What's new

Why Russia has no reason or right to complain about NATOs expansion.

Ukrainian parliament passed laws "on 16 January 2014, and signed into law by President Yanukovych on the following day, sought to put an end to EuroMaidan. The laws de facto criminalized all of the opposition’s methods, and eliminated any sense of freedom of speech and assembly that remained in Ukraine, except for on Maidan"

So the protesters were illegal from this day forward. Same as Western anti-protesting laws. Another lie by the Swede. They were all criminals.
 
A popular argument from Russian trolls is that NATO promised not to expand, and then expanded anyway, and therefore Russia has the right to invade Ukraine.

It is claimed that Gorbachev was promised this verbally in a meeting.
Since Gorbachev only had an international role until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 such a promise must have been made up until 1991.

The arguments against are:
In short, Russia accepted in writing the expansion of NATO here: https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

with the critical part being:

respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security”

Former Warsaw Pact countries wanted to join NATO to avoid being invaded by Russia applied and the first invitation came in July 1997, that is after the Founding Act was signed.

The only deal on enlargement is the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. where NATO troops are not to be based in former East Germany - until a new German government decides otherwise.


Before signing the Founding Act, Yeltsin wanted to have a promise of no-expansion from Bill Clinton, but this was denied. This is shown in the notes taken from the meeting, available in the Clinton Library.


Instead it was agreed to postpone discussions until after critical elections.

Putin and Russian Trolls are lying their teeth out, when they claim that NATO promised - no expansion.

With Western great tradition of lying (whether from media or governments), whatever you say...

I doubt anyone in this forum will believe whatever you said to badmouth Russia (whether it is true or not), including Western forumers. People in the West now seems to distrust anything from their governments.
 
19 February 2014, after protesters were all protesting illegally according to the law:

"violence started shortly before 9am when protesters armed with axes, knives, truncheons and corrugated iron shields advanced on to a bridge in the centre of the Ukranian capital and drove riot police back from Independence Square.

Within an hour, the area surrounding the Ukrania hotel, which had been under the control of riot police, fell to the protesters."



Oh so I can attack western (and swedish) police with axes knives and shit can I? If so I accept Swedish argument. Only after this did the Ukrainian government deploy those guns.
 
A popular argument from Russian trolls is that NATO promised not to expand, and then expanded anyway, and therefore Russia has the right to invade Ukraine.

It is claimed that Gorbachev was promised this verbally in a meeting.
Since Gorbachev only had an international role until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 such a promise must have been made up until 1991.

The arguments against are:
In short, Russia accepted in writing the expansion of NATO here: https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

with the critical part being:

respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security”

Former Warsaw Pact countries wanted to join NATO to avoid being invaded by Russia applied and the first invitation came in July 1997, that is after the Founding Act was signed.

The only deal on enlargement is the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. where NATO troops are not to be based in former East Germany - until a new German government decides otherwise.


Before signing the Founding Act, Yeltsin wanted to have a promise of no-expansion from Bill Clinton, but this was denied. This is shown in the notes taken from the meeting, available in the Clinton Library.


Instead it was agreed to postpone discussions until after critical elections.

Putin and Russian Trolls are lying their teeth out, when they claim that NATO promised - no expansion.

The West is for lack of a better description, led by a bunch of deranged people who have been caught lying, checked on every front wherever they have tried to move against Russia. Now they wanna argue that NATO expansion is legit?

Those who have a history of brutal colonization, enslavement and occupation of other people and their lands, cannot lecture others on what is legitimate and what is not.

The West has no moral backbone to begin with. Whether the slaughter of 10 million Congolese by the Belgian colonialists, or the world's first Concentration Camps set up by the wretched british in Bloemfontein, South Africa during the Boer Wars 1899-1902. Or whether it be the Rawagede Massacre of Indonesians by the dutch in 1947.

What's worse, is that to this day, the West still practices its colonialism by more refined and sophisticated means. Where France to date, prints the currencies of West African countries such as Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Cote de Ivore and etc, on its own soil.

One thing has become transparently obvious and that the West has finally met an adversary which is vastly more powerful, unimaginably abundant in resources and a miraculously just and honorable as a Superpower, which is the Russian Federation. And guess what, the harder the West tries to exert its evil oppression on Russia, the weaker and more exposed it becomes before the world.

There is absolutely nothing the West has in its arsenal that can defeat Russia militarily or economically. Anyone who doesn't read the writing on the wall, is hopelessly illiterate and devoid of even an iota of genuine intellect. That is because the West and its idiot supporters are prisoners of their hubris, their vanity and their arrogance.

Today the West weakening as I speak and the world is witnessing the true evil face of the West. Even some upright individuals of the West, are raising their voices and pointing out the duplicity and deceit of the West's leadership. Whether it be from its military, or be it from the Political Science arena, or be it from the financial sector. Voices are emerging and exposing the truly weakened West before the world.

So as we witness the West weaken, we see how increasingly desperate the West is becoming. More importantly, the West's economic clout has not just waned, but is also vanishing at very steady pace.

It won't be long before the world witnesses the West's desperation turn into outright thuggery and NATO try to attack Russia. What will unfold, is the West comprehensively beaten in conventional war and in its last gasp, the West will resort to nukes. And that would the final straw, where the West as you and know it to be, will exist no more.

Those who laugh this post, are but depraved and mindless buffoons, drunk the bull$h!t the Western MSM feeds them. So go ahead, laugh your head off, for it only shows how utterly deluded and spinless they really are.

Russia will remain dominant over its rivals until Judgement Day, as promised by Allah Subhanahu Wata'aalah.
 
Last edited:
Bro can you explain this?

Read the Noble Qur'an, brother. Particularly the passage where Allah Subhanahu Wata'aalah address Isa ibn Marium Alaihi Salam directly and promises Isa Ibn Marium Alaihi Salam with two statements. One is to cleanse Isa Alaihi Salam and Marium Alaiha Salam of the abuse hurled toward them both by the Jews. And to raise those who follow Isa Ibn Marium, sincerely and faithfully, to a position of dominance over their rivals. Noble Qur'an, 3-55.
 
And? That doesn't forward your non-argument. I'm the one who told you it could be corrupt fraud. I don't need you to mirror what I told you back to me.
You said that if there were fraud, the judicial system would not correct the problem. I showed it is not neccessarily true.
They were armed like the Syrian protesters, who shot Syrian authorities. Also, snipers could have been agents on the side of the protestors, or a branch of the government disloyal to the yanukovich..
Yanukovich was obviously afraid of an investigation,mor he would have stayed.


There was a revolution and I posted evidence that it was widely reported. as such. You've already been proven wrong on this. If you don't start adjusting to facts presented to you then you are not worth talking to.

There were significant protests, but the government was not overthrown.
The president escaped, since he was about to be impeached.
He was probably afraid that his theft of billions of dollars would have turned previous supporters
He had already agreed to hold presidential elections when he ran away.
Him running away changed preciously little in Ukraine.

That's only theoretical.... They are paid by the state and highly. A guaranteed wage paid by the state is essentially bribery to be loyal to it. You're way behind on psychological effects "unconscious bias", but it's hard to believe you genuienly think they don't know they're position and their relationship to the state. You should look up the concept as you pretend there are no favors or loyalties involved in their behavior.
The Supreme Court of the United States is not loyal to Biden.
They choose if/when they leave, not Congress, not the President.
There are certainly countries where the judicial branch is corrupt.

There was a revolution and I posted evidence that it was widely reported. as such. You've already been proven wrong on this.
A revolution which does not change the government is not a revolution, evenmif someone calls it a revolution.


And it is a cause for war to fund Cuban terrorists etc.

The invasion force in the Bay if Pigs were regular soldiers.
Castro did the same.

This old principle is current. But you're lying and dishonest while saying this, because as you know it applies to your argument about Cuban nationalisation. It was legal to do without compensation before 1974 as the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States INDICATES.

"Appropriate compensation for the nationalization of existing private businesses is mandated by the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, as well as by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
You will not apply this 1974 law retroactively to Cuba. So ****. OFF. Creep.

That is just the most recent treaty. Egypt compensated shareholders for nationalizing the Suez Canal.
You said in reply to the aggression and funding of terrorists against Cuba was "not illegal to support a legal war."
You implied it was a legal war when you said that.
Yes, Cubans have the right to overthrow Castro since he grabbed power in a coup in violation of the Cuban constitution. Of course Batista was overthrown, and he again had illegally grabbed power, so Cubans had the right to overthrow him.
If Castro had reinstated the Constitution, and won a feee and fair election, the Bay of Pigs would have been illegal.

This Indian "swede" knows about the 1974 law about compensation for nationalisation and retroactively applies it to Cuban nationalisation, while telling me you can't apply laws retroactively.......and also tries to use it against an old principle I mentioned which is still current. He sounds like a sociopath.

Why did Nasser compensate the British and French for the Suez Canal ?
 
With Western great tradition of lying (whether from media or governments), whatever you say...

I doubt anyone in this forum will believe whatever you said to badmouth Russia (whether it is true or not), including Western forumers. People in the West now seems to distrust anything from their governments.
It is pretty clear that most are not open to facts, and like to maintain their prejudices…
 
The West is for lack of a better description, led by a bunch of deranged people who have been caught lying, checked on every front wherever they have tried to move against Russia. Now they wanna argue that NATO expansion is legit?

Those who have a history of brutal colonization, enslavement and occupation of other people and their lands, cannot lecture others on what is legitimate and what is not.

The West has no moral backbone to begin with. Whether the slaughter of 10 million Congolese by the Belgian colonialists, or the world's first Concentration Camps set up by the wretched british in Bloemfontein, South Africa during the Boer Wars 1899-1902. Or whether it be the Rawagede Massacre of Indonesians by the dutch in 1947.

What's worse, is that to this day, the West still practices its colonialism by more refined and sophisticated means. Where France to date, prints the currencies of West African countries such as Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Cote de Ivore and etc, on its own soil.

One thing has become transparently obvious and that the West has finally met an adversary which is vastly more powerful, unimaginably abundant in resources and a miraculously just and honorable as a Superpower, which is the Russian Federation. And guess what, the harder the West tries to exert its evil oppression on Russia, the weaker and more exposed it becomes before the world.

There is absolutely nothing the West has in its arsenal that can defeat Russia militarily or economically. Anyone who doesn't read the writing on the wall, is hopelessly illiterate and devoid of even an iota of genuine intellect. That is because the West and its idiot supporters are prisoners of their hubris, their vanity and their arrogance.

Today the West weakening as I speak and the world is witnessing the true evil face of the West. Even some upright individuals of the West, are raising their voices and pointing out the duplicity and deceit of the West's leadership. Whether it be from its military, or be it from the Political Science arena, or be it from the financial sector. Voices are emerging and exposing the truly weakened West before the world.

So as we witness the West weaken, we see how increasingly desperate the West is becoming. More importantly, the West's economic clout has not just waned, but is also vanishing at very steady pace.

It won't be long before the world witnesses the West's desperation turn into outright thuggery and NATO try to attack Russia. What will unfold, is the West comprehensively beaten in conventional war and in its last gasp, the West will resort to nukes. And that would the final straw, where the West as you and know it to be, will exist no more.

Those who laugh this post, are but depraved and mindless buffoons, drunk the bull$h!t the Western MSM feeds them. So go ahead, laugh your head off, for it only shows how utterly deluded and spinless they really are.

Russia will remain dominant over its rivals until Judgement Day, as promised by Allah Subhanahu Wata'aalah.
When you type a post, be mindful of Forum Rules. You are allowed to criticize the West for its wrongdoings but you must have a principled stand in this matter. When you patronize one bad side while calling out on the other, your argument looses weight.

No side is like a saint in global affairs. Russian Tsarists are responsible for zionist movement and Soviet Union have a role in stirring Israeli - Islamic wars (read KGB history). Soviet Union also destabilized Afghanistan - a move that set the stage for emergence of non state actors and global terrorism. Soviet Union also invaded and overthrew regimes in other countries. Modern Russia is stealing lands of other countries. Modern Russia also helped a tyrant in Syria.

Russian defeat in Ukraine is inevitable. This is a war of aggression and colonization. The Lord might not be pleased.

And please - Do not bring Holy Quran into this. Allah Almighty have not claimed that Russia is the chosen one. This is Sheikh Hosein propaganda.

And the less is said about morality and hypocrisy of Muslims in modern times, the better. Muslims are behaving like ancient Jews.
 
You said that if there were fraud, the judicial system would not correct the problem. I showed it is not neccessarily true.
Not necessarily but quite possible. It doesn't help your point. The history of judiciary is against the people and corruption and still is that way.

Yanukovich was obviously afraid of an investigation,mor he would have stayed.
No, he was threatened with violence and armed people:

"Narrative: 21 Feb. 2014 - 1 March 2014​

On 21 February an activist climbed onto the stage on Maidan Nezalezhnosti and warned that if President Yanukovych did not resign by 10:00 the next day, an armed coup would be staged. “Either he resigns, or we take him away!” the activist shouted into the crowd.86 "


There were significant protests, but the government was not overthrown.
The president escaped, since he was about to be impeached.
He was probably afraid that his theft of billions of dollars would have turned previous supporters
He had already agreed to hold presidential elections when he ran away.
Him running away changed preciously little in Ukraine.
No, you have to stop. This is an article about the revolution and mentions it dozens of times. It talks about the meaning of the word, since you persist in ignoring the widespread reporting of it as revolution 3 times now I've pointed out articles.
1695907914931.png




The Supreme Court of the United States is not loyal to Biden.
They choose if/when they leave, not Congress, not the President.
There are certainly countries where the judicial branch is corrupt.
I didn't say that. I said it's loyal to the state itself and overall government. The Supreme Court also does not recognize revolution despite Founding Father commentary stating that's what they had in mind.

A revolution which does not change the government is not a revolution, evenmif someone calls it a revolution.
It is, it can be a failed revolution. But Ukraine did change the government.

The invasion force in the Bay if Pigs were regular soldiers.
Castro did the same.
Castro has a right to do it as a native Cuban, more than foreigners.

That is just the most recent treaty. Egypt compensated shareholders for nationalizing the Suez Canal.
That must have been voluntary or under threats. It wasn't legally necessary.

Yes, Cubans have the right to overthrow Castro since he grabbed power in a coup in violation of the Cuban constitution. Of course Batista was overthrown, and he again had illegally grabbed power, so Cubans had the right to overthrow him.
If Castro had reinstated the Constitution, and won a feee and fair election, the Bay of Pigs would have been illegal.
Do you agree the USA government is illegal then and can be revolted against legally?
Also do you believe the same for Germany who has a foreign illegal constitution?
Why did Nasser compensate the British and French for the Suez Canal ?
Maybe via a threat.
 
No, he was threatened with violence and armed people:

"Narrative: 21 Feb. 2014 - 1 March 2014​

On 21 February an activist climbed onto the stage on Maidan Nezalezhnosti and warned that if President Yanukovych did not resign by 10:00 the next day, an armed coup would be staged. “Either he resigns, or we take him away!” the activist shouted into the crowd.86 "
Maiden protests were peaceful and shaped by honest appeal of young Ukrainians to accept European economic deal for socioeconomic reasons.

President Yanukovych was not respecting wishes of his people and ordered crackdown on peaceful protests:

Over the ensuing three months, the protests continued and morphed into a broader expression of popular discontent with Mr. Yanukovych’s growing authoritarianism as well as his decision not to sign the EU association agreement. Some days saw hundreds of thousands take part in the demonstrations. The protests remained largely peaceful until mid-February 2014. Special police units fired on the crowd on February 19–20, killing some 100 and wounding many more.


This was a stupid / ill-advised / authoritative move in view of the sheer size of protests in the country. Related information in following posts:



Ukrainian Parliament declared President Yanukovych as persona non grata for mishandling Maiden protests.




President Yanukovych fled to Russia and convinced Russian leadership to intervene. Russia dispatched its forces to annex Crimea and reshape political landscape of Donbas....
 
Batista and Castro both grabbed power in coups.
International law does not give the United States the right to invade, due to those coups. International law does not concern itself with Cubans trying to counter Castros coup.

It is therefore legally important to differentiate between the US invading and Cubans (albeit US funded,trained and armed) invading.

The nationalization of US assets in Cuba can certainly be considered a valid reason for war. They certainly can support Cubans.


You can be angry about Your neighbour painting his house in a normal colour which you happen to hate, but you have no right to be taken seriously or to vandalize his house.

Likewise, nothing is stopping Russia from whining about Ukraine but it has no right sending troops to occupy or annex parts or the whole of Ukraine.
I read 1 sentence and give up with you.
 
@LeGenD: Just want to point out these quotes from before. The protesters were illegal. The west has these anti-protesting laws too. After that the protesters on 19 Feb attacked with axes and knives as per 2nd quote. They also later threatened armed revolt.

Ukrainian parliament passed laws "on 16 January 2014, and signed into law by President Yanukovych on the following day, sought to put an end to EuroMaidan. The laws de facto criminalized all of the opposition’s methods, and eliminated any sense of freedom of speech and assembly that remained in Ukraine, except for on Maidan"

19 February 2014, after protesters were all protesting illegally according to the law:

"violence started shortly before 9am when protesters armed with axes, knives, truncheons and corrugated iron shields advanced on to a bridge in the centre of the Ukranian capital and drove riot police back from Independence Square.

Within an hour, the area surrounding the Ukrania hotel, which had been under the control of riot police, fell to the protesters."
The persona non grata is illegal to do to your own citizen. That article says Prague did it.
 
@LeGenD: Just want to point out these quotes from before. The protesters were illegal. The west has these anti-protesting laws too. After that the protesters on 19 Feb attacked with axes and knives as per 2nd quote. They also later threatened armed revolt.




The persona non grata is illegal to do to your own citizen. That article says Prague did it.
When the leader was trying to be authoritative and not paying heed to wishes of his people, conflict was inevitable. People do not have unlimited patience and resources for staging protests.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom