Oh I dunno, how about the leaders of practically every European country who think it's vital that the person leading the country, which is the victim of a brutal and illegal invasion, is at the table and not being coerced into giving up his mineral wealth for protections that the US is obligated 1/2
2/2 to provide, under the terms of the NPT and Budapest memorandum it signed in 1994. The latter doc is the really important 1 here.
The Budapest Memorandum enshrined Ukrainian neutrality - did NATO respect that? It also guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty and banned economic coercion. When the US sponsored a neo-Nazi led coup in Ukraine and imposed sanctions on Belarus, where were those honoured?
Tell me, if you can take your head from putin's arse long enough, which country was the first and only one to break the terms of the BM, not once but twice? Can you honestly blame Zalenskyy for not having any trust in Putin? BM actually didn't "enshrine neutrality" it specifically prohibited 1/2
2/2 Russia, the UK, and France from threatening military action and financial coerscion against Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Trump has now also broken those terms. No NATO country has.
"Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind." - Sanctions are economic coercion..
"Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders " Meddling in elections and sponsoring coups while US officials join protesters on the streets is not respecting sovereignty or independence. www.theguardian.com/world/2004/n...
1. The US breached the Budapest Memorandum when it violated Ukrainian sovereignty by meddling directly in the 2004 election. It further breached the terms when it sponsored a neo-Nazi led coup that toppled a democratically elected president in 2014. 2. The US also breached the memorandum..
If the USA "meddled" in 2004, so did Russia, they supported the Yanukovych campaign. The difference is, the USA was supporting democratic elections, there was no attack on a sovereign country, unlike Russias 2 invasions.
You cannot counter evidence by inventing your own. Yanukovych was democratically elected, the issue wasn't about democratic elections but that as far as Washington was concerned the wrong guy won. It was why Yanukovych was overthrown in 2014 before he could stand for re-electtion..
Meddling in elections and overthrowing democratically elected leaders is a clear breach of sovereignty. You know this fine well but you're not going to admit it. I get it. For to do so you would have to admit who trashed the Budapest Memorandum and that is really too off narrative isn't it?
namely the guarantee not to economically coerce by imposing sanctions on Belarus in 2011. 3. On the subject of trust. Ex-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko stated that Ukraine never intended to honour the terms of the Minsk 2 agreement that it signed. This was confirmed by Angela Merkel..
and François Hollande, Germany and France had been the guarantors of the agreement. This bad faith was further confirmed by Zelensky in 2023 confirmed he had lied when he stood on an election platform to implement Minsk2 and reach peace with Russia.. www.firstpost.com/sports/zelen...
In fact Zelensky probably lied about that too, as when elected he actually did make an effort to reach peace, signing Steinmeier in October 2019 before dropping it when Biden took power. So if you are going to talk about trust and bad faith, look to Europe and Kyiv.
No, when I want to talk about bad faith, I look directly at Putin and anyone who parrots his flimsy propaganda. Like Trump, you're throwing your weight behind a dictator.
So you counter facts with waffle. I mean there you have four prominent figures openly admitting they acted in bad faith, lied, when signing or vowing to honour a peace treaty, and you dismiss it all and just stamp your foot like a bad tempered toddler shouting "I don't care I hate him"..
So fine, hate him. Just don't pretend you have any justification based on anything other than your dislikes. Don't try and smokescreen what is an emotion-based opinion, spood-fed by coercive media, into some kind of moral high ground position. It's not. It is quite frankly pitiful.
So when you said grownups you actually meant warmongers.
What is the peace plan of those European countries?