Minsk I came about after the Russian military had invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory. The first of these two agreements is already taking place after the initial aggression and thus are not really factors in the question of whether Ukraine should defend itself from that aggression.

With that said, Minsk I saw violations on both sides and fell apart for that reason. Minsk II was fundamentally similar to Minsk I and thus was going to struggle to escape the same fate. While the Russians claimed that Ukraine violated the terms of Minsk II, they also claimed that they were not a party to Minsk II and thus were not violating it with their own troop buildup. Of course, they also claim that Ukraine's supposed violations of Minsk II were justification for further Russian invasion, despite claiming to not be a party to the treaty. That's some duplicitous behavior and, again, if I were in Ukraine I would not want the Russian military in my country.

All that said, the point that Minsk I and II are not justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They sure as hell were not justification for the initial invasion of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk (not existing yet during those) and they're not justification of Russia's continued invasion deeper into Ukraine.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What I think is that it doesn't matter in the context of an aggressive war against a country that was not threatening Russia.

Lol well that's just a fucking lie. Zelenksy was openly threatening to host nuclear weapons for Nato on the eve of the invasion. Do you have a selective memory or are you just fucking ignorant of the entire history of this conflict and should therefore shut the fuck up?

Minsk I came about after the Russian military had invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory.

They didn't invade; they were already there. The legitimate government of Ukraine leased the naval base to them in Crimea and when the western backed coup government wanted to revoke the lease they simply stayed. Accuse them of squatting.

The first of these two agreements is already taking place after the initial aggression and thus are not really factors in the question of whether Ukraine should defend itself from that aggression.

Well that's just fucking stupid. Peace treaties don't count if they came after a war?

Sorry you just lost my attention with that one

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Zelenksy was openly threatening to host nuclear weapons for Nato on the eve of the invasion

Do you understand that there's a difference between hosting weapons in your country and (let's say) invading another country and (for example) launching missile strikes at civilians? (And can i just say? That Wikipedia page just keeps going and going.)

Let's also not forget about Russia continuously threatening to nuke Ukraine without commensurate nuclear threat from the other side. (They just keep doing it!)

Really, if we go back to the start of this (the pre-Crimea days), Ukraine had two futures. In one, it grew closer to Russia and came under the Russian sphere of influence. In the other, it grew closer to the West likewise. It was leaning in the direction of the West, but when Russia attacked it sure as hell pushed hard in that direction. Now everyone in the region wants to get in on NATO and Russia is claiming that's "provocation". That's nonsense, and it's shameful and pretty slimy to carry water for their nonsense.

They didn’t invade; they were already there...

I dunno how to tell you this but the entirety of Crimea is not Russia's private naval base. No, not even if Vladimir Putin really wants it.

...western backed coup...

You mean the Revolution of Dignity??? That's what you're talking about here, right?

Well that’s just fucking stupid. Peace treaties don’t count if they came after a war?

No, that's not the argument. The argument is that whether or not they broke a cease fire has no bearing on whether past or future invasions of their country are justified. The Russian invasion was unjustified from the start. It doesn't magically become justified because Russia claims the other side broke a peace treaty. Russia could withdraw at any time. They could have even withdrawn to Crimea and probably been fine. Again, they claimed to not even be party to the treaty!

These are some pretty shameful arguments, overall.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean the Revolution of Dignity??? That's what you're talking about here, right?

Oh shit I didn't know they gave it a glorious sounding name. I guess fascists didn't have anything to do with it and then immediately making a Nazi war criminal a national hero with a holiday on the first day of every year. Fuck I didn't know you were going to post entire wikipedia articles with the name of the thing you googled to find it.

I guess when you overthrow the democratically elected leader of a country and then immediately start passing laws to marginalize his biggest voting bloc it's fine as long as you call the coup something patriotic.

Yeah. Your arguments (i.e. using multiple question marks so as to mug to the audience) are pretty fucking shameful.

whether or not they broke a cease fire has no bearing on whether past or future invasions of their country are justified

Baby brain

It was leaning in the direction of the West

Are you just stupid, or are you deliberately lying right here? Yanukovych was couped precisely because he WASN'T leaning towards the west. Did he flee to Poland when your fascists were threatening his life?

launching missile strikes at civilians?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/19/zrjy-j19.html

If you don't want your civilians to be hit by rocket fire then you shouldn't use them as human shields. And you shouldn't support a regime that deliberately puts its own citizens in harms way to score propaganda points.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah. Your arguments (i.e. using multiple question marks so as to mug to the audience) are pretty fucking shameful.

I, uh, do not think you're going to get very far trying to claim the (if you prefer) 2014 Ukrainian revolution was some kind of Nazi plot. I don't really feel the need to engage further on this, I'll simply say: you are wrong.

Baby brain

Oh good, now we're doing this.

Yanukovych was couped precisely because he WASN’T leaning towards the west

Yeah, because there was a significant chunk of Ukraine that wanted to integrate more with the West while Yanukovych was a lot more hesitant. Like I said, there were two paths they could go on.

If you don’t want your civilians to be hit by rocket fire then you shouldn’t use them as human shields

This is, uh, a fucking disgraceful argument to make. Yeah you found one example of where the Ukrainian military got a little too close to civilians. Now how about the rest of them?

UN investigations have concluded the invading Russian forces have committed many types of attacks against civilians which constitute war crimes.

A few samples from the article:

The Commission’s evidence shows that in areas that came under their control, Russian authorities have committed wilful killings of civilians or persons not involved in fighting (hors de combat), which are war crimes and violations of the right to life. [...]

The Commission established a pattern of widespread unlawful confinement in areas controlled by Russian armed forces, targeting broad categories of men, women and children. Confinement in dedicated facilities across Ukraine and in the Russian Federation was accompanied by consistent methods of torture against certain categories of persons by Russian authorities.

The Commission found numerous instances of rape and sexual and gender-based violence committed by Russian authorities as they undertook house-to-house searches in localities that came under their control and during unlawful confinement...

And yes, they did find some Ukrainian war crimes were committed, but not on the same scale:

The Commission also documented a small number of violations committed by Ukrainian armed forces, including likely indiscriminate attacks and two incidents qualifying as war crimes, where Russian prisoners of war were shot, wounded and tortured.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Oh good, now we're doing this.

You said that breaking peace treaties isn't a valid justification for starting a war

This is after I already said you exhausted my patience with extremely stupid shit you said earlier

Why do you feel like your opinion is worth hearing if you spend zero time informing yourself to have one?