Posted on 06/09/2022 6:38:44 AM PDT by tlozo
No surprise there! What I see on the ground doesn't match what's portrayed in the Western media either!
How many times do you plan on posting this propo today trollozo?
yeah, ignore the dementia patients here who are stuck in the cold war and ready to put on their knee pads and service their WEF masters under the guide of “fighting Russia”
This article covered in depth the previous lies of Patrick Lancaster.
How about a settlement where neither side gets it all?
I’m assuming that “a settlement” in your mind would not include Ukraine getting part of Russia? Only Russia getting part of Ukraine?
I put you down as on Russia’s side.
************
A reasonable settlement could involve Russia withdrawing to its pre-invasion border in return for Ukraine severing its military ties with NATO and the Biden regime. In return for sanctions ending, Russia would finance the re-building of the Ukraine.
If Ukraine is unwilling to give an inch, then, yes, I’m for Russia.
I am not arguing whether the guy is independent or a Russian propogandist. My point is about the irony of throwing the pejorative "conspiracy theorists" around to discredit someone while at the same time postulating a conspiracy theory about them.
Rusdian Duma is proposing to revoke its recognition of Lithuania from the Soviet Union, 31 years after formally recognizing its independence and despite Lithuania being formally welcomed as a UN sovereign state. And despite no prior contestation or even protest by Russia.
It excuses this on the basis of a pretty specious, vexatious technicality. The real motive is, it wants to do to Lithuania what it’s already done successfully in Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Erode their sovereignty and re-establish their subordination to Moscow.
If that proposal is adopted then no deal with Russia on any subject anywhere is going to be worth the paper it’s been written on.
Whether or not Russia pledges to do a reconstruction in the places it annexes is irrelevant.
Russia holds the USA to an informal agreement that no president either in Russia or in the USA has ever signed, that NATO would never expand into east Germany while the Soviet Union remained. And yet it doesn’t feel at all bound to any multilateral agreements it has made since the fall of the USSR, no matter how publicly and how formally they were signed.
And it now disputes the binding nature of treaties its own presidents have signed, in relation to the sovereign status of post-Soviet nations.
That is why I’m with Ukraine on this. They told us this would happen. I didn’t think Russia was that far gone, but the evidence is now irrefutable.
It’s bad enough that even one Duma politician thinks it’s acceptable to put such a proposal on the table. That they’re even willing to consider it damns Russia.
If the Duma endorses that proposal, Russia will have voted to the effect that none of the very most foundational principles it signed up to when it joined the UN is safe in their legal system.
And that would make Russia a rogue state. Why should NATO or the UN sign anything with Russia if Russia reserves the right to overturn it on any contrived whim?
Ukraine would be more willing to give an inch if it didn’t have a firm belief that Russia would take the inch, get the concessions, and then break the agreement anyway.
Read later.
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.