US has no good options in Ukraine
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| By this logic the US, UK, etc had no legal right to fight WW2. |
Anonymous
|
I appreciate all the PPs working so hard to make this conversation happen.
At the least, it's worth a laugh. |
Anonymous
International laws regarding war were probably not the same (or didn't exist) at the time of King George and Lincoln. These rules (and the court at The Hague) did not exist until 1945. WW2 and the nuclear bomb made these rules necessary. The world has changed. |
Anonymous
Read about why that is. It’s because the USSR objected to the US wanting two of its territories at the time to be considered separate members. The USSR didn’t like that doing that would essentially pad the US’s votes, so it requested that two SSRs be given separate votes as well. That’s why the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs are listed as separate founding members from the USSR. Note that other SSRs, like Georgia, are not. |
Anonymous
|
Irrelevant.
Putin is a war criminal. We now have ample evidence of his ongoing crimes committed on Ukrainian soil. He must surrender and travel to The Hague to face trial. |
Anonymous
How’s life in fantasy land? If Putin ends up at The Hague, I’ll give you all the money in my bank account. |
Anonymous
Um no. Those two "territories" are called India and the Philippines. You can't play both sides of the game. Ukraine was considered a separate entity from Russia under both the constitution of the USSR and the founding charter of the UN. |
Anonymous
It wasn’t. You’re ignorant of the history. |
Anonymous
|
The USSR provided all SSR’s as separate entities from Russia. The USSR’s constitution was among other things, the most liberal in the history of the world for most of its history. Anyone who isn’t a simpleton understands that the constitution of the USSR wasn’t worth the toilet paper it was printed on.
And India and the Philippines were considered “Western”, not owned by the US. Stop playing this game child, you’re not good at it. |
Anonymous
This is easy enough to do. Both save face. 1 is easy, wouldn’t have happened anyway 2 means no foreign military bases in the country. It can keep its army. 3 can be a meaningless ritual like a decree banning nazi ideology and display or smth 4 is de facto reality, just needs documentation Done. |
Anonymous
Russia also wants Ukraine to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, which Ukraine understandably *really* does not want to do. |
Anonymous
Zelensky doesn't need to save face. He's done NOTHING to provoke this. Putin has gotten himself so backed into a corner, he will never be able to step away. And if he did, it'd only be a matter of time until he pulled this stunt again. When will some of you understand you CANNOT appease someone like Putin (or Trump). The only off-ramp is a fresh pair of underwear for Putin. |
Anonymous
Crimea is gone. Zelensky knows it’s gone. |
Anonymous
Zelensky doesn’t need to save face, true, but the sooner peace comes, the better for him. |
Anonymous
Yes it’s very easy to say someone else’s children should fight till the last drop of their blood. |