Quote from: BADecker on August 21, 2025, 10:09:12 PM

Quote from: Alik Bahshi on August 20, 2025, 09:42:21 AM

Quote from: caroasi on August 19, 2025, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Alik Bahshi on August 19, 2025, 08:12:27 AM

Alik Bahshi

Putin's Appeasement

Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.

I am not going to explain what is known to all, that Russia crossed the established borders of the independent state of Ukraine, while being the guarantor of their inviolability according to the Budapest Memorandum. And if you do not understand this, then you have a problem with logical thinking, and with this you need to see a doctor.

As you well know, Russia crossed the borders to protect Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians who had been living there for years. And Russia did it at the request of the people living in those areas, which Ukraine had been attacking for no real reason. Those areas are now part of Russia, even if world cartographers aren't willing to admit it yet.

...

So? Even if that is the case, it does not give the right to Russia to invade Ukraine, not matter the position of the local population, the federal/nation authorities and the whole people of Ukraine also have a say on the destiny of those territories. What if an important percentage of Mexican-Americans decided to call Mexico to invade and take over California and New Mexico? Would the United States stay still and do nothing ?
Obviously, we all know that is not how thing could ensue, and Mexico would not believe to be entitled to those territories, not matter what the people living in them believed.