[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.

[ghostwriter]

> Can you link to the document that you claim states this?

It was linked to my topmost response, here it is (scroll down to "IX. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY"): https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...

> In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament

That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence.

Again, the event doesn't look democratic to me. In fact it looks random at best and suggests a case for an opportunistic power grab at worst. One cannot simply declare that the vote in parlament was legal and the due process respected because the subject had to flee the country ("self-remove") to save his life. There are many places in the world where leaders have to self-remove without due process, and we don't call these places democracies.

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

Neither is your apologetic stance on the events of early 2014 that tore a thin fabric of a democratic society. It is fine to be upset on country leaders that break their political promises, but it's extremely irresponsible to suggest that "self-removing" those leaders for their promise-breaking yet non-crime legitimate decisions is a proper reaction for the upset part of the society.

[1] https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%86%D0%BC%...