Tucker Carlson at the Bolshoi Ballet (threadbans in op)

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121793974#Comment_121793974

Its a signed agreement between international sovereign states, UN security council members, signed by Russia recognising Ukraines sovereignty and territory.

Russia are a pack of lying weasels. Their claims are garbage. Where is this formal withdrawal by Russia notified to the other signatories?

Well? You are repeating Russian lies without any scrutiny here. Just like Tucker Carlson.

Russia violated Budapest when they they threatened economic blockade of Ukraine as it considered signing a treaty with the EU.

Nothing to do with NATO. Another Russian lie.

Russia has zero right to place such demands on Ukraine and is in breach of multiple treaties it signed in doing so.

The main point being these are the questions a proper journalist would have asked not an unquestioning conduit for Russian lies like morally bankrupt Carlson.

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794033#Comment_121794033

Russia says it wasn't a Treaty. I also read somewhere that they would only agree to the memorandum if it excluded Crimea. But I'm not sure that's in the text somewhere.

So in a scenario where one party says it's not a Treaty, it means there's no international court to arbitrate.

brickster69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794064#Comment_121794064

It was a political agreement not a treaty, it gave justification to act not compelled to act. A treaty would have to be ratified by the senate and UK parliament which it never was because it was not a treaty.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794064#Comment_121794064

Wait, was it a treaty or wasnt it? First lie was that a treaty until after 2014 when Russia withdrew - they didnt.

Second lie was that it wasnt a treaty cos of something something Crimea.

What absolute contradictory self discrediting nonsense. They tell so many lies they cant keep from tripping over them.

Just more proof of Russian lies.

They signed the treaty along with other UN security council members. No mention of Crimea excluded. None.

Anyhow you claimed something about Russia withdrawing from the treaty.

You were asked for evidence of this action.

There is none is there?

Did Putin provide any evidence in his dunp of lies to Carlson? Nope.

But of course instead of pausing to reflect on this proof of Russian lies you will just move onto the next defelection or repetition of Russian excuses.

Your claims have no credibility when you just post baseless Russian lies.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794134#Comment_121794134

A poiitical agreement Russia violated many times. Part of nuclear de-escalation. So anyone interested in peace would want that agreement honoured. Anyone interested in peace wouldnt be making excuses for Russia for its blatant and hostile violations of the treaty.

Those who do are clearly pro war and anti peace and show contempt for peace agreements and the right of countries such as Ukraine to self determination and independence.

So Russia's actions in violating it are:

Proof of Russian lies.

Proof of hostile Russian intent to Ukraine.

And there is no question Russia's violations started when Ukraine as is its right sought to sign a treaty with the EU. Not NATO, though Ukraine would be free to do so under treaties signed by Russia.

And again the pathetic weasel Cuckson lapped up the lies from murderous Putin on Russias history with Ukraine.

brickster69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794248#Comment_121794248

No it was a memorandum not a treat, that is why it is called the Budapest memorandum. It gave assurances not guarantees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794283#Comment_121794283

Again entirely missing the point resorting to semantics and excuses.

Again entirely missing the point that Tucker Carlson didnt ask any of these questions in the interview did he? So to say it was a fair summary of Russias security relationship with Ukraine is completely baseless.

So you just proved my point above and what such conduct in trying to get Russia off the hook means:

"A poiitical agreement Russia violated many times. Part of nuclear de-escalation. So anyone interested in peace would want that agreement honoured. Anyone interested in peace wouldnt be making excuses for Russia for its blatant and hostile violations of the treaty.

Those who do are clearly pro war and anti peace and show contempt for peace agreements and the right of countries such as Ukraine to self determination and independence."

Shows how much Russian assurances can be trusted. Shows how much Russia lies about its relations with Ukraine. It lied about the content of Budapest. It lied about not violating it. It lied about withdrawing from it.

Not surprising therefore the interview was a dump of Russian lies Carlson lapped up.

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794330#Comment_121794330

Odyssey06, that is exactly why actual Treaties are so carefully worded, to limit the scope of interpretation.

That's why the Budapest Memorandum was intentionally worded to be imprecise, so that the signatories had wriggle room.

Remember, the purpose of the Budapest Memorandum was to maneuver newly independent states into the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

Nobody wanted these states to become nuclear powers.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794537#Comment_121794537

Ah right. Did Tucker Carlson tease out the complexities on the "interview"?

He did in his hole.

Nope.

Russia violated the assurances given.

Russias "essential security concerns" were met at Budapest with Ukraine giving up strategic offensive weapons.

Russia violated Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity, multiple clear breaches of Budapest.

There was no wiggle room in Budapest to allow Russia to do that. There is no scope in Budapest to permit that.

And the main point in this thread is to describe the interview as a fair overview of Russias essential security concerns without mentioning Russian violations of Budapest is totally inaccurate.

Or without mentioning the NATO Russia Founding Act and the framework it lays out for NATO expansion without escalation.

It was just a dump of Russian lies and half truths, misinformation and disinformation. And Carlson lapped it up.

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794609#Comment_121794609

A journalist is capable of asking or raising whatever issues they so decide. I don't really see what your beef is here. Tucker wanted western audiences to hear Putin's point of view. Tucker obviously wasn't there with intention of a confrontation, despite your desires for one.

I have read, or heard that Russia communicated to the other parties of the Budapest Memorandum signalling they were withdrawing their support, sometime after the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and probably as 'legal cover' for the subsequent annexation of Crimea.

Whether or not withdrawing from the Budapest Memorandum and subsequent invasion is of violation on international law, I do not know nor particularly care. I'm confident you'll find numerous hysterical opinions from the west that demand it is so; I am equally confident you'll get opinions from the other side to say that it isn't.

Personally i feel it is a violation of international law, but so what?

What does international law mean when other major geo political players flout those same laws?

It's like international law is just a thin veneer across global relations and once those relations start breaking, everything is war and everything is justified.

eightieschewbaccy

Ah yes, hysterical reactions to an invasion that includes genocide and kidnapping of children....

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797062#Comment_121797062

He wasn't acting as a journalist. He was just acting as a conduit for Putin propaganda and Russian lies. An actual journalist would have asked questions such as are being raised here about Budapest, about the NATO Russia Founding Act. Apparently asking Putin an actual question about actual history would constitute a "confrontation" to you. He was a pathetic nodding lapdog.

Therefore to describe Putin's propaganda as "fair" is wholly inaccurate. Why did you care enough to post that? And yet pointing out Russian violations of the treaties it signed is "hysterical". When challenged, now you don't care about international law. Self contradictory self discrediting nonsense. You can't keep your story straight as it is based on no foundation except Russian lies.

You have "read" or "heard". Sure you have. Just no actual sources at the third time of asking. Therefore I have no hesitation in calling it a Russian lie.

And there's the whataboutery and amoralism.

So the world view we should hear without challenge is Putin's moral and intellectual bankruptcy, his lies, his self serving justifications... might is right is it? So it doesn't matter what it says. You have just nullified it because nothing matters except war.

Gussoe

@odyssey06 was the Budapest Memorandum ratified as a treaty in the UK? We know that it wasn't ratified in the US, so there's a pretty big strike against your claims.

Anyway in terms of Russia withdrawing support for Budapest, there's an article quoting Bill Clinton about it, this predates the 2014 coup:

"Putin said to me: ‘… I know Boris [Yeltsin] agreed to go along with you and John Major and Nato, but he never got it [Budapest Memorandum] through the Duma [Russian parliament]. We have our extreme nationalists too. I don’t agree with it and I do not support it and I’m not bound by it.’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/we-knew-putin-would-attack-ukraine-back-in-2011-says-bill-clinton

So even back then the Russians were signalling they no longer support it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797341#Comment_121797341

It was a signed political agreement, not just between Russia and Ukraine but also by UN security council members.

Whether you call it a treaty or an agreement or a memoradum, that is just dragging the thread down a semantic rabbit hole - it is proof of Russian lies and bad faith.

It was an agreement designed to de-escalate tensions in the region, and Russia's "essential security concerns" were dealt with by Ukraine giving up strategic offensive weapons in exchange for a Russian commitment to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territory. Russia threatening Ukraine with economic blockade for considering signing an EU treaty is a clear violation of it. A sovereign and independent country also has the right to align with NATO and the West.

So Russia lied about withdrawing from it.

Russia lied about its content - after the fact nonsense about Crimea. The signed text respected the territorial integrity of Ukraine's 1991 borders which plainly included Crimea.

And Russia lied about violating it multiple times.

And we come back to the point - these are the questions Tucker Carlson should have been asking of Putin in the interview for the description of it as "fair" to have any foundation.

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797385#Comment_121797385

It was an agreement in principle under Borris Yeltsin. It wasn't a treaty, wasn't ratified as a treaty.

Putin informed the others that Russia withdrew from it and were not bound by it.

Sure, Tucker could have questioned him about it you're right: but what do you really think the response would be?

Doubtless a lengthy monologue of the context of the entire agreement, stretching back decades and culminating in US & NATO bad faith acting inside Ukraine, undermining Russia's security and compelling a Russian response.

Is that what you really want to hear though?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797434#Comment_121797434

You continually make the claim that "Putin informed the others."

Right. When did he do it? Where is the record of this?

You have been asked multiple times for the source for this and when it occurred and you have provided zero sources, yet continue to repeat it as a statement of fact.

Your claims have no credibility.

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797464#Comment_121797464

I just posted a link where he informed Clinton, that's the best i'm going to do.

Because really, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, the Budapest Memorandum served it's purpose - to get newly independent states into the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. That's the whole point.

The whole security and sovereignty of Ukraine bit was a carrot.

Notice that the UK and US keep saying they aren't at war with Russia? Why not, according to you, they should have legal obligations to ride to Ukraine's rescue.

IMO this is similar to the Minsk Accords, things are said, "pinky promises" are made such as removing foreign mercs & materiel, but it's just ink on some paper, ignored by all.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797511#Comment_121797511

You edited your post after the fact to include the link. It was not in the post I replied to.

That is not signalling a public withdrawawl from the treaty. Did they tell all signatories?

Nope.

It has no standing.

Putin told me in 2011, three years before he took Crimea, that he did not agree with the agreement I made with Boris Yeltsin, 

That's not the same thing as publicly withdrawing your country from it.

The article you linked points out Putin's lies about Budapest:

his conversation with Clinton suggests Putin had decided not to honour the agreement years before the Maidan uprising.

See that's what proper journalists would do.

Take a step back and see how Budapest in microcosm demonstrates Russian lies and bad faith towards Russia, despite Ukraine signing it and honouring it and it respecting Russian security concerns.

And any proper journalist would have asked Putin about this instead of letting him ramble and rant half truths and lies.

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797574#Comment_121797574

How do you actually think such a question to Putin would go?

Do you think it would be this big Gotcha! moment?

I already posted what i think the response would be.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797605#Comment_121797605

We don't know do we?

Which is the point.

The mask may have slipped or at very least people watching it wouldn't just get Putin's distorted version of history because he would have to acknowledge that Russia had multiple treaties and agreements to address its concerns with Ukraine, US, NATO and other powers. That it was not a one way street.

And if Putin did respond with well the Duma didn't ratify Budapest, a prepared journalist would then point out that the Duma did ratify the NATO Russia Founding Act, which lays out a framework for NATO expansion but without escalation of offensive systems, bases etc.

A prepared journalist would anticipate the lies Putin would tell in response to the question and then use a followup question.

Carlson did none of those things.

And if you can't ask such questions, then you shouldn't be giving Putin a platform for his propaganda.

Gussoe

I enjoyed the interview and valued hearing Putin's POV.

It's great to burst through the controlled information bubble we have.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797802#Comment_121797802

It was a totally controlled information bubble, totally controlled by Putin. So you are disregarding the output of Western media, operating in liberal societies with freedom of the press in favour of propaganda.

victor8600

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797802#Comment_121797802

What bubble? If you live in a self-imposed bubble, it's of your own creation. I am very anti-Putin, but I have been following what Putin says and does. All the info is available. In the interview, Putin had regurgitated the same twisted view of history he always had (Russia great, all its neighbours are not deserving of statehood, etc). The only new thing, to a Western listener, was Putin's whitewashing of Hitler's aggression against Poland. Nobody asked him about that, yet Putin clearly sees himself as Hitler's follower.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797895#Comment_121797895

It was a disgraceful performance, an insult to all the real journalists Putin has had killed or imprisoned merely for speaking the truth.

That's an "information bubble".

eightieschewbaccy

Ya, I'm not sure how informed the posters are who claim what Putin has been saying hasn't been public domain for years...

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797839#Comment_121797839

"Freedom of the press" lol.

Does the name Julian Assange ring any bells?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798140#Comment_121798140

As I said above: It was a disgraceful performance, an insult to all the real journalists Putin has had killed or imprisoned merely for speaking the truth. It is not a matter for LOLs and just shows how seriously you take it.

Those real journalists were victims of Putin, not for dealing in classified information, but merely for expressing the basic freedoms of speech and the press.

Earlier on the thread you said that Putin "told the others" that he would not respect Budapest \ did not feel bound by it. What "information bubble" did you get that from?

The only source you could provide was a Guardian article where Putin mentioned it informally to ex-President Clinton. No record of any formal communication of it to the signatories, which would have been a newsworthy act.

The Guardian article asked relevant questions, pointing out the contradictions in Putin's retelling.

That's an information bubble? 

Seems like you are the one who has put yourself into an information bubble of Russian lies, half truths and misinformation.

I think this story in microcosm demonstrates that your specific claim about Budapest and general claim about Western media are without foundation.