Now you've moved the goalposts. Putin didn't follow international law, which is what you claimed. He just pointed to the ICJ's advisory opinion as justification for his actions in Ukraine, and did that in 2022, years after he invaded in 2014. In this context, by claiming Russia was justified in invading Ukraine you are in effect arguing in favor of what the U.S. did in Kosovo. You criticize the U.S. for its unlawful actions, then use those unlawful acts to justify Russia's invasion. Hypocrite much? The U.S. violated international law. So did Russia. But you won't admit that, will you?
I'm not an intermational law expert but obviously law is subject to interpretation and precedent. Putin said the West's recognition of Kosovo's independence was a bad precedent. If the world thought Serbia got screwed under international law why have over half of the member states of the United Nations recognized Kosovo? Regarding Russia entering Crimea in 2014, the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to be annexed by Russia after the US got rid of Ukraine's democratically elected president. Just like the people of Texas voted to be annexed by the United States. Opinions vary on international law and Article 51. But Russia played by our rules. And the US has used those "rules" to justify our actions other places like Syriia and Libya, where the US/NATO backed Islamist terrorists. Regarding Article 51 and international law, this was Scott Ritter's interpretation. Some agree with this, others do not:
I'm not surprised you found someone on the internet that agrees with you, especially someone known for being used by Russia to promote Kremlin narratives. Sad that he spent time in prison for soliciting someone he thought was a 15 year old and apparently gets off on having random women watch him masturbate. But you do you. Tell me, was it Ritter you relied on when you said Russia followed international law when invading Ukraine? Or is that just the best you can do to support your statement? Don't you have any independent thought? You criticize the U.S for its acts. You justify Russia's actions because they are no different. Yet you can't bring yourself to criticize Russia. When you first showed up on Too Hot, you said you were just here for a short while to gather intel for your betting. You never left, and its now (and has long been) obvious you are here only to spread Russia's talking points. Let's pretend you aren't a Russian simp. How are your posts any different from someone who is? Are you Scott Ritter?
Not in my opinion, but I'm not afraid to call out my country for its bad actions. I'd like to see the Venn diagram of people who say there were no WMDs in Iraq and also support Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'm guessing the overlap would be Russian simps, including you and VegasFox.
My point is that a guy who was said to have come onto a couple of fake teenagers, had he been heard, might have saved a half million lives.
I agree. But lots of people claimed there were no WMDs in Iraq and should have been listened to. That still doesn't make Ritter right on whether Russia followed international law when it invaded Ukraine. How many lives, injuries, and how much economic damage has Russia's invasion cost so far? If the concern is lives lost, how can you support and justify Russian's invasion of Ukraine?
He'll probably try to justify the Russian invasion by saying that Vlad was provoked because Ukraine was considering joining NATO. The reality is that even if Ukraine did become a member of NATO and that was extremely unlikely it wouldn't have represented a threat to Russia. What is unmistakable is the Putin never tried to hide his desire to reconstitute the Soviet/Russian Empire and that meant that Ukraine would lose its identity as an independent country and would once again become an integral part of Russia.
I could argue the excruciating minutia with you but you are engaging in motivated reasoning (like every Democrat on this board). Instead of using your mind to arrive at the truth, you want to prove you are right. Your team is right. Your peers are right. Obviously your emotions have gotten the best of you. I'm going to try to help you think rationally. Imagine you are presidentof the United States. Mexico wants to join a military organization that is led by Russia and this organization would like to split America apart into different countries. Russia is arming and training the Mexican military. As president you are advised that after Mexico joins the military org led by Russia, nuclear weapons will be installed near the US border and pointed at American cities. The CIA tells you this is an existential threat. Do you send our military into Mexico to deal with the threat,?
How many tactical nuclear weapons are in Poland, the Baltic states or for that matter any NATO members that were former members of the Warsaw Pact? Just asking. There no nuclear weapons in any of the countries that joined NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The exclamation for Russia's invasion of the Ukraine is very simple. It's a step towards undoing the demise of the Soviet Union, what Putin a former KGB colonel described as the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the the 20th Century.
That's a false analogy and VAg8r1 is prescient. Let me summarize our discussion: "If you think I got a fact wrong spit it out" "Russia's invasion did not follow international law." "Yes it did, because of what the U.S. did in Kosovo." "Kosovo was NATO, and the bombing was not supported by international law." "Putin said he was just following what NATO did in Kosovo and he relied on an ICJ opinion." "ICJ opinions aren't international law." "I'm no expert, but Scott Ritter says otherwise. Plus the U.S. does bad things in other countries too." "Scott Ritter is a known Russian promoter and a child molester. What else ya got?" "You're emotional and irrational. Let me give you a false analogy. I'll never say Putin did anything wrong."
So you think America would never put nuclear missiles in Ukraine, something you could not possibly know. And you're using that as an excuse to not answer a simple hypothetical? "Pathetic." So let's stipulate that Russia is going to put hundreds of non-nuclear Oreshnik missiles in Ukraine. One Oreshnik recently took out a 1 square mile underground facility Oreshnik's are said by some to be more powerful than nuclear bunker busters. Oreshmiks can take out missile silos. They can destroy our gas storage facilities. Oreshniks can blow up nuclear power plants, releasing toxic clouds of radiation that would stretch across the US. They can blow up chemical plants, oil refineries, ports, bridges, aircraft carriers. Each missiles has 36 sub weapons that can spread out. Each sub weapon has the power of 4 tons of TNT. Entire city blocks could be cratered. Suppose Russia is going to place a 2000 Oreshniks in Mexico. As the US president, would you allow Russia to do this or would you send the US military across the border to stop the existential threat? Be a man and answer the question, pussycat
You're missing some major details if you want a closer analogy. For one, Ukraine once had a stockpile of nuclear weapons. In fact, when Ukraine broke away from the USSR and became independent, Ukraine had the third largest nuclear stockpile. Russia, Ukraine, and the US worked hard to come to an agreement to destroy the warheads. Ukraine agreed to give Russia the nuclear material for energy purposes, Russia agreed not to attack, and the US, along with the UK agreed to defend Ukraine from invasion. Even back in the 1990s, Ukraine was worried about Russia attacking. And that was before Putin was in power and publicly stated he wanted to reinstate the USSR. Let's not also forget the separatists in Donbas and Crimea, funded by Russia. Why these areas were ever part of Ukraine is up for debate. The USSR have them to the Ukranian state in the 1950s, and nobody knows why. And all paperwork is gone. Best theory is the USSR knew Ukraine was likely to want independence some day, and by putting Crimea and Donbas in Ukraine would give Russia pro Russian areas in Ukraine, making independence more difficult, and possibly bloody. There is no direct comparison because the US only took about half of Mexico in the Mexican American war. Mexico never had a nuclear stockpile either. But imagine all of Mexico was one part of the US, and it once held a stockpile of nukes. And after Mexico regained independence, the US kept funding the tens of thousand of expats living in places line Cabo, LA Paloma, Rocky Point, etc., causing unrest and political strife. And imagine Trump saying letting Mexico regain independence was a huge mistake, and it should all be part of the US again. Would you blame Mexico for looking out for it's own independence and seeking help from foreign powers? Would the US not bear its share of blame, forcing Mexican hands? Or, would you believe all the DC propaganda without question?
The nukes were never Ukraine’s to begin with. Besides, why would Ukraine or any other country need to acquire nukes ? Judging by American deep strikes, into Russia, they are clearly no longer a deterrent.
No. He won't. He's a Russian agent. Literally. And you've just stepped on the wheel of pain. Round and round you will go, with nothing to show. Shows up during the election. NEVER posts on the football board. Do the math.
Imagine if Tinkerbell flew through my window and granted me wishes. . . about as plausible as Mexico reaching out to Russia and/or China for anything. 1. Mexico already has a better future than both. 2. Said future is based on being at the southern border of the world's No. 1 economy. Yeah, Mearsheimer's Mexico Theory is bullshit too, and for the most obvious of reasons: Russia and China have dick to offer Mexico. That said, the comparison is instructive in that every post-1991 member of NATO begged to be in NATO, and some (Hungary) even manipulated our political system to force their way in. Why isn't Mexico doing that with Russia? Because Russia sucks and has dick to offer them. Just a little fact John (and "Alexander") conveniently leaves out of his theories.
