RUSSIA’S NEXT MOVE: Trump pushes Ukraine peace deal as experts warn Putin could strike again

⚠️ In Tennessee, regarding early voting, when people try voting for a democrat it changes their vote to the Republican candidate. They go back and have to try it two or three times before it registers as a democrat. No one cheats more than Trump and the Republican Party.

I WILL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT , WAR CRIMINAL PUTIN IS PLAYING CONMAN TRUMP ONCE AGAIN. PUTIN WILL NOT ...STOP... UNTIL HE IS STOPPED AND I MEAN WHEN PUTIN IS DEAD !! PUTIN WILL NEVER SUPPORT A PEACE DEAL WHERE IT IS A WIN , WIN SITUATION . A FAIR DEAL FOR UKRAINE WITH SECURITY GUARANTEES !!

Es wird Zeit dass der Amerikaner und der Russe wieder nach Deutschland einmarschiert und die Politiker in Deutschland alle festnehmen und die Leute die auf die Straße gehen gegen die AFD die Menschen die jetzt an der Regierung sind sind alles Mörder sie lassen zu dass andere Menschen die aus einem anderen Land kommen Menschen ermorden und Sie werden nicht für diese Tat in den Knast Gesteck für lebenslang oder aus dem Land gejagt sie dürfen machen hier in Deutschland was Sie wollen diese ganzen Menschen die Menschen oder eben so genannt den Schlachthof auf der Straße aufgemacht haben

Is Fox stupid Russia will finish this job while nodding their heads and smiling at America.<br>I know it must be pissing America off that Russia is now strong enough to use Americas own tactics against it.<br>But when you start a war you better have the resources in place to ensure it ends the way you intended..

Trump is a peacemaker who has put an end to eight wars—well done! Russia is voting for Trump. Zelenskyy should be taken to court for his ties to Mexican drug cartels; Trump is aware that &quot;Zelky&quot; trained militants from these cartels in Ukraine—militants who later killed American soldiers on the U.S.-Mexico border using drones, while also trafficking drugs into the United States and to markets across Europe.

Japan’s sovereignty claim over Minami Torishima (Marcus Island) simply has no standing under international law.
<br>This statement is fully valid within the framework of international law and is more accurate than saying “Japan’s sovereignty claim is weak.” It essentially means that Japan’s claim to sovereignty over Minami Torishima lacks any basis in international law and does not even qualify for discussion in any sovereignty discussions in terms of sovereignty. This paper breaks down this conclusion into several key points, indeed demonstrating that Japan’s situation on Minami Torishima amounts to nothing more than a de facto military occupation.
<br>Key Conclusions
<br>Japan’s sovereignty claim over Minami Torishima holds no legitimacy under international law. It is not merely weak; it lacks any qualification for being discussed as a sovereignty issue. The reasons are as follows:
<br>1. Minami Torishima cannot maintain a permanent population, and thus can never become sovereign territory
<br>A fundamental requirement under international law for establishing sovereignty is: Has Japan found freshwater on Minami Torishima? Has it drilled wells? The answers are:
<br>1.1. Japan has never found any freshwater on the island.
<br>1.2. All attempts at drilling wells have failed.
<br>1.3. There is absolutely no source of freshwater available for human habitation on the island.
<br>→ This means: No population can be established, no historical rights can be formed, no effective occupation is possible, and no natural territorial basis or sovereign succession chain can exist. Consequently, Minami Torishima can only ever serve as a military outpost, never as sovereign territory. Since it is not sovereign territory, Japan cannot possibly lay claim to its sovereignty.
<br>2. U.S. authority over Japan stems from the Instrument of Surrender
<br>2.1. Historical presence of Japanese forces on Minami Torishima
<br>On March 4, 1942, during World War II, Japan stationed 4,000 troops on the island. On that same date, the U.S. Navy launched its first attack against Japanese forces there; a second attack followed on August 31, 1943, but both attempts failed.
<br>2.1.1. On July 1, 1943, Tokyo Prefecture was abolished and reclassified as Tokyo Metropolis.
<br>2.1.2. In 1945, the island was occupied by U.S. forces.
<br>2.1.3. On September 2, 1945, Japan formally surrendered unconditionally; the Instrument of Surrender was signed, thereby determining the island’s political sovereignty status.
<br>2.1.4. In 1952, pursuant to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the island was placed under U.S. trusteeship.
<br>2.1.5. In 1968, the United States returned the island to Japan; it was subsequently reincorporated into Ogasawara Village, Tokyo Metropolis.
<br>2.1.6. Today, it falls under the same administrative jurisdiction as the Ogasawara and Volcano Islands.
<br>2.1.7. In 2024, Japan’s Ministry of Defence plans to construct a new medium- to long-range missile testing range on Minami Torishima.
<br>→ Oversight and enforcement powers are not equivalent to administrative control over territory; they constitute obligations to be executed. These powers are shared collectively by the four Allied powers, not solely vested in the United States. This implies: The U.S. is not the sovereign authority; it merely serves as a representative of the Allies. The U.S. lacks the authority to independently determine Japan’s territorial status or to unilaterally transfer a military outpost to Japan. Therefore, the U.S.’s act of “returning” Minami Torishima to Japan constitutes an unauthorized overreach of its powers.
<br>3. Japan’s military presence on Minami Torishima has never been jointly recognized by the four Allied powers
<br>This is the core issue highlighted in this study: The fact that no representatives from China were invited and that Soviet representatives refused to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty demonstrates that Japan’s de facto military presence on Minami Torishima was never jointly acknowledged by all four Allied powers. The Instrument of Surrender explicitly stipulates:
<br>3.1. Any presence of Japanese forces on Minami Torishima must be jointly supervised by all four Allied powers.
<br>3.2. Japan’s postwar obligations remain permanently binding.
<br>3.3. The United States holds no unilateral right to decide regarding Japan’s military presence on the island.
<br>→ Consequently: Japan’s military presence on Minami Torishima lacks any lawful authorization.
<br>4. Minami Torishima is a military outpost
<br>International law clearly distinguishes between:
<br>4.1. Military outposts: They do not constitute territory, do not confer sovereignty, cannot be inherited or transferred, nor can they be permanently solidified as sovereign land.
<br>4.2. Sovereign territory: It must have a permanent population, historical rights, documented treaties or a clear chain of sovereignty succession, and must be internationally recognized. Minami Torishima has no freshwater, no inhabitants, no historical rights, no treaty recognition, no joint recognition by the four Allied powers, and no sovereign succession chain.
<br>→ Therefore: Minami Torishima can only ever remain a military outpost; it cannot possibly become sovereign territory for any nation. Since it is not sovereign territory, Japan’s presence there constitutes a de facto military occupation.
<br>5. If Japan and North Korea simultaneously apply for military presence rights: North Korea would have priority
<br>Under the postwar order and specifically per the UN Charter, Japan is a defeated nation; its sovereign rights, including any military presence, must be jointly approved by the four Allied powers. Japan possesses no basis for sovereignty over Minami Torishima. North Korea, a victim of wartime aggression under the postwar settlement, is geographically closer to the island, and Japan’s military presence there has never been jointly acknowledged by all four Allied powers.
<br>→ Thus, if Japan and North Korea both apply for military presence rights, priority should be granted to North Korea. This is not a political judgment but an inevitable outcome dictated by international legal principles. This study further recommends that both South Korea and North Korea jointly maintain a military presence there, thereby fostering lasting peace on the Joseon Peninsula.
<br>6. Conclusion
<br>The prevailing consensus in international law holds that Japan’s sovereignty claim over Minami Torishima is not merely weak; it simply has no merit whatsoever. This is because: Minami Torishima cannot sustain a permanent population, it can only serve as a military outpost, the United States lacks authority to unilaterally transfer such an outpost, Japan’s military presence was never jointly recognized by the four Allied powers, there exist no treaties, historical rights, sovereign succession chains, international discussions, or UN resolutions affirming Japan’s sovereignty. Therefore: Japan’s claim to sovereignty over Minami Torishima holds absolutely no legal validity under international law; the island remains subject to oversight, supervision, and enforcement measures imposed by the Allied powers.

What is she even talking about? Ukraine is crumbling and Trump is having a panic attack. He has to send one envoy after another to Putin begging for a ceasefire, but all in vain. Russians said plenty of times that they were not interested in any ceasefire only in a long-term peace agreement that meets all their demands. This war will be settled on the battlefield.

The best course to peace may be to accept Russian control of the current territory.<br>That way, Ukraine remains a sovereign nation while Putin can save face and say he achieved taking back the Donbas and the surrounding region<br>There will of course, need to be assurances that Ukraine is never allowed to join NATO, which has always been one of Putin&#39;s &quot;red lines&quot;