Posted on 03/28/2022 7:43:56 PM PDT by delta7
Ukraine is prepared to discuss adopting a neutral status as part of a peace deal with Russia but such a pact would have to be guaranteed by third parties and put to a referendum, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in remarks aired on Sunday.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The Ukrainian president also accused the West of cowardice, making an exasperated plea for fighter jets and tanks to help defend his country from Russia's invading troops.
Speaking after US President Joe Biden said in a lacerating speech that Russian President Vladimir Putin could not stay in power – words the White House immediately sought to downplay – Zelenskyy lashed out at the West's "ping-pong about who and how should hand over jets" and other weapons while Russian missile attacks kill and trap civilians.
Ukraine says that to defeat Russia, the West must provide fighter jets and not just missiles and other military equipment. A proposal to transfer Polish planes to Ukraine via the United States was scrapped amid NATO concerns about being drawn into direct fighting.
In his pointed remarks, Zelenskyy accused Western governments of being "afraid to prevent this tragedy. Afraid to simply make a decision."
Another top Ukrainian official, meanwhile, said Russia was trying to split the nation in two, like North and South Korea, while Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said Monday that Russia's war on Ukraine has so far cost the country $564.9 billion in terms of damage to infrastructure, lost economic growth and other factors.
In an online post, she said the fighting had damaged or destroyed 8,000 km (4,970 miles) of roads and 10 million square meters of housing.
Zelenskyy said Russia's invasion had caused the destruction of Russian-speaking cities in Ukraine, with damage worse than the Russian wars in Chechnya.
"Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it. This is the most important point," Zelenskyy said.
Zelenskyy said Ukraine refused to discuss certain other Russian demands, such as the demilitarization of the country.
Speaking more than a month after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, Zelenskyy said no peace deal would be possible without a ceasefire and troop withdrawals.
He ruled out trying to recapture all Russian-held territory by force, saying it would lead to a third world war, and said he wanted to reach a "compromise" over the eastern Donbas region, held by Russian-backed forces since 2014.
Zelenskyy focused on the fate of the eastern port city of Mariupol, under siege for weeks. Once a city of 400,000 people, it has undergone prolonged Russian bombardment.
I've talked to the defenders of Mariupol today. I'm in constant contact with them. Their determination, heroism and firmness are astonishing," Zelenskyy said in a video address, referring to the besieged southern city that has suffered some of the war's greatest deprivations and horrors. "If only those who have been thinking for 31 days on how to hand over dozens of jets and tanks had 1% of their courage."
"All entries and exits from the city of Mariupol are blocked," Zelenskyy added. "The port is mined. A humanitarian catastrophe inside the city is unequivocal, because it is impossible to go there with food, medicine and water," he said.
"I don't even know who the Russian army has ever treated like this," he said, adding that, compared to Russian wars in Chechnya, the volume of destruction "cannot be compared."
Russia has denied targeting civilians in Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine have traded blame for a failure to open humanitarian corridors.
Zelenskyy pushed back against allegations from Moscow that Ukraine had curbed the rights of Russian speakers, saying it was Russia's invasion that wiped Russian-speaking cities "off the face of the earth."
Do you really believe Ukraine is going to manufacture nukes?
***Yes.
Do we want Iran to manufacture nukes?
***No.
Or Mexico?
***No.
Can they get to the peace table now or will that not be good enough for Soros and Schwab?
********
There’s much room for reasonable compromise:
— Zelensky needs to get over the thrill of being the favorite of one-worlders in the USA and Europe.
— Putin needs to allow Ukraine to be economically and politically free as long as it does not come under the control of Brussels or NATO.
— The USA needs to mind it’s own business and deal with it’s TRUE enemies in China and it’s own hemisphere.
“I really don’t GAF about NAZIs” .... LOL, yeah we noticed.
The agreement dies with the government that made it sport.
“If that is what this was about, Pootypoot woulda ONLY invaded those regions.”
If copperheads keep coming up on your porch, you gotta root out the den. There is little point in securing the Donbass just to have Azov shell and rocket it from the new border.
Now don’t you have a Bandera parade to get to?
Excellent post.
Note for the thread: the Donbass region is about twice as large as the areas held for ~ eight years by the DPR and LPR.
Securing the DPR/LPR-held areas was a given from day one, but seizing the actual Donbass region (which must be done to achieve Russia’s stated goals) requires the defeat of the bulk of Ukrainean forces. Apparently they are dug into the Ukranian-held region of Donbass that has been fortified over the last eight years.
That hardened, fortified region is one reason for the deliberate pace of this war. It’s a sort of seige: the Russians are attempting to pin down + deny all manoeuvre opportunity to Ukrainean forces in this area.
As Gonzalo Lira says: Kiev is not as important as Kramatorsk.
The agreement dies with the government that made it sport.
***No it doesn’t.
Kevmo: “If that is what this was about, Pootypoot woulda ONLY invaded those regions.”
RINO: If copperheads keep coming up on your porch, you gotta root out the den.
***You don’t set fire to all of your 4 neighbors’ houses and then claim you’re fighting copperheads.
There is little point in securing the Donbass just to have Azov shell and rocket it from the new border. Now don’t you have a Bandera parade to get to?
***Why invade to Kiev if all you’re doing is rootin’ out copperheads? The Russians weren’t even interested in western Ukraine until oil was found there. Their interest is simply in raping that country. Russia gets 60% of its revenues from oil exports. Europe gets 40% of their oil from Russia.
In 2012 massive oil and gas reserves were found in Crimea. Crimea signed a $10 billion exploration contracts with Shell and Chevron to develop the new found oil and gas fields. These oil and gas products would compete in Europe with Russia’s oil and gas, reducing Russia’s oil revenues, which we recall amount to 60% of their total GDP. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, cancelling the contracts with Shell and Chevron.
But Ukraine still had massive reserves in, you guessed it, Donetsk and Luhansk, and other areas East of the Dnieper River. In 2019, Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited Ukraine, and soon after Ukraine awarded exploration contracts to a consortium of U.S. oil companies. Again, these oil reserves would compete in Europe with Russian oil, so Putin is invading Ukraine to shut down this latest attempt to extract Ukrainian oil and sell it in competition with Russian oil.
This explanation makes more sense to me than the “Putin feels threatened by NATO expansion” excuses for the invasion.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4044221/posts?page=1#1“
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CmdSzVFSKc
If the Ukes allow some small region in the west to be its own republic, but the OIL belongs to Ukraine, do ya think Pootypoot would allow that? Nope.
You misunderstand:
“To summarize: the Senate does not ratify treaties; the President does. Treaties, in the U. S. sense, are not the only type of binding international agreement. Congressional-Executive agreements and Sole Executive agreements may also be binding.
It is generally understood that treaties and Congressional-Executive agreements are interchangeable; Sole Executive agreements occupy a more limited space constitutionally and are linked primarily if not exclusively to the President’s powers as commander in chief and head diplomat.
Treaties and other international agreements are subject to the Bill of Rights. Congress may supersede a prior inconsistent treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement as a matter of U. S. law, but not as a matter of international law.
Courts in the United States use their powers of interpretation to try not to let Congress place the United States in violation of its international law obligations. A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by private parties.
Even a non-self-executing provision of an international agreement represents an international obligation that courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by local, state or federal law.” i.e. the Budapest Memorandum:
Tell Mitt Romney and Linda Graham we said hi.
The rest of the world thinks of a treaty as something the national leader can commit to. In the USA we have a constitution and Treaties must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. It is not binding on America if the Senate does not do so. The rest of the world is very aware of this.
We have no obligations to that corrupt little authoritarian country that has subverted DC for nearly a decade.
.....”A lot more to this conflict than what’s being portrayed in Western Media. A Brazilian told me last year Americans are kept in the dark”...........
Absolutely there is far more. ...and true US citizens are in th dark about most of it.
Just watch now who Biden is meeting with - making a big deal about who he’s seeing (Today with Singapore).....We are watching the work being done to formulate government control (NWO) and realignment of nations. Biden wants to be seen as the leader (as he said) when in fact he the Puppet like Zelensky is being seen as Ukrains Hero. None of it is true - it’s the image they want the world to see and believe.
I’ve said before and will say now again - Sinister stuff going on in the world.
” Congress may supersede a prior inconsistent treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement as a matter of U. S. law, but not as a matter of international law.”
Dig deeper into that Cracker Jack box where you got your law degree. Congress can absolutely void ANY agreement the Executive branch makes with any foreign entity. There is no “international law” that stands above the US Congress.
Every so often, something relevant gets said on this forum. Nice work.
Oil and Gas. Who controls these resources, their passage, the currency they are traded in, the security or insecurity of the major producers. The hidden casus belli for Libya, Iraq and Syria.
And - evidently- the main reason for the 2014 Ukraine coup.
It wasn't just a chance to insert the children of US Senators into positions where they could drink deeply from the streams of US Aid. It was about Ukraine's Oil and Gas: the alignment and ownership of those resources, and about who dominates Europe's energy supply.
It explains why Obama's Whitehouse toppled a fledgling democracy and backed the long proxy war in Donbass.
Pootypoot promises he won’t fart the next time you kiss his hind quarters.
But I fart in your general direction.
Disagree. Putin is evil and not to be trusted.
————-
Agreed, however Zelensky is not to be trusted, and is just as evil and filthy as Putin, if not worse…..I suspect with your stated opinion, you will gladly support taking US taxpayers money to fund the rebuilding of Ukraine, minus 10 percent to the “ big guy” senile Joe?
Don’t get sucked in.
After tens of billions of taxpayer funds, what an ingrate. Not our war.
Second your filthy Russian hero hasn’t won, his army is chewed to bits and he’s ratcheting down his goals.
—————
Ukraine ( minus the western area) is being turned into a pile of rubble, that doesn’t look like “ winning”. Vlad will simply bury his dead, as will Ukraine when the war is over ( they always end), but Ukraine will go begging again for US aid to rebuild for another decade, no doubt begging the US for billions ( minus the Big Guy senile Joe’s 10 percent).
Both governments and leaders are filthy corrupted, support neither. Don’t get sucked in.
Pay attention to the demographics - don’t get so wrapped up in which side of their war to take - it’s a war and war is shi**y for any who endure it.
—————
Having been through one and witnessing the lies, crimes, and deception from both sides puts me in an unusual place. Get your emotions entirely out of your thought process and realize war is vicious and cruel, there are no white hats in this one.
Support neither side, they are both corrupted and evil.
Hey, if you’re NOT insisting that the US must “come to the military defense of Ukraine”, just say so – your posts suggest otherwise.
Words have specific meanings, unless you’re a Democrat (or apparently ‘Kevmo’ ;>).
***Actions have specific consequences. Since the Russkies have violated this agreement, we can focus on the specific meaning of “respect” of borders and sovereignty. There is a MORAL obligation to do so, but pantywaist puttzes like you would prevent such actions.
Oopsie – what happened to your argument that the Budapest Memorandum obligated the US to defend Ukraine? Suddenly you’re talking about “a MORAL obligation”, which is an entirely different thing. Perhaps you can tell us why you think the US is the Earth’s “Globo Robo Cop”, and therefore somehow required to enforce moral obligations in backwater countries like Ukraine, where this country has few or no vital interests?
(Oh, and I’ll add “pantywaist puttzes” to the Kevmo insult list ;>)
Ok, now you’re posting a strawman argument
***This entire discussion between you and me was a straw man to begin with. You interjected on a failed attempt by another freeper to accuse me of sumthin they could not prove by throwin’ in this stuff. You have the thinnest excuses for your p^ssy-level pantywaist appeasement.
There you go again - “p^ssy-level pantywaist appeasement” added to the Kevmo insult list.
The problem for you is, the memorandum specifies a response to such violations - refer the matter to the UN Security Council.
***It is unfortunate that you choose to take up this interesting side note in the middle of your trolling rather than take it up on the thread where it simply belongs, the thread in my tagline. It’s because you don’t know how to do anything but troll.
Apparently, you do not dispute the simple fact that “the memorandum specifies a response to such violations [as the Russian invasion] - refer the matter to the UN Security Council.” The US has apparently already done that and fulfilled its obligations under the agreement. As noted repeatedly, the US is not obligated to intervene militarily in the Ukraine conflict by the Budapest Agreement. Period.
And I’ll throw “trolling” on your insult list (although it’s fairly similar to multiple previous entries ;>).
Nowhere does the agreement mention “no-fly zones” or other military action.
***It does not mention invasion either. Invasions are kind of the ultimate lack of “respect” for one’s borders and sovereignty. COUNTERING an invasion WOULD be showing “respect” for the borders and sovereignty of that nation in that agreement. Hence, by your trolling and oblique standards, it DOES mention all kinds of military action allowable under those circumstances.
Spare me the song and dance – the agreement specifically addresses “an act of aggression” (which most certainly includes “invasion”), and specifies referral to the UN “Security Council “ as the response – NOT American military intervention. That’s already happened (as noted above), so US obligations under the agreement have been fulfilled.
(And “trolling” is already on your list, so we’re good! ;>)
Kevmo: In addition, the language is clear and simple ***to a weasel
Galt: My, you do have quite the lexicon of insults - let’s add “weasel” to “appeasers”, “pantywaist panzie appeasers”, “pantywaist”, “troll”, “pantywaist appeaser”, “pukes like you”, “putinista$$kissing”, etc.
***Why, thank you. I see below that you added @$$#0lic troll so I include it here as all of these titles apply to you. Thanks for helping me catalogue them. Should come in handy.
Happy to help!
Perhaps you should consider some sort of anger management assistance.
***Perhaps you should consider better Russian Troll Schools than the one you’re posting from.
I don’t think the US is obligated to intervene in the Ukraine conflict, and that somehow makes me a “Russian Troll” – now that’s original!
Kevmo: To be candid, I do not think the Ukes understood this at all.
Galt: Oh, you betcha - they’re signing an international agreement, but the poor Ukrainian government had nobody available to read plain English.
***Another set of round & round trolling. Yawn.
Actually, you stated an opinion (“I do not think the Ukes understood this at all”) that has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN FACT (if you can substantiate your argument, ‘ante up’ with a suitable reference ;>). When I point out how ridiculous your comment is, you respond with more accusations of “trolling”. Impressive, indeed!
You’re better at making excuses than a Democrat politician.
***Where’s the excuse? They got duped. Is that an excuse in your book? You’re kind of a real @$$#0/e.
Once again: care to provide real evidence that Ukraine was “duped”? Of course not – but I’ll see if “real @$$#0/e” is on your list.
Kevmo: or they’re all complete morons. ***They simply got duped. Which means they’ll be looking to build their own nuke capability real soon.
Galt: The Ukranians “got duped”? Maybe in some alternative universe,
***blah blah blah, notice that you don’t address the big red blinking light on the console: The Ukes will be building nukes.
Ok, so more claims the poor, poor Ukrainians got “duped”, but still NO evidence that actually occurred, and then back to your ‘Crystal Ball’ Kevmo-can-magically-see-the-future argument (“The Ukes will be building nukes). Besides, I thought you were going to do that for them?
where words written on paper magically ‘transmogrify’ into different words written on paper. In reality, it’s simple language,
***Bullshiite. Nuke plumes are simple. Invasions are simple. Borders are simple.
Sure – and none of that obligates the US to intervene in the Ukraine war.
the Ukrainians agreed to it,
***the Ukes HONORED it. The Rukes VIOLATED it. And pantywaist appeasing pansies like you are looking to abrogate the simple language of borders and security assurance.
The US fulfilled its obligations by referring the matter to the UN Security Council. Period. But I’ll add “pantywaist appeasing pansies” to the list!
;>)
and the US is under no obligation beyond those specific written terms.
***The US is under obligation. Everyone in the world can see it, they just don’t know if Biden has enough balls to do it. That is, unless you consider invasion to be “respecting Ukrainian borders”, like you appear to do.
Once again, the agreement specifies the obligations, and the US referred the matter to the Security Council as required by the memorandum. Period. You apparently see additional ‘unwritten’ or ‘moral’ obligations, and believe your point of view is shared by “[e]veryone in the world”, which suggests that you’re “projecting” your unsubstantiated opinions on lots of other people (as many Democrats have a habit of doing :>).
Either way, the US is in no way ‘backing Ukraine into a corner’,
***Why do you say “either way”? It’s bullshiite. Your conclusion does not follow, there’s no logic to support it, and you’re simply wrong.
You post unsubstantiated opinions (and actually project those opinions on “[e]veryone in the world”), posit supposed ‘moral’ obligations that are nowhere specified in the memorandum, and then suggest that my “conclusion” (based on the specific written terms of the Budapest Memorandum) is somehow “wrong”, and “there’s no logic to support it”. Now that’s funny!
Galt:by not providing military assistance that Ukraine has always known
Kevmo:***NO. Ukraine has NOT always known this, they just recently learned what a POS America is for giving assurances they have no intention to keep.
Galt: More excuses,
***What the hell? Are you gonna be saying that bullshiite when tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians are dead in a nuke conflagration? No, you’ll be running away like the cockroach you are.
More unsubstantiated opinion, plus your good ol’ ‘Crystal Ball’ argument (“when tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians are dead”), and another insult! Congratulations!
Simply put, you “see” things that don’t exist.
***Below you return to this dog-vomit argument and call it “crystal ball”. And yet you yourself engage in exactly the same crystal balling when you say “send in US troops now, and risk nuclear war”... You’re just a straightforward hypocrite.
Not at all – the “risk” of nuclear war undeniably exists, any time nuclear-armed opponents engage in combat. That is a simple fact, and no ‘Crystal Ball’ is needed.
You, on the other hand make statements like “…when tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians are dead in a nuke conflagration” – for your information, “when” is a prediction of future events, which in this case are unlikely to actually occur, because your “Ukrainians” do not possess nuclear weapons. In short, “[y]our conclusion does not follow, there’s no logic to support it, and you’re simply wrong”.
Kevmo: Then stay the hell out of the middle of it, pantywaist. Yours was essentially a 100% troll maneuver.
Galt: Sorry if I hurt your feelings!
Kevmo:***Hurt feelins got nuthin to do with it. You’re simply acting like a troll.
Galt: I can’t believe you’re unfamiliar with sarcasm (posts clearly labeled “\sarc”)!
***Where is the \sarc? Not in the stuff you posted just now. You’re real good at this trolling now-go-fetch game. Eventually it’s not worth responding to trolls like you.
It’s at the end of the post you keep complaining about (and which apparently forms the basis of your entire phony “troll” argument) – my clearly-labeled-as-sarcastic Post #54.
Galt: that no such requirement has ever existed.
Kevmo: ***Oh, it exists. Just like it existed in 1938 and pantywaist appeasers like you found ways to abrogate their responsibilities to prevent a world war…
If we keep it CONVENTIONAL it will remain CONVENTIONAL because all of our proxy war interactions with the Russians in the past have remained CONVENTIONAL.
So, you actually believe that ”If we keep it CONVENTIONAL it will remain CONVENTIONAL because all of our proxy war interactions with the Russians in the past have remained CONVENTIONAL”? Amazing. During the Cuban missile crisis, the US and USSR were NOT EVEN SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER, and the risk of nuclear war undeniably existed. If the US confronts Russia over the Ukraine, via military assistance to Ukraine, the risk of nuclear war will undeniably exist. And if the US intervenes directly in the conflict, it won’t be a “proxy war”. Once again, “[y]our conclusion does not follow, there’s no logic to support it, and you’re simply wrong”.
Galt: Thanks again for proving my point...
Kevmo:***I will be thanking you for being a troll at some point...
Galt:Hopefully it doesn’t involve sending me one of those suitcase nukes that you apparently know how to build! \sarc
***Up above you criticize me for not recognizing a clearly posted “/sarc”, and here you post one. But what part is sarcasm, where is it you’re saying the opposite of what you mean? Is it that you’re not hopeful of avoiding a suitcase nuke in your mail? Or is it that you’re just a crappy writer and the /sarc only applies to part of the sentence but not the whole sentence, only applies to “know how to build”? I perceive it’s that you’re just a crappy writer on top of all that trolling bullshiite you throw around.
The ”\sarc” indicated that I did not actually expect to receive a “suitcase nuke” from you in the mail (in part because I doubt your ability to produce such a device, as you boasted in the linked post). Does that clarify the matter? And I’ll add “crappy writer” to your list of insults, just for fun.
So now I finally got to the end of your tiresome creed and my assessment is... you aint worth it. You’re just a troll, time to start ignoring you, sending you the blah blah blah treatment. Oh well, TTFN.
Why, thank you! I’ll post my evaluation of your posts below.
;>)
Whatever.
Here’s the current Kevmo's List of Insults (I think you said you wanted a copy for potential future use) – it's fairly impressive in terms of quantity, for a single thread:
“weasel”, “appeasers”, “pantywaist panzie appeasers”, “pantywaist”, “troll”, “pantywaist appeaser”, “pukes like you”, “putinista$$kissing”, “@$$#0lic troll”, “trolling bullshiite”, “pantywaist puttzes”, “p^ssy-level pantywaist appeasement”, “trolling”, “Russian Troll”, “real @$$#0/e”, “pantywaist appeasing pansies”, “cockroach”, “genius”, “dog-vomit”, “despicable troll”
As far as an overall evaluation, I might go 90% for your “Arrogance, Blustering, and Insults” performance – you absolutely aced the “Arrogance” and “Blustering” components (your suggestion that “Everyone in the world can see” things your way was certainly memorable), but you didn’t do so well with the “Insults” (scoring very low on originality, although you partially compensated with volume). Unfortunately, you dropped to single digits for the “Rational and Well Substantiated Argument” component, for obvious reasons (your opinions are not by definition, or as stated, either rational or fact-based).
Better luck in the future!
;>)
[T]he United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".
Furthermore, the memorandum states quite clearly:
[The United States as a party to this agreement shall] "[s]eek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to... Ukraine if they 'should become a victim of an act of aggression'..."
The United States has reportedly done exactly that, and has therefore fulfilled the specific requirements of the agreement. Military intervention by an individual party, to enforce or punish violations of the agreement by other parties, is nowhere required or even contemplated...
;>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.