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

[Big Bend Texas]

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.

No treaty is at all valid in the US unless it has been openly discussed, debated, and ratified by the Senate.

 

[Rigby5]

No it is not. Profit does not come from theft it comes from trade.

Marx was a racist piug who hated democracy and believed in tyranny and preached tyranny.

Wrong.
Profit comes from having currency.
And stealing it is a time honored tradition among imperial colonialists like the US.

And your diatribe against Marx is silly.
He was a proponent of the French Revolution to democracy from the monarchy.
Marx never preached tyranny, but actually Libertarian Anarchy, where the "state would whither away".
He wanted no coercive government at all.
An idealist, but not racist or tyrant.
You are just totally wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

We teach English in the US as the primary language because it is our national language.

Does that make us all Nazis?

Teaching a language does not make Nazis, but having varying levels of rights based on what language is native to you, IS NAZI.

 

[Rigby5]

How exactly? They were already a separate country even under Soviet Rule.

Wrong.
The USSR was supreme over the individual members, who were states, not separate countries.
The US states used to be separate countries, until they joined the United States federation.
Then they no longer were separate countries.
They could no longer declare war, negotiate treaties, etc.
Same with the Ukraine.
It lost it independence when it joined the USSR.

 

[Rigby5]

No, that is robbery which is a crime.

Capitalism is a voluntary exchange of goods or services for an agreed upon price without or at least with minimal gov't involvement.

Capitalism makes no distinction as to how you make a profit.
Slavery in the US is proof of that.
The world has a long history of crimes for profit over the last 10,000 years.
Capitalism not only makes no such distinction, but the US would not even exist if not for the crime of stealing the country from the natives.

 

[Rigby5]

This is of course a lie, there was no such language in the final document they all agreed to and signed.

Wrong.
Why would Gorbachev have given the Ukraine independence without any sort of security arrangement?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Capitalism makes no distinction as to how you make a profit.
Slavery in the US is proof of that.
The world has a long history of crimes for profit over the last 10,000 years.
Capitalism not only makes no such distinction, but the US would not even exist if not for the crime of stealing the country from the natives.

You continue simply making things up.

Capitalism is a voluntary exchange of money, goods, and services, theft is not capitalism.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Wrong.
Why would Gorbachev have given the Ukraine independence without any sort of security arrangement?

The only "Security Arrangement" was relative to Ukraine Giving up it's nukes.

There was nothing in the agreement preventing the former Soviet States from joining NATO nor can you find it in the agreement.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
The Ukraine was specifically prohibited from joining alliances hostile to Russia.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I am not familiar with what those treaties were called, but it was openly acknowledged in 1992 that they existed, that the Ukraine had agreed to them, and that they included never trying to join NATO.

Once Russia violated the treaties by invading Ukraine to seize Crimea, they were null and void.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Wrong.
The Ukraine was specifically prohibited from joining alliances hostile to Russia.

You are still fabricating, No language in the agreements prevented any of the former Soviet Bloc nations from Joining NATO.

NATO is not hostile to Russia and never has been, it's a purely defensive pact.

As long as Russia doesn't start attacking it's neighbors she has absolutely nothing to fear form NATO.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Once Russia violated the treaties by invading Ukraine to seize Crimea, they were null and void.

No such treaty existed to begin with.

 

[Rigby5]

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

False.
Read Article II, Paragraph 4.
I can't quote it directly, as the pdf does not allow copy/paste to this post.

https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ls/wood_article.pdf

But the whole POINT of the UN is to make war illegal, except in immediate defense or as approved by the UN.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

False.
Read Article II, Paragraph 4.
I can't quote it directly, as the pdf does not allow copy/paste to this post.

https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ls/wood_article.pdf

But the whole POINT of the UN is to make war illegal, except in immediate defense or as approved by the UN.

Perhaps you should get an interpreter and read it for yourself.

1. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

That doesn't grant them any power of the US which can Veto any resolution by the Security Council.

If we started launching wars of conquest you might have a point but we haven't in a hundred years and certainly not since the creation of The UN.

 

[task0778]

A statement signed by more than 300 historians who study genocide, Nazism and World War II said Putin’s rhetoric about de-Nazifying fascists among Ukraine’s elected leadership is “propaganda.”

“We strongly reject the Russian government’s cynical abuse of the term genocide, the memory of World War II and the Holocaust, and the equation of the Ukrainian state with the Nazi regime to justify its unprovoked aggression,” the statement says. “This rhetoric is factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive to the memory of millions of victims of Nazism and those who courageously fought against it, including Russian and Ukrainian soldiers of the Red Army.

“We do not idealize the Ukrainian state and society. Like any other country, it has right-wing extremists and violent xenophobic groups. Ukraine also ought to better confront the darker chapters of its painful and complicated history. Yet none of this justifies the Russian aggression and the gross mischaracterization of Ukraine.”

One of the authors of the statement, Eugene Finkel, an associate professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, told us the influence of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi faction is relatively small.

“Neo-Nazi, far right and xenophobic groups do exist in Ukraine, like in pretty much any other country, including Russia,” Finkel said. “They are vocal and can be prone to violence but they are numerically small, marginal and their political influence at the state level is non-existent. That is not to say that Ukraine doesn’t have a far-right problem. It does. But I would consider the KKK in the US and skinheads and neo-Nazi groups in Russia a much bigger problem and threat than the Ukrainian far right.”

The Facts on 'De-Nazifying' Ukraine - FactCheck.org

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says Russia’s talk of “de-Nazifying” Ukraine is a non-starter in peace negotiations. We’ll explain what these claims are all about and why experts say they are misleading.

www.factcheck.org

Putin is trying to justify his imperialist invasion into another sovereign state with bullshit lies.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Wrong.
This is common knowledge that Gorbachev gave the Ukraine independence in 1991, but under certain conditions.

Betrayal Of Gorbachev Regarding NATO Explained In Detail

Clinton's betrayal of Gorbachov is the root cause of the current impasse. He promised not to expand NATO up to Russia's border.

progressivehub.net

{...

Top leaders of the “Free World” all agreed that the United States would never enlarge NATO to reassure Gorbachev that the new Russia had nothing to fear from NATO.​

By Sharon Tennison, Center for Citizen Initiatives
At last … 30 years plus, the truth comes out. There are numerous accounts by the top leaders of the Free World that they all agreed that the United States would never enlarge NATO to reassure Mikhail Gorbachev that the new Russia had no worry from NATO, definitely there would be no enlargement beyond the borders of the reunited Germany.
Below note how many of the VIP’s assured Gorbachev that he need have no fear … they were adamant that NATO would never move closer to the struggling-to-survive new Russia in the 1990s.
These facts below have been ignored, blurred and buried as Bill Clinton mercilessly began admitting one piece of the former USSR into NATO. Today NATO surrounds Russia with the latest NATO missiles and troops aimed at Russia.
This is what Putin’s defiant resistance and threat to NATO in Ukraine is all about. He demands to have assurances that NATO will back off … or else. Russia is now strong enough militarily to make such demands. All of us could be caught in the crossfires if this situation isn’t resolved.
...}

And then Russia started invading its neighbors who freely turned to NATO for orotection from the bear.

How was the invasion of the sovereign and innocent country of Iraq, legal?
It is only legal to invade when another nation is violating laws and rights of the US.
Iraq in no way violated any laws or rights related to the US.

iraq was violating over a hundred UN resolutions AND the cease-fire that Iraq freely signed to end Gulf War 1 without regime change. Iraq was guilty of invading its tiny, inoffensive neighbor Kuwait, conquering it and raping its citizens and looting its valuables.

 

[Uriel]

You are still fabricating, No language in the agreements prevented any of the former Soviet Bloc nations from Joining NATO.

NATO is not hostile to Russia and never has been, it's a purely defensive pact.

As long as Russia doesn't start attacking it's neighbors she has absolutely nothing to fear form NATO.

It's a little more complicated than that. Russia does have a long history of manipulating neighboring countries and annexing parts of them, but this is done partially in response to Western meddling in their governments.

A lot of the former Soviet Republics have become proxy regimes for the West or Russia, depending on the year. Ukraine is possibly the most unstable of all of them, with power shifting to either side nearly every time an election occurs.

For a while, there was a period where the unwritten rule was that Ukraine would be officially neutral while the West and Russia competed for control of the government. The war in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea complicated things, particularly because the people of Crimea largely are more loyal to Russia than Ukraine. This is because of the ethnic composition of the area. The Donbas region is still majority Ukrainian, but they have significant Russian minority populations.

So, Russia has certainly created plenty of instability in the country and has annexed a large portion of it, but the most recent invasion was sparked by the decision to offer NATO membership to Ukraine. Regardless of how one feels about that offer in and of itself, it is essentially Russia's casus belli. Putin's response has largely backfired with the pending acceptance of Finland and Sweden into NATO, but it's doubtful that Putin will back down without some negotiation involved.

Currently, China is backing Russia in this, so the sanctions are limited in their effectiveness. India, Brazil, and South Africa also still trade with them. So unless we can get those countries to join the sanctions, negotiation is needed.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Do you think all negotiation are public or something?
Russia could have prevented the Ukraine from becoming independent.

No it couldn't. Russia was in the process of disintegrating. It had to hold on the critical republics and let everything else go. Ukraine wasn't critical to Russian survival.

 

[Uriel]

Capitalism makes no distinction as to how you make a profit.
Slavery in the US is proof of that.
The world has a long history of crimes for profit over the last 10,000 years.
Capitalism not only makes no such distinction, but the US would not even exist if not for the crime of stealing the country from the natives.

Capitalism depends on the establishment of property rights. Under some systems, slaves are valid property, not people (effectively). I'm not saying that makes it right, but that's the logic behind it.

This is why capitalism alone is not the basis for our system. We do not define people as property anymore because of the advancement of natural rights.

 

[Rigby5]

No treaty is at all valid in the US unless it has been openly discussed, debated, and ratified by the Senate.

We are not talking about the US, which as a democratic republic, is very different than Russia or the Ukraine.
However, the US also have many secret pacts and treaties as well, such as the aid we gave to the Contras in Nicaragua.
We illegally supported all sorts of dictators in the Americas, without any public disclosure of the relevant treaties.