International Court of justice rulings on Ukraines claims

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

This is for littleyellowbirdie in his leather cappie, I very much hope he reads up what this means for all the false propaganda that has been diffusing minds on this non football blog, minds that have been bend by propaganda and outright lies, from the alleged discrimination against Crimean Tartars to the nebulous investigation of the MH-17 flight, all has been debunked.

Ukraine called Luchansk and Donetzk terrorist organisation when all they initially asked for from Kiev to become autonomous regions.

What now? will we carry on wasting billions on NATO's drive and war cries against Russia, will our civilians in western Europe be ground up in a potentially nuclear Holocaust of our own design? Will somebody say sorry for getting it wrong?

I'm sure littleyellowbirie will know better than the ICJ, denounce them as Putinistas and worse, questioning International judges and their well researched work. Maybe littleyeloowtweetie has done his own research.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/international-court-of-justice-rulings

[canarydan23 4,060]

31 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

This is for littleyellowbirdie in his leather cappie, I very much hope he reads up what this means for all the false propaganda that has been diffusing minds on this non football blog, minds that have been bend by propaganda and outright lies, from the alleged discrimination against Crimean Tartars to the nebulous investigation of the MH-17 flight, all has been debunked.

Ukraine called Luchansk and Donetzk terrorist organisation when all they initially asked for from Kiev to become autonomous regions.

What now? will we carry on wasting billions on NATO's drive and war cries against Russia, will our civilians in western Europe be ground up in a potentially nuclear Holocaust of our own design? Will somebody say sorry for getting it wrong?

I'm sure littleyellowbirie will know better than the ICJ, denounce them as Putinistas and worse, questioning International judges and their well researched work. Maybe littleyeloowtweetie has done his own research.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/international-court-of-justice-rulings

I don't think you've even fully read your rank piece of propaganda that you ironically offer as a remedy to other propaganda.

The ICJ did not rule on MH-17, its remit was to only cover financial funding of terrorists and not the supply of weapons that a Dutch court ruled were essentially supplied by Russia (and convicted two Russians to boot). So if you're claiming the theory (fact) that Russia were involved in downing flight MH-17 has been "debunked" you're talking total hogwash.

It did rule that Russia violated conventions on both financing terrorism and racial discrimination. And whilst it stated Ukraine had not proven the ban on the Mejlis had a racial motivation, the ICJ had already rendered the ban illegal and ordered Russia to lift it, an order Russia continues to ignore.

In your desperation for this ruling to make Russia look good, you've failed to conduct a thorough analysis.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 01/02/2024 at 14:35, canarydan23 said:

I don't think you've even fully read your rank piece of propaganda that you ironically offer as a remedy to other propaganda.

The ICJ did not rule on MH-17, its remit was to only cover financial funding of terrorists and not the supply of weapons that a Dutch court ruled were essentially supplied by Russia (and convicted two Russians to boot). So if you're claiming the theory (fact) that Russia were involved in downing flight MH-17 has been "debunked" you're talking total hogwash.

It did rule that Russia violated conventions on both financing terrorism and racial discrimination. And whilst it stated Ukraine had not proven the ban on the Mejlis had a racial motivation, the ICJ had already rendered the ban illegal and ordered Russia to lift it, an order Russia continues to ignore.

In your desperation for this ruling to make Russia look good, you've failed to conduct a thorough analysis.

says who? canarydan 23? who are you to question the aims and objective results of an international panel of judges assigned to deal with a propaganda infested corrupt regime?

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

Somewhat unfortunate timing of your defence of Russia. I suggest that next time you check with Putin to see if he's about to murder any of his critics. 

@canarydan23for goodness sake stay away from the balcony next time you go on holiday

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Somewhat unfortunate timing of your defence of Russia. I suggest that next time you check with Putin to see if he's about to murder any of his critics. 

@canarydan23for goodness sake stay away from the balcony next time you go on holiday

any evidence for it yet? This is a report of Navalny's 'habits' from when he was in Berlin Hospital. He was a bit of a lad.

https://johnhelmer.net/hair-raising-new-evidence-berlin-hospital-test-reveals-alexei-navalnys-lithium-and-benzo-addiction-his-german-doctors-are-covering-up-tropicamide-poisoning-also-hidden/

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

32 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

any evidence for it yet? This is a report of Navalny's 'habits' from when he was in Berlin Hospital. He was a bit of a lad.

https://johnhelmer.net/hair-raising-new-evidence-berlin-hospital-test-reveals-alexei-navalnys-lithium-and-benzo-addiction-his-german-doctors-are-covering-up-tropicamide-poisoning-also-hidden/

Seek help

[cambridgeshire canary 6,741]

Who invaded who? Who started the war?

 

Now please seek some kind of mental health help

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 18/02/2024 at 11:52, cambridgeshire canary said:

Who invaded who? Who started the war?

 

Now please seek some kind of mental health help

who bombed and killed over 14.000Russian speakers in Donbass and Luchansk since 2014? go and try findout or seek help with using the internet.

Find out why NATO lied in 1997 when they proclaimed not to expand into Eastern Europe by 1 inch or seek help for your dementia and or forgetfulness of historic facts.

NATO has endangered the whole of Europe by its expansion and it is sad to see how many minds have co joined their thinking with that of cold hearted Ukrainian Nazi's who never wanted peace, are massively corrupt and promulgating an identity that never existed.

Ukraine is not a country I recognise from historic records, its Slavs,Tartars, Russians and Romanians that shared parts of what people call Ukraine at present.

Its not Russia that is proffering nuclear missiles in Suffolk, or flogging subs with intercontinental missiles to Australia, or station them in Romania and or ,soon, in Poland. It is NATO and greedy arms concerns that do it.

sleep well canary in a cage.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

This notion of betrayal due to eastern expansion of NATO is flawed for a couple of reasons. Firstly, no treaty was ever signed to that effect - it was merely a verbal agreement. Secondly, said agreement was in 1990 between the then US Secretary of State, James Baker, and Mikhail Gorbachev and as we all know, a heck of a lot of water flowed under the bridge after then in that part of the world!

So at this point, Germany was in the middle of reunification but the Iron Curtain essentially remained at that point. And Russia even agreed on a deal later that year for the US to station troops beyond it, but only in reunified Germany. The whole idea that expansion would even have been possible at that point is a flawed call, as the Warsaw Pact wasn't dissolved until July 1991, but there had been signs for some time that some countries were looking for the exit.

Not to mention that the likes of Poland (especially Lech Walesa) was actively campaigning to get Poland in! Membership requests were largely made by the countries themselves. Hungary and Slovenia even had a referendum on it.

[Fen Canary 832]

7 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

who bombed and killed over 14.000Russian speakers in Donbass and Luchansk since 2014? go and try findout or seek help with using the internet.

Find out why NATO lied in 1997 when they proclaimed not to expand into Eastern Europe by 1 inch or seek help for your dementia and or forgetfulness of historic facts.

NATO has endangered the whole of Europe by its expansion and it is sad to see how many minds have co joined their thinking with that of cold hearted Ukrainian Nazi's who never wanted peace, are massively corrupt and promulgating an identity that never existed.

Ukraine is not a country I recognise from historic records, its Slavs,Tartars, Russians and Romanians that shared parts of what people call Ukraine at present.

Its not Russia that is proffering nuclear missiles in Suffolk, or flogging subs with intercontinental missiles to Australia, or station them in Romania and or ,soon, in Poland. It is NATO and greedy arms concerns that do it.

sleep well canary in a cage.

Those 14,000 killed weren’t civilians, they were armed militias fighting a war (backed, funded and armed by Russia) against the Ukrainian army.

What was Ukraine supposed to do in that situation? Let them win?

Whether you recognise Ukraine is irrelevant, the people fighting for their sovereignty clearly recognise it and see themselves as Ukrainian. Putin himself described it as a sovereign country less than 20 years ago, and stated that whether they joined NATO was a decision for they themselves to make. The fact he’s decided to now try and take it by force (and tries to justify it with historically inaccurate rants) doesn’t now mean that Ukraine has no right to exist.

Finally blaming NATO is nonsense. As per agreements with Russia they had no forward battalions and carried out no exercises on countries that shared a border with Russia until Russia invaded the Donbas and annexed Crimea. It’s a cop out trying to blame others for the aggression Russia has shown towards its neighbours. Was it NATOs fault he carved off large parts of Georgia as well? 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 22/02/2024 at 07:06, Fen Canary said:

Those 14,000 killed weren’t civilians, they were armed militias fighting a war (backed, funded and armed by Russia) against the Ukrainian army.

What was Ukraine supposed to do in that situation? Let them win?

Whether you recognise Ukraine is irrelevant, the people fighting for their sovereignty clearly recognise it and see themselves as Ukrainian. Putin himself described it as a sovereign country less than 20 years ago, and stated that whether they joined NATO was a decision for they themselves to make. The fact he’s decided to now try and take it by force (and tries to justify it with historically inaccurate rants) doesn’t now mean that Ukraine has no right to exist.

Finally blaming NATO is nonsense. As per agreements with Russia they had no forward battalions and carried out no exercises on countries that shared a border with Russia until Russia invaded the Donbas and annexed Crimea. It’s a cop out trying to blame others for the aggression Russia has shown towards its neighbours. Was it NATOs fault he carved off large parts of Georgia as well? 

that is utter rubbish and been refuted by more than one source. Since the military putsch at Maidan happened and in total disregard to what was signed at Minsk 1 and 2 the Ukrainian attacked Luchanks and Donetzk. Rewriting history is another famous English occupation. NATO is toxic and the aggression that has occurred on Ex Russian territory was in support of Luchansk and Donetzk's as they asked for it. Ukraine just could not grant them limited autonomy, they wanted war, now they are fighting NATO's war and soldiers on both sides are dying for it, a total useless undertaking.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

by more than one source

Your sources are mentalists. You're a mentalist.

[Fen Canary 832]

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

that is utter rubbish and been refuted by more than one source. Since the military putsch at Maidan happened and in total disregard to what was signed at Minsk 1 and 2 the Ukrainian attacked Luchanks and Donetzk. Rewriting history is another famous English occupation. NATO is toxic and the aggression that has occurred on Ex Russian territory was in support of Luchansk and Donetzk's as they asked for it. Ukraine just could not grant them limited autonomy, they wanted war, now they are fighting NATO's war and soldiers on both sides are dying for it, a total useless undertaking.

 

Ah yes, it’s NATOs fault that Russia broke a written agreement it had with Ukraine and invaded it on three seperate occasions over the last 10 years.

If the Ukrainians didn’t want to fight then they could stop tomorrow, but the fact is they value their sovereignty and don’t want to live under Putins dictatorship. Calling it NATOs war completely strips those brave Ukrainians laying down their lives of agency.

Maiden happened because a President elected on forging closer ties with Europe instead tried to pivot and cosy up to Russia instead. It had nothing to do with the west, even if they weren’t displeased with the outcome.

However, even if it was the west why would that matter? Russia regularly tries to involve itself in Ukrainian domestic politics, even going as far as trying to assassinate Viktor Yushchenko. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

Finally, it’s probably wise to read something other than just Russian propaganda sites, give yourself a more balanced view of the world