• rstein@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are again diverting and misleading.

    I wrote:

    Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.

    In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.

    Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.

    You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.

    Did Russia honour the Budapest Memorandum?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are again diverting and misleading.

      I’m doing no such thing.

      You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.

      Russia honoured the Budapest Memorandum right up to the point when NATO ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which caused a civil war. I wonder why you would ignore this important context…

      • rstein@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So an invasion and annexation of parts of another country is justified, when there is a coup? (There wasn’t, btw. )

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There was and it’s a well documented fact. Meanwhile, the invasion was modelled on the precedent set by NATO invading Yugoslavia. NATO recognized independence of the breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for assistance. Russia did exactly the same thing in Donbas.

          • rstein@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You could not find a more reputable source? Greyzone author, really?

            And it is news to me, that NATO troops were in Yugoslavia. Got a source for that? Or again a lie by you as the background of western politicians?

              • rstein@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ad hominem? Not really. I contest his neutrality. It’s a partisan publication.

                You wrote about the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO invasion. What has KFOR to do with that?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re using ad hominem to dismiss the content of the article. KFOR is the NATO force that is currently occupying Serbia that is left over from the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. Are you seriously so ignorant that you do not know about the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia?

                  • rstein@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There was no NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. There was a very controversial aerial intervention by NATO after ethnic cleansing by Serbian troops in Kosovo. But that is not an invasion. After that there was a UN peace keeping campaign and administration.