Why do the U.S. support Ukraine which has Nazi laws?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK, I have understood your answer.

The laws, which divide citizens according to their ethnic origin into categories, some of which have more rights and others have less rights, aren’t Nazi laws, in your opinion.

And I have two further questions to you:

How would you personally call such laws then? Are these laws, for example, democratic, in your opinion?

And the second question:
Would you like to be a citizen of a country where citizens according to their ethnic origin are divided by laws into categories, some of which have more rights and others have less rights? Especially, if you personally only because of your ethnic origin would have less rights than other citizens?

They do not. Therefore, your question is ridiculous! Rights are easily defined. Being a Russki, you never had any so do not understand them.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

To put it more exactly, the Crimean Peninsula was Ukrainian for 60 years after it had been passed by the Soviet government from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954; although in the 1950s ethnic Russians amounted to 71.4% of Crimean population and ethnic Ukrainian only to 22.3%; please see Demographics of Crimea.
Before that, for 171 years – after Crimea had lost its independence in 1783 – it wasn’t Ukrainian, e.g. it wasn’t a part of Ukrainian Hetmanate in the 18th century; at first, Crimea was a part of the Russian Empire and then a part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic – till 1954.

And please answer the question below, too
Aren’t the laws, which divide citizens according to their ethnic origin into categories, some of which have more rights and others have less rights, the Nazi laws?

Why do you keep bringing up ethnic racial backgrounds, you nazi?


You have not named the laws and what those laws do, you just said "there are laws".

 

[Dissident]

You have not named the laws and what those laws do, you just said "there are laws".

It’s untrue – please read the first post in the thread Aren't these Ukrainian laws the Nazi ones?

Why do you keep bringing up ethnic racial backgrounds, you nazi?

When I say about ethnic origin of the majority of Crimean population, it doesn’t make me a Nazi.
And I say about that because I believe that this information is important to understand causes of the dispute over Crimea between Russia and Ukraine.

And I have answered your question, but you had ignored mine – please see below.

And please answer the question below, too
Aren’t the laws, which divide citizens according to their ethnic origin into categories, some of which have more rights and others have less rights, the Nazi laws?

 

[Dissident]

Being a Russki, you never ,,,

You have ignored my question, too - please see below.

The laws, which divide citizens according to their ethnic origin into categories, some of which have more rights and others have less rights, aren’t Nazi laws, in your opinion.
...
How would you personally call such laws then? Are these laws, for example, democratic, in your opinion?

You have also ignored my second question - please see below.

And the second question:
Would you like to be a citizen of a country where citizens according to their ethnic origin are divided by laws into categories, some of which have more rights and others have less rights? Especially, if you personally - only because of your ethnic origin - would have less rights than other citizens?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You have ignored my question, too - please see below.


You have also ignored my second question - please see below.

I answered both of your questions, but you refuse to accept my answer because you are asking stupid questions.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

It’s untrue – please read the first post in the thread Aren't these Ukrainian laws the Nazi ones?


When I say about ethnic origin of the majority of Crimean population, it doesn’t make me a Nazi.
And I say about that because I believe that this information is important to understand causes of the dispute over Crimea between Russia and Ukraine.

And I have answered your question, but you had ignored mine – please see below.

Your concern for an ethnic group of people that live in Ukrainian borders does make you a nazi, because those laws you say exist, don't.

Adolf Hitler said that ethnic Germans were being killed in Poland. They weren't. It was a lie and an excuse just to invade.

 

[Dissident]

I answered both of your questions...

It’s a lie. You didn’t answer my questions.

You said that the Ukrainian laws, which are discussed, aren’t Nazi laws. But you refused to answer both of my further questions, i.e. the question “How would you personally call such laws then?” and the question “Would you personally like to be a citizen of a country which has such laws?”; see here.

It makes no sense to discuss anything with a person who - like you – lies and refuses to answer questions relating to object of discussion.

 

[Dissident]

...make you a nazi...

At first, you lied that I allegedly had not named the Ukrainian laws, which are discussed. Then you refused to answer the question, whether these Ukrainian laws are Nazi ones; see here.

It makes no sense to discuss anything with a person who - like you – lies and refuses to answer questions relating to object of discussion.

 

[Dissident]

Since my opponents have failed to disprove that Ukraine has Nazi laws, let’s return to the question from the title of this thread, i.e. to the question – WHY do the U.S. support such a country as Ukraine which has Nazi laws?

There is an answer in the first post of this thread.
It doesn’t matter for the U.S. what kind of a country Ukraine is. The U.S. want to reduce Russian influence in Europe; the U.S. want to sell their liquefied gas in Europe etc.
Therefore the U.S. are ready to support any country if this country is hostile towards Russia.

Another answer to this question was given in the second post of this thread - The Dims support the Ukraine because this is where all the millions are laundered and they get their cuts.

Have you other answers to the question from the title of this thread?

 

[Confederate Soldier]

At first, you lied that I allegedly had not named the Ukrainian laws, which are discussed. Then you refused to answer the question, whether these Ukrainian laws are Nazi ones; see here.

It makes no sense to discuss anything with a person who - like you – lies and refuses to answer questions relating to object of discussion.

YOU SAY there are Nazi laws, but you do not GIVE the names of the laws, and HOW they target racial minorities. you just say "There are laws". WHAT LAWS!?

 

[kaz]

In the middle of April, I published an article which dealt with the question whether some Ukrainian laws are the Nazi ones (see here).
This article was discussed on USMB (see here) and nobody could disprove that these laws are the Nazi ones, indeed.

It’s an obvious fact that, for example, ethnic Crimean Tatars - according to these laws - are “first-rate” citizens of Ukraine and have more rights; ethnic Hungarians are “second-rate” citizens and have less rights than Crimean Tatars; and ethnic Russians are “third-rate” citizens and have less rights than Hungarians.

Spoiler

It’s another obvious fact, that Ukrainian rulers always make territorial claims to the Russian Crimean Peninsula, where ethnic Russians amount to 67.9% of population (see here).
It means that the Ukrainian rulers want to turn 67.9% of Crimean population into citizens of the “third-rate”!

At the same time, Ukraine intensively armed itself, constantly declared its plans to join NATO etc. The Russian government many times tried to persuade the Ukrainian rulers to remain nonaligned, to let Crimea stay in Russia etc. But Ukraine continued to arm itself etc.

At a certain point of time the Russian government decided that the actions of the Ukrainian rulers reached a dangerous point and very soon the situation could become even more dangerous. And then, the Russian government decided to start a military operation against Ukraine.

But the U.S. supported and support all Ukrainian actions including its claims to the Crimean Peninsula – despite of the Nazi laws in Ukraine.
It means that the U.S. support, inter alia, the Ukrainian plan to turn 67.9% of Crimean population into citizens of the “third-rate”!

The question naturally arises – Why do the U.S. support such a country as Ukraine?

My opinion is that it doesn’t matter for the U.S. what kind of a country Ukraine is. The U.S. want to reduce Russian influence in Europe; the U.S. want to sell their liquefied gas in Europe etc.
Therefore, in my opinion, the U.S. are ready to support even Nazis if these Nazis are hostile towards Russia.

Source

Why do you didn't learn English before you's came here?

 

[Rigby5]

First, you say 1992. Then 1991. Now...1993.

Stop making shit up.

As for why Ukraine gave up its nukes, it was part of the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances signed by Russia, the US, and the UK in 1994. That memorandum was an agreement that Russia would not attack Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan.

Your hallucination of a mutual defense pact between Russia and Ukraine is hilariously false.

In exchange for this security from attack by Russia, Ukraine gave up its nukes.

Ukraine did not ever have the codes for those nukes. Russia did. So when the USSR collapsed, the nukes went back to the Russian Federation in exchange for a guarantee of non-aggression by Russia toward those three countries.

Now let me show you how to do a link to back up one's claims:

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See how easy that is?

The treaties between the Ukraine and Russia started in 1991, but ended more like 1994, after the old Soviet nukes were resolved.
Sure Russia promised to not invade the Ukraine, but ONLY if the Ukraine followed its treaty obligations, which demanded the Ukraine not try to join any coalition hostile to Russia.

Since Zelensky is constantly asking to join NATO, that void any and all treaties between Russia and the Ukraine.
But a state of war was also created by the Ukraine murdering ethic Russians, stealing Russian oil from Russian pipelines, and other criminal act.

And throwing up a link does NOT at all "back up any claims".
You have to quote the relevant section, and give your reasons why you believe it backs up your claims.
And if you had done this properly, it would have been obvious to you that it is the Ukraine that caused the invasion.

{...
The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[2][3]
...}

The quoted agreement has exceptions for self-defense or what the UN Charter allows. And since Zelensky stole oil, murdered Russian civilians, and tried to put NATO nukes on Russia's border, then Russia not only was free to attack, but obligated to.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby5

You can read the Security Assurance agreement here: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/v3007.pdf

Page 169. Which is the 194th page of the pdf.

So...contrary to your idiotic claims, Rigby, it is Russia which has violated the treaty. Not Ukraine.

Putin has been violating the agreement since 2014.

Wrong.
Point 2 clearly says that Russia is free to use their weapons agains the Ukraine if necessary "in self defense", as the Ukraine starts to stockpile US weapons, try to join NATO, or try to put US nukes on Russia's border.
"Or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:.

You should consider reading something before trying to use it to back up a claim.

And you still have it all wrong, and that the 1994 treaty is only concerned with the old Soviet nukes, NOT with how the Ukraine was originally granted independence by Gorbachev.

 

[Rigby5]

Absolutely wrong and FALSE.

None of the information you posted constitutes a treaty between Russia and Ukraine.

Did NATO promise Gorbachev they would not advance on old Soviet states.
Since NATO is trying to include the Ukraine as a member, that is a violation of the promises to Gorbachev.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Did NATO promise Gorbachev they would not advance on old Soviet states.
Since NATO is trying to include the Ukraine as a member, that is a violation of the promises to Gorbachev.

NATO did not Advance on any state much less former Soviet States.

Nothing in the agreement prevent the former states from Joining NATO if they chose to in the future.

 

[Rigby5]

Stalin was a true communist and believer in the ideology which is rooted entirely in theft.

Capoitalists make money they do not steal it.

He killed anyone who disagreed with him as the dictatorship of gthe proletariate will always do

Nonsense. If Stalin was any sort of politico, he would not have had Trotsky murdered, or any of the real communists.
Communism is the means under which all families live, so can't be theft.
A dictator can't be a member of the proletariat,
That is a linguistic contradiction.

 

[Toro]

In the middle of April, I published an article which dealt with the question whether some Ukrainian laws are the Nazi ones (see here).
This article was discussed on USMB (see here) and nobody could disprove that these laws are the Nazi ones, indeed.

It’s an obvious fact that, for example, ethnic Crimean Tatars - according to these laws - are “first-rate” citizens of Ukraine and have more rights; ethnic Hungarians are “second-rate” citizens and have less rights than Crimean Tatars; and ethnic Russians are “third-rate” citizens and have less rights than Hungarians.

Spoiler

It’s another obvious fact, that Ukrainian rulers always make territorial claims to the Russian Crimean Peninsula, where ethnic Russians amount to 67.9% of population (see here).
It means that the Ukrainian rulers want to turn 67.9% of Crimean population into citizens of the “third-rate”!

At the same time, Ukraine intensively armed itself, constantly declared its plans to join NATO etc. The Russian government many times tried to persuade the Ukrainian rulers to remain nonaligned, to let Crimea stay in Russia etc. But Ukraine continued to arm itself etc.

At a certain point of time the Russian government decided that the actions of the Ukrainian rulers reached a dangerous point and very soon the situation could become even more dangerous. And then, the Russian government decided to start a military operation against Ukraine.

But the U.S. supported and support all Ukrainian actions including its claims to the Crimean Peninsula – despite of the Nazi laws in Ukraine.
It means that the U.S. support, inter alia, the Ukrainian plan to turn 67.9% of Crimean population into citizens of the “third-rate”!

The question naturally arises – Why do the U.S. support such a country as Ukraine?

My opinion is that it doesn’t matter for the U.S. what kind of a country Ukraine is. The U.S. want to reduce Russian influence in Europe; the U.S. want to sell their liquefied gas in Europe etc.
Therefore, in my opinion, the U.S. are ready to support even Nazis if these Nazis are hostile towards Russia.

Source

Russian troll

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong. There is no restriction on who the US may make war on.

Yes there is.
When the US created the UN in 1945, Congress ratified the UN charter in to US law, and it makes all war illegal unless attacked first, or if the UN votes for it.

 

[Rigby5]

Negotition does not mean treaty. And yes ALL treaties are public. You are a proven liar and can cite no treaty whcih Ukraine broke

No, most treaties are not public.
And while it is pretty obvious the Ukraine and Russia agreed to term, a treaty is not necessary.
Just like the US used force against Cuban missiles, Russia is also well within its self defense rights, to attack a belligerent Ukraine.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Yes there is.
When the US created the UN in 1945, Congress ratified the UN charter in to US law, and it makes all war illegal unless attacked first, or if the UN votes for it.

Well that certainly isn't true and the UN has no power over the decisions of the Commander in Chief of US forces.