You know, just because you pay more attention to precise wording than most of us, it doesn't mean that Paul is wrong.
I know. In this case, though, it’s not even about precise wording. (I can also only guess at whether Paul read Article 11 before posting.) The rejection of aggression, the conditions of equality among states and the promotion of international organizations are all thematically in line with limitations on unilateral action, which is its own form of national sovereignty. A reading of limitations on territorial sovereignty makes no sense in the context.
We can also look at the precise wording of Zuppi's statement on losing "a piece of sovereignty" in the context of the causes and possible solutions of the Ukraine war (see last post) to interpret what he meant.
In the first place, you're ignoring the provision of the Italian Constitution, which is the basis of his entire reflection. The Italian Constitution obviously (well, obvious to most) isn't talking about handing over pieces of Italy to other countries. You have to be desperate for Russian territorial gains to interpret "piece of sovereignty" as meaning "land".
[Edited to add] Since it's now up on the prior page, I'll repeat the part of my post from yesterday morning which is more useful in interpreting what the Cardinal means -
"Since the quote highlighted by Paul refers to the Italian constitution, these comments of Cardinal Zuppi on the Italian constitution are useful: 'The text repudiates war, which for a while seemed to be a way forward, and indicates a way to limit parts of national sovereignty in favour of international organisations in order to achieve an order that promotes peace and justice'."
Paul completely ignored that, of course, with his "piece of the action" interpretation of what the Italian Cardinal meant.
Again with the same lie about Russia being open to peace, and the US and UK "sabotaging" it. The facts pointed out previously, against the lie, are ignored. Instead, it's just repeated verbatim, now seasoned with the deceptive "translation" of what Cardinal Zuppi means in using a phrase.
Zuppi is undoubtedly knowledgeable about the Minsk agreement's central provision for a partially autonomous Donbas, which would have involved Ukraine giving a "a piece of its sovereignty" to the separatist regions. Ukraine agreed to limit its sovereignty when it signed the agreement.
As I've posted, that concession to sovereignty along with ruling out Ukraine's membership in NATO would have averted the Russian invasion and stopped the invasion in March-April 2022 when a tentative agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine along those lines, only to be sabotaged by the US and UK. Cits are all here:
This is the background on negotiations that Zuppi faces and the tension between autonomy and sovereignty is central, with the additional factors of independence and annexation resulting from the decision of Ukraine to go along with the US and UK in March-April 2022.
"A renowned human rights reporter and investigator, Janine di Giovanni has over 35 years of experience reporting from conflict zones across the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East. Last year she co-founded The Reckoning Project: Ukraine Testifies, a journalistic project that combines the tools of storytelling and international law to bring war crimes perpetrators to justice. ...
"The project’s goal goes beyond journalism; it seeks to combat impunity and bring perpetrators to justice. They collect testimonies from victims of war crimes to hold Russia accountable for its brutal actions during the war in Ukraine."
RFK Jr. is entirely correct. There's nothing "offensive" at all in his argument.
I agree it's not offensive. It's too dumb for that. Disagree? List all the members of the House and Senate who would agree to increase food stamps if funding for Ukraine were cut.
Since the House just passed the debt limit deal, we can note further evidence of how silly of an argument RFK Jr is making here. Almost all opposition to supporting Ukraine comes from a faction of Republicans. Those same Republicans were very clear that while they wanted to cut lots of spending, they wanted to increase spending on the military.
I suppose one obvious retort would be to ask why I'm bothering to point out what color the grass is.
We can also look at the precise wording of Zuppi's statement on losing "a piece of sovereignty" in the context of the causes and possible solutions of the Ukraine war (see last post) to interpret what he meant.
One of my guesses was that you’d regard with precision the computer-generated translation of “pezzo” as “piece,” zeroing in on it as a piece of land, and hang your reply on that single word.
Italian-English online dictionaries, unsurprisingly, account for other meanings of “pezzo,” as well. They include “bit” (lose a bit of sovereignty) or “portion” (lose a portion of sovereignty) or even “example” (lose an example of sovereignty). Which, again, all make more sense in the context of Article 11 than a piece of territory.
OK, now parse and distort Zuppi's use of the term "loss" as in "loss of sovereignty".
I'm sure you will, but what's most telling about your argument is your inability/unwillingness to interpret Zuppi's statement in the context where it belongs -- the Minsk agreements and the aborted tentative agreement of March-April 2022, where giving a "piece" of sovereignty or "loss" of sovereignty, was actually agreed to (or tentatively agreed to) by Ukraine.
Zuppi is undoubtedly knowledgeable about the Minsk agreement's central provision for a partially autonomous Donbas, which would have involved Ukraine giving a "a piece of its sovereignty" to the separatist regions. Ukraine agreed to limit its sovereignty when it signed the agreement.
As I've posted, that concession to sovereignty along with ruling out Ukraine's membership in NATO would have averted the Russian invasion and stopped the invasion in March-April 2022 when a tentative agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine along those lines, only to be sabotaged by the US and UK. Cits are all here:
This is the background on negotiations that Zuppi faces and the tension between autonomy and sovereignty is central, with the additional factors of independence and annexation resulting from the decision of Ukraine to go along with the US and UK in March-April 2022.
Again with the same lie about Russia being open to peace, and the US and UK "sabotaging" it. The facts pointed out previously, against the lie, are ignored. Instead, it's just repeated verbatim, now seasoned with the deceptive "translation" of what Cardinal Zuppi means in using a phrase.
Tentative agreement between Ukraine and Russia confirmed by Fiona Hill, Angela Stent, US/UK sabotage of the agreement confirmed by Naftali Bennet and Ukrainska Pravda. Documentation above.
OK, now parse and distort Zuppi's use of the term "loss" as in "loss of sovereignty".
I'm sure you will, but what's most telling about your argument is your inability/unwillingness to interpret Zuppi's statement in the context where it belongs -- the Minsk agreements and the aborted tentative agreement of March-April 2022, where giving a "piece" of sovereignty or "loss" of sovereignty, was actually agreed to (or tentatively agreed to) by Ukraine.
I interpreted Zuppi’s statement in the context where Zuppi put it, twice.
Zuppi is undoubtedly knowledgeable about the Minsk agreement's central provision for a partially autonomous Donbas, which would have involved Ukraine giving a "a piece of its sovereignty" to the separatist regions. Ukraine agreed to limit its sovereignty when it signed the agreement.
As I've posted, that concession to sovereignty along with ruling out Ukraine's membership in NATO would have averted the Russian invasion and stopped the invasion in March-April 2022 when a tentative agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine along those lines, only to be sabotaged by the US and UK. Cits are all here:
This is the background on negotiations that Zuppi faces and the tension between autonomy and sovereignty is central, with the additional factors of independence and annexation resulting from the decision of Ukraine to go along with the US and UK in March-April 2022.
Again with the same lie about Russia being open to peace, and the US and UK "sabotaging" it. The facts pointed out previously, against the lie, are ignored. Instead, it's just repeated verbatim, now seasoned with the deceptive "translation" of what Cardinal Zuppi means in using a phrase.
Tentative agreement between Ukraine and Russia confirmed by Fiona Hill, Angela Stent, US/UK sabotage of the agreement confirmed by Naftali Bennet and Ukrainska Pravda. Documentation above.
Only a "lie" for those who lie about those facts.
The documentation you cite doesn't say what you claim. But perhaps most tellingly, you're unable to cite anything by the only voice that matters on this -- Putin. Your argument is premised on the idea that there was a peace agreement to be had, but absent evidence Putin was seriously open to one, you've got nothing.
The documentation you cite doesn't say what you claim. But perhaps most tellingly, you're unable to cite anything by the only voice that matters on this -- Putin. Your argument is premised on the idea that there was a peace agreement to be had, but absent evidence Putin was seriously open to one, you've got nothing.
The documentation Paul provides contradicts his interpretation.
In the excerpt from Hill/Stent that Paul provides a picture of, while it states that Russian negotiators had reached an agreement with their Ukrainian counterparts, that was "shot down" (figuratively) in Moscow. "Despite calls by some for a negotiated settlement that would involve Ukrainian territorial concessions, Putin seems uninterested in a compromise that would leave Ukraine as a sovereign, independent state - whatever its borders." Also, as they recount, Sergey Lavrov said that the compromise reached by the negotiators was not enough.
Similarly, the Ukrainska Pravda excerpt doesn't say that Boris Johnson shot it down, it says that Putin declared the talks dead - and even after that Zelensky was discussing how to work towards an agreement.
Russia has totally regressed to the point where a has-been imperial power (Great Britain) is now the favorite opponent of Russia just as it was before WW II. That, I assume, is why people like Paul insist that Johnson scuppered an otherwise great deal for Ukraine - just following Putin's talking points. It couldn't be that Ukraine looked at the deal an concluded it was a non-starter.
OK, now parse and distort Zuppi's use of the term "loss" as in "loss of sovereignty".
I'm sure you will, but what's most telling about your argument is your inability/unwillingness to interpret Zuppi's statement in the context where it belongs -- the Minsk agreements and the aborted tentative agreement of March-April 2022, where giving a "piece" of sovereignty or "loss" of sovereignty, was actually agreed to (or tentatively agreed to) by Ukraine.
In the first place, you're ignoring the provision of the Italian Constitution, which is the basis of his entire reflection. The Italian Constitution obviously (well, obvious to most) isn't talking about handing over pieces of Italy to other countries. You have to be desperate for Russian territorial gains to interpret "piece of sovereignty" as meaning "land".
[Edited to add] Since it's now up on the prior page, I'll repeat the part of my post from yesterday morning which is more useful in interpreting what the Cardinal means -
"Since the quote highlighted by Paul refers to the Italian constitution, these comments of Cardinal Zuppi on the Italian constitution are useful: 'The text repudiates war, which for a while seemed to be a way forward, and indicates a way to limit parts of national sovereignty in favour of international organisations in order to achieve an order that promotes peace and justice'."
I even highlighted an explanation which makes it clear for you.
OK, now parse and distort Zuppi's use of the term "loss" as in "loss of sovereignty".
I'm sure you will, but what's most telling about your argument is your inability/unwillingness to interpret Zuppi's statement in the context where it belongs -- the Minsk agreements and the aborted tentative agreement of March-April 2022, where giving a "piece" of sovereignty or "loss" of sovereignty, was actually agreed to (or tentatively agreed to) by Ukraine.
In the first place, you're ignoring the provision of the Italian Constitution, which is the basis of his entire reflection. The Italian Constitution obviously (well, obvious to most) isn't talking about handing over pieces of Italy to other countries. You have to be desperate for Russian territorial gains to interpret "piece of sovereignty" as meaning "land".
[Edited to add] Since it's now up on the prior page, I'll repeat the part of my post from yesterday morning which is more useful in interpreting what the Cardinal means -
"Since the quote highlighted by Paul refers to the Italian constitution, these comments of Cardinal Zuppi on the Italian constitution are useful: 'The text repudiates war, which for a while seemed to be a way forward, and indicates a way to limit parts of national sovereignty in favour of international organisations in order to achieve an order that promotes peace and justice'."
I even highlighted an explanation which makes it clear for you.
These comments were made in 2021 with no reference to Ukraine. The statement I quoted was made in 2022 with reference to Ukraine.
The documentation you cite doesn't say what you claim. But perhaps most tellingly, you're unable to cite anything by the only voice that matters on this -- Putin. Your argument is premised on the idea that there was a peace agreement to be had, but absent evidence Putin was seriously open to one, you've got nothing.
The documentation Paul provides contradicts his interpretation.
In the excerpt from Hill/Stent that Paul provides a picture of, while it states that Russian negotiators had reached an agreement with their Ukrainian counterparts, that was "shot down" (figuratively) in Moscow. "Despite calls by some for a negotiated settlement that would involve Ukrainian territorial concessions, Putin seems uninterested in a compromise that would leave Ukraine as a sovereign, independent state - whatever its borders." Also, as they recount, Sergey Lavrov said that the compromise reached by the negotiators was not enough.
Similarly, the Ukrainska Pravda excerpt doesn't say that Boris Johnson shot it down, it says that Putin declared the talks dead - and even after that Zelensky was discussing how to work towards an agreement.
Here's what you left out of the Hill/Stent article:
According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.
That is Hill and Stent reporting Fact.
You selectively quote around (ignore) that fact to cite Hill and Stent's opinion that Putin is not interested in territorial concessions based on a statement by Lavrov made in July, two months after Ukraine at the behest of the US and UK -- confirmed by Naftali Bennet and Ukrainska Pravda -- backed out of the tentative agreement.
The Fact that a tentative agreement was reached -- confirmed by Bennet as well as Hill and Stent -- is uncontested.
The Fact that the US and UK pressed Zelensky to back out of the agreement is confirmed by Bennet and Ukrainska Pravda you conveniently omitted the section where Boris Johnson says the West won't support the agreement:
According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages.
The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.
And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.
Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to "press him."
Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end".
Three days later, Roman Abramovich arrived in Kyiv again, and President Zelenskyy officially stated that there could be two security agreements with Russia: one would concern Ukraine's coexistence with Russia, the other - only security guarantees, because not everyone "sees themselves at the same table with the Russian Federation ".
After that, according to Ukrainska Pravda sources, the bilateral negotiation process was paused.
OK, now parse and distort Zuppi's use of the term "loss" as in "loss of sovereignty".
I'm sure you will, but what's most telling about your argument is your inability/unwillingness to interpret Zuppi's statement in the context where it belongs -- the Minsk agreements and the aborted tentative agreement of March-April 2022, where giving a "piece" of sovereignty or "loss" of sovereignty, was actually agreed to (or tentatively agreed to) by Ukraine.
I interpreted Zuppi’s statement in the context where Zuppi put it, twice.
I'm looking for the word "Ukraine" as part of your interpretation of the context of Zuppi's statement, but I can't find it. Is there a reason?
i get why politicians and PR flacks use the strategy of simply repeating the same thing over and over. In the absence of quality, quantity can be quite effective, especially in a mass market. It's a bit weird to see Paul adopting that strategy in the context of a message board thread with a handful of participants, though. What's he saying, and what could we possibly say in response, that hasn't already been said here, or here, or here, or here, or here, or probably half a dozen other times I've missed.
Simply repeating things Paul wishes were true does not make them so, and contrary to what he seems to think, we're not a club of amnesiacs here.
I'm looking for the word "Ukraine" as part of your interpretation of the context of Zuppi's statement, but I can't find it. Is there a reason?
Yes. Faith that anyone who was involved in or following this discussion needed no reminder that Zuppi brought up Article 11 while talking about the war in Ukraine.
"The next morning, in a speech that addressed many topics of concern to the Italian bishops, Cardinal Zuppi included peace, “one of the concerns Pope Francis has always presented to us in recent years, recently to the point of emotion — peace, today especially in Ukraine with its ‘tormented people.'”
The cardinal described the pope’s prayers and words about the war as prophetic because, the cardinal said, his defense of Ukraine is “so rare today when talking about peace seems to avoid taking sides or failing to acknowledge responsibility.”
Remember when Scott Ritter gave a whole speech about the war and somehow managed to never once mention Ukraine?
Funny, although Paul tends to recycle the same sources, Ritter seems to have dropped out of rotation of late.
some people eventually figure out the error of their ways…. Others would go to the grave believing they’re incapable of erring. In fact that is what drives them to the point of insanity, because admitting they were wrong is not an option. It’s the same with Nan, notice the very last thing she said before leaving MOL was …”Bakhmut has fallen…”
I'm looking for the word "Ukraine" as part of your interpretation of the context of Zuppi's statement, but I can't find it. Is there a reason?
Yes. Faith that anyone who was involved in or following this discussion needed no reminder that Zuppi brought up Article 11 while talking about the war in Ukraine.
Anyone who read the statement can see with their eyes that he literally referenced Ukraine, which is why I introduced the statement to this discussion. But I don't see any attempt on your part to show how your interpretation relates to this discussion.
Remember when Scott Ritter gave a whole speech about the war and somehow managed to never once mention Ukraine?
Funny, although Paul tends to recycle the same sources, Ritter seems to have dropped out of rotation of late.
some people eventually figure out the error of their ways…. Others would go to the grave believing they’re incapable of erring. In fact that is what drives them to the point of insanity, because admitting they were wrong is not an option. It’s the same with Nan, notice the very last thing she said before leaving MOL was …”Bakhmut has fallen…”
Was that the speech he gave about the increasing threat of nuclear war?
i get why politicians and PR flacks use the strategy of simply repeating the same thing over and over. In the absence of quality, quantity can be quite effective, especially in a mass market. It's a bit weird to see Paul adopting that strategy in the context of a message board thread with a handful of participants, though. What's he saying, and what could we possibly say in response, that hasn't already been said here, or here, or here, or here, or here, or probably half a dozen other times I've missed.
Simply repeating things Paul wishes were true does not make them so, and contrary to what he seems to think, we're not a club of amnesiacs here.
I looked at your "here" links and I think what you're trying to say here is that I've repeated my references to the evidence that the US/UK sabotaged the interim peace agreement in March-April 2022. Yes, I've done that to respond to denials that (a) there was an agreement and (b) that the US/UK sabotaged it. I will confess that I try to rebut arguments with facts as well as logic, so when the arguments involve the same facts it's necessary to repeat them -- in a case-specific fashion.
I looked at your "here" links and I think what you're trying to say here is that I've repeated my references to the evidence that the US/UK sabotaged the interim peace agreement in March-April 2022. Yes, I've done that to respond to denials that (a) there was an agreement and (b) that the US/UK sabotaged it. I will confess that I try to rebut arguments with facts as well as logic, so when the arguments involve the same facts it's necessary to repeat them -- in a case-specific fashion.
You repeat the claims, but never address the responses - except to misrepresent the material pointed out in the responses. And those misrepresentations are pointed out in response, and you ignore them.
The myth that "the US/UK sabotaged it" isn't supported by the actual information in the sources, no matter how much tortured interpretation and selective reading is attempted - all as detailed previously in response to you.
[Edited to add] One of the clearest examples of this is how you keep citing the Hill/Stent article. You take pieces of text from the article, but then claim that it supports a point that's the exact opposite of the one they're making. Their article does not support the myth you keep pushing, that Russia was ready for peace early in its invasion of. Ukraine, and the US/UK prevented it.
Yes. Faith that anyone who was involved in or following this discussion needed no reminder that Zuppi brought up Article 11 while talking about the war in Ukraine.
Anyone who read the statement can see with their eyes that he literally referenced Ukraine, which is why I introduced the statement to this discussion. But I don't see any attempt on your part to show how your interpretation relates to this discussion.
In my humble opinion, this is an example of the trollish way that Mr. Surovell responds to any argument that contradicts his claims. DaveSchmidt specifically says, "while talking about the war in Ukraine", and Paul "corrects" him by saying, "he literally referenced Ukraine".
Nobody says the Cardinal wasn't talking about Ukraine. It looks like Paul is the only one who ignores what the Cardinal actually said about how to approach peace discussions.
Tentative agreement between Ukraine and Russia confirmed by Fiona Hill, Angela Stent, US/UK sabotage of the agreement confirmed by Naftali Bennet and Ukrainska Pravda. Documentation above.
Only a "lie" for those who lie about those facts.
Bennet doesn't confirm "sabotage of the agreement". He does confirm that the discovery of Russian atrocities around the same time complicated any prospects for an agreement.
In the first place, you're ignoring the provision of the Italian Constitution, which is the basis of his entire reflection. The Italian Constitution obviously (well, obvious to most) isn't talking about handing over pieces of Italy to other countries. You have to be desperate for Russian territorial gains to interpret "piece of sovereignty" as meaning "land".
[Edited to add] Since it's now up on the prior page, I'll repeat the part of my post from yesterday morning which is more useful in interpreting what the Cardinal means -
"Since the quote highlighted by Paul refers to the Italian constitution, these comments of Cardinal Zuppi on the Italian constitution are useful: 'The text repudiates war, which for a while seemed to be a way forward, and indicates a way to limit parts of national sovereignty in favour of international organisations in order to achieve an order that promotes peace and justice'."
Paul completely ignored that, of course, with his "piece of the action" interpretation of what the Italian Cardinal meant.