Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Egg Zack Lee.

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

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.

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.

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.