U.S. sides with Russia against Ukraine war resolution

They're his employers. Do the math.

 

did that same Canadian company make a massive contribution to the Clinton Foundation?

Could the sale have occurred without state department approval?

rub those two together and you got smoke

look at me, being a rightie now

 

no worries, US has the backing for a new resolution on the war, Our faithful allies Russia and China joined us in our support

look at donnie boy, thinking they are going to let him sit at the adults table

we should give him the Nobel peace prize for bringing such sworn enemies together

U.S. Wins Backing for U.N. Resolution on Ukraine War That Doesn’t Blame Russia

The U.S. sided with Russia and China to win the United Nations Security Council’s backing for a resolution crafted in Washington that didn’t blame Moscow for the Ukraine war and called for a swift end to the conflict, as President Trump said he was in talks with Russia about an economic-development deal. Trump’s comments and the U.S.’s vote at the U.N. on Monday illustrated the extent to which the president has changed the U.S.’s posture toward the region, coming on the same day as European leaders gathered in Kyiv to mark the third anniversary of the invasion.

Earlier on Monday, the General Assembly, which represents the 193 U.N. member states, had approved a Ukrainian resolution pinning the blame on Russia for the war, despite U.S. efforts to kill it. The U.S. was joined by North Korea, Russia and Belarus in voting against it.

Unlike the General Assembly, the 15-member U.N. Security Council has decision-making powers. The U.S. secured 10 votes from the Security Council in favor of its resolution. Five European countries abstained, including the U.K. and France, underscoring the widening gulf between Europe and the U.S. over the Ukraine conflict.
........................
Trump declined to answer a reporter’s question about why the U.S. didn’t endorse the resolution that blamed Russia for the war. “I would rather not explain it now, but it’s sort of self-evident, I would think,” he said in the Oval Office on Monday.

Sen. John Curtis (R., Utah) criticized the U.S. position at the U.N., “which put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea. These are not our friends. This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy,” Curtis said on X. “We all want an end to the war, but it must be achieved on terms that ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and security and that deter Putin from pursuing further territorial ambitions.”

 

You do realize that the uranium was in the form of a low grade ore which was still in the ground in the US and in any event the uranium cannot be exported without the consent of the US Department of Energy. I would also add that technically a Russian company acquired a Canadian company which owned the ore. The Russians didn't acquire any usable uranium but it does make a great story.

 

Some people are capable of knowing that past bad acts by those in power do not justify new bad acts. You are not among those.

“Hey what about Clinton?” Lowest form of argument possible.

 

You might be losing it. Hope you're okay. Now read this column in National Review. Feel free to slink away slowly, like Pogba did after I demonstrated Ukraine carried out the Bucha massacre.


The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal

Secretary of State Clinton with President Obama at a Cabinet meeting in 2012. (Reuters photo: Larry Downing)
By Andrew C. McCarthy
October 21, 2017 8:00 AM

Not only the Clintons are implicated in a uranium deal with the Russians that compromised national-security interests.

Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads — the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 — before Donald Trump entered the race — was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering (You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russia bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting — successfully — to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.

Here’s the kicker: The Uranium One scandal is not only, or even principally, a Clinton scandal. It is an Obama-administration scandal.

The Clintons were just doing what the Clintons do: cashing in on their “public service.” The Obama administration, with Secretary Clinton at the forefront but hardly alone, was knowingly compromising American national-security interests. The administration green-lighted the transfer of control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, a hostile regime — and specifically to Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom. Worse, at the time the administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was engaged in a lucrative racketeering enterprise that had already committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses.

The Obama administration also knew that congressional Republicans were trying to stop the transfer. Consequently, the Justice Department concealed what it knew. DOJ allowed the racketeering enterprise to continue compromising the American uranium industry rather than commencing a prosecution that would have scotched the transfer. Prosecutors waited four years before quietly pleading the case out for a song, in violation of Justice Department charging guidelines. Meanwhile, the administration stonewalled Congress, reportedly threatening an informant who wanted to go public.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...inistration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering/

vegasfox: Note that according to Clinton advisor/pollster Mark Penn Russia spent $6,500 dollars on 2016 electioneering to help Trump. How many votes did that get Trump? Probably zero zip nada.

 

Just a reminder/history for those with selective outrage that the war may actually end and russia Get some Ukrainian territory.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-ukraine-crimea-seizure-8245aec572fb71236febfa8735c42879

 

Will the last one of you guys out remember to turn off the lights ?

The Collapse Of The Zelensky Cult | ZeroHedge

 

Next you will quote an article from bozotheclown.net. It would be your best source to date.

 

What does this mean? How is it not outrageous that a full scale invasion occurred and they are siding with the invading force? (Even if the invading force was exposed as a pathetic, weak army that can't even take a fraction of a nation not built for war)

 

The main takeaway I get from this article is that the Russian bloggers were probably “correct” that Russia should have moved on Kiev in 2014. Seems like in retrospect they very well might have been successful if they moved in with speed.

That does not legitimize the invasion or “annexation” of territory, which was obviously illegal. But the main reason the original Crimea invasion “worked” was it caught everyone off guard, there was no real military resistance. Waiting until 2022 turned it into a bloody mess because it gave Ukraine time to build its defenses against the invaders.

 

Russia doesn't have an army capable of taking a Taco Bell. Had to bring in North Korea to defend their own country.

 

Well, this became apparent in 2022.

But in 2014 Ukraine didn’t have western weapons and may have just folded.

 

I have a feeling they knew Obama wouldn't have stood for an assault on a nation's capital. That's why leadership matters.

 

The question isn't whether or not Russia will end up with Ukrainian territory, that's a foregone conclusion. The real question is whether the war will end like the Korean war with the West led by the US guaranteeing the independence and territorial integrity of the remainder of Ukraine as it did with South Korea or whether the result will be similar to the agreement negotiated in 1938 by Neville Chamberlain with the final result being another invasion of Ukraine by Russia with the result being the complete integration of Ukraine into Russia as it was under the Soviet Union or the Czarist Russian Empire, Putin's ultimate goal or maybe another interim solution under which Ukraine remains nominally independent but its government is replaced by a puppet government controlled by Russia not unlike the current government of Belarus or the governments of the Eastern European countries during the Soviet era. If Ukraine is to remain secure and independent it will be only because of the commitment of the European members of NATO. It should be obvious by now that an America led by the groveling and easily manipulated Donald Trump is no longer a reliable ally or the leader of the Free World as it was under every other American president regardless of party going back to World War II.

 

Trump gets humiliated AND fact-checked by French leader Macron, who delivers a warning to our simple-minded "president". Having a little trouble sliding his lies past foreign leaders. No trouble with lying to the MAGA zombies--they eat it up. The can't get enough of the lies. (Makes you wonder if they have lead poisoning or something.)

Macron warns Trump to 'be careful' on Ukraine, fact-checks him at the White House

Translation: Mr. Macron, you are supposed to believe my lies.

 

Russia acquired Crimea the same way the US got Texas. The people in the area that is now Texas voted to become part of the United States and Congress accepted their request, which was enforced by the US military.

Crimeans voted to become part of the Russian Federation and the Russian Duma accepted. The people were angry that the US had removed the democratically elected president of Ukraine and installed someone who was hostile to Russian-speakers. 20,000 of 22,000 Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea switched from loyalty to Ukraine to loyalty to Russia when that happened.

The people of Kosovo (mostly Muslims) voted for independence from "Russia's little brother" Christian Serbia. Serbia didn't want to give up their province, so Bill Clinton bombed Belgrade for 78 days until they did. The US cited Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify the bombing.

Luhansk and Donetsk voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014. Eight days after the Ukrainians started the artillery shelling of Russian-speakers on February 16, 2022 Russia invaded, citing Article 51.

Suppose Latinos in the American southwest voted for independence and Washington said no. Using Ameica's own logic, Russia could bomb Washington until the US let our southwest become independent.

So the US set the precedent for Russia's invasion of the Donbas and annexation of Crimea.

Russia tried to follow international law.

The US talks about the "rules based order." Our rules, no order.

 

looks like someone would fail a middle school level exam on the Balkan war

 

You thought I was wrong about Ukraine responsibility for the Bucha massacre. Now you know you were wrong and instead of admitting it you ran away.

Your latest post sounds like confession by projection. Prove me wrong.

 

Laughable.

Let's pretend you aren't a Russian simp.
If you were simping for Russia, how would your posts be any different?

Apply the same thinking to Orange Skidmark and his actions.