Posted on 08/18/2022 9:58:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I just woke up and decided to check for new Ukraine posts and found this one: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4086735/posts [Ukraine says Russia plans to disconnect nuclear plant’s power blocks from grid.]
So it appears the report I read earlier was correct and Russia plans to steal all the energy from that nuclear plant.
“Amazing where all the love for Russia shows up on here.”
I have a suspicion that the “love for Russia” posts, especially those that have no other material in them, are Russian bots. If you respond to one, you’ll get attacked and called names.
Actually, your heroes have one or more artillery battalions inside the power plant grounds, a plant they are trying to connect to the Russian power grid to supply Russia with power from the giant nuclear complex, the largest in Europe.
Seriously, you’re wasting your time.
If the ghost of Stalin himself showed up with a zombie batallion and cast iron proof that they’d been summoned by Putin was put out by none other than Putin himself, and he said “stop crediting Bidens with my genius!” some oxygen thieving braindead magaloon somewhere would STILL say, “nononono no no no NO that can’t be right because it HAS to involve some game of Ten Dimensional Chess because we all know SOROS IS BEHIND IT ALL!”
Rusdua gives a while bunch of reasons why it’s invading Ukraine. They’re all circumstantially plausible.
What makes the collection of excuses not plausible is the fact that they can’t decide which real trigger, which last straw, which religious fanaticism or which existential threat actually matters.
The two things they don’t park are: Resources (oil, gas, minerals, grain, land, coast, and working nuclear power plants), and a romantic form of Revanchism that was first published in the mid 1990s, almost a decade before Euromaidan.
Everything else - to stop the 5000 nazis, to discourage NATO expansion, and so on - is an excuse after the fact. An afterthought not a motive.
For all your globalist warmongering needs, turn to George Soros. (also sponsored by Pfizer)
Look at the video. Those are supply trucks, which are currently being bombed all over Ukraine screwing up Russian logistics. Those are not "guarding" the nuclear power plant. They are being guarded BY the plant.
Your post cited "Russian military vehicles parked right inside one of the reactor buildings." The video was not posted on FR but I went to HotAir and viewed the associated video of military trucks inside one of the reactor buildings, a turbine hall.
In the name of Chernobyl, we should all hope that not even Ukraine is insane enough to shell a reactor building, or an ancilliary site building, in the hopes of blowing up one or more military trucks parked inside.
I am unsure what point you are attempting to make by alleging they are supply trucks. The people guarding the site surely did not hump it all the way with just a rucksack. They came with supplies, or supplies necessarily followed. The enclosed trucks could carry men, supplies, or men and supplies.
There is no indication that the trucks carried supplies for the nuclear facility. Equally, there is no indication that the trucks carried artillery shells. The plant blowing up or melting down redounds to the advantage of Ukraine. It would stop that whole Russian front in its tracks. They would be too busy containing another Chernobyl to continue their devastation of the Ukraine forces. Also, troop deployment is difficult when the environment glows in the dark. Clearly, miles and miles of nuclear Ukraine would not serve a Russian purpose.
There is no rifle that is going to shoot and reach the lines of battle. Any fire for offensive effect leaving the plant would have to come from artillery to reach the Ukraine lines. A video of Russian artillery at the nuclear site would be significant. A video of trucks parked inside is not.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750071
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
Article 56 -- Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.
3. In all cases, the civilian population and individual civilians shall remain entitled to all the protection accorded them by international law, including the protection of the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. If the protection ceases and any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 is attacked, all practical precautions shall be taken to avoid the release of the dangerous forces.
4. It is prohibited to make any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 the object of reprisals.
5. The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to avoid locating any military objectives in the vicinity of the works or installations mentioned in paragraph 1. Nevertheless, installations erected for the sole purpose of defending the protected works or installations from attack are permissible and shall not themselves be made the object of attack, provided that they are not used in hostilities except for defensive actions necessary to respond to attacks against the protected works or installations and that their armament is limited to weapons capable only of repelling hostile action against the protected works or installations.
6. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict are urged to conclude further agreements among themselves to provide additional protection for objects containing dangerous forces.
7. In order to facilitate the identification of the objects protected by this article, the Parties to the conflict may mark them with a special sign consisting of a group of three bright orange circles placed on the same axis, as specified in Article 16 of Annex I to this Protocol [Article 17 of Amended Annex]. The absence of such marking in no way relieves any Party to the conflict of its obligations under this Article.
If the Russians are using an ancillary building for the purposes of defending the site from intruders, be they Ukraine military or just a curious local public, parked trucks do not make it a legitimate military object for an artillery attack.
Waiting forGodotthe Grand Ukrainian Counteroffensive.
Patience you must have, my young padawan. ~Yoda
Lots and lots of patience. ~ woodpusher
So that's the reason why they've packed supply trucks like sardines within the actual building? Not storage, but just supplying the guards? They're just "defending" the building... by using it as a supply dump? Your logic is dumb enough as it is since it only sorta works--in a demented way--if its a few vehicles. But why post any forces at all at the nuclear plant? Because of your insane theory that the Ukrainians would benefit by destroying a nuclear reactor on their soil? The level of your mental gymnastics is pretty fierce.
They're just "defending" the building... by using it as a supply dump?
They are defending the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, not just an outbuilding with doors big enough for a truck to enter. Do you think a video of five general purpose trucks in a building designed to admit trucks is evidence of a supply depot? For a supply depot, one might consider using a loading and delivery dock where the bed of the truck is at the same approximate height as the surface of the dock.
Where are the howitzers and shells? Perhaps you fantasize that the Russians brought in howitzers hidden in those general purpose trucks. Miniature howitzers, small enough to hide in general purpose truck, light enough for a general purpose truck to carry the load.
Only a lunatic would blow up a nuclear facility under those conditions, and only a lunatic would support such a premise.
More likely (though not very likely) than five trucks converted the giant power plant into a supply dump, one or more of the Ukraine nuclear workers offered to detail the Russian trucks as an offer of good will and is now just awaiting carnauba wax and Russian security clearance to play with the Russian trucks.
Because of your insane theory that the Ukrainians would benefit by destroying a nuclear reactor on their soil?
It is on Russian occupied land. Zelensky has already demonstrated that he is willing to let Ukrainians be slaughtered senselessly.
I remind you of what you have carefully avoided. In my #27, I linked, cited and quoted the Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 56 which establishes that creating a facility or a force to defend a nuclear power plant is proper and lawful, and the nuclear power plant does not thereby become a legitimate target. You are reminded that the Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Art. 56, paragraph 5 states:
5. The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to avoid locating any military objectives in the vicinity of the works or installations mentioned in paragraph 1. Nevertheless, installations erected for the sole purpose of defending the protected works or installations from attack are permissible and shall not themselves be made the object of attack, provided that they are not used in hostilities except for defensive actions necessary to respond to attacks against the protected works or installations and that their armament is limited to weapons capable only of repelling hostile action against the protected works or installations.
Russia has a duty to protect and defend the nuclear power plant while it is in Russian possession. The full Protocol Article is linked, quote and cited at my #27.
Do prattle on. It provides modest entertainment for puny humans.
Your head is so far up Russkie ass your brain is clearly deprived of oxygen.
“The dumb ho went to Europe and said dumb things about the Ukraine joining NATO. Why do you think Russia attacked the Ukraine...?”
THE Ukraine?
Ukraine was a former Soviet republic (i.e., Ukraine SSR). At Russia’s insistence at the creation of the UN, both Ukraine and Belarus were given member nation status (thus, the Soviet Union had THREE votes in the UN).
THE Ukraine refers to a territory of Russia, especially pre-revolution.
With collapse of the USSR, Ukraine (no THE) became an independent and sovereign nation, clearly separate and distinct from Russia. Only pro-Russia water-carriers say “THE Ukraine,” because they — just like Putin — deny Ukraine is an independent and sovereign nation, but rather is a part of Russia.
Looks like the pro-Kamala water carriers have showed up on the thread...
Probably secretly voted for the Basement ticket because he liked her looks and "political acumen".
There was zero chance of Ukraine being let into NATO.
This is correct. And yet, you left out why Ukraine had zero chance of being admitted to NATO.
But do see what the Zelensky posted about it on June 14, 2021.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1404512788966514689
@ZelenskyyUa
Ukraine government officialCommend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that [Ukraine] will become a member of the Alliance & the #MAP is an integral part of the membership process. [Ukraine] deserves due appreciation of its role in ensuring Euro-Atlantic security
1:55 PM · Jun 14, 2021·Twitter Web App
That was right before the Russian Federation recognized the DPR and LPR as free and sovereign states on June 21, 2021, following which diplomatic relations were established and Russia signed agreements on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with their leaders. Then, following Ukraine belligerence toward the Alliance, the Alliance responded with its special operation to defend the sovereignty of the newly recognized nations of DPR and LPR.
Where are the howitzers and shells? Perhaps you fantasize that the Russians brought in howitzersYour head is so far up Russkie ass your brain is clearly deprived of oxygen.
It is rewarding to see you unable to make a substantive response and reduced to a puny ad hominem attack.
As you appear in dire need of something substantive, I, as a puny human I will provide you with some substance. Enjoy, oh mighty one.
It looks like Minsk I and II are finally being implemented by the alliance of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR), the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR), and the Russian Federation, following the official recognition of the states of the DPR and LPR on February 21, 2022 and the subsequent signed agreements between the DPR, LPR and RF on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with their leaders. The belligerent response of Ukraine was met with a response by the Tripartite alliance.
In case your planet is unaware, the puny humans entered into ceasefire agreements in 2014 and 2015 to end the fighting which had been ongoing since about 2008. Once Ukraine succeeded in obtaining the ceasefire, and the beatdown upon them ceased, Ukraine ignored its treaty obligations and continued its belligerent acts against the Russian speaking Ukranians of DPR and LPR. The text of those ceasefire documents is provided below.
MINSK I PROTOCOL (1 September 2014)
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/UA_140905_MinskCeasfire_en.pdf
Original official document in Russian only.
Annex I to the letter dated 24 February 2015 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council[Original: Russian]
Protocol on the outcome of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group on joint steps aimed at the implementation of the Peace Plan of the President of Ukraine, P. Poroshenko, and the initiatives of the President of the Russian Federation, V. Putin
Upon consideration and discussion of the proposals put forward by the participants of the consultations in Minsk on 1 September 2014, the Trilateral Contact Group, consisting of representatives of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), reached an understanding with respect to the need to implement the following steps:
1. Ensure the immediate bilateral cessation of the use of weapons.
2. Ensure monitoring and verification by OSCE of the regime of non-use of weapons.
3. Implement decentralization of power, including by enacting the Law of Ukraine on the interim status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (Law on Special Status).
4. Ensure permanent monitoring on the Ukrainian-Russian State border and verification by OSCE, along with the establishment of a security area in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
5. Immediately release all hostages and unlawfully detained persons.
6. Enact a law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.
7. Continue an inclusive national dialogue.
8. Adopt measures aimed at improving the humanitarian situation in Donbass.
9. Ensure the holding of early local elections in accordance with the Law of Ukraine on the interim status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (Law on Special Status).
10. Remove unlawful military formations and military hardware, as well as militants and mercenaries, from the territory of Ukraine.
11. Adopt a programme for the economic revival of Donbass and the resumption of vital activity in the region.
12. Provide personal security guarantees for the participants of the consultations.
Participants of the Trilateral Contact Group:
(Signed) Heidi Tagliavini,
Ambassador(Signed) L. D. Kuchma,
Second President of Ukraine(Signed) M. Y. Zurabov,
Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine(Signed) A. W. Zakharchenko
(Signed) I. W. Plotnitski
- - - - - - - - - -
https://comw.org/pda/fulltext/UNSC-Res-2202-Minsk.pdf
The Minsk Agreement of 12 February 2015 (MINSK II) followed the Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014 (MINSK I)
MINSK II AGREEMENT, 12 February 2015 (as endorsed at UN Security Council, 17 Feb 2015)
ANNEX IPackage of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements
Minsk, 12 February 2015
1. Immediate and comprehensive ceasefire in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine and its strict implementation as of 15 February 2015, 12 a.m. local time.
2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides by equal distances in order to create a security zone of at least 50 km wide from each other for the artillery systems of calibre of 100 and more, a security zone of 70 km wide for MLRS and 140 km wide for MLRS “Tornado-S”, Uragan, Smerch and Tactical Missile Systems (Tochka, Tochka U):
— for the Ukrainian troops: from the de facto line of contact;
— for the armed formations from certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine : from the line of contact according to the Minsk Memorandum of Sept. 19th, 2014;
The withdrawal of the heavy weapons as specified above is to start on day 2 of the ceasefire at the latest and be completed within 14 days.
The process shall be facilitated by the OSCE and supported by the Trilateral Contact Group.
3. Ensure effective monitoring and verification of the ceasefire regime and the withdrawal of heavy weapons by the OSCE from day 1 of the withdrawal, using all technical equipment necessary, including satellites, drones, radar equipment, etc.
4. Launch a dialogue, on day 1 of the withdrawal, on modalities of local elections in accordance with Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” as well as on the future regime of these areas based on this law.
Adopt promptly, by no later than 30 days after the date of signing of this document a Resolution of the Parliament of Ukraine specifying the area enjoying a special regime, under the Law of Ukraine “On interim self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, based on the line of the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014.
5. Ensure pardon and amnesty by enacting the law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.
6. Ensure release and exchange of all hostages and unlawfully detained persons, based on the principle “all for all”. This process is to be finished on the day 5 after the withdrawal at the latest.
7. Ensure safe access, delivery, storage, and distribution of humanitarian assistance to those in need, on the basis of an international mechanism.
8. Definition of modalities of full resumption of socioeconomic ties, including social transfers such as pension payments and other payments (incomes and revenues, timely payments of all utility bills, reinstating taxation within the legal framework of Ukraine).
To this end, Ukraine shall reinstate control of the segment of its banking system in the conflict-affected areas and possibly an international mechanism to facilitate such transfers shall be established.
9. Reinstatement of full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine throughout the conflict area, starting on day 1 after the local elections and ending after the comprehensive political settlement (local elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and constitutional reform) to be finalized by the end of 2015, provided that paragraph 11 has been implemented in consultation with and upon agreement by representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.
10. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, as well as mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under monitoring of the OSCE. Disarmament of all illegal groups.
11. Carrying out constitutional reform in Ukraine with a new constitution entering into force by the end of 2015 providing for decentralization as a key element (including a reference to the specificities of certain areas in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with the representatives of these areas), as well as adopting permanent legislation on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in line with measures as set out in the footnote until the end of 2015. [Note]
12. Based on the Law of Ukraine “On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, questions related to local elections will be discussed and agreed upon with representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group. Elections will be held in accordance with relevant OSCE standards and monitored by OSCE/ODIHR.
13. Intensify the work of the Trilateral Contact Group including through the establishment of working groups on the implementation of relevant aspects of the Minsk agreements. They will reflect the composition of the Trilateral Contact Group.
Note
Such measures are, according to the Law on the special order for local selfgovernment in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions:
— Exemption from punishment, prosecution and discrimination for persons involved in the events that have taken place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— Right to linguistic self-determination;
— Participation of organs of local self-government in the appointment of heads of public prosecution offices and courts in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— Possibility for central governmental authorities to initiate agreements with organs of local self-government regarding the economic, social and cultural development of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— State supports the social and economic development of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— Support by central government authorities of cross-border cooperation in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions with districts of the Russian Federation;
— Creation of the people's police units by decision of local councils for the maintenance of public order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions;
— The powers of deputies of local councils and officials, elected at early elections, appointed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by this law, cannot be early terminated.
Participants of the Trilateral Contact Group:
Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini
Second President of Ukraine, L. D. Kuchma
Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine, M. Yu. Zurabov
A.W. Zakharchenko
I.W. Plotnitski
Interesting cut and paste. How is Zakharchenko doing these days? I haven’t seen his name much lately.
And of course Zaporizhia, where the nuke plant is, has exactly nothing to do with liberating the “farmers and miners” of Donbas. This is raw banditry in the finest Russian tradition and nothing else. If Russia can’t steal it they want to destroy it.
How is Zakharchenko doing these days?
Zakharchenko, the first Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic is no longer participating in politics, but the sovereign and independent nation of the Donetsk People's Republic has gone on to be officially recognized.
Interesting cut and paste.
I have lots of them. Glad you find Ukraine diplomatic history interesting. Have another, The Lisbon Protocol from way back in 1991. Ukraine agreed to get rid of nukes as a condition of being recognized as a nation state. The United States and Russia joined in insisting. It seemed they did not want a Yugoslavia with nukes. Then they dicked around until 1994 when their attempt at a conditional agreement was flatly refused. That's why it took them years just to get recognized.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf
The Lisbon Protocol of 1991
ARTICLE IThe Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty.
ARTICLE II
The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine shall make such arrangements among themselves as are required to implement the Treaty's limits and restrictions; to allow functioning of the verification provisions of the Treaty equally and consistently throughout the territory of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine; and to allocate costs.
ARTICLE III
1. For purposes of Treaty implementation, the phrase, "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" shall be interpreted to mean the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine.
2. For purposes of Treaty implementation, the phrase, "national territory," when used in the Treaty to refer to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, shall be interpreted to mean the combined national territories of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine.
3. For inspections and continuous monitoring activities on the territory of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, or Ukraine, that state shall provide communications from the inspection site or continuous monitoring site to the Embassy of the United States in the respective capital.
4. For purposes of Treaty implementation, the embassy of the Inspecting Party referred to in Section XVI of the Protocol on Inspections and Continuous Monitoring Activities Relating to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms shall be construed to be the embassy of the respective state in Washington or the embassy of the United States of America in the respective capital.
5. The working languages for Treaty activities shall be English and Russian.
ARTICLE IV
Representatives of the Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine will participate in the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission on a basis to be worked out consistent with Article I of this Protocol.
ARTICLE V
The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Ukraine shall adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968 as non-nuclear weapon states Parties in the shortest possible time, and shall begin immediately to take all necessary action to this end in accordance with their constitutional practices.
ARTICLE VI
1. Each Party shall ratify the Treaty together with this Protocol in accordance with its own constitutional procedures. The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine shall exchange instruments of ratification with the United States of America. The Treaty shall enter into force on the date of the final exchange of instruments of ratification.
2. This Protocol shall be an integral part of the Treaty and shall remain in force throughout the duration of the Treaty.
Done at Lisbon on May 23, 1992, in five copies, each in the Byelarusian, English, Kazakh, Russian, and Ukrainian languages, all texts being equally authentic.
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF BYELARUS:
P. KravchankaFOR THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN:
T. ZhukeyevFOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
A. KozyrevFOR UKRAINE:
A. ZlenkoFOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
James A. Baker, III
You cite a comment by Zelensky wherein he states, “NATO leaders confirmed that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance.” Clearly, by “the Alliance” he means NATO.
You then go on to say that right after Zelensky made that comment, Russia recognized DPR and LPR as free and sovereign states…following which diplomatic relations were established between Russia and DPR and LPR, and Russia signed agreements on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with their leaders. It is significant that Russia was pretty much alone in recognizing DPR and LPR as independent and sovereign states; but, it is no surprise, since Russia was instrumental in creating them.
Yet, you go on to make this bizarre statement: “Then, following Ukraine belligerence toward the Alliance, the Alliance responded with its special operation to defend the sovereignty of the newly recognized nations of DPR and LPR.”
Well, since the only connotation of “the Alliance” in your post was in reference to NATO, your comment above clearly addresses Ukrainian belligerence toward NATO (the Alliance), and that NATO (the Alliance) responded with “…its special operation to defend the sovereignty…” of DPR and LPR. Thus, one would necessarily assume that Ukraine would blow its chances of becoming a member of NATO (the Alliance) by being belligerent toward it, especially since NATO (the Alliance) has sided with the breakaway DPR and LPR, with whom Ukraine is engaged in a civil war.
Isn’t that peculiar?
You are well-known for being a cut-and-paste poster. You seem not to have an independent thought or idea; you let others do your talking for you. The problem with that is you don’t coordinate your cut-and-paste sources with your own arguments, and you come off as a buffoon. As evidenced by the above.
A word of advice: Live by cut-and-paste, perish by cut-and-paste.
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.