zmisha

But you have not given a single "political, strategic, and military aspects" why NATO will not use its vastly superior military power. Russian people also don`t see any. So it is still obvious for everyone that Russia will lose the conflict without using nuclear weapons. Whether Russia can use nuclear weapon or not is another separate question which I would not like to discuss.

I know what the leader of Mongolia might be thinking about: "Today I arrest Putin but tomorrow the same court will issue an order to arrest me". That's why Vladimir is sure than nobody will arrest him.

As a Z-Russian I love this thread. Who knows, maybe the USA will be divided into 2 separate countries - Democratic Peoples Republic of America (Democrats) and Republic of America (Republicans). Our leader, Vladimir, would like it for sure.

The funniest thing is... Let's say to anyone here that Russia is 3-4 times bigger than Ukraine and there are no chances for Ukraine in this war because it simply does not have enough soldiers. The answer would be - haha NATO is 6 times bigger than Russia! And then you should say - wait, if it is NATO, Russia should target its nukes to the US cities. The answer would be - haha it is not NATO! we are just helping Ukraine. So if Russia is fighting against NATO(let's consider such a possibility), we should expect only one decision made at a single moment in the future - the nuclear decision. Or, alternatively, there are no chances for Russia to win in a war against NATO which is 6 times bigger.

And what you have said is the clear image of the future international laws in case America becomes the winer of the next world war. If this going to happen, all the countries in the world will be subject to the internal laws of America and its direct vassals. And all this will be called "Freedom" in the true Orwellian style.

Wars are not prohibited by international laws. There are currently about 50 active international military conflicts.

We should distinguish between real international law, which is formed as a result of the latest World War, and the neo-colonial claims of some countries that are trying to extend domestic law to other countries.

How to correctly interpret this news? The key phrase of the entire text is "independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta" This "independent newspaper" told to Russian people that Putin kills Russians by blowing up their houses in the beginning of the 2000s. America loves this newspaper so much that its director (Muratov) was given a Nobel Prize. And in Russia the newspaper has a foreign agent status. Therefore, Russians consider the newspaper to be an obvious defender of US interests. Why does the obvious defender of the US interests so desperately want a nuclear war in Europe? I suggest because the USA will the only winner of such a war. I know that the defender of the US interests will tell you that such a war is simply impossible because of nuclear winter etc. or so. But I would recommend to think twice for those westerners who live in Europe. They've already lived through one devastating world war that made America great - WW2. Do the Europeans want to make America great again the same way?

Let`s investigate 3 alternative solutions for Russia 1. Russia launch a nuke towards Washington. Can it be useful? Maybe. Because the decision making center of the entire conflict is there and this decision making center can change its opinion whether to continue the war in Ukraine or not. 2. Russia launch a nuke towards London. Absolutely useless. Because the USA and other countries will continue to help Ukraine. 3. Russia launch a nuke towards Kiev. Absolutely useless. Because the USA and other countries will continue to help Ukraine.

James Cameron has already arrived to Kiev to make a documentary video how Zelensky accidentally found a dozen of old soviet nukes in the basement.

It is not possible to prove the absence of anything in the world. It is only possible to prove the presence by demonstrating it. And you have failed to do this. Keep dreaming. There is no any paper to prove it.

Of course not. Ukraine is independent. We all agree in this point. It is independent without any territory which belongs to it, with the zero territory. The lands and houses belongs to the USSR. We can show the signature of the US president on the Yalta documents to prove this. Russia is the successor of the USSR in UN and de-facto takes the USSR's place in the Security Council. According to the constitution of Russia, it is just the rebranded SU - Vladimir Putin added this into the constitution as a result of national referendum in 2020. So, the lands belongs to Russia which, as Putin says, was called USSR in some periods in the history. And we have a signature of the US president Roosevelt on the papers to prove our rights.

You are right. Putin does not call it "war". Because war could be only between two countries with real indisputable independence. That is why we call it Special Military Operation, not war.

Currently, the results of Yalta and Potsdam conferences are the basement of the world order. And there is no such thing as Ukraine there - it is simply a part of USSR. Our leader, Vladimir, accused the USA of "rudely destroy the foundations of the international order laid down after WWII in order to cross out the legacy of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences" (Presidential Address to Federal Assembly, 21th Feb 2023).

Does not matter who says. Just show the document that it is yours, otherwise it is not yours. Yes, it is that simple.

In an interview for the French LCI network last week, Ambassador Lu was asked China's view of the status of Crimea which Russia annexed in 2014. The interviewer argued that under international law the region was part of Ukraine. Mr Lu responded by suggesting that the issue was not clear cut, and that countries such as Ukraine could not rely on international law to defend their sovereignty. "Even these former Soviet countries don't have an effective status under international law because there is no international agreement under international law to concretise their status as sovereign countries," he said. Of course, the US can force the China to shut up using its financial and military powers. But the fact that "there is no international agreement under international law to concretise their status as sovereign countries" is still clearly visible for every country in this world.

I had a bad feeling this morning. My hat got wet from the rain in Thailand. It's a bad omen. I open the news and again nothing good for Z guys. I want revenge!

At the beginning of this thread people mentioned that the Ukrainian independence is a fake one from 1945. But we did not discussed the most interesting thing. What exactly made it to be fake? I think it's time to discuss it in details. Anyone, including you can create an independent country at any time you wish. You, for example, can create a country Candideland or Candidestan. It is not prohibited. Nobody will prevent you from doing so. That's why it was very easy to create an independent country Ukraine in 1945 in a similar way. No problem at all. The problem begins when the newly created country wants to get some lands and houses. Since there is not a single centimeter of land left on planet earth that does not belong to some country, if your newly created country says that it owns some piece of land or a house, it will inevitably enter into a military conflict with another country to which this property belonged previously. That is exactly what is happening with the Ukraine now. This country begin to think that the soviet lands and houses belongs to Ukraine because, as it thinks, SU collapsed. But our leader, Vladimir, gently remind that the collapse of SU is just a strange assumption of the previous Russian administration: "The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist" ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73411 ).

Again, your claim that SU has been collapsed has no legal status as it has not even admitted for consideration. The documents you shown is just a set of dreams of people who are not empowered to make such decisions.

So you are trying to say that any criminal who start using you house became the legal owner until the judge send him to the prison? Very strange opinion. Gorbachev invited a group of very strange people to live in our Soviet house. It was ok before they invited even more strange and aggressive people from the other side of the ocean. But now it is not ok for us and we want certain legal actions for them. That’s why we bother the judge.

And what will you do if another family from Ukraine begin to live in your house without your permission? What if they say to everyone that the house is theirs for 30 years? De jure the house is yours but de facto it is theirs. it does not matter 30 years have passed or even 100. If you have the document that the house is yours you can ask the judge to start certain legal actions. If the judge love Ukrainians he might find some legal ways to win some time for them, but this does not change the fact that that the house is yours.

Half a million plaintiffs including me storm the Supreme Court with a lawsuit. This was organized by the co-founder of the Putin`s United Russia party Eugeny Fedorov and his lawer Olga Smirnova. This will be the biggest lawsuit in the human history. People are demanding that the Supreme Court recognize as illegal Gorbachev's decisions, which he had no right to make under the USSR Constitution. Sorry to say, English speaking journalist don`t want to help Vladimir Putin to make his dreams come true and the journalists do not want to advertise the lawsuit. So you can find information about this only in Russian. The main problem with this lawsuit is that a lot of participants of these illegal events in 1991 will be jailed. But today they occupy important government positions. So it is not ease to make it accepted finally. Thats why we are planning to reach about a million plaintiffs to sweep away the Supreme Court.

Using the same method I can create a government body not provided for by the US Constitution and declare that the US ceases to exist. Will this have legal force? Obviously not. And what about "The Alma Ata protocols" and dozens of similar documents? They are just saying something similar to this -"As [we think that] Soviet Union does not exist, we do this and that". Therefore, they express their opinion that the Soviet Union does not exist, which they have the right to do. After all, expressing one's opinion is not prohibited by law. However, these documents do not make a decision to destroy the Soviet Union. And these people do not have the authority to make such decisions.

Let`s do some googling. You see the link, right? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_no._142-N_of_the_Soviet_of_the_Republics_of_the_Supreme_Soviet_of_the_USSR And then you just click on the "Русский" to see the document in Russian. And after that you just copy paste the name of the organ who made this decision in Russian: "СОВЕТ РЕСПУБЛИК ВЕРХОВНОГО СОВЕТА СССР" And google will show you what you see on the screenshot - Let`s copy/paste it into translate.google.com - and you see this - The Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR) is the upper chamber of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, created on the basis of the USSR Law of September 5, 1991 N 2392-I "On the Bodies of State Authority and Administration of the USSR during the Transitional Period", but not provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution of the USSR. Did you see this - "but not provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution of the USSR". When Gorbachev created this council, he violated the constitution and, according to the law, should have been executed for illegally appropriating power.

No. Russia in the UN is the successor of the Soviet Union - the rebranded SU. The decision to destroy Soviet Union has never been made de jure. Give me the law number with such decision if I am wrong.