Was Ukraine a threat to Russia before start of Russian military operation?

Originally posted by AntonToo
Poland maybe? Litva perhaps? You think Russia has a right to bomb them since they are part of NATO and may get common defense budget funding?

I don't want to make light of the tragic events that are unfolding in Ukraine. What Russia is doing, waging war on a nation that didn't attack her is extremelly grave, justified, but an extremelly serious breach of the normal behavior you expect from any member of the international community.

Geopolitical threats like the one NATO poses to Russia need to be addressed but the nation being threatened by military encirclement like Russia or any other kind of threat has to do everything in its power to solve the issue by diplomatic means.

Military solutions must be evaluated only after all peaceful alternatives to war have been exausted.

If diplomacy fails, yes, Russia would be justified to start a bombing campaign against Poland, the baltic states, etc...
 
I don't want to make light of the tragic events that are unfolding in Ukraine. What Russia is doing, waging war on a nation that didn't attack her is extremelly grave, justified, but an extremelly serious breach of the normal behavior you expect from any member of the international community.

Geopolitical threats like the one NATO poses to Russia need to be addressed but the nation being threatened by military encirclement like Russia or any other kind of threat has to do everything in its power to solve the issue by diplomatic means.

Military solutions must be evaluated only after all peaceful alternatives to war have been exausted.

If diplomacy fails, yes, Russia would be justified to start a bombing campaign against Poland, the baltic states, etc...
Yet the USG has waged war on multiple nations that didn’t attack it.
 
It must be mentioned also that there were very few casualties in 2019-2021
When Hitler invaded the Rhineland in March 1936, there were no casualties at all. But if he had been stopped then, there might not have been millions of victims after.
The same goes for the nazis of Ukraine in 2014.
Just as the West supported Hitler in 1930s, so it still supports the nazis now.
The result could be much worse than the Second World War.
 
Originally posted by gipper
Yet the USG has waged war on multiple nations that didn’t attack it.

When the US attacked Iraq in 2003 Bush also cited a geopolitical threat to America, gipper.

As I said, geopolitical threats are grounds for military action even in the absence of a armed aggression. But the geopolitical threat must be real, serious.

I would argue that the military encirclement of Russia's western borders by NATO is infinitely more serious than imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
 
When the US attacked Iraq in 2003 Bush also cited a geopolitical threat to America, gipper.

As I said, geopolitical threats are grounds for military action even in the absence of a armed aggression. But the geopolitical threat must be real, serious.

I would argue that the military encirclement of Russia's western borders by NATO is infinitely more serious than imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
And we know he lied, like so many presidents have done to take the nation to war.
 
When the US attacked Iraq in 2003 Bush also cited a geopolitical threat to America, gipper.

As I said, geopolitical threats are grounds for military action even in the absence of a armed aggression. But the geopolitical threat must be real, serious.

I would argue that the military encirclement of Russia's western borders by NATO is infinitely more serious than imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
Bullshit. The only legal basis for an attack on another country is defense against aggression. If the aggression has not yet occurred but is clearly imminent, a preemptive attack is also legal. Neither of these conditions apply to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine or the present Russian invasion of Ukraine. Every action taken by Russia in these invasions is illegal under international law, but Russia has ignored international law and previous agreements it had made because the leadership foolishly thought no one would oppose them, but they are wrong and Russia will not recover from this war in the foreseeable future.

As you demonstrate over and over again in your posts, it is impossible to defend Russia's actions without lying.
 
Bullshit. The only legal basis for an attack on another country is defense against aggression. If the aggression has not yet occurred but is clearly imminent, a preemptive attack is also legal. Neither of these conditions apply to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine or the present Russian invasion of Ukraine. Every action taken by Russia in these invasions is illegal under international law, but Russia has ignored international law and previous agreements it had made because the leadership foolishly thought no one would oppose them, but they are wrong and Russia will not recover from this war in the foreseeable future.

As you demonstrate over and over again in your posts, it is impossible to defend Russia's actions without lying.
BS asshole. 14,000 dead ethnic Russians in the Donbas mean something to intelligent people.
 
Bullshit. The only legal basis for an attack on another country is defense against aggression. If the aggression has not yet occurred but is clearly imminent, a preemptive attack is also legal. Neither of these conditions apply to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine or the present Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You're lying. Or don't have a clue
 
BS asshole. 14,000 dead ethnic Russians in the Donbas mean something to intelligent people.
14,000 people were killed in the proxy war Russia started in Donbas but it is not clear how many were killed by Russian soldiers and Russian proxies and how many were killed by Ukrainian troops defending their country against the Russian invasion.
 
You're lying. Or don't have a clue
I have presented the facts under international law, but Russia has ignored international law and has ignored agreements it had made with Ukraine and the US and UK. Russia wants to live in a might-makes-right world, but Russia is not a great power and has lost all credibility and respect in the world and will not recover from the crimes it is committing in the foreseeable future.
 
Originally posted by toomuchtime
Bullshit. The only legal basis for an attack on another country is defense against aggression. If the aggression has not yet occurred but is clearly imminent, a preemptive attack is also legal.

Someone forgot to tell that to Reagan in 1983 when a mere airport built with Cuban help was deemed a serious enough geopolitical threat to justify the military invasion of the island of Grenada and the overthrow of the government.
 
When Hitler invaded the Rhineland in March 1936, there were no casualties at all. But if he had been stopped then, there might not have been millions of victims after.
The same goes for the nazis of Ukraine in 2014.

Thats true, Russians who annexed Crimea with no resistance should've been stopped in 2014.
 
Just as the West supported Hitler in 1930s, so it still supports the nazis now.
You are out of your fucking mind Boris.

America armed, aided and supported USSR against Nazi invasion, just like it's now helping Ukraine to fight off Russhist invasion.
 
Someone forgot to tell that to Reagan in 1983 when a mere airport built with Cuban help was deemed a serious enough geopolitical threat to justify the military invasion of the island of Grenada and the overthrow of the government.
Are you trying to sound stupid or is it that you just can't help it? Whether or not the US was justified in invading Grenada, the fact remains that under international law the only justification for attacking another country is an actual or imminent aggression from that country and Russia had no legal grounds for launching the 2014 invasion of Ukraine or the present invasion of Ukraine.
 
They are profoundly different from us.
They are orofiundl6 different only because of the situation the6 exist in. The Japanese, Germans were NOT democratically inclined as peoples until they were defeated in war and FORCED to participate in a democracy. Wars are game changers, good or bad.
 
They are orofiundl6 different only because of the situation the6 exist in. The Japanese, Germans were NOT democratically inclined as peoples until they were defeated in war and FORCED to participate in a democracy. Wars are game changers, good or bad.
In effect, we changed the cultures of these countries during the occupations of Japan and Germany, but we are not going to occupy Russia.
 
In effect, we changed the cultures of these countries during the occupations of Japan and Germany, but we are not going to occupy Russia.
Nope. But only because of nuclear arms deterrents. It’s highly unlikely Russia would have invaded had Ukraine not turned its nukes back over to Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine for the same reason most wars are started……fossil fuels and their access to markets for fossil fuels. It’s not rocket science. If the science is true that fusion reaction is much closer then ever before, wars will still be waged over fossil fuels but BY fossil, fuel proponents in an effort to preserve their wealth and status…..it’s seldom about democracy. It’s often a by product.
 
Originally posted by toomuchtime
Are you trying to sound stupid or is it that you just can't help it? Whether or not the US was justified in invading Grenada, the fact remains that under international law the only justification for attacking another country is an actual or imminent aggression from that country and Russia had no legal grounds for launching the 2014 invasion of Ukraine or the present invasion of Ukraine.

The UN purposefully ignores geopolitical threats in a well-intentioned effort to reduce the number of armed conflicts around the world.

That's why Reagan, Bush and Putin were forced to face the threats to their countries outside the international legal framework with the only difference that the russian casus belli is infinitely stronger than the other two.
 
The UN purposefully ignores geopolitical threats in a well-intentioned effort to reduce the number of armed conflicts around the world.

That's why Reagan, Bush and Putin were forced to face the threats to their countries outside the international legal framework with the only difference that the russian casus belli is infinitely stronger than the other two.
Still drooling nothing but bullshit. Putin is trying to annex Ukraine after Russia had already acknowledged Ukraine as a sovereign state and regardless of whether the US wars in Iraq or Grenada were justified under international law, the US did not seek to annex any territories.

If you want to compare Putin to someone, compare him to Hitler or Stalin, not to a US president.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top