Lev Parnas Testimony 🔥

[Fijimn]

LOL

WTF are you talking about?
You’ve made several false statements.

My first post was a quote from wiki (including their source links, it’s very clear it’s from wiki just by that), and it’s the Wiki article on the Budapest Memorandum.

Your response to that was, “You are referencing a treaty reducing nuclear weapons. START 1”

Which is false. I don’t think you’re lying when you wrote that falsehood, I just think you‘re ignorant.

So I again quoted the Wiki article on the Budapest Memorandum, as well as information regarding the signing of START I by Ukraine (and others) in Lisbon (Lisbon Protocol - which I even linked!), years prior to the memoranda signed in Budapest.

Your response to that was to assert another falsehood, that somehow the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994 was a precursor to the Lisbon Protocol signed in 1992.

“the Budapest Memorandum is a precursor to admission to NPT”

No it isn’t.

What I’m quoting is verbatim in the Budapest Memorandum.
It’s a two page document. I would have thought after humiliating yourself by thinking it was text from START you’d have checked the thing yourself, but you’re sticking with the hard ignorance angle.
Whatever works for you.

Oh for ****s sake, yes it is. The US, UK and Russia met in Budapest in December of 1994 to terms with Ukraine--wherein Ukraine agreed to give up its arsenal of nuclear weapons--thereby recognizing, per the NPT, Ukraine as a non-nuclear state...it had inherited 1/3 of the Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Go back to telling people to unplug and plugging back in their computer....

 

[seminole97]

Oh for ****s sake, yes it is. The US, UK and Russia met in Budapest in December of 1994 to terms with Ukraine--wherein Ukraine agreed to give up its arsenal of nuclear weapons--thereby recognizing, per the NPT, Ukraine as a non-nuclear state...it had inherited 1/3 of the Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol in 1992.

Wiki trigger warning:

On 18 November 1993 Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) ratified both the START treaty and the Protocol in its parliamentary statement adopted at a closed door session[10]

The security assurances I was referencing (The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.") are not in START.

You are referencing a treaty reducing nuclear weapons. START 1

Tell me what part of the START I can find this language:

“refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest”

Here’s a link for the Lisbon Protocol, tell me where it references “economic coercion.”

 

[Joes Place]

Left alone, Putin and Yanukovych would have had no major turmoil

Left alone, Putin would control Ukraine, entirely, eliminating a struggling democracy (which is what he is trying to do here in the US, too)

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Left alone, Putin would control Ukraine, entirely, eliminating a struggling democracy (which is what he is trying to do here in the US, too)

I was talking about the 2014 CIA-sponsored coup, Cleee’tus. Try and keep up.

 

[Joes Place]

I was talking about the 2014 CIA-sponsored coup

I was talking about a democracy in Ukraine, free of Putin and his oligarchs.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

‘We’ overthrew their democracy and installed a puppet which led to Russia intervening.

Reap what you sow.

 

[GES4]

‘We’ overthrew their democracy and installed a puppet which led to Russia intervening.

Reap what you sow.

Absolute bullshit.

 

[Joes Place]

‘We’ overthrew their democracy

No, 'we' did not.
'We' kicked out Putin's corruption and oligarchs.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

‘Ukraine’ overthrew the Russia installed puppet and saved their democracy which led to Russia intervening.

Reap what you sow?

FTFY

 

[seminole97]

Absolute bullshit.

When you have a violent mob impose a change of power in a democracy that doesn’t follow the Constitution, is that a coup?
If not, why not?

 

[GES4]

When you have a violent mob impose a change of power in a democracy that doesn’t follow the Constitution, is that a coup?
If not, why not?

It was coming from inside the house. Despite your upcoming Nuland quotes. That the U.S. had a preference does not make it the revolution starter.

 

[seminole97]

It was coming from inside the house. Despite your upcoming Nuland quotes. That the U.S. had a preference does not make it the revolution starter.

Why is the U.S. expressing ‘preferences’ for the unconstitutional removal of another country’s elected president?
‘Making it stick’ is expressing intent beyond having a preference for who emerges from the coup on top.

You didn’t address my questions:

When you have a violent mob impose a change of power in a democracy that doesn’t follow the Constitution, is that a coup?
If not, why not?

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Ukrainian blood is all over the hands of the US government.

Once again, the United States was treating Ukraine as a full‐fledged, albeit still informal, NATO strategic ally. One has to wonder whether U.S. leaders were so arrogant and obtuse that they believed such missions could be pursued without Russia learning about them. If so, it was a serious miscalculation, if not an epic blunder. Conversely, if policymakers in the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations realized that Moscow would get wind of the intelligence and military collaboration, then they embraced an extraordinarily reckless set of provocations.

Engaging in a mental exercise based on role reversal illustrates the inherent danger of Washington’s policies. How would U.S. leaders (and the American people) react if China or some other major power engaged in ever‐growing levels of intelligence and military cooperation with an anti‑U.S. government in Canada or Mexico? The answer is rather obvious: Washington would be warning Beijing to back off, and it would be threatening Ottawa or Mexico City with dire consequences if such collaboration continued. It is difficult to explain why U.S. officials and members of the foreign policy elite were unable or unwilling to comprehend that Moscow would have a similar reaction to Washington’s provocations in Ukraine.

Predictably, such conduct ultimately produced a geopolitical explosion. U.S. and NATO officials used Ukraine as a strategic pawn against Russia and are now fuming with outrage at Moscow’s decision to go to war. Russia’s invasion was indeed a horrid overreaction, but it was far from being unprovoked. The Ukrainian people, unfortunately, are the ones paying a high price in blood for the gullibility of their country’s leaders and the shocking arrogance of U.S. leaders. (via Cato.org)

 

[GES4]

Ukrainian blood is all over the hands of the US government.

Once again, the United States was treating Ukraine as a full‐fledged, albeit still informal, NATO strategic ally. One has to wonder whether U.S. leaders were so arrogant and obtuse that they believed such missions could be pursued without Russia learning about them. If so, it was a serious miscalculation, if not an epic blunder. Conversely, if policymakers in the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations realized that Moscow would get wind of the intelligence and military collaboration, then they embraced an extraordinarily reckless set of provocations.

Engaging in a mental exercise based on role reversal illustrates the inherent danger of Washington’s policies. How would U.S. leaders (and the American people) react if China or some other major power engaged in ever‐growing levels of intelligence and military cooperation with an anti‑U.S. government in Canada or Mexico? The answer is rather obvious: Washington would be warning Beijing to back off, and it would be threatening Ottawa or Mexico City with dire consequences if such collaboration continued. It is difficult to explain why U.S. officials and members of the foreign policy elite were unable or unwilling to comprehend that Moscow would have a similar reaction to Washington’s provocations in Ukraine.

Predictably, such conduct ultimately produced a geopolitical explosion. U.S. and NATO officials used Ukraine as a strategic pawn against Russia and are now fuming with outrage at Moscow’s decision to go to war. Russia’s invasion was indeed a horrid overreaction, but it was far from being unprovoked. The Ukrainian people, unfortunately, are the ones paying a high price in blood for the gullibility of their country’s leaders and the shocking arrogance of U.S. leaders. (via Cato.org)

And here I thought Nat Algren was facedown in a Bucha ditch somewhere.

 

[GES4]

Why is the U.S. expressing ‘preferences’ for the unconstitutional removal of another country’s elected president?
‘Making it stick’ is expressing intent beyond having a preference for who emerges from the coup on top.

You didn’t address my questions:

When you have a violent mob impose a change of power in a democracy that doesn’t follow the Constitution, is that a coup?
If not, why not?

Your dumb question is a non-sequitur.