Russia had already acted in bad faith and abandoned it's contractual obligations with regard to giving security guarantees (!) to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons on their soil after the fall of the soviet union. The Minsk negotiations took place AFTER Russia illegally annexed the Krim and moved troops into the Donbass to stage an insurrection.

Now you could say that some Western nations also didn't honor their obligation to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty. But doing so would've meant open war with Russia so it's partly understandable why they acted this way. And at least the West didn't outright invade the country the pledged to protect like Russia did. It's indefensible and you white washing these rogue and terrorist acts just shows what an utter deplorable piece of human garbage you truly are (did I word this correctly?)

An UN official having an opinion doesn't make any claim about genocide in Gaza a fact btw.

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ukraine or the west never bothered to actually implement Minsk, and this is what even CNN was openly reporting was happening in 2014. Also, Ukraine never had nuclear weapons to give up, because these were Soviet nuclear weapons and Russia was officially recognized as the inheritor state to the Soviet Union.

And at least the West didn’t outright invade the country the pledged to protect like Russia did.

NATO and its individual members have been doing nothing but invading countries since USSR fell. Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria are just a few examples. In fact, US currently illegally occupies a larger portion of Syria than Russia is occupying of Ukraine. You're either an utter ignoramus or a liar.

An UN official having an opinion doesn’t make any claim about genocide in Gaza a fact btw.

That's just one example of the expert and global consensus on the subject. The fact that you keep trying to paint it as anything else says everything we need to know about you.

[–] runblack@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nevertheless Ukraine had physical control over these nuclear weapons although it couldn't have launched them. Ukraine also had claims to the black sea fleet and gave up on both in the years before the Budapest memorandum in which the above-mentioned security guarantees where given. In hindsight that was probably a mistake and the west should have used Russia's weakness to break Crimea and the black sea fleet out of Russia's hands for good to avoid future conflict and cripple Russia's geopolitical ambitions which where always fueled by paranoia. But you can't be that paranoid about losing sth. that you don't have anymore.

Russia can't be trusted to adhere to the contracts they sign. They will even invade and terrorise a country they themselves called "brothers" for a long time. It's utterly shameful and all you have to say about this is "bUt nAtO DiD bAd tHiNgS!!1".

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nevertheless Ukraine had physical control over these nuclear weapons although it couldn’t have launched them.

That's a self-contradictory statement. The weapons were located on the territory of Ukraine, but Ukraine never had any legal possession of the weapons or the launch codes.

In hindsight that was probably a mistake and the west should have used Russia’s weakness to break Crimea and the black sea fleet out of Russia’s hands for good to avoid future conflict and cripple Russia’s geopolitical ambitions which where always fueled by paranoia.

More false narrative here. The conflict is a direct result of NATO expansion, as Stoltenberg himself admitted. This has nothing to do with Russia's geopolitical ambitions, and it's obviously not paranoia when it's openly admitted. Stop lying.

Russia can’t be trusted to adhere to the contracts they sign. They will even invade and terrorise a country they themselves called “brothers” for a long time. It’s utterly shameful and all you have to say about this is “bUt nAtO DiD bAd tHiNgS!!1”.

Seems like plenty of countries have no problems making contracts with Russia. All the problems are invariably in relation to NATO and the west. It's pretty clear that NATO who promised not to move one inch east and then broke that promise consistently for decades is the party that can't be trusted.

I love how all you do here is just regurgitate nonsense you've memorized, but we now have ample evidence that all of these talking points are completely false. Either you're lying intentionally here or you're just a useful idiot for the empire.

[–] runblack@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not contradictory but thanks for repeating my sentence with different wording.

Sovereign countries can choose their alliances freely. Of course it's Russian paranoia to be fearful of the NATO expansion. NATO would not start WW3 by invading Russia. And NATO expansion is the direct consequence of Russian imperialism. Russia's neighbors are afraid of Russia which has proven time and time again that it can and will use military force to subjugate it's neighbors. We've seen it under the reign of the Tsar. We've seen it during soviet times and we've seen it in modern Russia with Chechenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine... You have to be willingly blind to overlook all these cases of military aggression out of paranoia and megalomania. Do you think the largest country on earth was created by peaceful negotiations and hugs? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Your "ample evidence" is fabricated by the spin doctors in Moscow. Congratulations for drinking up that propaganda so willingly.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago

It’s not contradictory but thanks for repeating my sentence with different wording.

Absolutely is, using your galaxy brain logic every country occupied by US and hosting US bases owns them too right?

Sovereign countries can choose their alliances freely.

It's true, unfortunately for the countries that fall under US control, their sovereignty goes out of the window. And in extreme cases such as Ukraine, US even overthrows their governments to put in compliant puppet regimes.

Of course it’s Russian paranoia to be fearful of the NATO expansion.

NATO has a demonstrated record of invading countries and has an openly hostile stance towards Russia. The fact that you keep calling this paranoia continues to expose your intellectual dishonesty.

Of course it’s Russian paranoia to be fearful of the NATO expansion.

See, there you go ignoring reality of NATO again because it doesn't fit into your propaganda narrative.

Russia’s neighbors are afraid of Russia which has proven time and time again that it can and will use military force to subjugate it’s neighbors.

One problem with this narrative of yours is that the problem only seems to occur in countries that have been politically captured by US. All of Russia's eastern neighbours seem to be getting along with Russia just fine.

You have to be willingly blind to overlook all these cases of military aggression out of paranoia and megalomania.

You have to be either a liar or an ignoramus to frame these cases the way you did.

Your “ample evidence” is fabricated by the spin doctors in Moscow. Congratulations for drinking up that propaganda so willingly.

Ah yes, spin doctors in Moscow such as Jens Stoltenberg and Loyd Austin. 🤡

There's very little point continuing this discussion since all you're capable of doing is regurgitating the script you've memorized.

Bye.