President Donald Trump put some blame on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for choosing to fight Russia rather than make a deal. In April of 2022, Zelensky had nearly completed negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin when members of NATO pushed Kiev to fight rather than sign the agreement.
“Look, Zelensky was fighting a much bigger entity, much bigger, much more powerful. He shouldn’t have done that because we could have made a deal and it would have been a deal that would have been — it would have been a nothing deal,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday.
Trump may be referring to the negotiations that nearly ended the Russian invasion of Ukraine within the first two months. Under that deal, Russian forces would have withdrawn from Ukraine, including the Donbas, if Kiev would never join NATO and committed to some demilitarization.
During the interview, Trump indicated that he would have taken that deal. “I could have made that deal so easily. And Zelensky decided that I want to fight,” he said. Trump went on to say his predecessor, Joe Biden, did a “horrible job” by allowing the war to start.
Trump also placed some of the blame on Putin, noting “he shouldn’t have” invaded Ukraine several times.
When Zelensky was close to signing the deal, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev where he pushed Zelensky to forgo diplomacy and attempt to drive the Russian forces from Ukraine. At the time, members of NATO promised to give Ukraine everything it needed to win the war.
Trump says Zelensky now wants to negotiate an end to the war. “Zelensky — I will say this, he wants to settle now. He’s had enough. He shouldn’t have allowed this to happen, either,” the President said.
Putin has largely kept his demands consistent throughout the war; the Kremlin wants a US pledge that Ukraine never joins NATO, limits on what Western arms are sent to Kiev, and recognition of Ukrainian territory annexed by Moscow. At the start of the conflict, Russia had only annexed Crimea. Since then, Moscow has also held referendums and seized four additional Ukrainian oblasts.
Trump refused to tell Hannity if he had spoken with Putin. He did say he wanted to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible, claiming millions were dying. “It’s gotta end. These are human beings that are being slaughtered” on the battlefield, he said.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute. He hosts The Kyle Anzalone Show and is co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Connor Freeman.
What do expect from a comedian who played the piano with his penis. Ukraine is the land of the low IQ criminals.
Under President Trump they will receive NO aid for 90 days.
I was under the impression that both Israel and Ukraine were exempt from the 90 day aid hold.
Here it is:
Trump’s 90-day foreign aid suspension order does not impact weapon deliveries to Ukraine, Pentagon says
Security assistance to Ukraine is not subject to the restrictions of the recent foreign assistance order, as it only applies to development programs, not military support,” the U.S. Department of Defense stated.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-90-day-foreign-add-205200641.html
What would happen to him if he settled with Russia, it could only be on Russian terms? He is the scape goat no matter what. Trump can walk away, that is what counts for the Almighty Trump.
He has appointed plenty of hawks and is sensitive to Democrats’ Russiagate propaganda, so it’s anyone’s guess. But NATO has not had a definitive win.
And a large portion of Ukrainians want the war to end, and if you noticed, Zelensky has lost his star power, even before Trump was elected, he stopped being covered day after day as the brave little fighter for democracy across state propaganda tv.
They don’t like losers, and Zelensky is only a little pawn.
Well they have him to blame now. And notice how even msm has started to gently criticize him?
The aid story was revised after Secretary of State Rubio took office. No monetary aid to Ukraine that was not already sent will be sent for 90 days. A stop order was given by Secretary Rubio this past week after his confirmation.
As for military hardware the new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has also issued a stop order to be implemented immediately. He also has terminated civilian and military personnel involved with military aid to Ukraine. Some of the aid people in the Pentagon illegally undervalued the price of American military equipment in order to ship more than authorized. Jail time for the Biden sycophants?
Policy before confirmation of State and Defense may have been one thing, but after confirmation the new head of each department tightened the restrictions eliminating aid to Ukraine.
Karma is a witch and payback is a mother, FAFO!
Weird of Final President Trump to not lay blame everywhere it (actually this time) belongs – on the Brits for kaiboshing a peace agreement, on Zelenskiyy for continued belligerence, on Biden for aiding-and-abetting this mess to continue, on Putin for not drastically lowering his expectations and accepting a domestic loss of 'face' either with a bad deal or a unilateral withdrawal.
Normally Trump's the sort to project fault and guilt on everyone but himself, and Monday Morning Quarterback how it all "shoulda happened".
“Final President” lmfao!
Lol… -;}
I hope LOL is justified.
But it is not funny, he can't be held accountable and face the voters again.
When is any president accountable?
Trump made bank on crypto. He doesn’t need more. He has won and can just step down.
LOL
How is it zelenskyys fault for so called "continued belligerence" if his country is the one being invaded?
Typical useless unhelpful communist circular logic
It's the West who wanted that invasion and did everything they could that it would happen. Great Britain and the US adn other Ursula van Der Crazy EU countries wanted to weaken Russia or get it out of the picture entirely because Russia was against the WEF New World order.
The USA is de facto in control of the EU and NATO. The same people who put people like Trump and Biden in power did it to Europeans, the global club of oligarchs, the people who meet once a year in wonderful Davos, funded and organized it, they are the war profiteers. They fund the deep state.
lol
And……….the U.S. is controlled by Israel. Even Trump is under Israel's control. The $100,000,000 from Mariam Adelson (who was on the dais behind him when he made s inauguration speech) sez so.
LOL
I never thought the "New World Order" would get name-dropped on a Libertarian forum!
Russia chose to invade Ukraine, nobody told them to, and actions have consequences for Russia
I don’t know about new world order. But several scholars and pundits have pointed to the economic competition with Germany, and by extension the all of Europe, as a strong motive to embroil Europe in this conflict. They are kept under thumb, under control.
This article gives great insight into the machinations of getting Europe under control. It was written before Biden took office:
Antony Blinken’s Book
The year: 1987. The president: Ronald Reagan. The dilemma: What to do about the new gas pipeline that Europe was building to Russia, one of America’s key foreign policy rivals. Blinken’s first book, Ally Versus Ally: America, Europe, and the Siberian Pipeline Crisis, was published by a then-unknown young writer in 1987. But the dilemma it explores bears remarkable similarities to the challenges the Biden administration is about to face when it takes office. In fact, looking at Blinken’s analysis of U.S. foreign policy during the 1980s provides some tantalizing clues as to how he plans to guide American diplomacy if he is confirmed as Biden’s secretary of state.
The “Siberian pipeline crisis” that formed the subject of Ally Versus Ally has been forgotten by all but specialists. During the mid-1980s, though, it was a source of angry debate in U.S.-European relations. Under the Reagan administration, the United States was tightening the screws on the Soviet Union—applying diplomatic pressure and cutting off commerce. Washington’s campaign was unpopular in Western Europe, where the consensus opinion was that the Soviets needed to be engaged, not defeated. Europeans saw Moscow and its Warsaw Pact satellites as valuable trading partners and wanted to import natural gas from the vast Siberian gas fields that Russia was just then beginning to develop.
To Europe, tapping those seemed like an obvious way for it to diversify its energy supplies. To Washington, the pipeline was a scheme that would end up funding the Soviet military machine. When Europe started laying pipe against U.S objections, Washington then sanctioned European companies involved. European governments pushed ahead anyway. A foreign-policy disagreement was becoming a commercial crisis. And the alliance that had held the West together since World War II risked fracturing. It was “the beginning of the end of the Atlantic Alliance,” France’s foreign minister declared.
When French President Emmanuel Macron declared NATO “brain dead” last year, he was far from the first French leader to call the Western alliance into question. Today’s transatlantic divisions have to the crisis of the late 1980s. Now, Germany is building a new gas pipeline from Russia—Nord Stream 2. Washington has again levied sanctions on companies involved, causing German politicians to accuse the United States of “neo-imperialism,” “blackmail,” and even “economic war.”
Then as now, the nuclear order in Europe was also in crisis, with the United States and Russia threatening to build up force levels in Europe. Such threats of escalation, too, intensified divisions between Washington and its European allies, many of which were skeptical of the utility of adding nukes on their territory. And just like today, the West feared that the center of gravity in international politics was shifting toward Asia; it was the period of “Japan as Number One,” as one influential book put it. This, too, seemed to bode poorly for the Atlantic Alliance.
In Ally Versus Ally, Blinken evinced little sympathy for the Reagan administration’s campaign of maximum pressure against the Soviet Union, though he also thought the Europeans’ hope that “expanded economic relations will produce positive change in the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies” was “wishful thinking.” However, he argued, U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union was less important than U.S. policy toward its European allies. The key geopolitical prize was not changes in Soviet behavior—which were difficult to predict or to shape—but alliance unity.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/03/blinken-secretary-state-alliances-nato-ally-versus-ally/
Zelenky sold the Ukrainian young men for cannon fodder, that is treason, he traded his nation for money.
He campaigned promising peace and won the election with a big margin. Then he betrayed the people when he dumped the signed Minsk agreements the basis of an end of the civil war. The Americans never supported the Minsk agreements.
Give us a good laugh, exactly what part of Trump's correct statement were you attempting to attack?
We must tell you, Trump has no guilt on Ukraine, we would get a really good laugh if you can tell us why he has guilt.
Trump correctly asserts that Z had the final say so on if the war would continue.
Putin had no reason to reduce his expectations. He had 2 long standing international agreements that Ukraine would remain neutral. Your "analysis" failed.
We must tell you, Trump has no guilt on Ukraine, we would get a really good laugh if you can tell us why he has guilt.
Trump: “They sent blankets. I sent Javelins.”
He actually did fund the arming and training of the de facto NATO Ukraine.
In Feb. 2022 they were a well armed NATO power, second after Turkey.
Trump continued to fund the de facto NATO member's army to be retrained and armed to NATO standards. Including NATO exercises in Ukraine.
Starting with the regime change in 2014 Ukraine became a de facto NATO member, Trump continued it.
No guilt?
During his first administration, he didn't withdraw the U.S. from two treaties with Russia, and one with Iran, and, sanction Russia, and, send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine?
A note… When voting someone down ,please inform us as to why and thank you!…
Nothing "weird" about it.
It is part of his MAGA schtick, that the U.S. never does wrong, just the "others".
Almighty Trump is a master of chaos, his way to obfuscate and confuse common sense thinking.
THAT was in 2022 when the ineptitude of Poodles' army was the worst and when the Ukrainian army was most capable
THat proves nothing
Now, with Zelenskyy ready to negotiate, it is painfully obvious that Poodles and the rest of the twink and dink Kremlinazis are the real obstacle to negotiation
blah blah blah blah blah
So then, preventing your precious is not important, nonsense.
Form a coherent response conservidiot
i know Drumpf is incapable of forming a coherent response but that doesn't mean all of his minions can't
March 28, 2022. President Zelensky publicly declares that Ukraine is ready for neutrality combined with security guarantees as part of a peace agreement with Russia. “Security guarantees and neutrality, the non-nuclear status of our state — we’re ready to do that. That’s the most important point … they started the war because of it.
You know informed people do know it, it was news and in the public domain, but people in a coma don't know.
And this is the beginning of the end of Ukraine. Trump will toss Ukraine "under the bus".
The bus hit Ukraine a decade ago and has been driving back and forth over it since.
Thank you, Tim Burns of course missed that. Somehow, staging a coup, and setting up Ukraine for war, done by Obama and Biden, did not happen. Burns was happy with creating WW3 and draining US resources, like any typical leftist.
I consider myself a traditional leftist TP!
"a traditional leftist" not much left, they are outsiders, lost sheep. I count myself one.
normal leftism doesn't glaze russia
What is a leftist in a one party government?
That is what we have, Democracy has been denigrated to no more than a façade.
A club of billionaires is in charge, now more than ever. They control all three branches of government and the "free" press. Who owns the WP?
We see that you the leftist propagandist are doing more inversion.
This war was Biden's fault. The 2014 coup was Obama's fault. The biolabs and lack of negotiations are Obama's and Biden's fault. The installed dictator who blocked elections and jailed opposition was the fault of our left.
But no, you babble "Trump's fault". No sale.
Obama's fault, partly Biden's fault, and partly Trump's fault (among many others).
Trump escalated provision of weapons to Ukraine during his term.
That's just a fact.
Good Morning TK!
😉
It is a bipartisan neocon product, remember PNAC? Nuland and the Kaplans and many more W. Bush people?
Nuland should be forced to bake dozens of cookies, then eat them non stop, washing them down with milk until her eyes bulge and her internal plumbing stops up, then eat more………..
So evil.
Does she dance on kittens while wearing high heels in her spare time?
Just a fugly woman.
Over the weekend, former President Donald Trump criticized the Obama-Biden aid efforts to Ukraine by saying, “They sent blankets. I sent Javelins.”
And that's from 2022. So, any talk about him being "forced" to send those weapons out of fear of impeachment, which is the standard argument from Trumpsters, is nonsense.
Actually, all of this is the product of bipartisan neocon politics. W. was the first in 2008 to talk Ukrainian NATO membership loud and clear.
Then pulled out of the ABM treaty with Russia.
And, yes, the "war on terror" that killed millions, as well as replacing the Taliban………..with the Taliban.
And don't forget that after Bush 1 promised no NATO expansion Clinton brought in 3 new members while telling the Russians it's not a threat to them and we are not expanding further. This has been going on for decades.
NOBODY PROMISED NO NEW NATO EXPANSION
It wasn’t official but the idea was to expand NATO while trying to convince the Russians that it wasn’t a threat to them. Discussions from that time period bear this out that there were implicit promises.
In the USSR era
The USSR is dead
And it is a shame to say, but the late 1980's USSR was a lot less aggressive and decidedly a better place to live than modern russia
to make it even better they should've let the Warsaw Pack go free so we in Poland could've gotten the popcorn out
to make it even better they should've let the Warsaw Pack go free so we in Poland could've gotten the popcorn out
Only two things wrong with that, you weren't born yet and you're not from Poland.
Yeah no shit I wasn’t born yet I wasn’t even form for 9/11
I am POLISH
You're Christian Villa. And it couldn't be more obvious.
You’re delusional
Poland is a troublemaker, but most Polish people want peace like other people do. The Polish elite is manipulating public opinion like other nation's elites do, they are Russophobes.
I’m sorry? WE are troublemakers?
What trouble has POLAND caused? Our glorious nation has been stomped on and spit on in every new century by Berlin and Moscow.
Yes, most of eastern Europe are “russophobes”, because we have had to worry about Moscow’s fat thumb for hundreds of years. We are sceptical of Russia and we don’t really have much room in our hearts for Russia
You have an eastern European name, surely you are enlightened enough to realise as such
When your spoken word isn't worth shit (the US), then the only thing left is to claim that you never SIGNED anything.
Exactly
Heads of state or their emissary make verbal agreements all of the time.
Respect.
But normally they keep their word, not so the US or Israeli.
There. It wasn't official.
It doesn't mean shit
End of story
Argument done
Conversation over
Only in children's minds.
What are you even talking about?
An adult would know what I'm talking about.
So i guess you don’t know yourself
So are you really Frederik Vesti in disguise?
HES MY FAVOURITE DRIVER
i LOVE motorsport
It was so sad when he crashed out of the 24 Hours of Daytona
You misunderstand. Bush 1 promised no NATO expansion. Clinton openly expanded NATO a few years later.
Under Bush, Baker's famous comment to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990 was that NATO would move "not one inch eastward" if the Soviets agreed to allow a unified Germany to remain in NATO.
Promises with a dead state mean nothing
Goes back to why you can't trust the US, even if you are an ally. Russia can be no better. However, the difference is that the US is messing around in the Russian sphere of influence. So it makes sense. Either destroy Russia or respect it.
Lying about that in all caps does not magically change the lie into a fact.
Find me the treaty where USA said "We will not allow NATO to expand eastwards"
And this "treaty" better not be some random CIA cable to Moscow from nsarchive.gwu.edu
If you know what the dominant role of a state's sovereignty in public international law means, then logically foreign powers do not officially decide diplomatically by notification, ratification on the future domestic or foreign policy of another state without involving this state, verbally despite oral negotiations, certainly not binding, obligatory, because this opens the door to arbitrariness. Soundings and considerations are not “guarantees”.
https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/general-awareness/sovereignty-and-international-law/
https://www.worldtradelaw.net/document.php?id=misc/viennaconvention.pdf Article 2
I might read your comment carefully if you care to phrase it in English.
Arbitrariness means despotism, high-handed
Don't you use a dictionary? e.g.: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/arbitrariness "(formal) the use of power without limits and without considering other people" https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/high-handed
https://grammarist.com/idiom/high-handed/
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/high-handed
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/arbitrariness
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/arbitrary
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrariness
https://www.lsd.law/define/arbitrary
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/arbitrary.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arbitrary
https://thelawdictionary.org/arbitrary/
Well, OK, I tried.
Find me the treaty where USA said "We will not allow NATO to expand eastwards"
And this "treaty" better not be some random CIA cable to Moscow from nsarchive.gwu.edu
No one claims there was a treaty. But arguing that the US, and others, assurances weren't worth a pinch of shit is one piss poor argument. I mean it only allowed Gorbachev to convince the hardliners in Russia to end the god damn cold war.
Why would it be my job to find something I’ve never claimed existed?
Does that not imply America/NATO made an implicit treaty to never expand eastwards, which they never did?
No, it doesn't. Are you dense? You said, "NOBODY PROMISED". That IS a lie.
Unless the German state promises in verbal negotiations not to expand NATO towards the East on German territory with regard to the 2+4 Treaty of German Unity (peace agreement, March 1991).
However, the German Foreign Minister Genscher states that NATO weapons of war etc. will not be deployed on East German territory.
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/resource/blob/243466/2851e102b97772a5772e9fdb8a978663/vertragstextoriginal-data.pdf Please scroll to the English, French, Russian language, Articles 5-6.
Problem: Russia attacks Ukraine in March 2014 (Crimea) and February 2022 and creates other international geopolitical military conditions in Europe (OSCE).
What left? We have a two party tag team, the façade of a one party neocon democracy. Both parties serve the same masters, big money is in charge. A gang of billionaires controls all three branches of government and the free press. The same is true for European democracies too. Big money sticks together, they meet in Davos every January.
The US tossed Ukraine under the bus beginning 2014, Trump is finishing the job, he likes to just walk away and let the Ukrainians pay the price.
To be strict, W. started it in 2008.
Hindsight is always 20/20. The war shouldn't have continued. Turkey recognized Ukrainian territorial integrity and certainly exploited the situation for its economic benefit. However, it played a stabilizing and mediating role while it continued to trade with Russia, provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine, facilitate the grain deal and host mediation services in Istanbul early on. For a NATO member Turkey stands out in comparison to the US. And Trump seems to like Erdogan.
The proxy war should never have been started. It should never have been provoked, and then it should have ended quickly.
I agree. For Russia the encroachment of NATO was existential. The way the US conducted this proxy war in hindsight seems to justify Russia's actions. In an ideal world Russians and Ukrainians should find a way to live side by side in good relations. If Russia's goal was to neutralize the Ukraine as a proxy of NATO hostility, the war on Ukraine may not have been illegal. However, the way it conducts the war requires adherence to international law.
Russia is in breach of international law when it annexes territory of a state recognized by the UN – they did this already in 2014, and they did it again during this war (annexing Oblasts large parts of which it did not even control).
Aggressive wars of territorial conquest is in breach of international law.
The UN is a serving USA interests. That is the reality, it was a noble Idea, but power politics destroyed a dream.
No the UN has time and again made decisions that went against US interests – that is why the US so often uses its VETO.
Really? When did that happen? The US did something wrong, really?
Do you not remember when the US used Vetoes????
There is even a list on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
The USA was breaking international laws when they invaded Iraq, not to mention all the illegal sanctions and regime changes and vetoes protecting Israel and the American leading elite.
The UN is powerless and nothing but a tool serving American interests. Trump will put the cherry on the top.
NATO'S purpose was to keep Russia out, the US in and Germany down on the European continent from the beginning.
Looks like NATO served its purpose.
Germany is not a sovereign nation, US nuclear weapons are stationed there to protect US interests and to hell with Europe.
Yes I believe they did – there are many cases of nations breaking international law – your point is what?
I'm not sure what international laws they are breaking, but most likely they are in breach of some – again what's your point?
Is it that you think that we in the UN should end the laws we agreed upon post WWII?
Yes the UN is pretty powerless – the only thing UN can do is to condemn – or rely upon groups of members taking action.
So if Trump decides to invade Greenland there will only be consequences to the extend that EU can place sanctions upon the US.
A pretty fair assessment IMO.
This would be correct if a majority of the Germans wanted the US to leave – that may have been the case at some point in the distant past, but it is no longer the case.
MY point is, the USA and the American people are no better than other nations and people.
And don't fool yourself, the Europeans want the Ami go home. Not only the German people. And the problem are not the American people, the ruling elites are the troublemakers, they are making the profits and the people pay.
Do think the Americans would pack up all their nuclear weapons and Ramstein AB if they were told to leave? No way, do you think the Germans don't know who sabotaged the LG pipeline and they like the US better? The press has been controlled and the average people believed their leaders, not anymore.
On this: ‘the USA and the American people are no better than other nations and people.’ we most certainly agree.
As for me fooling myself – I live in Europe and no there is not a general wish for the Amis to go home – there was a higher tendency towards that in the 1970’ties – but by now political parties in Denmark which used to have that attitude as part of their platform had to remove that to keep voters in the last election. The attitude is not that different in the rest of EU – I have family living in Germany, France Lithuania so I can tell you that you are fooling yourself if you think that the Germans wanting the US to leave anything near a majority of the electorates.
Would the US leave if asked – I simply do not know – nit with Trump.
We wrote the UN charter , including the ICC, then we spit on it to give Israel a pass.
No U.S., British, Soviet, and Chinese representatives met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington in August and September 1944 to draft the charter of a postwar international organization based on the principle of collective security.
The ICC was also not written by the US – which is why the US never ratified the ICC – Israel also is not taking part in the ICC.
That’s why US empire ghouls stopped using the phrase international law and rebranded to rules based order. They make the rules and change them at will.
International law needs to be respected by all or it has no meaning. Russia as the former Soviet Union considers Ukraine as part of that territory. How did Texas become a state?
And Russia occupied parts of Ukraine by war. If Ukraine agrees not to join NATO, it will pull out of those areas that it did not control.
No the law is frequently violated by criminals – that does not mean that we discard the law only that we should do what we can to enforce it.
Russia recognized the borders of Ukraine following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Texas became a state many years before the current international law was agreed upon (in the wake of WWII).
And on the second issue – no Putin still wants all of the annexed Oblasts – including Kherson and other large cities they do not even now control.
Gaza and many other places have shown the current world order is UNABLE TO ENFORCE IT at all.
Given the way the West has ruined the world since world war II, I don't believe they have given a good example of international law. Even the law is written by them and doesn't always conform with justice and fairness.
My point about Texas is that War is an extension of politics by other means. If you can't resolve differences peacefully, it gets resolved on the battlefield.
As for what Putin wants, let's see what happens going forward. He may take it, he may use it as a bargaining chip. It remains to bee seen.
No it has shown that, as was always the case, there is no UN/world police to enforce the rules.
Do you believe that this is a good argument that we should abandon the rules?
We can agree that they have not set a good example – but is it the case that the rules(the law) is the problem?
Would you rather that we not have rules against taking territory by force – I can only see that this would make Trump very happy look forward to 'welcoming' US troops wherever the US sees a profit to be extracted.
No the international laws are not written by the US – and they are btw very limited in scope.
I know and I agree – however the laws against aggressive wars of territorial conquest (UN) have changed how often there is as much to be gained from going to war – is this something that you doubt?
I do not pretend to know what Putin wants – I only say that I know what happens by allowing aggressive wars of territorial conquest – as a Dane I think Greenland is high on that list, and I do not like it.
If the "laws" aren't good they should be changed. Wars of "aggression" are unlawful and should be stopped by certain mechanisms within the international community. Taking territory by force isn't always illegal. I didn't say the US wrote international law. It was the collective West. The law is useless without enforcement, especially on universally held common morality. When corruption is rampant, wars of liberation appear in response.
Yes indeed – only the place where they have to be changed is the UN – and guess what – there we can only change them to what we can agree upon.
Hence there is no prospect of them being changed for the better for at least 4 years.
The only mechanism is what we can agree upon in the UN or coalitions outside the UN can agree upon (like e.g. sanctions) – there is neither a world police nor a recognized world court.
E.g. the ICC is not embraced by the remaining great powers.
When is it legal? AFAIK it violates at least one UN law.
No the Russians and the Chinese were also involved -otherwise it would never have passed.
No it is not – it is the basis for applying sanctions on the parties that are in breach of the law – hence making their actions much less profitable – which is not nothing.
Where? I have not seen any nation 'liberating' an other nation just because it was plagued by corruption.
I may just not be aware of such a case – but given how expensive wars are I kind of doubt that this would happen.
We have had a very limited set of wars justified on the basis of preventing genocide but that is the closest to this that I can remember.
Islamic jurisprudence has a rich legal history on these very issues. Unfortunately, it is dismissed until it actually assumes power. That's where we are heading for in the ME.
The issue is seldom the legal system of individual or even groups of countries – but that the super powers have different goals and hence cannot or will not commit to international rules even when they have such rules individually within their borders.
Thus neither the US nor Russia would commit to the ICC even though the rules involved were ones that applied within their own borders.
I can concur in that.
Too bad the Ukrainian neo-Nazis bet on the wrong horse. And they did it again in March 2022.
Arrogant megalomaniacs knew the Russians are stupid. The arrogance blinded them to some facts, the Russians had the first satellite in space, the first man, a cosmonaut in space, they cooperated with Americans to maintain their space program, and the stupid Americans thought Russians are dumb. The Russians won WWII, did you know that?
Not to forget their great literature, music and dance, an old and accomplished nation, they got back on their feet after wars and revolution, and Americans think they are better than the Russian people.
The Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht.
the reed army were nazis
REEEEEEEEE MUH NATZESSSS
Russia is keeping most of what it has taken. It needs to justify the price paid.
Your point being? Ukraine isn't part of Russia and will hopefully never be again
By referendum by the people.
a sham referendum
As if you would know.
Was it a real referendum?
LOL
They invaded first displacing loads of people then held referendum – that is not how international law works.
I think you are mistaken, the referendums came first, you do know they had years of civil war already with some 14 000 killed.
If you think so then you should have no problem finding links to support your beliefs – I do not believe that, and that is why I’m not surprised that I cannot find any news reports on such events that did not take place.
Kiev Azov operations over 8 years killed 14,000 Ukraine citizens. Citizens who spoke Russian and incorporated Russian ideals.
MUH NATZEES
REEEEEEEEEEE
We have the Russians admitting that it was them that inflated what was protests on par with those in Odessa toa full civil war – the number of killed you mention are on both sides i.e. not just killed by Government forces against insurrectionists,
Does that apply to the Golan and Jerusalem, what about the occupation of the WB and Gaza and so many other annexations? Trump has Greenland and the Panama canal in mind. So many other similar cases, de facto it applies to the Monroe Doctrine and South America.
Yes and no – yes the territory is illegally held by the Israelis, no it was not the result of an aggressive war of territorial conquest – and no as far as I know Israel has not (yet) annexed the territory (not that this makes it any better at all, had they annexed the WB and Gaza they would have had to grant citizen rights to the people and things would have changed).
It is exactly because of Trump that I argue that we need the old world order more so now than ever – i.e. we need to be able to agree as many countries as possible to apply sanctions on the US if they actually start using their overwhelming force to take the parts of the world they like.
You seem to argue that we should just accept a new age of colonialism – is that really the case?
I do not support colonialism in any shape or form. I fully support the HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. That includes their right of property and shelter. The USA and Israel deny them basic human rights. They want Gaza and the WB and are willing to turn it in scorched earth as long as the can eliminate every single Palestinian including women and children. Trump is willing to clean Gaza of Palestinians for the Israelis. He must thing when he Trump Almighty does it for them it is humane and not criminal, all because he does it and he is Trump Almighty.
Frankly, I think Trump has real mental health issues, he does not sound and look normal, he is a compulsive liar and has nothing coherent to say, he can only think business deal and profit, social issues never cross his mind, he does not think before he jumps.
Well then you should clearly support the UN law against wars of territorial conquest.
Rights that ought to be extended to all people I'd say. However the point is how do we 'enforce' such rights.
Yes!
If this is the case then Hamas should clearly not have given them this very poorly timed option to carry out their plans.
Very concerned that you could be right on that point.
I'm not sure it is a mental issue (if so then perhaps sociopathy).
I think that he is simply morally corrupt from years of 'winning' by behaving in that way, but we agree upon the effective outcome.
Regime changes as in Kiev are de facto annexations by installing proxy governments. That is plain English not feel good propaganda talk.
LOL
So every new regime change is a annexation?
The former Ukrainian government was destroyed (good riddance) by the Ukrainian people who wanted to not be under Moskwas thumb
No by definition regime change is not annexation, – it is regime change – the new regime controls the same territory, when there is annexation the territories are part of a different country.
Not de jure but de facto with proxy government controlled by another nation, like Kiev/DC. Zelensky is a proxy, he is not in charge, he is de facto and was paid for his service to the USA. No accountability in DC, they knew where much of the $$$$ went.
There is little corruption in the money
The Ukrainian government is not controlled by the US – the US have for months tried to get them to lower the age of conscription without any luck. They tried to get them to launch the 2022 counter offensive earlier – again without any luck.
Your basis for making this claim is fairly limited – as in there are many many cases of the US desiring a different policy and not getting it, incidentally the US preferred Zelenskyy’s rival in the election – so not even in control of that. They do get influence now – as a large donor – but not control.
The US and NATO are bad news for Europe. USA/NATO don't play by the rules, the sooner NATO ends the better. NATO and EU are imploding with no help from Russia needed.
The USA and UK have no business on the continent, De Gaulle knew it more than 60 years ago. He was a real statesman.
They were on the way until our emissary, Boris, ended it.
There’s an argument to be made for humanitarian purpose, although this leaned more toward existential threat of existence.
Also, consider these obligations in re to occupied Palestine:
States' obligations under the Genocide Convention
Obligation not to commit genocide (Article I as interpreted by the ICJ)
Obligation to prevent genocide (Article I) which, according to the ICJ, has an extraterritorial scope;
Obligation to punish genocide (Article I);
Obligation to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention (Article V);
Obligation to ensure that effective penalties are provided for persons found guilty of criminal conduct according to the Convention (Article V);
Obligation to try persons charged with genocide in a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by an international penal tribunal with accepted jurisdiction (Article VI);
Obligation to grant extradition when genocide charges are involved, in accordance with laws and treaties in force (Article VII), particularly related to protection granted by international human rights law prohibiting refoulment where there is a real risk of flagrant human rights violations in the receiving State.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml
Genocide Prevention Resources for Military
The US government's interest in halting mass atrocity has thus far remained largely rhetorical. For example, the 2006 National Security Strategy explicitly stated that "genocide must not be tolerated. It is a moral imperative that states take action to prevent and punish genocide…. We must refine United States Government efforts-economic, diplomatic, and law-enforcement-so that they target those individuals responsible for genocide…Where perpetrators of mass killing defy all attempts at peaceful intervention, armed intervention may be required.
https://vault.ushmm.org/adaptivemedia/rendition/id_e68584709fa1c6541c1aad63eb342107c894e0dd
FAILED ICJ CASE AGAINST RUSSIA BACKFIRES, PAVES WAY FOR GENOCIDE CHARGES AGAINST UKRAINE
https://www.mintpressnews.com/failed-icj-case-against-russia-backfires-paves-way-for-genocide-charges-against-ukraine/287028/
And it does NOT need HINDSIGHT to know that. The stupidity of the megalomaniac Biden team was bad, but nothing has changed, Rubio is another Blinken and Trump thinks he is God Almighty
It began with Clinton, then President Bush withdrawing the U.S. from the ABM treaty.
Then we spent 20 years, four Presidents, trillions of dollars, to replace the Taliban with……….the Taliban. One inept, broke country, we are.
Erdogan took care of his nation's interests, Turkey is not an EU member.
Sadly
i hate erdowan
He does not care about you, hate him or not, who cares?
There is not much room for hate, when dealing with peace…
Perhaps you could share your reasoning…
That is funny, what reasoning are you talking about?
He is a dictator who is bent on controlling Syria
As opposed to the US and Israel?
i never said i prefer US and Israel
Don't put things into my mouth
When you pretend that Turkey is the evil aggressor but leave out the architects, you are propagandizing by omission.
You've said several times you "prefer" the US.
If Ukraine does not seek NATO membership, then there is a first step towards constructive peace talks.
https://kyivindependent.com/tag/peace-negotiations/
https://kyivindependent.com/first-purported-draft-of-ukraine-russia-peace-treaty-from-2022/
https://kyivindependent.com/putin-claims-russia-ready-for-ukraine-talks-questions-legitimacy-under-zelenskys-decree/
The Ukrainians did not seek it, the US starting with the neocon Bush people started it way back in 2008, they were stupid or to be kind, ignorant people, believing the Russians are stupid, they had the first satellite in space and the first man in space.
Now we witness the same ignorance in the Trump team, Rubio is as ignorant as Blinken. And Almighty Trump has the benefit of hindsight.
Zelenky tried it in March 2022 but Boris Johnson told him to stop that nonsense, the message from Biden.
Putin is a fool if he thinks he can get any meaningful guarantees from Ukraine and nato after being deceived by the Minsk agreements for 8 years. Nothing short of the surrender of ukraines military and government should be acceptable to Russia. Otherwise it's an unfinished war and a waste of Russian lives.
If Putin takes Ukraine, he’s then seen as responsible for establishing a better government. It’s not so simple. No one wants that cost and responsibility.
Ukraine was part of Russia and the USSR for 1000 years so I don't see why it would be that hard to establish a good government. And almost any government would be better that being run by NATO.
There are two ways Russia can win. One is to take over all of Ukraine. The other is to take over the Russian speaking parts and leave Ukraine a small landlocked country with a Russian-installed government. In addition to the Ukrainian government and military surrendering neo-nazi groups must be rounded up and executed or jailed. Diplomacy is worthless but somehow the Kremlin can't understand this.
Russia has Nazis too. If they just stop praising Bandera they should be fine.
Yes, Russia has hate groups but they are not part of the government and military like in Ukraine. If Russia makes an agreement that leaves the Ukrainian military and government in place it will be violated just like the Minsk agreements were for 8 years. NATO will slowly start rebuilding the Ukrainian military. There will be more attacks like Crocus. Nazi groups will continue their attacks on the remaining ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine will never be independent – it will either be run by NATO or Russia. If Russia doesn't intend to finish the war it should have never started and wasted over 100,000 Russian lives.
Well that’s the thing, both Russia and Ukraine have paid a price. Both want a return on their investments.
Similarly, I mayn’t criticise US wars around some people due to the price paid in those wars. They must have been fought for something, is the belief.
They were fought for Israel, the petrodollar, and to enrich military contractors
google
Rusich
Ukraine is an expensive mess. Regardless, you can disarm groups or punish individuals for individual crimes. But killing groups is a bad thing. It’s better to just let people work and pay taxes.
Rounding up and killing Azov Right Sector and C14 members is a lot cheaper than keeping them in jail. They were killing civilians in Donetsk and other cities since 2014 that the western media covered up.
They’re not all doing that.
Like I said, individual cases is the ideal approach.
The noe nazis in Ukraine are doing it. That's their ideology- to kill gypsies, jews, gays, lesbians, and russian speakers. They should be rounded up and killed.
pro-Russia freak!
Zelensky should pull out or possibly have a fate like Noriega, Khadafy or Sadam Hosein…! History repeats itself…!
I've been running on the assumption that Trump wants a Nobel because Obama has one. Bill Burr's assessment of that fundraiser at which Obama's writer(s) had him yank Trump's crank when his presidency bid was widely considered a joke seems spot on. We are witnessing possibly the most elaborate "Oh yeah, I'll show you!" in human history.
In Trump's case he'll have to appear to have done something for a Nobel, as opposed to making a speech then spending 8 years doing the opposite of its content. It's petty and childish but if it keeps Earth from nuke war, I'll take it.
Trump the Almighty knows best.
The people he picked for his administration is not looking good. Rubio is not promising, a failure as Biden's Blinken.
Huckabee and Stephanick for Israel also says it all. They don't want peace – both want a Greater Israel and have said so before the world.
No Gaza, no West Bank, no Golan Heights but back to Bible's Israel. Israel was not a country on the map back then called Israel but they think so, because god in the Old Testament killed all men, women, children and animals in that area to make room for his "chosen people"
Whatever happened to COMMON SENSE?
That’s the problem with “common” sense. When you are surrounded by vicious morons, the common (prevailing) sense is to act like vicious morons.
Hegseth. Need I say more??
NO
Looks like Trump is looking for an excuse for his failure. He planted the seeds for his failure when he appointed Rubio. Rubio is as ignorant as Trump. Are they stupid or just too lazy to learn and be informed?
But Trump, the Almighty is sure he can snap his finger and rule the world as he pleases.
Good leaders pick good advisers.
He is good at bamboozling everyone though. Regarding the fires in CA on social media and X adn with Hannity, he talks dirty about Newsom and crew. But then when he gets to CA, he is all mellow and promises all the aid they need and he will help in the great rebuilding to make it the greatest looking city.
He does snap a lot of fingers in front of cameras. I have seen it several times. The one years ago in Scotland was really revolting. He sat there being made up so something and really snapped his fingers, demanding to get him some pins pronto.
I fear he is even worse than Biden, I never thought that could be possible.
I’m no fan of Trump, but he has a long way to go to beat Biden’s 50 years of fuckery and fueling multiple wars and genocide.
Time will tell, old Joe had 50 years and never learned.
He learned. That’s why he had paid gigs for family while having the power of office and then pardoning them all, which in essence was pardoning himself.
He and Trump are more alike than different. Biden had better PR across the stenography circuit.
Trump obviously will provide aid there.
I feel that Rubio is getting undeserved bad press. I just head elsewhere that he's "like Bolton" but Bolton was a war hawk crackpot all the time, while Rubio sounds at least semi-intelligent and he has also done something useful: cut all war subsidies to Ukraine (and everybody else except Israel and Egypt).
Disclaimer: I'm sure that Rubio is a war hawk and his nomination is very bad news for Latin America, the Middle East and China, but I don't think he's dumb at all.
Trump ended the security detail for Bolton. There are people aplenty who want Bolton's head on a platter.
There’s probably a good political cartoon in what you suggest…
;-}
It’s always good to have a scapegoat moustache in chopping block, Cesare Borgia did the same with some governor he had: blamed all on him and had him quartered overnight, the masses applauded in awe. Guess Trump could have done better, like sending the amputated moustache to Venezuela as a sign of repentance.
But I’m dreaming awake: Trump has never repented of anything, he’s so arrogant!
Trump, Trump, Trump, where have all you been the last four years as puppet Joe and hyena Kamala destroyed this country's true values not, some globalists Bull Schiff you sheep have bought into hook, line, and sinker!
Losers and Idiots, you are!
I don’t think he is dumb, but he was ill informed, actually ignorant, but on the obfuscated Trump mantra at his hearing, much like Blinken.
Trump is frontage.
He is a mask…!
He is the unmasking, net.
I doubt he’d be allowed someone you’d approve of though.
Back in the day it was claimed that it was Boris Johnson (then PM of the UK) who pushed to derail the negotiations. Of course there may have been other actors but Zelensky never acted alone.
Public information was that Boris delivered the Biden message, he ordered not to settle with Russia, Biden was not yet ready.
That is the fact which has never been deputed, not even by good old Boris. A documented historical fact.
“Best money we ever spent.”
That’s very possible but it’s also true that in the early stages of the Ukraine war Britain and Poland were major actors, stirring the pot a lot!
I thought that Z and P had agreed in principle to end the war but D.C. sent Boris (and apt name, don't you think?) to scuttle it.
Now, Drumpf blames Z only, and will continue arms to Ukraine.
And Israel.
I am confused. I thought Drumpf said he was going to bring peace.
Didn't he also threaten 4 countries in his first 5 days in office?
Boris didn’t arrive until after it had already been scuttled. Zelenskyy wanted changes to the draft agreement, and Lavrov publicly rejected those changes.
"Zelenskyy wanted changes to the draft agreement, and Lavrov publicly rejected those changes."
Aren't you confusing the give and take of the negotiating process with its termination?
Thomas as far as we know and Putin put it on the table the draft of the agreement had been initialed by all parties. No one denies that. It was not minor changes, it was an order to stop and go on fighting.
the fact that even now Biden refused to even talk to Putin, Zelensky signed an order at the beginning under no circumstances to negotiate with Putin.
If Lavrov rejected any changes they could have been the mines to destroy the agreement, if so, either way Biden succeeded.
Boris scuttled any further negotiations. So, it didn't matter what happened previously.
For all you people who rush to circular logic, consider this little tidbit:
Maybe the reason the Eastern Flanks of Europe (Here in Poland, the Baltics, czechia-slovakia, Romania, etc…) wanted to join NATO, is because of Russian AGGRESSION and AGGRESIVE ACTION towards THEIR neighbors and not some huge conspiracy about PAX AMERICANA
Food for thought
But the proxy war has well served its purpose of draining Russian manpower and resources, to the point that fearmongering about future Russian invasions of Poland, Germany & et al is really little but fantastical paranoia. It will take them years to get back to the strength that they have Before they went into Ur, and the loss of so many of their warships about guarantees if they even did try one or the other, there would be no way for them to enforce their invasions from the ocean borders.
And that stuff is a bad thing?
In its long history Russia had border skirmishes like all nations, they recovered from 2 WW and a revolution, they will recover again. Russia never invaded Western Europe, but Napoleon crossed all of Europe all the way to Moscow, he ended up in Moscow and lost. Hitler got to Stalingrad and it was the beginning of the end. Russians never attacked Europe. In 1948 when NATO was created, Russia was in no way a military danger to Europe, the nation tried to recover from the ordeal of the war. But the capitalists feared the Communist/Marxist agenda like the devil holy water, they needed Germany, that saved Germany.
Yes, in 1948, Russia was a threat to Europe. You yourself said that Russia will always recover, and it did. It had subjegated all of eastern europe and showed no signs of leaving
There is no indication that they wanted to invade anywhere. Russian people want peace like other people.
russian
people
want
peace
ah yes, because invading countries is peaceful
And you actually think the will of the people is taken into consideration when their governments decide to go to war?
"Feel Good Propaganda" is all the food tor thought you have.
Ok mate
Don't choke on it.
Zelensky should pull out or possibly have a fate like Noriega, Khadafy or Sadam Hosein…! History repeats itself…!
He makes a good scape goat. That is what he is paid for.
On Judging Freedom, Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has suggested that one misstep by Z and he will be picked up by an armored carrier, to exit in a casket.
All things considered, the chaos we face is just a sorry ending of social democratic nations. Democracy is being eaten up by a criminal bunch of corrupt billionaires, intellectually and morally bankrupt regimes in advanced Western Democracies. It was nice as long as it lasted, Social democracies wanted fair and just societies, to a large extend they did succeed but in the end greed and power took over. The ME is proof, what a shame for humankind. We do know better.
My thoughts exactly.
Trump is actually right in saying the war wouldn't have started if he was president. He did arm Ukraine after Obama had started that – and he sent them weapons even Obama had hesitated to send. However, he never liked Ukraine's shelling of Donbass.
Biden was paid by Ukraine via Burisma and "board member" Hunter, his bagman for decades. Who wrote in email found on his laptop that he sends half of such incomes/bribes to "the big man," which his business partner has confirmed meant Joe Biden. Biden was on Zelensky's leash. He approved anything Zelensky wanted. We can only imagine what else they have on him in Kiev.
And of course, the Democrats HATE Russia, for having culturally conservative policies like banning homosexual propaganda in schools (and since 2022 in all of society) and for the Russia-Trump hoax, party dogma which the vast majority of Democrats actually believe. They wanted Donbass invaded by Zelensky's amassed 60,000 invaders, to humiliate Putin and start their dreamed-of "color revolution" somehow.
(Don't look so contemptous, Republicans. You turned it into party dogma that corona was "created in a lab" when it's proven it came from the Wuhan wet market like other pandemics. Before that you claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and that Obama was a Muslim. Both U.S. parties have their crazy stuff that leads them to hostile acts.)
Hi swede
"He shouldn’t have done that because we could have made a deal and it would have been a deal that would have been — it would have been a nothing deal," Sorry does anyone know what he means?
The Ukraine-Russia war was provoked from day one.
It started when the US government spent $5billion to overthrow the pro-Russia elected government in Kiev, as confirmed by Victoria Nuland, in 2014.
Nuland was the US Assistant Secretary of State from 2013 to 2017.
Zelensky is a corrupt actor-politician who turned down a peace agreement in 2022 under pressure from Joe Biden and Boris Johnson.
And that's the fact.
Donald Trump can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
lol
Zelensky started this war. He invaded and annexed Russian and will not be satisfied until he takes St Pete and Moscow.
Peaceful Russians and Putin are forced to defend themselves and protect their sovereignty.
The world needs to help Putin defend his country. Lol.
Zelensky doesn't appreciate the Russian position that requires a free and fair Ukraine election for president, Verkhovna Rada, and other positions. That which is likely to force him out of Ukraine before the Kremlin is willing to talk an armistice with Trump and the new Ukrainian president.