Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[Ford]

So Russia is allowed to invade other countries if it doesn't like the leaders? Or think they shouldn't be in power?

Good idea, why should US be the only country with this right?

Why should Russia have the right?


I realize this may be impossible for you, but leave the US out of this for a moment and tell me why Russia has the unadulterated right to invade Crimea and Ukraine.

 

[thief of fire]

Good idea, why should US be the only country with this right?

Why should Russia have the right?
I realize this may be impossible for you, but leave the US out of this for a moment and tell me why Russia has the unadulterated right to invade Crimea and Ukraine.

There is no "unadulterated right", but that doesn't mean there is no right. I was a complex and urgent situation both legally and practically.
The legal case for what Russia did has been spelled out many times.

!. The precedent for the annexation was established by America in Kosovo.
2. There was no legitimate government in Kiev at that time.
3.Those who held power in Kiev were persecuting Russians.

With no legitimate government in Kiev at the time, and with those who did have power persecuting Russians (the first thing they did was ban the Russian language), Russia took the responsible course of action and oversaw a referendum which resulted in the vast majority of Crimeans wanting to go with Russia. Which should be no surprise to anyone. Except strangely to you.
The end result. Crimea is peaceful.
The Ukraine where America orchestrated a coup is a mess with many people dead. Same situation as everywhere else America gets involved. Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else.
The world is getting sick of the USA destroying countries.
Putin just doesn't take your shit. America is used to threatening and bullying weaker nations. Since Americans themselves are too weak to stand up to their lying government, I think it is good that Putin does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdRAEsjTEvI

 

[Ford]

The legal case for what Russia did has been spelled out many times.

Bullshit.

There is no legal case for Russia annexing territory by force.

 

[Ford]

America is used to threatening and bullying weaker nations.

That's gotta sting, right?

Russia is weak. Putin is weak. So weak that he's got to beat up on smaller countries due to the fact that he can't stand up to the Soviets' old nemesis, the USA.

 

[Daioh]

So Russia is allowed to invade other countries if it doesn't like the leaders? Or think they shouldn't be in power?

Good idea, why should US be the only country with this right?

Why should any country?

 

[Daioh]

!. The precedent for the annexation was established by America in Kosovo.

I'm sorry but my history of Kosovo is very sparse at best, could someone fill me in?
How is Kosovo setting a precedent?

 

[barbos]

Good idea, why should US be the only country with this right?

Why should Russia have the right?


I realize this may be impossible for you, but leave the US out of this for a moment and tell me why Russia has the unadulterated right to invade Crimea and Ukraine.

Crimea is a part Of Russia,
Russia has a right to "invade" its own land.

 

[barbos]

!. The precedent for the annexation was established by America in Kosovo.

I'm sorry but my history of Kosovo is very sparse at best, could someone fill me in?
How is Kosovo setting a precedent?

Gladly, Kosovo is a historical serbian land bordering Albania. Over time demographics shifted from serbians to albanians, and they decided to separate and US and West said OK.
So we have independent Kosovo with Prime Minister with extensive history of war and ordinary crimes.
The End.

 

[Daioh]

I'm sorry but my history of Kosovo is very sparse at best, could someone fill me in?
How is Kosovo setting a precedent?

Gladly, Kosovo is a historical serbian land bordering Albania. Over time demographics shifted from serbians to albanians, and they decided to separate and US and West said OK.
So we have independent Kosovo with Prime Minister with extensive history of war and ordinary crimes.
The End.

So this is a precedent to Russias actions in Crimea.....how?

 

[thief of fire]

Good idea, why should US be the only country with this right?

Why should any country?

Why should any country protect people who are being persecuted? The first thing the unelected coup leaders did was to ban the Russian language, then they started killing and persecuting people who did not accept their authority. They did nothing to stop the murders that the neo nazis were doing.,

You had chaos in Ukraine, which all followed another USA orchestrated coup. Apparently Russia is supposed to sit back and watch this all happen?

So Putin took some action generally in line with the precedent in Kosovo.

 

[angelo]

The main problem with most of these ex Soviet states are their very large number of people who want to still be part of the ex Soviet Union.

 

[thief of fire]

Gladly, Kosovo is a historical serbian land bordering Albania. Over time demographics shifted from serbians to albanians, and they decided to separate and US and West said OK.
So we have independent Kosovo with Prime Minister with extensive history of war and ordinary crimes.
The End.

So this is a precedent to Russias actions in Crimea.....how?

You could start here.
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence

 

[thief of fire]

The main problem with most of these ex Soviet states are their very large number of people who want to still be part of the ex Soviet Union.

And they don't want to be ruled by neo nazi nutters that the USA put's in power.
How many people in Crimean would have wanted to go with the nutters who took the reigns after the coup.

 

[barbos]

The main problem with most of these ex Soviet states are their very large number of people who want to still be part of the ex Soviet Union.

Hardly the main problem.

 

[angelo]

The turmoil that broke up the former Yugoslavia after Tito's death must be fresh on Putin's and Russia's mind.

 

[Daioh]

Why should any country protect people who are being persecuted?

Firstly you accuse the US of meddling in the affairs of other countries
Now you wish to laud the actions of Russia doing the same

So why should Russia be given the green light and countries like the US be reviled?

Apparently Russia is supposed to sit back and watch this all happen?

So you would accept another nation moving into Ukraine and annexing it in order to bring peace?
Or perhaps allow it into an organisation that could move it to such a position?

So Putin took some action generally in line with the precedent in Kosovo.

Isn't that hypocrisy on his part given that apparently Russia voted AGAINST the situation in Kosovo and in fact still does NOT recognise Kosovo as an independant nation (According to the Wikipedia entries)

"During the debate before the ICJ in December 2009, Russia said that general international law prevents Kosovo from declaring independence and that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination. ...and reminded that the UNSC declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia's_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence

So using the situation in Kosovo as a precedent for Russias actions is pretty hypocritical is it not?

 

[thief of fire]

Firstly you accuse the US of meddling in the affairs of other countries

Which they do.

Now you wish to laud the actions of Russia doing the same

Crimea is relatively peaceful. Places where the US meddles end up with countless dead civilians.

So why should Russia be given the green light and countries like the US be reviled?

Due to the history of Crimea. Each situation is judged on its merits in the end. Russia probably saved lives.

So you would accept another nation moving into Ukraine and annexing it in order to bring peace?
Or perhaps allow it into an organisation that could move it to such a position?

No. Russia and Crimea's history is closely entwined, and any legal argument on the matter would incorporate that. Despite the protests of those who wish for some simplistic law they can apply without any consideration for context.

Isn't that hypocrisy on his part given that apparently Russia voted AGAINST the situation in Kosovo and in fact still does NOT recognise Kosovo as an independant nation (According to the Wikipedia entries)

Russia did was was necessary and merely pointed out the hypocrisy of the United States.

So using the situation in Kosovo as a precedent for Russia's actions is pretty hypocritical is it not?

Not when you are pointing that out to the USA.
Russia did the responsible thing given the circumstances then pointed out to the USA how hypocritical their complaint was.

US foreign policy is "no rivals" in Asia or Russia. This is what is really going on. The US wants to surround Russia and then hold all the winning cards. Naturally Russia is not happy about that or America's obsession with war. Perfectly understandable and laudable that they would take this action after the coup in Kiev.

Neoconservatism

In foreign policy, the neoconservatives' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Defense Planning Guidance, a document prepared during 1992 by Under Secretary for Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, is regarded by Distinguished Professor of the Humanities John McGowan at the University of North Carolina as the "quintessential statement of neoconservative thought". The report says:[68]

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

 

[Daioh]

No. Russia and Crimea's history is closely entwined, and any legal argument on the matter would incorporate that. Despite the protests of those who wish for some simplistic law they can apply without any consideration for context.

So only countries which are historically closely entwined are allowed to annex other nations to bring peace?

Why can a nation not forge new relations through annexation with the goal to bring about peace?

Isn't that hypocrisy on his part given that apparently Russia voted AGAINST the situation in Kosovo and in fact still does NOT recognise Kosovo as an independant nation (According to the Wikipedia entries)

Russia did was was necessary and merely pointed out the hypocrisy of the United States.

The USA is not annexing Crimea or Kosovo
Russia actions are hypocritical in relation to their own stated position
Or do you have a way that Russia can somehow deny the precedent of Kosovo whilst smultaneous using it to justify their own actions?

So using the situation in Kosovo as a precedent for Russia's actions is pretty hypocritical is it not?

Not when you are pointing that out to the USA.

I don't care about the USA
Is Russia using the precedent of Kosovo, a precendent they DO NOT ACCEPT, and applying said precedent to their own actions not represent hyposcrisy?
Can you give an answer that is not couched in terms of bashing the USA and direct the answer to the actions and motivations of Russia in relation to the Kosovo analogy

US foreign policy

Is not the issue being debated
Nor is it relevant to this discussion on Kosovo, Russias stance and use of it as justification for Crimea despite it being contrary to their own position

 

[barbos]

According to logic of resident russia haters West Germany annexed East Germany

 

[Sabine Grant]

Even though I have mentioned all these points in previous pages. I'm going to say it all again
Had there been a legitimate elected government still in Kiev the Russians would have had to talk with them and abide by whatever agreements were in place.
But this was not the case.

Are you implying that the removal of the head of the executive branch meant that the legislative branch or Parliament (as part of the Ukrainian government) is to be included as a non legitimately elected Government? In what fashion or manner did the opposition to Yanukovych and described as Nazis take over the Ukrainian Parliament? In what fashion would the Ukrainian Parliament have been "thugs murdering people"?

You are aware, I hope, that when mentioning the term "Government", it certainly includes 3 branches known as the executive, legislative and judiciary.

I will await for you to demonstrate that the Ukrainian Parliament as the legislative branch of the Government became "illegal" due to the removal of Yanukovitch.

We had a bunch of nationalist thugs who America had essentially brought into power, illegally, who were and are persecuting Russians.

Please ,document in what fashion the Ukrainian Parliamentary members were "nationalist thugs who America had essentially brought into power, illegally, who were and are persecuting Russians".

Russia was no more obligated to deal with these thugs than America is to go and talk to ISIS.

Russia ignored the reality that there were no "thugs" in the Ukrainian Parliament who voted and passed a resolution to hold early Presidential elections in May and further supported the removal of the head of the executive branch. If you wish to pursue your portraying of an illegal Government in the hands of "thugs who murder people" and "Nazis", I will ask you to document which Parliamentary members were "Nazis" and "thugs murdering people".

All the people arguing for "invasion" are telling us we should have recognized these murdering thugs. But these people won't come out and say that.

Again, document which Parliamentary members were "murdering thugs" while you will need to pay attention to how the legislative branch voted.

But everything they write asks us to accept that nothing had happened in Kiev and that the democratically elected government was still in power

Again, are you under the impression that the legislative branch is not part of a democratically elected government? Or that the Parliament is just chicken liver and void of any power as a legitimate branch of the Government?

As to you inferring earlier that I support " Nazis and thugs who murder people", let me suggest you cut down on resorting to flames. Whether they be directed at me or any other registered TFT member.