[_kbh_]

> False. The current actions are not genocide by any means.

Despite popular belief genocide is not what the pro Russians want it to be, and Russias actions clearly fit within the UN's well defined definition of genocide.

>> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

>> Killing members of the group;

>> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

>> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

>> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

>> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

We already have evidence of many of these individual things (of which any constitutes genocide).

The Russians have already been forcibly deporting children and sending them to Russia, so point 5 is met.

The Russians are on video castrating Ukrainians so we have point 4 met.

The Russians have been indiscriminately bombing civilians so we have points 1 and 2 easily.

> Even raping of civilians is unproved.

I see you avoided the whole indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which Russians are already in jail for.

It seems like you wouldn't be satisfied without video evidence of these crimes, but don't worry the Russians the will answer for their war crimes in time.

> False. The expansion of NATO to the east, 2014 anti-russian coup in Ukraine, the refusal to follow to Minsk agreements(guaranteed by western leaders, who failed them too) and militarization of Ukraine were the major reasons of the events.

Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?.

None of these are "reasons for these events", what all these are is Russias excuses to try and dominate another country and eliminate their statehood.

> Another false: Putin never claimed Ukraine doesn't exist.

Here's a source from the literal Russian media. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224

Here's a quote literally from Putin.

`When it came to Ukraine, Putin flared up. Addressing Bush, he said: "You understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, and some, and significant, are donated by us!"`

Everything you said is false, is true, strange that.

[ghostwriter]

> Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?

Maybe because giving up the nukes wasn't the only condition for the sovereignty of the state that USSR (and Russia as a successor) granted to your leaders on peaceful terms in 1991? Remember, your country didn't have to fight a war for its sovereignty, the peaceful transition of a regional power was one of the greatest achievements of that generation.

Maybe the modern Ukrainian elites and the current president shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of joining a military bloc [1]. Maybe they shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of obtaining nukes either [2], maybe they shouldn't have been saying that "The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism".

Your leaders should have known that your foundational documents predate the Budapest Memorandum, and they outline all conditions under which your sovereignty was guaranted [3]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce, and not to acquire nuclear weapons."

[1] "Zelensky: Yes we'd like to join NATO" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4_JUhMe0Go

[2] https://www.dailywire.com/news/president-zelensky-suggests-u...

[3] https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...

[_kbh_]

> Maybe because giving up the nukes wasn't the only condition for the sovereignty of the state that USSR (and Russia as a successor) granted to your leaders on peaceful terms in 1991? Remember, your country didn't have to fight a war for its sovereignty, the peaceful transition of a regional power was one of the greatest achievements of that generation.

Tonnes of other soviet block countries joined NATO with no issues whatsoever only reason Russia took issue with Ukraine is that they thought they could win a war against them, if only they didn’t drink their own Russian strong too much they might of won instead of having their military destroyed for the next 10 years.

Russia tried to keep its influence over Ukraine and ban anyone from trying to free them from Russias grasp. This was never going to work because we all know Russia never keeps its promises anyway.

> Maybe the modern Ukrainian elites and the current president shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of joining a military bloc [1]. Maybe they shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of obtaining nukes either [2], maybe they shouldn't have been saying that "The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism

Ukraine has made it obvious to all post soviet states that the only way to protect themselves from Russian wars of aggression(of which their are many) is by strong military alliances or perhaps nukes.

You cannot stamp your feet and be surprised when someone tries to protect themselves from their neighbour who has a habit of invading and annexing people just like you.

> our leaders should have known that your foundational documents predate the Budapest Memorandum, and they outline all conditions under which your sovereignty was guaranted [3]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce, and not to acquire nuclear weapons."

Ukraines founding predates Russia itself. Ukraine is sovereign and no amount of feet stamping by the Russians will change this.

But if you think Russia is justified in its war go ahead and believe that but know that the vast majority of non dictatorships disagree with you.

Btw I’m not Ukrainian so they aren’t “my leaders”, i merely support them in their struggle for sovereignty against their neighbour who has conquered them once before and is once again trying to genocide them out of existence.

[ghostwriter]

> Tonnes of other soviet block countries joined NATO with no issues whatsoever

Because they had their own terms and circumstances. Ukrainian SSR had its own terms and circumstances too, they compiled and signed the declaration in 1991. If the leaders didn't want to stick to the internationally recognised founding documents they shouldn't have signed it. One either follows the legal procedures or not, and if procedures are not followed and if the new government feels like violating the previously signed documents, then it's a bit odd to expect that the country wouldn't have a separatist movement within its borders.

> Ukraine has made it obvious to all post soviet states that the only way to protect themselves from Russian wars of aggression(of which their are many) is by strong military alliances or perhaps nukes.

They definitely made a good point about dangers of armed coups against democratically elected presidents that didn't break laws and were supposed to represent half of the country until the upcoming elections. Kiyvites didn't care much about legitimacy of their actions from the perspective of Eastern Ukrainians in 2013-2014. No referendum felt necessary when the coup had been decided and executed.

> Ukraines founding predates Russia itself.

Even if that were true, if the intention was not to follow the founding documents they shouldn't have been signed in their current form. But it isn't true, sorry. Ukraine founding does not predate Russia, because no reputable historian is able to draw a clear line between historical periods of Kievan Rus' (not Ukraine) and Tsardom of Rus' (not Russia), as it was ruled and disintegrated by the members of the same dynasty of Ruriks over a long period of time).

> Ukraine is sovereign and no amount of feet stamping by the Russians will change this.

Surely it is sovereign. When you say that something is sovereign, you usually reference the corresponding legal founding documents. The corresponding legal founding documents in case of Ukraine start with the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine of 1991, which all subsequent delcarations and memorandums reference to. You can check it yourself, the current Constitution of Ukraine, including the amendments of 2004, reference the declaration on its Preamble section on the very first page [1]. The declaration states clearly that non-military bloc status and absence of nukes are the foundational principles of the sovereign state of Ukraine.

> But if you think Russia is justified in its war go ahead and believe that but know that the vast majority of non dictatorships disagree with you.

I only mention this to bring clarity on the respective roles of the current Ukrainian elites and the government (including the president) in this conflict. They did everything to intentionally reject diplomacy, and it's the opposite of what they were paid for by the citizens.

[1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2004....

[_kbh_]

>Because they had their own terms and circumstances. Ukrainian SSR had its own terms and circumstances too, they compiled and signed the declaration in 1991. If the leaders didn't want to stick to the internationally recognised founding documents they shouldn't have signed it. One either follows the legal procedures or not, and if procedures are not followed and if the new government feels like violating the previously signed documents,

http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/postanova_eng/Rres_Declaratio...

I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all. Seems like your entire premise that Ukraines founding document is predicated on a lake of nukes and military neutrality has no basis in reality.

> then it's a bit odd to expect that the country wouldn't have a separatist movement within its borders.

Funny that these Pro Russian separatist movements keep appearing in post soviet states its like the FSB and GRU funds them, and even sends soldier to arm them. I mean its not like the leaders of the LPR and DNR where literally FSB officer right?.

> They definitely made a good point about dangers of armed coups against democratically elected presidents that didn't break laws and were supposed to represent half of the country until the upcoming elections. Kiyvites didn't care much about legitimacy of their actions from the perspective of Eastern Ukrainians in 2013-2014. No referendum felt necessary when the coup had been decided and executed.

I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. Since then they have had many elections and power has changed hands multiple times unlike Russia.

[ghostwriter]

> I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all.

I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, *and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine*, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]"

When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state.

> I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia.

The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.

> the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia.

against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Com...

[_kbh_]

> I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]" When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state.

Can you link to the document that you claim states this?. It’s annoying to have to chase your references to things you claim exist.

> The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.

The difference is not double standards it’s the meaning of the word. In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament, in the USA the people trying to coup the government where looking to subvert the government with violence and install their own leader.

> against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it.

Ukraine wanted to join the EU this was already decided; Putin decided this would make Russia weaker so got his puppet to subvert that choice, which lead to him being over thrown.

> One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.

I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.

[vogre]

> with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

Is a key sentence here. Your points are invalid because none of these actions(even if they really took place, because you know about them from biased source) were caused by intent to destroy Ukrainians as group.

>I see you avoided the whole indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which Russians are already in jail for.

Because the indiscriminate killing of civilians is a common thing in wars. It's nearly impossible to prove that killing of civilian was indiscriminate. About jailing - of course you can jail prisoners of war, but it does not prove anything. Ukrainian SBU, like Russian FSB is descendant of KGB. They can get any testimony they need, especially from helpless prisoner of war.

>Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?

First, memorandum is not an agreement. These things actually don't oblige you to anything. It's like "we talked, and there are the thing we said".

Second, Putin thinks that US broke the first point of that memorandum by inciting the 2014 coup. Because Ukraine is not sovereign now - it is fully controlled by the West. So old rules are not working anymore.

And third, Minsk agreements were signed after the annexation of Crymea, so Budapest Memorandum was already broken. If you do not intend to follow agreements, you don't sign them or you are liar. You don't say "hey you broke our last agreements so i can broke these".

About this article https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224. It's funny that you brought article from 2008(14 years ago), which clearly states that Putin told Bush that he will attack if Ukraine or Georgia joins NATO. 14 years later he attacked and everyone: "look! Putin is liar!". He told you about consequences 14 years ago!

[_kbh_]

> Is a key sentence here. Your points are invalid because none of these actions(even if they really took place, because you know about them from biased source) were caused by intent to destroy Ukrainians as group

They all took place, Putins stated goal to remove Ukraine as a state and the idea of being Ukrainian. Russia says this very upfront and blatantly they don’t try and hide it despite how much more work it makes for its propaganda arm.

Let me guess your only unbiased source is Russia?. The same source that believes in Ukrainian super soldiers and Ukrainian black magic battalions because they failed to take city 300km from their border.

> About jailing - of course you can jail prisoners of war, but it does not prove anything. Ukrainian SBU, like Russian FSB is descendant of KGB. They can get any testimony they need, especially from helpless prisoner of war.

You seem not convinced even by a court sentence, what would you even convinced by? At this point in time you seem to require impossible evidence for something that we have clear video and photo graphic evidence for.

Unless you think a shopping centre is a valid military target?.

> Second, Putin thinks that US broke the first point of that memorandum by inciting the 2014 coup. Because Ukraine is not sovereign now - it is fully controlled by the West. So old rules are not working anymore

So because Ukraine decided and ousted their Russian puppet all the way back to Moscow and decided they wanted to have someone pro Europe they don’t deserve sovereignty?.

Btw the only person who calls the 2014 revolution a coup is the Russian puppet who got ousted and his Russian handlers.

> And third, Minsk agreements were signed after the annexation of Crymea, so Budapest Memorandum was already broken. If you do not intend to follow agreements, you don't sign them or you are liar. You don't say "hey you broke our last agreements so i can broke these".

Yes Russia is a liar, that is painfully obvious they never follow any agreements they make (binding or not) and they always shout scream and get their supporters to stamp their feet when others act the same way.

Why should anyone believer anything Russia says or sign or abide by any treaty Russia decides when Russia themselves don’t?.

> which clearly states that Putin told Bush that he will attack if Ukraine or Georgia joins NATO. 14 years later he attacked and everyone: "look! Putin is liar!". He told you about consequences 14 years ago!

Neither joined NATO and he would never attack if they did, it’s why all the former Soviet states try to join NATO because Russia is incapable and unwilling to even blink in the direction of a NATO member.

It’s also probably why Russia tried to force all the post soviet states to not join NATO so they can go pillaging again in the future.