Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[Ford]

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

According to the logic of our resident Russia cheerleaders, any former Soviet republic or client state is merely a Russian country waiting to be "liberated" and returned to the fold...East Germany included.

 

[thief of fire]

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

Of course it is.
You seem to have the naive view that we can just look at the legality of what happened in Crimea in complete isolation from the context.
The USA orchestrated a coup in Kiev just prior to the annexation. The Ukraine immediately slipped into violent chaos. There was no legitimate government in Kiev.
All these things must be considered, as the agreements between Russia and the Ukraine, how these agreements might be affected by there being no one legitimately ruling in Kiev, International law, recent precedents in International law and the history of Crimea, the Ukraine and Russia.
How could you possibly expect to get a handle on the Crimean annexation without considering these elements?? How could any court be expected to rule on it without looking at the context?
Have you ever been in a court?

 

[Ford]

The USA orchestrated a coup in Kiev just prior to the annexation.

Again with this unsupported assertion.

 

[Daioh]

You seem to have the naive view that we can just look at the legality of what happened in Crimea in complete isolation from the context.

The context of my argument was the legality of Russias actions in relation to the precedent set by the events in Kosovo

This does not require a discussion on the Political climate in Kiev nor is any other country relevant

Simply put the discussion was on Russia using Kosovo as a precedent for their annexation despite REJECTING that precedent at the time (and continuing to do so even now in regards to Kosovo)

The USA orchestrated a coup in Kiev just prior to the annexation.

Irrelevant
This does not change the fact that Russia rejected (and still does) the legality of the Kosovo independance and yet are willing to use the same position they reject as justification for their own actions
That is hypocrisy

The Ukraine immediately slipped into violent chaos. There was no legitimate government in Kiev.

I will leave the debate on the legitimacy of other govenmental branches to other debaters who are arguing more skillfully then myself

However I would ask again why you sanction Russia moving in and yet rejected the idea that any other country woud be allowed the same right?

How could you possibly expect to get a handle on the Crimean annexation without considering these elements??

Because I am arguing against a specific case
One you brought up as being rather important to the legality of Russias annexation

Now it is obvious that Russia is acting very hypocritically in this case (a case YOU cited as important) and yet you will not admit that either Russias actions were illegal according to the stance that THEY HOLD, or that Russia is hypocritical in rejecting the Kosovo independance and should immediately recognise it as legitimate in the wake of their actions in Crimea

 

[thief of fire]

The context of my argument was the legality of Russias actions in relation to the precedent set by the events in Kosovo

This does not require a discussion on the Political climate in Kiev nor is any other country relevant.

Huh? Of course it does, as it was Kiev who were persecuting Russians.
Without persecution there is no need to bring Kosovo into it.

How could you possibly expect to get a handle on the Crimean annexation without considering these elements??

Because I am arguing against a specific case

So you can ignore the context of this specific case because you are arguing against this very same specific case? Huh?

Now it is obvious that Russia is acting very hypocritically in this case

You need to read what Putin and Russia actually said before you claim this. The thing that is obvious is that you don't know enough to form anything but a superficial opinion. You already admitted you know nothing of Kosovo. It's clear you have not read what Putin and Russia said, yet you can't wait to form a judgement.

 

[Daioh]

Huh? Of course it does, as it was Kiev who were persecuting Russians.
Without persecution there is no need to bring Kosovo into it.

Did Russia use Kosovo as a precedent for the actions in Crimea?

If Yes, then Russias opposition to the precedent set in Kosovo makes them hypocrites when applying it here given that they oppose the precedent
If No, then Kosovo is not relevant and your argument was pointless

How could you possibly expect to get a handle on the Crimean annexation without considering these elements??

Because I am arguing against a specific case

So you can ignore the context of this specific case because you are arguing against this very same specific case? Huh?

Do I need to argue about events that seem to have no impact on other elements?
Events that do not change Russias stance on Kosovo as a precedent or their use of it in Crimea

You need to read what Putin and Russia actually said before you claim this. The thing that is obvious is that you don't know enough to form anything but a superficial opinion. You already admitted you know nothing of Kosovo. It's clear you have not read what Putin and Russia said, yet you can't wait to form a judgement.

Then please share this wisdom
If you believe that indeed Russias actions and applications of the precedent work then why not share it?

If you believe that I have missed relevant information then please share that information so that I may correct my arguments

 

[thief of fire]

Did Russia use Kosovo as a precedent for the actions in Crimea?

If Yes, then Russias opposition to the precedent set in Kosovo makes them hypocrites when applying it here given that they oppose the precedent
If No, then Kosovo is not relevant and your argument was pointless

Right so if you are being beaten up, unprovoked by a thug,and a pacifist (someone who has said violence is never ok) saves your poor ass by knocking your attacker out. Rather than thank him, you'll tell him what hypocrite he is.
Give yourself an uppercut.

Did you notice one of the reasons Russia did not agree?

Violations of human rights of Albanians during the 1990s cannot be the justification for a unilateral declaration of independence in 2008.

So you can ignore the context of this specific case because you are arguing against this very same specific case? Huh?

Do I need to argue about events that seem to have no impact on other elements?
Events that do not change Russias stance on Kosovo as a precedent or their use of it in Crimea

Are you for real?

 

[Duke Leto]

It is irrelevant who is in government now, we are talking about then.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeZ9HhHU86o[/YOUTUBE]

SOON!

 

[Daioh]

Right so if you are being beaten up, unprovoked by a thug,and a pacifist (someone who has said violence is never ok) saves your poor ass by knocking your attacker out. Rather than thank him, you'll tell him what hypocrite he is.

And we just forget as this same pacifist stood by as other people were beaten up by thugs?
Are we to ignore that it was only when it benefitted him to step in (He knew the guy getting beaten would give him stuff) that he stepped in to "help"?
Are we to forget that this pacifist has stood by for years and steadfastly refusing others peoples right to step in against other "Thugs"?

Are we to forget that Russia is hardly a pacifist, and that your analogy really misses out the fact that Russias long opposition to the actions it used make it very much a HUGE hypocrite

Did you notice one of the reasons Russia did not agree?

Violations of human rights of Albanians during the 1990s cannot be the justification for a unilateral declaration of independence in 2008.

Ok.......and?

How does that change Russias opposition Kosovo and it's use of this precedent in Crimea?

 

[Jayjay]

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.,

How many people did they kill in Crimea before the Russian soldiers took to the streets? And the banning of Russian language was never implemented.

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.

Russia has not recognized Kosovo's independence, so if that was the precedent, where does that leave Crimea?

Also, I don't recall America annexing Kosovo as of yet. Last I checked it was still a independent republic.

 

[barbos]

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.,

How many people did they kill in Crimea before the Russian soldiers took to the streets?

You have doubts that they would have killed a lot of people if it were not for quick referendum?

And the banning of Russian language was never implemented.

That's so comforting.

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.

Russia has not recognized Kosovo's independence, so if that was the precedent, where does that leave Crimea?

Also, I don't recall America annexing Kosovo as of yet. Last I checked it was still a independent republic.

it was West/US who preemptively said "Kosovo is not a precedent"
Russia is using Kosovo as illustration of duplicity of West.
This is true, Kosovo is not a precedent becasue compared to Crimea they had no real right for independence other than stopping war.
Crimea on the other hand is Russian territory which was left in Ukraine by mistake.

If you want Kosovo to be a precedent then it would be Eastern Ukraine, and even then it's not completely fair comparison, becasue Eastern Ukraine is a former Russia which was "gifted" to Ukraine within Russian Empire, so it's really meaningless division too.
Kosovo on the other hand is a historical serbian land which was never gifted to anybody, it was just taken over by albanians through demographics.

 

[barbos]

Kosovo is a precedent for russians taking over baltic states
I bet they were against Kosovo independence

 

[Daioh]

it was West/US

An interesting point it that the pro-Russian posters keep trying to paint this as USA vs Russia, or sometimes EU+USA vs Russia
But if you look at the votes, there are more countries that reject Russias claims over Crimea then support it
In fact there are ALOT more countries many of which are not EU or USA that reject Russias claims over Crimea
And there are few countries that actually do support Russia, with those not condemning them, also not supporting them either (Neutral)

So why is it that despite Russia painting this as USA/EU going against them, there is large support from outside those areas? and why is it that Russia has almost no international support for their claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Stances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

 

[Ford]

But if you look at the votes, there are more countries that reject Russias claims over Crimea then support it

Just an FYI, you're wasting your time.

Barbos believes Crimea has always been part of Russia. The last couple decades simply do not exist in his mind. He thinks it is impossible for Russia to annex Crimea because to him Crimea never stopped being part of Russia.

 

[dystopian]

But if you look at the votes, there are more countries that reject Russias claims over Crimea then support it

Just an FYI, you're wasting your time.

Barbos believes Crimea has always been part of Russia. The last couple decades simply do not exist in his mind. He thinks it is impossible for Russia to annex Crimea because to him Crimea never stopped being part of Russia.

Which leads to another question. If the Ukrainian claim to Crimea has no value to Russia because of Crimea's historical ties to Russia; then why should Europe value the Russian claim? Crimea was originally inhabited by Cimmerians, Scythians and Greek. Since the former two don't exist anymore, and since apparently time spent apart from an overlord doesn't matter, I think it's obvious to all that Crimea belongs to Greece; they have the oldest claim. The Romans and Byzantines can fuck off. Kievan Rus? Well they were centered in Kiev, so they were probably nazi's or something. The Mongols who took Crimea after? Fuck off. The independent Crimean Khanate ruled by the Tatars who STILL FUCKING LIVE THERE? Well, Russia doesn't pay attention to them so why should we? Genoa? Eh, the Italians can work out a deal with the Greeks. Ottomans? Piss off. Cossacks? Nuh uh. Russia? Haha, no. Too recent a claim.

 

[J842P]

Did Russia use Kosovo as a precedent for the actions in Crimea?

If Yes, then Russias opposition to the precedent set in Kosovo makes them hypocrites when applying it here given that they oppose the precedent
If No, then Kosovo is not relevant and your argument was pointless

How could you possibly expect to get a handle on the Crimean annexation without considering these elements??

Because I am arguing against a specific case

So you can ignore the context of this specific case because you are arguing against this very same specific case? Huh?

Do I need to argue about events that seem to have no impact on other elements?
Events that do not change Russias stance on Kosovo as a precedent or their use of it in Crimea

You need to read what Putin and Russia actually said before you claim this. The thing that is obvious is that you don't know enough to form anything but a superficial opinion. You already admitted you know nothing of Kosovo. It's clear you have not read what Putin and Russia said, yet you can't wait to form a judgement.

Then please share this wisdom
If you believe that indeed Russias actions and applications of the precedent work then why not share it?

If you believe that I have missed relevant information then please share that information so that I may correct my arguments

What does any hypocrisy matter? Let us suppose I am arguing theif's position - yeah Russia is acting hypocritically. So what?

 

[J842P]

it was West/US

An interesting point it that the pro-Russian posters keep trying to paint this as USA vs Russia, or sometimes EU+USA vs Russia
But if you look at the votes, there are more countries that reject Russias claims over Crimea then support it
In fact there are ALOT more countries many of which are not EU or USA that reject Russias claims over Crimea
And there are few countries that actually do support Russia, with those not condemning them, also not supporting them either (Neutral)

So why is it that despite Russia painting this as USA/EU going against them, there is large support from outside those areas? and why is it that Russia has almost no international support for their claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Stances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

Why should Russia care about those other countries? It is only really the EU and the US, of the countries that didn't abstain, that matter with regards to this issue. Why should Guatemala's disapproval mean anything to Russia?

 

[Togo]

Did Russia use Kosovo as a precedent for the actions in Crimea?

If Yes, then Russias opposition to the precedent set in Kosovo makes them hypocrites when applying it here given that they oppose the precedent
If No, then Kosovo is not relevant and your argument was pointless

How could you possibly expect to get a handle on the Crimean annexation without considering these elements??

Because I am arguing against a specific case

So you can ignore the context of this specific case because you are arguing against this very same specific case? Huh?

Do I need to argue about events that seem to have no impact on other elements?
Events that do not change Russias stance on Kosovo as a precedent or their use of it in Crimea

You need to read what Putin and Russia actually said before you claim this. The thing that is obvious is that you don't know enough to form anything but a superficial opinion. You already admitted you know nothing of Kosovo. It's clear you have not read what Putin and Russia said, yet you can't wait to form a judgement.

Then please share this wisdom
If you believe that indeed Russias actions and applications of the precedent work then why not share it?

If you believe that I have missed relevant information then please share that information so that I may correct my arguments

What does any hypocrisy matter? Let us suppose I am arguing theif's position - yeah Russia is acting hypocritically. So what?

That would make thief's position itself hypocritical, because he condemns an action when the US does it, but not when Russia does it. It would also mean that all the many many arguments advanced against Kosovo would equally apply against Russia, and so Russia's actions would still be wrong.

 

[Daioh]

What does any hypocrisy matter? Let us suppose I am arguing theif's position - yeah Russia is acting hypocritically. So what?

Well that kinda undermines his arguments doesn't it?

It undermines his original "Legal precedent" argument for the legitimacy of the Russian annexation, given that according to Russias position on the precedent their annexation of Crimea was illegal
And it clearly speaks to Russias character that they are willing to oppose the independance of Kosovo and yet use them to justify their Annexation of Crimea (Hardly the shining paragons Theif wishes us to believe Russia is)

 

[thief of fire]

What does any hypocrisy matter? Let us suppose I am arguing theif's position - yeah Russia is acting hypocritically. So what?

Yes so what?
Probably Russia opposed the annexation of Serbia because they like to disagree with the USA, That might be part of it. One only has to look through the reasons given for supporting or opposing it in the link I gave. It's all hypocrisy. Both sides pretending they care.
So yes , when it comes to these debates they are all hypocrites if we wish to take that moral ground.
Complex matters in life require us to make our own judgement.

I think Putin did the right thing.
I think America is run by fools who kill and destroy all over the globe. I think Putin took a stand, which is easy to see from his (very diplomatic) explanation.

“We stand against having a military organization meddling in our backyard, next to our homeland or in the territories that are historically ours. I just cannot imagine visiting NATO sailors in Sevastopol,” he stressed. “Most of them are fine lads, by the way. But rather let them visit us in Sevastopol than the other way around.”

He understands that despite American folk being very sweet, the neo cons running the show are insane. Obama doesn't have the slightest clue. He is totally out of his depth, and it is dangerous for the world. People are afraid of America.