Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119459507#Comment_119459507

Russia signed both the Russia-NATO founding act and the Budapest agreement - the latter specifically with Ukraine.

These are international treaties.

The Founding Act expressly permits sovereign states of Europe (of which Ukraine is one) to make its own security arrangements e.g. join NATO

The Budapest Agreement implicitly permit Ukraine to do so.

Russia did not repudiate those agreements when Putin came to power. Why not, if Ukrainian and Georgian membership of NATO were red lines.

This is how Russia acts. Signs agreements. Expects everyone else to abide by them yet they can play by their own rules.

20silkcut

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119459347#Comment_119459347

To all the Putin bots and apologists etc on this forum look at what your crowd are doing. You will all be silent and have no comment on this. Jailing harmless people for 10 bloody years. The absolute shame of it. What a joke of a country. How can ye come on here with a straight face and defend this sh1t and talk up the Putin regime. When they are resorting to this the argument is lost.

ambro25

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119454452#Comment_119454452

It’s not (sustainable for the Russian economy). But then we all knew that.

https://www.luxtimes.lu/en/business-finance/putin-s-war-hurls-his-economy-back-four-years-in-one-quarter-62f5dfdade135b9236e54248?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1660280960-2

The effect that sanctions are having on the Russian economy is no less spectacular than that of Ukrainian SoF’s recent holiday trip to a certain Crimean airbase. It’s just not as loud and colourful to observe.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119460268#Comment_119460268

It's a small but shocking reminder that Russia is not, and should not be considered, a country friendly towards any neighbour West of its borders - be it culturally, politically, legislatively and so on. Arguing moral equivalence between it and a flawed-but-trying-to-improve country like Ukraine only highlights the arguer as being of Bad Faith.

Always worth further reminding: this is a country that decriminalised Domestic Abuse. I can only shudder thinking on what that journalist is currently going through.

paul71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462287#Comment_119462287

Agreed with 1 exception of a country west of its border, Belarus. I was not aware Russia had decriminalised Domestic Abuse but it does not surprise me. However, oddly people seem to be surprised when I inform them that Belarus re-introduced Serfdom a decade ago. Effectively about 1.5 million Belarusians are the property of state collective farms. It is more than evident that there are 2 countries in Europe in a race to to outdo each other in a journey back to the middle ages.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119464031#Comment_119464031

I know I've said it before, but look to Belarus as the template to the future Russia wants for Ukraine, Georgia, any other ex USSR republics and the Baltic States too if they weren't already in NATO.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119464031#Comment_119464031

I hadn't known that about the introduction of serfdom. That's astonishing, though I've noted even the apologists and intellectual contrarians stop short at focusing too hard on Belarus - given its status is an uncomfortable reality about the end result of Russian influence. Ukraine openly told that influence to F right off.

But yes, Russia decriminalised domestic abuse, and recall russian politicians at the time hailing it as a return to "family values" and pushback against the Western liberalisation, feminisation of Russia. I believe women's shelters have to operate in secret because of an absence of state support or interest. Maybe things have got better, though I do doubt it.

So whenever those parachutist posters come along trying to Whatabout or argue that Russia ain't so bad or the real enemy, I think of all those russian women being beaten and abused with the blessing of the state (so long as you don't break the skin; they're not total barbarians /s).

Field east

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450167#Comment_119450167

“Russia created, owned, governed—————— “ You know ABSOLUTLY nothing about the history of Ukraine.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119458141#Comment_119458141

Thanks for that. I was not aware of that statement ever being made. It was however made at a time when even Russia was talking about joining NATO as at that point the world believed that cold war politics were over and the new mutual enemy for East & West was militant Islamic fundamentalism. Subsequent years eroded this loved up NATO/Russo atmosphere as the US realised that Putin was not Yeltsin and would never open up the Russian economy to US ownership of its assets and he became someone to be removed. The US saw the weakness in the Russian economy and the instability in its structures and wrongly assumed that Putin would be overthrown eventually with a coloured revolution of the type that the US were fond of orchestrating. It never happened as we all know.

Obviously if Russia were in the process of joining NATO there would have been no objection to Ukraine joining as NATO wasn't a security threat to Russia.

"So no, after 2014 Ukraine could never join NATO - neither could Moldova nor Georgia (at least until after they fully expelled Russia)"

Then why was there a recommitment in November 2021 of both Ukraine and the US with the "U.S. Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership" which "affirmed that Ukraine will become a member of NATO."? There was also the buildup of the Ukrainian army with financial and military support from the US since 2014 that made it obvious that they were going to try and retake Crimea and the Donbass at some point.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119470641#Comment_119470641

Not sure misspelling the capitalised word in your post constitutes a valid refutation of my statement. Is it not a fact that the Bolsheviks created Ukraine's current borders and administered them as a soviet republic until 1991 before voluntarily ceding control?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119477180#Comment_119477180

Its about as relevant as saying the UK created, owned and governed Ireland. They created the current borers and administered it as either a colony or part of the United Kingdom until 1922.

Its using ostensibly accurate historical points without context to create a false impression.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119477138#Comment_119477138

1. So you admit your following statement was wrong?

" Russia created, owned, governed and subsequently gave away the country known as modern Ukraine. Its only stipulation for this huge geopolitical gesture was that due to its unique history and ethnic diversity it must remain a neutral state and not join ANY military bloc ( including a Russian military Bloc). "

2. As regards the US affirming something which is not going to happen, you are reminded that not only has the US refused in the past few months to say that Ukraine would be allowed to join when Ukraine asked them to (and when the chips were down) but also that countries make never going to happen political statements all the time - e.g. Turkey joining the EU.

rocky1813

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451655#Comment_119451655

Excellent interview. Great to hear a voice of reason and someone speak the truth. Surprised CNN aired this.

Dufflecoat Fanny

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478848#Comment_119478848

Nonsense. Waters has turned into a USA hating Chomsky parrot. He can't understand that the Russians will wipe out the Ukrainians unless given as much military help as possible. I've been a Pink Floyd and Waters fan as long as I can remember, I've seen him twice in Dublin but he's been completely wrong about a lot of things the last few years. He needs to make peace with his daddy issues and realize war is very complex.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478992#Comment_119478992

Even if God will tell that USA started war on Ukraine some of you will still saying that it's lies.Not surprised.

This winter Europe will sell Ukraine to Putin for gas,same as they did for fertilizer and wheat already.The public opinion preparation process already started in Western media.

But question is will Putin buy it because until winter Ukraine will be Putin's already.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479474#Comment_119479474

Whatever happened to the claim that Russia would take Ukraine in 3 days?

Is the fact that the area under Russian occupation a small fraction of the amount occupied in 25 March "just a feint"/part of Russian maskyrovka?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479756#Comment_119479756

Russia will take Ukraine in 3 days been widely used in Western media.Russia fighting against biggest army in Europe at the moment which are supported by NATO by weapons.

Also Ukrainian army are same strongly mentally as Russian and same as Russian saying Russians Never give up and will fight until death same Ukrainians are saying.They all Slavic warriors on both sides, literally Russians killing Russians on Ukraine what is the biggest tragedy since Civil war in Russia happened after 1917 revolution.

Putin before war already said that war on Ukraine will be huge tragedy for Russia.Same said some China politics about possible war on Taiwan

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479849#Comment_119479849

Russia taking Ukraine "in 3 days" was a Russian military and Russian media thing actually- hence "special military operation", the fact they only had supplies for 3 days in the Kyiv assault & the fact that Russian officers had phoned ahead for restaurant reservations in Kyiv.

If you think "Russians don't give up", perhaps you should read up some more on history - from the war with Japan in 1905, to WW1 to the various surrenderings of millions of Soviet troops in WW2 - e.g. the 600k at Vyazma through to Afghanistan.

pixelburp

Easy way to avoid the tragedy of Russian deaths: pull the troops out of the foreign, sovereign country they invaded twice-over, and find a Third Party arbiter to head discussions over the supposed humanitarian concerns Putin would have us belief is the motivation for this invasion. Then let Ukraine continue charting whatever geopolitical direction it chooses.

You know, if Russia's serious about being in Ukraine for the sake of Russian Speakers. The dogs on the street know their motivations aren't pure in the slightest but hey ho. Gotta cling onto whatever branches this scenario presents.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480167#Comment_119480167

I don't read "sofa experts" media.And nobody ever won against Russia same as against Afganistan.

Japan might won but Russia still has part of them territory,same as Viazma.

Also remember how Russians left Afghanistan and how USA was run from there.Afghanistan still friends with Russia when with USA are not.

Afghan soldiers has more respect to Russian than to Americans which were killing civilians and children.

If American would fight on Ukraine they would flatten Kyiv to the ground in first days ! Together with woman and children!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479756#Comment_119479756

That was stated by US general Milley..

It set up the whole 'The Russians are useless' propaganda campaign..

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480257#Comment_119480257

Utter strawman nonsense.

This is up there with the Russians saying it was only a feint.

The Russians can't keep their lies straight.

They dropped their elite paratroops in to take Hostomel airport and link up with advancing troops.

How long were the paratroops expected to hold for?

What were they be doing there for a feint, offered as sacrificial lambs?

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480287#Comment_119480287

After the complete madness of the invasion itself (and the earlier interference in neighbouring countries) it did imo make sense to "go for the jugular " and seize Kiev **

But for Zelensky's bravery and sang froid it may well have paid off as a gamble.

A huge disaster thereafter to have exposed Russia's military weakness and apparent incompetence to the world.

**would also have created a space in history for Putin as some patriotic tactical and strategic genius instead of the squalid nationalistic thug we know and despise .

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480257#Comment_119480257

So you are suggesting that Russia now occupies more Ukrainian territory than on 25 March?

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119477812#Comment_119477812

But the UK did create, own and govern Modern Ireland for 800 years didn't they? We recognised Britain as the current rulers of the island when we negotiated and signed for their withdrawal with the Anglo Irish Treaty. As part of this agreement the Free State agreed to allow the British Navy to use its ports and for the 6 counties to vote to secede from the new state. They weren't palatable but they were honoured. Apart from that there were no other "forever" commitments signed by us.

Ukraine on the other hand was founded only on the basis with a signed commitment to NEVER join a military bloc due its unique and diverse ethnic population and its proximity to a nuclear power. This reassured the Soviets (as the recognised current rulers of the region) that Ukraine would never pose a security threat to the Russian state. Ukraine recognised its strong historic ties to Russia in language, culture and history by including this commitment in its founding document.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480960#Comment_119480960

Russian propaganda already rebutted twice on the thread.

Russia signed the Budapest agreement with Ukraine and the NATO-Russia Founding Act which supersedes whatever a Ukranian state soviet had to do to get the USSR to honour its own constitution. In Budapest Ukraine made all assurances sufficient to satisfy Russia. The latter agreement expressly permits Ukraine as a sovereign state to make its own security arrangements.

The UK would not have the right to revert to claim the use of the ports because they signed a subsequent treaty with Ireland in 1937 reverting their use back to Ireland.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450313/#Comment_119450313

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478756#Comment_119478756

1. No I do not admit that at all. Its a fact. As I said in my post, if Russia was in the process of joining NATO then there would have been no objection to Ukraine joining as NATO would no longer be a security threat to Russia. When it became apparent that Russia and NATO were moving further and further apart the neutrality of Ukraine became a necessity once again as it would pose a threat to Russian security. Just as Cuba having missiles from a belligerent power stationed so close to the US would pose a threat to US security.

2. So the US lied to Ukraine when they signed the charter is what you are saying. Because I would hope that Zelensky didn't sacrifice 100 thousand of his soldiers based on a lie.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480960#Comment_119480960

We were at war with the British Gov continuously and there were many uprising to testify this, and that refutes accepting them as 'owners'.

If a thief were to steal something, then that thief is never the 'owner'. If the item can be identified by me as being my property, then, without time limit, I can reclaim it.

NI partition was created by the Government of Ireland prior to the treaty creating what is now Ireland, so was not part of the status quo at the time of the treaty. The treaty, however, was signed under the threat of 'terrible war'. Hardly a free choice.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481034#Comment_119481034

"The latter agreement expressly permits Ukraine as a sovereign state to make its own security arrangements."

Where in the Budapest agreement does it expressly say this? There is nothing in the Budapest agreement or the NATO-Russia founding act that even references the status of Ukraine's neutrality.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480960#Comment_119480960

No. They did not create "Modern Ireland" nor did they own and govern it for 800 years. They governed parts of it for various lengths of time, though only governed it all for a few hundred years. Ireland always had its own identity and nationalist movement however and it was never within the auspices of the UK to "create" it.

Ireland agreed to be a Dominion of the United Kingdom, then just decided not to be all on its own post founding I might add.

Ukraine was not "founded" at the collapse of the Soviet Union any more than Ireland was founded in 1922 or all nations of Europe were founded following the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire, or France was founded following 1944.

Also the USSR doesn't exist anymore, so Ukraine has no responsibility towards it.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481124#Comment_119481124

"It's a fact" - so you are saying Russia signed their agreement with NATO in bad faith?

And you are saying that Putin lied?

As regards Cuba, are you also suggesting that the US is reasonably entitled to commit genocide in Cuba to force Cuba to do what the US wants?

As regards the US "lying", why do you think the Ukrainians would be so stupid as to believe that a country currently under occupation would actually be allowed to join NATO - are you really suggesting their entire political, military and state are gullible hicks?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481374#Comment_119481374

The USSR Constitution permits republics to leave. Therefore the USSR was in breach of its own constitution in placing permanent conditions on Ukraine's withdrawal.

Russia signed the Budapest agreement with Ukraine and the NATO-Russia Founding Act

The Budapest agreement, given that it dealt with the Ukrainian military capacity, did not enforce neutrality, and therefore implicitly permits Ukraine as an independent sovereign country to join blocs. The agreement respects Ukrainian independence and sovereignty.

Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements.

When Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, it also pledged to uphold "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security".

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, which Russia recognised in the Budapest agreement, without restriction on its ability to form alliance.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, which therefore is in the scope of the commitments Russia gave to sovereign Euro-Atlantic states in the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480960#Comment_119480960

This is just about the most nonsensical take on Irish history that I have seen. For a start, 800 years prior to 1922, the UK did not exist. Neither did Modern Ireland. (Ever hear of the distinction between Modern and Medieval?). Looking at medieval anywhere though a Modern lens gets you nowhere.

You refer to the Free State allowing the use of the Treaty Ports. You forgot the analogy with Ukraine, which, following the end of the USSR allowed the Russian navy to use Sebastopol. I hope that when this war is over that this Treaty Port will be Ukrainian

bobowen

Really kicked a hornets nest responding to Podges Ireland comparison didn't I. Of course I know the UK didn't exist for 800 years. Of course I know we didn't recognise the brits as Owners. The same goes for every other pedantic observation made by all 4 of you.

My point was that when countries sign agreements with each other there is an implicit recognition that the region being negotiated is currently under control of one of the parties to the agreement. The brits in Irelands case and Russia in Ukraines case. The point is that if Ireland agreed to allow the Brits to use the ports forever we would have to abide by what we signed. We renegotiated in 1938 to change this commitment.

The Ukraine committed to stay neutral when it left the Soviet Union. If it didn't it would be a threat to the security of Russia. It was created on the basis that it would never be a threat to the security of Russia. There has been no pact since the formation of the state that would allow it to renege on this commitment.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481568#Comment_119481568

Ukraine signed no agreement or commitment as a country with the USSR committing it to neutrality. Its state republic government made a declaration - a declaration it did not have to even make as the USSR constitution permitted Ukraine to leave freely. This declaration has no legal or moral force.

Any such declaration is therefore moot and entirely superseded by the Budapest and NATO-Russia Founding agreements. Given that the Budapest agreement specifically dealt with Ukrainian military capabilities, and the threat of such capabilities to Russia, it is entirely pertinent that there was no mention of Ukraine having to be militarily neutral.

It's obvious you have no response to the points put to you so have to engage in deflection about 'hornets nest' and 'pedantic observations'.

We can be sure we'd be hearing all about the 'pedantic observations' if the Budapest or NATO-Russia Founding agreements did place restrictions on the ability of sovereign and independent former SSRs in their security arrangements. But it does not.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481485#Comment_119481485

The US recognises the sovereignty of every nation in the Americas but reserves the right through the Monroe doctrine to intervene if their actions threaten America's security. Iran is a sovereign nation but Israel and America forbid them to have nuclear weapons.

Do you seriously think that if Mexico were to join a Russo/Chinese military bloc the US would not intervene militarily?

Or if the Russians and Chinese funded, armed and trained the Mexican army that the US would not also intervene militarily?

Or if the Russians and Chinese funded biological labs in Mexico that the US would not also intervene militarily? (Victoria Nuland of the State department has admitted to congress that these existed in Ukraine so please don't ban me for this statement).

Of course they would. Its the way powerful countries with nuclear weapons act. To criticise Russia for doing what the US would have also done if confronted with the same situation on its border is pure hypocrisy.

Podge_irl

I seem to have missed the US invasion of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Ireland agreed to remain as a Dominion of the United Kingdown with their Sovereign as our Sovereign. Then we just changed our mind and made our constitution and told them to piss off.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481837#Comment_119481837

Did you also miss the fact that if it wasn't for Kruschev turning the ships around the world would have had a nuclear war because our Irish hero Kennedy had his finger on the button ready to kill millions of people in order to "guarantee" America's security?

Detritus70

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481869#Comment_119481869

Yes, well, so, and? I fail to see the Ukraine connection here.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481921#Comment_119481921

Really. Do you not?

Cuba is basically on the border of America. Ukraine is on the border of Russia. The US reserves the right to start a Nuclear armageddon if anyone tries to put military bases on their border threatening their security. Why shouldn't Russia be able to protect their security if other countries put military bases on their border? Quite simple really.

nigeldaniel

This thread is about the Ukraine and not Cuba, Kennedy, or Castro and the commies. Comparing Ukraine to Cuba is naive and not much more.

Detritus70

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482019#Comment_119482019

Egg Zack Lee.

There is a German saying that is pertinent here. Had, had, bicycle chain.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482019#Comment_119482019

Can't refute the hypocrisy of condemning Russia for something that the US does as a rule?

Someone claimed that Ukraine is a sovereign nation and Russia should not have a say in its affairs. I was saying America recognises nations as sovereign but also interferes in their affairs. Its relevant because America is a belligerent actor in the Ukrainian conflict.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481774#Comment_119481774

And now, having lost the argument in relation to the USSR Constitution, Budapest Agreement and NATO-Russia Founding Act, you engage in full blown whataboutery.

Mexico wouldn't do that because the US has given it no reason to do so. Unlike Russia with Ukraine and its repeated invasions and violations of agreements.

Notice how you jumped from earlier talking about Cuba to now talking about Mexico... because you realised how much you had cut the legs out from under your own argument.

The US and USSR came to an agreement re: the stationing of nuclear weapons on Cuba.

Which is what Ukraine did in the Budapest Agreement as well as other strategic weaponry and committed to not allowing on its territory:  the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use of nuclear weapons

And in the NATO-Russia Founding Act NATO committed to:

The members of NATO reiterate their statement of 10 December 1996 that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspects of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so.

NATO also reiterates its 14 March 1997 Statement indicating that in the current and foreseeable security environment, NATO plans to carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. 

And maybe you didn't get the memo, but Russia already had borders with NATO countries, which just got expanded with Finland.

Russia had all the security assurances it warranted or needed without invading Ukraine.

This war has nothing to do with Ukraine joining NATO but was a direct Russian attack on Ukrainian territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. Invading Ukraine is the #1 thing leading to a shift in the above NATO positions, and as we have seen, formerly neutral countries realising Russia does not respect neutrality and joining NATO for collective defence.

Podge_irl

This war has nothing to do with Ukraine joining NATO

Not least because they haven't and nor was it imminent. By this logic Russia only has a few weeks left to start its invasion of Finland before its in NATO...

Detritus70

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482110#Comment_119482110

And by the logic of a certain poster that would be fine.

For the hard of thinking:

Russia has no justification in this war. If you disagree, just read this statement again.

bobowen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482087#Comment_119482087

"And now, having lost the argument in relation to the USSR Constitution, Budapest Agreement and NATO-Russia Founding Act, you engage in full blown whataboutery."

This is your MO basically. Start off by saying you have won an argument when nothing of the sort has happened. Lets recap.

I said Budapest and the NATO-Russia founding act only talked about respecting sovereignty. Nothing about Ukraines neutrality.

You said sovereignty gives Ukraine the right to not be neutral.

I said sovereignty does not give Ukraine that right as its on the border of a nuclear power. I then provided you with examples of the US recognising the sovereignty of other nations but still interfering with them militarily if it threatened their security. Cuba for one.

You then claim whataboutery, the ultimate off ramp tactic of someone who has no logical response to the contradiction in their argument.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119480287#Comment_119480287

Nobody doesn't throw paratroopers so deep on enemy area unless there is serious reason for that.Because they all simply will be killed without support.

The reason for so risky operation was information that Kyiv regime has equipment for producing nuclear weapons which been brought by biggest plane in the world Mria which been burned there.After area been inspected the paratroopers immediately left area due with high risk get killed.

The only members of high elite Russian Speznaz and special antiterrorist forces been used in this operation.

One of the reasons of Russian invasion to Ukraine was Zelenskii speech on one of meetings in Europe ( I think Prague) were he said Ukraine gona create own nuclear weapons again.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/ukraine-building-a-nuclear-bomb-dangerous-nonsense/

By some experts opinions Zelenskii was thinking using nuclear weapons on Donbas what could help him clean area from separatist and prevent Russian army invasion due with high level of radiation.

This and more Zelenskii ideas made Putin invade to Ukraine.

If somebody doesn't believe it simply think about why Russians taking so huge risk came to Gostomel airport and why left it.

Detritus70

@bobowen

You argument just boils down to the approval of bully boy tactics.

There is absolutely no legal justification for this invasion. You know that. All you're left with is "might is right".

So, if Ukraine manages to throw Russia out by it's own might, then this will be acceptable to you, if course.

ilkhanid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119477180#Comment_119477180

The bizarre premise of this post seems to be that since Russia ''made'' Ukraine, it retains the right to ''unmake'' it at its pleasure. No country on earth would regard that constraint on its independence as tolerable and, note, that as soon as it could, Ireland began to remove the links that bund it to the UK, culminating in the declaration of the Republic in 1949. No colonial power save Russia reserves the right to interfere in its former colonies to the extent of armed intervention.