Update from Ukraine | Ruzzia lost Big Ship and Submarine | Sevastopol Black Sea Fleet is doomed

youtube.com ^ | 9-13-2023 | Denys Davydov

[JonPreston]

Windbags from the 3rd world are hardly dangerous.

[mass55th]

"If you lot end up in tears though, that’s all to the good."

Any tears I shed were done a long time ago. The ones that will be crying will be the folks that bought into the Biden Administration's propaganda on Ukraine. Once they've discovered their government gave it to them up the poop-shoot again, they'll be howling like banshees.

[Rocco DiPippo]

They’re both corrupt shitholes, neck and neck in the Eastern Europe shithole department.

[ansel12]

Not really neck and neck, years ago, back in 2014 and 2015 Ukraine was more corrupt than Russia but Ukraine has slowly been clawing its way out of the old Russian ways and improving until in recent years Russia became the more corrupt country currently (2022) with Ukraine at 116 and Russia at 136.

[buwaya]

I am dangerous to pedestrians!

[buwaya]

“You’ve hooked into an arrogant Spaniard there”

This is true, looked at in a certain way. I see it, however, as a reluctance to hide our light under a bushel.

Its a trait shared with Americans btw. Ask the British.

[Allegra]

A legend in your own mind. 😁

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iDEQ0GKPdF0

(At least I read your posts. There are a couple on here who are so rambling and nonsensical that k won’t read their posts and don’t want pinging me. 😏)

[cabojoe]

Thanks for the earworm!

[Allegra]

LOL!

[rxh4n1]

“The Russian Army.

Maybe aided by a mercenary army.”

What? The Russian Army is going to attack its own country? I’m not clear on who is going to defeat Russia to reduce it to “Greater Muscovy”. Kindly share your thoughts.

[rxh4n1]

“If you really want to nitpick about it not being ratified by the Senate and therefore not being binding,”

It is not a nitpick, it is our law. Do you know, here on this forum we take our Constitution very seriously. As for your point 1, not ratified by the Senate and a dead letter. For 2, that’s a real nitpick and 2 foreign countries. Nothing to do with the USA.

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

MalPearce both quotes confirm your comment:

1st- pg #9
“One of the major aims of multilateral treaty negotiation is to ensure that all state party to the negotiations reach a common understanding of the purpose and goals of the treaty. IN THIS WAY, MULTILATERAL TREATY NEGOTIATION IS AS MUCH ABOUT INTERNATIONAL NORM CONSTRUCTION AS IT IS ABOUT THE MUTUAL ASSUMPTION OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Under this view, one of the very purposes of the treaty is to establish consensus about the ideals contained in the treaty. Indeed, the reason that some countries sign multilateral treaties is to gain assurance that other countries are committed to the same goals.”

2nd- pg # 11
“The “advice and consent” language of the Constitution suggests that the Senate should have some role in negotiating treaties. However, the notion that the Senate could ASSIST in treaty negotiation was briefly tested and quickly rejected by President Washington. After the initial failed involvement of the Senate in treaty negotiation, the practice of sole negotiation of treaties by the executive developed. Treaty negotiation became associated with the President’s power to conduct foreign relations. While the President is now the exclusive negotiator of treaties, in practice the executive branch often consults with Congress about ongoing multilateral treaty negotiations and the potential ramifications of contemplated treaties. At times, disputes have arisen between Congress and the President regarding the effect of conflicting presidential and senatorial interpretations of a treaty during its negotiation stages. However, the President’s monopoly on treaty negotiation has never been seriously questioned.”

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=law_lawreview

[alexander_busek]

alex: The Russian Army. Maybe aided by a mercenary army.

rxh4n1: What? The Russian Army is going to attack its own country? I’m not clear on who is going to defeat Russia to reduce it to “Greater Muscovy”.

Apparently, the concept of a mercenary army turning to attack its client is unfamiliar to you. I suggest that you refresh your memory by reviewing the recent actions of a certain mercenary army led by Putin's former chef, as it marched on Moscow. That action was abruptly broken off - Prigozhin got "cold feet" - but it clearly demonstrates how quickly circumstances can change, to Moscow's disfavor.

As for the Russian Army attacking its own capital city, I again suggest that you jog your brain cells and review events still in living memory, to wit:

I wish I knew what tactic you were pursuing here. Are you simply attempting to tie up my resources by goading me with your (feigned?) ignorance, and luring me into wasting my time with your rhetorical questions?

I never said that this (open fighting in the streets of Moscow; artillery shells being fired at the Russian Parliament) was the most likely scenario (again: although there are historical precedents for this in living memory). In actual fact, I think that it might be a (relatively) bloodless coup d'etat, a general strike of Russia's armed forces, massive demonstrations by the people in the streets, and a subsequent (relatively peaceful) segmentation of the Russian Federation to reduce it to convenient, bite-sized portions.

Regards,

[rxh4n1]

Those are just run of the mill coup attempts. None of them were going to dismantle Russia to create your “Greater Muscovy” so they are irrelevant. No Russian is going to do that.

[alexander_busek]

Those are just run of the mill coup attempts. None of them were going to dismantle Russia to create your “Greater Muscovy” so they are irrelevant. No Russian is going to do that.

The mere idea of Russia being dismantled (due to internal struggles) and/or demoted in geopolitical importance seems to raise your hackles.

Strange, for someone who calls himself an American patriot!

Well: Go on and keep denying it!

Regards,

[MalPearce]

“It is not a nitpick, it is our law.”

Notwithstanding RevMom’s point, the point I was making is, Ukraine’s Constitution (unlike the American one) EXPLICITLY requires ANY change to the national borders, state accession or secession, or significant Constitutional amendment, to be put to the Rada OR to a general referendum for ratification before it is implemented.

Yanukovych broke his constitutional obligation by signing away Ukrainian sovereignty to Moscow, while in Moscow, on December 17th 2013, without even telling his own Prime Minister what he was doing.

If, as you say, a treaty ain’t binding unless Senate ratifies it, then logic dictates that Ukraine already had an even more explicit requirement than the USA had... and Putin somehow got Yanukovych to do something so unconstitutional you’d have trouble giving an example of an American President doing anything as serious.

Imagine a US President signing an executive order to abolish the right to bear arms without even talking to the Senate or House of Representatives, and his own party knowing nothing about him planning to do it until after he’d done it.

That’s pretty much how it went down. Of course Ukraine had riots in the streets with people calling for Yanukovych’s head.

You think the USA wouldn’t have riots in the streets and people calling for POTUS’ head if POTUS violated his oath of office on that scale AND did so because he was ordered to by Xi or Putin?

[MalPearce]

It’s not really that surprising. So-called constitutionalists who don’t seem able to wrap their heads round the idea that Ukraine had a Constitution too, and actually one that explicitly banned its Presidents from just going on holiday to Moscow, bending the knee, and going back home having sold their country down the river.

[rxh4n1]

“You think the USA wouldn’t have riots in the streets and people calling for POTUS’ head if POTUS violated his oath of office on that scale AND did so because he was ordered to by Xi or Putin?”

I don’t care about any of that. That’s their problems, not my country and none of our business. We have too many of our own problems festering and domestic enemies to oppose to be running around the world righting wrongs.

[rxh4n1]

“The mere idea of Russia being dismantled (due to internal struggles) and/or demoted in geopolitical importance seems to raise your hackles.

Strange, for someone who calls himself an American patriot!

Well: Go on and keep denying it!”

I don’t deny it raises my hackles because who is going to do it? Yep, the USA, good old Uncle Sucker again. That’s what the warmonger Ukraine shills here want, for us to do it for them. It’s easy for them because they won’t have to pay the price.

[alexander_busek]

alex: The mere idea of Russia being dismantled (due to internal struggles) and/or demoted in geopolitical importance seems to raise your hackles. Strange, for someone who calls himself an American patriot!

rxh4n1: I don’t deny it raises my hackles because [...]

Stop right there! A true American patriot would, upon contemplating the dismantling of Russia - who, in one form (Soviet Russia) or another (Russian Federation) has been our sworn enemy for generations (with thousands of nukes aimed at our homeland ) - first break out in a prolonged and satisfied grin.

rxh4n1: [...] who is going to do it?

I SAID: "...due to internal struggles..." Reading comprehension, much?

rxh4n1: Yep, the USA, good old Uncle Sucker again.

Of course we will have to "do our part" and provide support, intelligence, etc. But when it comes to dismantling Russia, why quibble about that? The price-tag is affordable - less than what the federal govt. spends on countless other senseless projects. At the thought of the dismantling of Russia, a true American patriot would be too busy rejoicing in the fact that all of that military might which was once threatening us is going up in smoke.

rxh4n1: That’s what the warmonger Ukraine shills here want, for us to do it for them. It’s easy for them because they won’t have to pay the price.

Calm down, FRiend! We true American patriots are simply relishing the thought of Putin's Russia - which is hardly better than Soviet Russia - being demoted in standing, embarrassed on the world stage, degraded militarily. We are hoping that this demoralizes the Russian people - against whom we bear no grudge - to the extent that they again revolt and bring down the system. The most sanguine scenario involves a (relatively) coup d'etat and an implosion of the Russian Federation. Russia will be dismembered, and maybe we can even start denuclearizing it.

Doesn't that prospect enthuse you?

I am not a warmonger! I wish that hostilities would cease tomorrow. Putin could easily do that by immediately withdrawing his troops. If you should be angry at anyone, be angry at him.

Regards,