and Russian propaganda, Russia had the ex-prime minster in their pocket and half of Ukraine run by Russian oligarchs. As soon as Ukraine voted in a leader who wasn't a Russian puppet, they invaded. That was after Russia guaranteed they wouldn't in 91.

So since you didn't respond, am I correct in assuming you think RFK Jr is lying about everything because he's 'nuts' ?

[Oldcarpy2]

That's true and it's a shame.
 One has to wonder if NATO had not kept poking Russia by infiltrating foreign governments with provocateurs , and sending over warmongers like McCain and Nuland, if Russia would have felt the need to invade in the first place.  Chicken or egg kind of thing.

I find it interesting that we also were stationing military 'advisors' in Georgia ,but then Russia drove in tanks there too. Not many people talk about that. But it's the same situation.


-


one poster in the USA says that Russia didn't break the agreement because it never made one with the existing gov in Ukraine in 2014, but a previous gov. something something
 Russia didn’t break or violate the Budapest memorandum.
Appeals to the Budapest memorandum are like spreading an urban myth — when spoken, their superficial appearance might sound reasonable enough, if it’s just assumed the claim has been presented according to the facts. But any validity of them dissipates when the facts are actually looked at — just as any validity of an appeal to the BM does when what the BM actually was, and what Russia’s actions actually were are looked at.
The Budapest memorandum was never a binding agreement because none of the signatories to it ratified it and it never acceded into law — and ratification and accession are what officiates an agreement and makes it legally-binding and a treaty. The US didn’t want to be bound by the terms of the Budapest memorandum and have to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, and so the Budapest agreement didn’t go forward to become a treaty.
Also, the state of Ukraine to which the Budapest memorandum applied, even as a non-binding agreement, no longer existed at the time of Russia’s action in Crimea. Former Ukraine’s constitution was nullified in February 2014, right before the events in Crimea happened. The current Ukrainian state doesn’t have constitutional continuity with the pre Kiev-coup Ukrainian state.
It would be impossible for Russia to violate an agreement concerning a state which no longer existed.

---

But even if Ukraine had still existed at the time of Russia’s action in Crimea, Russia’s action in Crimea, in 2014, would have been fully lawful and not a violation of the BM.
Since the dissolution of the USSR, Russia has had a large military base in Crimea and was allowed up to 25,000 troop in Crimea by treaty with Kiev. At the time of the US-backed coup in Kiev, there were 15,000 Russian troops already stationed in Crimea, lawfully.
When the coup in Kiev started, Ukraine’s president formally requested Russia to militarily intervene in Crimea.
Here’s the post Kiev-coup Ukrainian government’s Chief Prosecutor confirming that Yanukovych officially authorised Russia’s action in Crimea. He argues that the agreement proves Yanukovych was a traitor — but that’s entirely besides the point that Russia’s presence and action in Crimea were fully lawful.

[Video: https://youtu.be/aPJRNN01Tpk]
 As I already said, the legal state of Ukraine had ceased to exist when its constitution was nullified — and so, permission from the Ukrainian government concerning Crimea wouldn’t relevant to Crimea at that point, much as the Budapest memorandum wouldn’t be. However, if someone makes an appeal to the Budapest memorandum, then they’re starting from a premise that Ukraine existed. So, I’m pointing out here that even if you start from that premise, flawed as it is, the conclusion is still that Russia’s presence and action in Crimea were fully lawful, authorised by Ukraine’s president, and so wouldn’t be a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

---

But Russia’s presence and action in Crimea didn’t make Crimea choose to become part of Russia. What it did was afford Crimea the safe opportunity to hold the sovereignty referendum which they’d repeatedly tried to hold for 2.5 decades, but which Kiev had repeatedly, forcefully obstructed them from holding.
Crimea was entitled to hold that referendum under international law, and also under Ukraine’s own law - because Ukraine was / is signatory to the very international treaty which guaranteed Crimea that right.
International law, and Ukraine’s own law both state the following:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART I
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
…
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
By the way, this might surprise you, but the US also justified Crimea’s declaration of independence and sovereignty referendum, when the US declared, in 2009 at the UN, the following:
As you can see there, the world’s most authoritative court, the International Court of Justice, has also justified Crimea’s declaration of independence and declared any opposition to it to be without basis in international law.

---

So, I hope I’ve shown that Russia didn’t violate the Budapest memorandum, and that it even would have been impossible for Russia to violate the Budapest memorandum. And that, even if the BM had still been in place at the time of Crimea’s referendum, Russia’s action, authorised by Ukraine’s president, would’ve still been lawful and respecting of Ukraine’s sovereignty. And that Crimea’s right to self-determination, their independence declaration, their referendum, and their choice to apply for accession to Russia were never taken away by the BM.
However, I would say that the US violated the Budapest memorandum in backing an illegal (of course) coup in Kiev, which resulted in the disintegration of the former legal state of Ukraine (again, the post Kiev-coup Ukrainian state is legally distinct from the pre Kiev-coup Ukrainian state, having no constitutional continuity with it), and so ended the applicability of the Budapest memorandum in reg

Itards to any of former Ukraine’s territory.
And, as an aside, nukes have a shelf-life of around 10 years. After that, they need to be rebuilt in order to continue being usable — something Ukraine doesn’t have the capability to do. So the nukes Ukraine handed over in 1991 would've been decommissioned by the year 2000 at the latest and wouldn't have played a role in Ukraine-Russia relations in 2014 and afterwards, even if Ukraine hadn't given them up.

That's some Kremlin propaganda you have there!

It speaks for itself.