Which validates the referendum. Law rules- right ?13 members of the UN Security Council said the referendum was invalid but surprisingly Russia vetoed it.
California may be of importance to Russian interests- but the Russians haven't organized a coup to secure it or saturated it with weapons for the coup to succeed.Ukraine is an emerging democracy, it is willing to fight against a ruthless totalitarian enemy, it doesn't cost us a drop of blood, and Ukraine is a European nation which has always been a region of importance to American interests.
So the referendum in Crimea was legal because Russia said it was legal even though everybody else disagreed. And that is your "logic".Which validates the referendum. Law rules- right ?
For a number of reasons, this exercise is not a long term possibility. However, it seems that Putin has been using the region to launch attacks against innocent civilians. It appear the Ukraine has now removed that ability. As some point, I believe they will need to pull back and defend key areas of Ukraine.Ukraine controls around 1,000 square km in Russia's Kursk Oblast, Syrskyi says
Ukrainian forces control about 1,000 square kilometers in Russia's Kursk Oblast as of Aug. 12, Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi said.
As Kyiv's incursion continues into its seventh day, Syrskyi briefed President Volodymyr Zelensky on the "offensive operation" in Kursk Oblast. This marks the first time both Zelensky and Ukraine's military leadership directly confirmed Ukrainian soldiers' presence on Russian soil.
Ukraine controls around 1,000 square km in Russia's Kursk Oblast, Syrskyi says
This marks the first time both President Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine's military leadership confirmed Ukrainian soldiers' presence on Russian soil.kyivindependent.com
Makes sense. I am not enough of a military strategist to guess what Ukraine' end game is in Kursk.For a number of reasons, this exercise is not a long term possibility. However, it seems that Putin has been using the region to launch attacks against innocent civilians. It appear the Ukraine has now removed that ability. As some point, I believe they will need to pull back and defend key areas of Ukraine.
Or, Putin does something stupid to save face and NATO finally moves in.
Three years ago you and I debated whether Ukraine should attack instead of defend. From what I've been hearing from analysts, Kursk was too far for long range weapons to hit the equipment that was killing civilians. I don't believe this is long term, unless it slows Russia's aggression.Makes sense. I am not enough of a military strategist to guess what Ukraine' end game is in Kursk.
It is remarkable that three years ago, Putin blustered that he could conquer Ukraine in two weeks, and now Ukrainian armed forces are occupying Russian terrirory
So genocide in Palestine is legal because Biden vetoed a resolution for a ceasefire- and that is your ' logic ?So the referendum in Crimea was legal because Russia said it was legal even though everybody else disagreed. And that is your "logic".
Haw..haw...haw.
We learned from WWII, and the events before it, that any killing that is stopped by huge amounts more killing is a bad thing. Allowing Putin to massacre the Ukrainians would not be a good thing.Want the killing to stop. That isn't an all bad thing.
The money supply is decreasing, so no printing of money.Printing money to give to a war we have no plan to win is just as bad.
Again, money supply decreasing...Printing money for a saf ee.hsve no plan to win is economic murder.
How many brigades does it take to control 1000 square kilometers?The money supply is decreasing, so no printing of money.
We are mostly giving Ukraine old weapons we would have thrown away.