Comments by "aspinx" (@aspinx) on "CGTN" channel.

@davidbosak7503 "Rule based order" started with Obama. That's when I heard it first time and wondered what happen with International law. Now we all see what happened with it.
11
@andrewjenkinson7052 Ah, that explains a lot. Were they ever hold accountable once their "reporting" turned to be a lie? There were days when journalists have to do they job and prove they're right. Now they just "report things" and someone else have to prove them wrong (which won't matter, as they'll move on to something else).
7
@andrewjenkinson7052 Where did you get this "losing a third of its army" info? From the authors of the ghost of kiev?
6
@andrewjenkinson7052 What you call "world" is just a small portion of Earth's population (who probably think they are better than everyone else). Buffer zone is need, so world won't destroy itself because of an error. it's called "fly-in" time. If you reduce that to 1-2 minutes there would be no time for a human to decide of an attack is real or not, so it has to be automated, which means the life on a planet depend on a "computer glitch". Image that next time your phone or computer crashes the whole world would end. Pushing towards that is just irresponsible. If "green" is so good, why imposing "carbon tax"? If oil and gas are so bad why the biggest consumer of oil and gas lead the way by reducing consumption? Why their "climate change envoy" and other "climate activists" are traveling on private jets to environment conferences? Is it "Rules for thee and not for me"? Why in all these "green" talks the issue of carbon reabsorption is completely ignored? As if reduction is the only solution. Reminds me of certain "cough", that can only be "fixed" with a certain "jab" (only made by a couple companies) and nothing else. Are you saying that it's ok to commit atrocities if people are far away? I just don't understand why some counties have green light to do the most terrible things as if it's ok, while others are being bullied out of existence for doing much smaller things (relatively speaking) . "Rules for thee and not for me" again? If there are rules they should be SAME for everyone. Otherwise it's just sugar-coated slavery and dictatorship.
6
@piotrtrebisz6602 Nobody is saying that he didn't invade (that's what you imply as a "shift of responsibility"). What was argued that it was unprovoked. Of course it was "provoked". Saying otherwise is real "shifting responsibility".
6
@andrewjenkinson7052 US needs resources. They may tell you otherwise, but their troops are still occupying oil fields in Syria and Iraq, basically stealing their oil. That's a fact. "rest of the world" is happily buying oil and gas. Only certain countries make a fuss that it's "bad and dirty" and treat with taxes those who are not buying into their "green" products. Nuclear weapons do deter. So far the was only one case when a nuclear weapon was used (mostly on civilians). The reason it wasn't used since then is assurance of mutual destruction, which US constantly undermining with strategies of encirclement, ballistic missile defense, decapitation strike and more recently - color revolutions. If "rest of the world was happy to sell goods to Russia for profit", then why they stopped doing so? It wasn't Russia banning them to sell. So apparently "world" (whatever you mean by it) wasn't happy to sell after all. And in case the "world" stopped selling because of "invasion" why the same "world" is still buying saudi oil (400 000 dead in Yemen already) and still happily selling to those who "invaded" Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan and turned them into rubble?
3
@sabinereynaudsf If I remember correctly, Girgin showed up about a month later after the coup-government send in tanks to violently crush civil dissent provoked by the said coup. Civil war started with US-backed coup. It all could have been avoided if US won't interfere (as they should have done, in accordance to Budapest Memorandum which they signed). If Crimea referendum was made under gun-point, why people didn't revolt once "Putin's little green men" went to Donbass? So, either referendum was people's choice or so called "green men" didn't go to Donbass.
3
@sabinereynaudsf The fact that admitted financing was over long period of time doesn't mean there was no financing at all. Nor it changes the fact that US backed the coup. Besides the financing, Nulland was personally there supporting the protest and then handpicking the new gov in her famous F the EU tape. Any "investment" implies "return" at some point. If it all just magically happened by itself Vicky wouldn't be saying who the new PM should be.
3
Apparently, those were completely ok, according to opinion of those who make these "laws" and then twist them when necessary.
2
@sabinereynaudsf Nope, I meant exactly what I said - reabsorption - taking the carbon from air and putting it back to earth. That's what all trees are doing. But since this whole green shtick is about "imposing taxes" for economical advantage, this side of equation is completely ignored.
2
@sabinereynaudsf I just like you how you try to twist the facts to your liking. Here is the definition for you: "A coup d'éta often shortened to coup in English (also known as an overthrow), is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, rebel group, military, or a dictator." First and foremost - it's an illegal seizure of power (done by someone who have no legal right to do so). Did illegal seizure of power happen in 2014? Obviously yes. Who did it? - rebel groups (quote possibly armed). Who financed and supported these groups? - US (as proven by various pieces of evidence and even own admission/bragging). Conclusion: US funded and supported an illegal coup d'éta. Even US is not denying it.
2
@sabinereynaudsf My point is that this "green agenda" is just as much about environment as certain "jab" was about human health - promises were broken, goalposts were shifted. Most people got poorer, few got a lot richer. The "green agenda" in its present form will just move the same needle further.
1
@sabinereynaudsf It doesn't change the facts that: 1. the coup was illegal. (if most of population really wanted that EU agreement as you imply, they could just elect a new president. Legally. Yet they decided to overthrow (despite of the agreement signed with EU ambassadors day earlier), even though the next election was just few month away. Probably because they knew that majority won't support this agreement) 2. coup was backed by US (they publicly acknowledged that it cost around 5 bil) 3. it did violate Budapest Memorandum.
1
@sabinereynaudsf "Loss of support of the people" is just baseless and unverifiable claim. There are always people that don't support any present government, in any country. It doesn't mean that it's legal to go ahead and overthrow the government. If Berkut police was first to fire shots as you claim, why no one of them was prosecuted and charged for that after years of investigations? Why "sniper version" was silenced and all the evidence supporting it was erased or destroyed? Maybe because those who staged the coup didn't want to charge themselves? The parlament had no legal right to do what they did. It was blatant violation of the constitution. Your last argument is moot and is just a bad to attempt to shift responsibility on someone else. He didn't break any law by postponing the signing of some agreement, unlike people who overthrew him. However, if YOU truly think that "breaking a promise" is a valid reason for doing whatever anyone wants, then you shouldn't have any problem with what's going on now, since Elensky not only broke his pre-election promises to his people, but international agreements of Ukraine as well.
1