Ukraine Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

That barrister will do far better with that argument than with trying to defy facts outright.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

And he calls for more facts from JIT report which is officially denounced by Russia as biased and full of fabricated evidence.

[Sarmatian]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

You defend against the accusations against you, no need to help the other side by broadening them. If the accusation is that Russian state willfully supplied the Ukrainian rebels a BUK missile system to shoot down a civilian plane, you defend against that. That's pretty much how it goes. But idiotic journalists are so keen on an agenda that soon we will have headlines about huge scandals that ambassadors to Russia were constantly in contact with Russian ministry of foreign affairs. In other huge twists, cops will be eating donuts and rich people will be playing golf.

[Gilrandir]

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

No principle, just the money.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You defend against the accusations against you, no need to help the other side by broadening them. If the accusation is that Russian state willfully supplied the Ukrainian rebels a BUK missile system to shoot down a civilian plane, you defend against that. That's pretty much how it goes. But idiotic journalists are so keen on an agenda that soon we will have headlines about huge scandals that ambassadors to Russia were constantly in contact with Russian ministry of foreign affairs. In other huge twists, cops will be eating donuts and rich people will be playing golf.

Fair point that.

Far too often, when the case is a "cause celebre," prosecutors will bow to public opinion and attempt to prosecute at a level that is not supported by evidence. Zimmerman was tried for 2nd degree murder for the death of Trayvon Martin when the cops suggested Manslaughter as the provable charge. But the community was in arms and only "murder" would do. Casey Anthony was tried for murdering her child....when the evidence had been severely compromised -- but public opinion "knew" that she had murdered her toddler. The Boston mobbed screamed for the hanging of the British soldiers who killed rioters in the "Boston Massacre."

Public opinion and "calls for action" do NOT mesh well with the judicial process. It is about what can be proven through evidence, not what you think of them -- or the court process is meaningless.

In this instance, a prosecutor is going to find great difficulty in PROVING that the Russians were negligent/encouraging of the use of one of their missile systems by rebel forces to shoot down a civilian airliner. The provided the weapon, but how do you prove they were encouraging the rebels to use it indiscriminately? And without that level of negligence, they are no more "guilty" than any other provider of weapons.

[Gilrandir]

In this instance, a prosecutor is going to find great difficulty in PROVING that the Russians were negligent/encouraging of the use of one of their missile systems by rebel forces to shoot down a civilian airliner. The provided the weapon, but how do you prove they were encouraging the rebels to use it indiscriminately?

I'll venture to repost my own post from the same thread.

I came across a very interesting article by the Russian war historian (and plane engineer by profession) Mark Solonin on why Buk was brought from Russia to Donbas.
He draws attention to some very curious facts about it.
1. Buk was not adequate for the tasks of bringing down Ukranian military planes. In MTW terms, it was like sending a Janissary heavy infantry unit to deal with a unit of peasants. Russian army is equipped with at least 4 self-propelled anti-aircraft missile systems (Osa, Tor, Tunguska and Pantsyr) whose range of fire is 8-12 km and altitude of fire - 5-6 km, which is more than enough to empty the sky from infrasonic Su-26 or as old as the hills transport plane An-26. Such systems total about 1,5 thousand units in the Russian army.
Buk, on the other hand, is a very expensive and much less numerous system whose range of fire is 35 km and altitude range - 22 km and which is able to hit targets moving at 2,6 sound velocity. It seems too overpowered and expensive for the tasks of countering Ukranian military aviation.
2. It seems strange that only one Buk was brought. It is against military routine procedures which don't measure weapon systems in units, but in detachments. The army commanders would think in regiments, companies, platoons, squadrons etc, but not in individual units.
3. The Buk came being accompanied by no transportation loading vehicle which means that it could use only four missiles it was equipped with.

All of those make him think that it was not an army operation. It looked more like special service scheme.

4. To reach its destination (which is 60 km from the border) it took the Buk 2 days and it made a circuit of 250 km with a prolonged stop in Donetsk. Being placed at the destination it could have hardly been meant to cover the separatists positions behind it since those positions where close to the Russian-Ukranian border, so the task could have easily (and quite safely) been achieved by placing the same Buk on the Russian side of the border.
5. Stopping in Donetsk it was waiting for the tanks of the separatists' Vostok detachment (as the intercepted communications between the separatists show). The tanks never came, so the Buk moved the way it did.
6. The route of the Russian passenger plane SU 2074 Moscow-Larnaca over Ukraine had been changed twice (on July 14 and 15) giving the fighting zone a birth to the east and to the west respectively. But on July 16 and 17 (when the Buk was out on the drive around Donetsk) the plane route was plotted in the direct line few km aside from the fighting zone.

In view of all these facts, Solonin hypothesizes that the Buk came to Ukraine with the initial purpose of bringing down the Russian passenger plane. To accuse Ukraine of it, it was to be done from the territory controlled by Ukraine. At that time there was no proper front line but rather the roads were controlled by checkpoints but off roads both parties' troops (and tracked military vehicles) could roam at will. So Vostok's tanks were to have escorted the Buk to the place where its range was enough to reach the plane and then escort the Buk back. Since the tanks didn't come and the Buk personnel by the end of the second day was "tired and nervous", to put it mildly (as the intercepted communications show they even "lost" one of their crew members and had to search for him), they just decided to shoot down at least something and go quickly back the hell out of Donbas.

These considerations may be considered if one wished to prove the said intentions by Russia.

[Sarmatian]

Fair point that.

I personally found myself in a similar situation legally. The company I work at was leasing a certain office space. To put it simply, after we left, the owner tried to blame us for the complete ruination of the heating system because we switched to a different type of heating (because of the lower cost). It took one court hearing to dismiss it. Now, if he were smart, he could have said that it was due to improper maintenance over the years. He would have lost still almost certainly, but at least he would have had a chance, however remote and it would have taken much longer.

Of course, the maintenance was done properly but there was simply no reason for us to help him and bring it into the picture. If he did, the maintenance company would have get involved and it would certainly be more complicated. As it was, it took one glance for an independent expert to say no it didn't happen because they switched to another type of heating and that was it.

This is akin to a man in court for a traffic violation to argue that he didn't make any other violations before he was pulled over.

[Brenus]

In fact, it is up to the plainant/prosecution to prove beyond doubts that the defendant is guilty.
I don't know in this case how they can do it without cooperation of Russia.
They will to prove intent. They will have to prove that the missile was russian property.
And they will have to have the jurisdiction....
The counsel will have just to ask the proof (independently certified) that the missile was fired from Russia. Russia has to prove nothing.
That is how the law works.

[Gilrandir]

They will have to prove that the missile was russian property.

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-c...ght-mh17-shot/

Transport of the missile installation
The JIT has been able to identify a large part of the route concerning the arrival and the departure of the BUK-TELAR. This was the result of intercepted telephone conversations, witness statements, photographs and videos that had been posted on social media, and a video never shown before which was obtained from a witness. The system was transported from Russian territory into eastern Ukraine and was later transported on a white Volvo truck with a low-boy trailer. The truck was escorted by several other vehicles and by armed men in uniform.

And this is the very report that Russia's lawyer wants to be referred to as much as possible.

[Brenus]

I afraid it is still not a proof it was a Russian property.
Technically that is hearsay (social media is the important bit).

[Gilrandir]

I afraid it is still not a proof it was a Russian property.
Technically that is hearsay (social media is the important bit).

If JIT on MH 17 stated it in its report it is more that just hearsay. Or do you mean to say that it came from Russia but it wasn't Russia's property? Whose then? Or did the Ukrainians smuggle it into Russia where Russians discovered it and transported back to the "owner"? And let us not forget Russia's lawyer in the Hague wants more of JIT report to be used at the trial.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If JIT on MH 17 stated it in its report it is more that just hearsay. Or do you mean to say that it came from Russia but it wasn't Russia's property? Whose then? Or did the Ukrainians smuggle it into Russia where Russians discovered it and transported back to the "owner"? And let us not forget Russia's lawyer in the Hague wants more of JIT report to be used at the trial.

And the AVG in Burma were just "civilian contractors," not future flight and squadron commanders getting combat experience for the war everyone knew was coming.

And a person's past is "forgotten" when he dons the uniform of the Foreign Legion, nothing from their Schutzstaffel career will come back to haunt them.

And the young widow sleeping at the prelate's house is nothing more than a housekeeper, as everyone in the village knows.

And....


In other words, there are a lot of fig-leafed legal "fictions" that are accepted under the law precisely so that nothing will come back to haunt those who prompted it. That too is part of the rule of law.

[Brenus]

"And let us not forget Russia's lawyer in the Hague" Did Russia signed the agreement for the Hague? I know US didn't.

Hmmm... During the preparation of my memoir about Vietnam, I interviewed veterans. One of them was a navigator of the French Air Force, at the time being on DC 3 Dakota. As I was looking for documents (hard proof) he show me his "whatever the name is" document and show me few lines, stating "fly for Hanoi to saigon, bla bla, tons of fuel, bla, bla bla...
Then he told me in fact at this date he was delivering weapons to the Mois tribes and these weapons were brought against opium. The French secret Services were involved in what we call now black ops, and he told me I can sure that all original documents in Saigon and Hanoi would have match the time and fuel consumption of his flight. That is for the bit of documents and proof.
I read the link and nowhere I saw a line saying the Russian transported the missile.
So, the investigators will still have to prove (how, if Russia doesn't give the ad hoc documentation?) the missile owner.
Who transported it (armed men in war is not a really good description), with positive identification (here, history of Hitler fabricating the Polish attack on a german border post comes to mind...).
Who shot, who gave the order, if any?
And each time where you can't be sure, a not guilty verdict is required.

[Montmorency]

I don't know the burden-of-proof standards of the International Court of Justice - preponderance of evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt, etc. - but Brenus is pretty much right. Although intent in the handling of the missile doesn't go very far, since you don't have to intend to commit an atrocity to be guilty of having committed one.

However, the firing of the missile itself may not even be relevant to the case or jurisdiction, which seems to be a Ukrainian suit that Russia is

...intervening militarily in Ukraine, financing acts of terrorism, and violating the human rights of millions of Ukraine's citizens.

The document accuses Russia of violating the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism by supplying money, weapons, training, and other support to separatists in the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine.

It also says Moscow’s treatment of Ukrainian and Tatar minorities in Crimea breaks the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

Ukraine is demanding compensation for what it calls terrorist acts committed on its territory, including the shelling of civilian areas and the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.

So on its face Ukraine has a good chance of getting at least some charges to stick.

[Brenus]

So on its face Ukraine has a good chance of getting at least some charges to stick.

If Ukraine succeed, that will open a can of worms that no country selling/exporting arms wants.
Not only for Kosovo, but for the actual bombing of Yemen, and Russia could claim for the Taliban US trained, and all the "freedom fighters" turned terrorists, etc...
Perhaps US and EU learned from Kosovo/Crimea and realised it is a game that can be played by others...

[Montmorency]

If Ukraine succeed, that will open a can of worms that no country selling/exporting arms wants.
Not only for Kosovo, but for the actual bombing of Yemen, and Russia could claim for the Taliban US trained, and all the "freedom fighters" turned terrorists, etc...
Perhaps US and EU learned from Kosovo/Crimea and realised it is a game that can be played by others...

First, who will enforce any decision, such as a potential injunction against Russia? Continuing sanctions? Sanctions might already have been phased out by the time a decision is handed down.

Let's take a look at the primary treaty being invoked, the Terrorist Financing Convention of 1999.

First, in the ratifying declarations of signatory states, the US commented that:

Reservation:
"(a) pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 24 (1) of the Convention; and
(b) the United States of America reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."

Russia's comments are quite relevant (and likely contrary to their current position):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Declaration:
It is the position of the Russian Federation that the provisions of article 15 of the Convention must be applied in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for perpetrating the crimes falling within the purview of the Convention, without prejudice to the effectiveness of international cooperation with regard to the questions of extradition and legal assistance.

The Russian Federation, pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, declares that it establishes its jurisdiction over the acts recognized as offences under article 2 of the Convention in the cases provided for in article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

In Russia’s view, conceding to a State Party to the Convention the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance on the ground that the committed offence is of political nature or connected with a political offence or inspired by political motives, impairs the rights and obligations of other States Parties to the Convention to establish their jurisdiction over the offences set forth in the Convention and prosecute perpetrators of such offences.
Moreover, defining an offence as political or connected with a political offence is not an objective criterion and introduces considerable uncertainty to the relations between the States Parties to the Convention.
Thus Russia is of the view that the reservation made by the Kingdom of Belgium can jeopardize the consistent implementation of the Convention and achievement of its key objeives, including creation of favourable conditions for concerted efforts by the international community to counter terrorism and crimes contributing to commitment of acts of terrorism.

Key provisions of the treaty:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Any person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person by any means, directly
or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or
with the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, to carry out any of the offences described in the
treaties listed in the annex to the Convention, or an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any
person not actively involved in armed conflict in order to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or
an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. Any person also commits such an offence if that
person attempts to commit an offence as set forth above or participates as an accomplice in an offence, organizes
or directs others to commit an offence or contributes to the commission of such an offence by a group of persons
acting with a common purpose. For an act to constitute an offence, it is not necessary that funds were actually
used to carry out an offence as described above. The provision or collection of funds in this manner is an offence
whether or not the funds are actually used to carry out the proscribed acts. The Convention does not apply where
an act of this nature does not involve any international elements as defined by the Convention.
The Convention requires each Party to take appropriate measures, in accordance with its domestic legal
principles, for the detection and freezing, seizure or forfeiture of any funds used or allocated for the purposes of
committing the offences described. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed to be extraditable
offences and Parties have obligations to establish their jurisdiction over the offences described, make the offences
punishable by appropriate penalties, take alleged offenders into custody, prosecute or extradite alleged offenders,
cooperate in preventive measures and countermeasures, and exchange information and evidence needed in related
criminal proceedings. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed to be extraditable offences between
Parties under existing extradition treaties and under the Convention itself.

Let's look at the text of the convention itself, first to see the Article 24(1) the US refuses to be bound by:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Article 24

1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation within a reasonable time shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If, within six months from the date of the request for arbitration, the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice, by application, in conformity with the Statute of the Court.

2. Each State may at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or accession thereto declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 1 with respect to any State Party which has made such a reservation.

3. Any State which has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I take this to mean that the US does not feel obligated to submit issues that can't be, bilaterally or otherwise, negotiated or arbitrated for negotiation within 6 months to the IJC, and other signatory states are likewise not obliged with respect to disputes with the United States.

Now, what are the laws and treaties named in the Annex, since they are what describe what acts are taken under the ambit of the present Terrorist Financing Convention:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on 16 December 1970.

2. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 September 1971.

3. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973.

4. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.

5. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

6. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988.

7. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

8. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

9. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.

Without further delving into the individual treaties, the last one [9] suggests itself as most relevant to a general Ukrainian case, with some of the others being relevant to civil aviation. I'll take a look at the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings another time. I wonder if it will cover the more militarily-conventional aspects of the conflict.


For now, here is a link to the initial filing from Ukraine in January, including legal grounds of the case. Professional and legal analysis on the case would of course be good for this thread.

[Sarmatian]

The bottom line is, whatever it says in the articles, if you legally declare a country like Russia a terrorist state, there would be chaos in international relations that would last for a very long time.

Does Russia supports rebels in Ukraine? Of course, everyone knows that. There's no need for a court decision to allow other countries to act upon it if they choose to do so. The extent they're willing to go to address it has already been shown, and bar some major changes, that's pretty much it.

The entire legal proceeding is really just about giving Ukraine the illusion that their voice is heard. One does have to feel sorry for Ukraine. This won't be just lost years, but lost decades. And they were ****** by both Russia and the west. Granted, they should've been a lot smarter but still...

[Montmorency]

The bottom line is, whatever it says in the articles, if you legally declare a country like Russia a terrorist state, there would be chaos in international relations that would last for a very long time.

I don't think that's the purpose of the convention. For example, the offenses covered are extraditable. It seems to be more linked to enjoining specific policies or compensating victims, whether the actions were directed by national leaders, subordinates, or private citizens. A ruling against Russia wouldn't be tantamount to calling it the Evil Empire, and you're right that it wouldn't practically change anything other than to make Ukrainians feel better for a while.

[Gilrandir]

"And let us not forget Russia's lawyer in the Hague" Did Russia signed the agreement for the Hague? I know US didn't.

AFAIK, Russia called back the signature, but even before that the signing hadn't been ratified by Duma. I may be wrong, but this concerns the proceedings of the Hague criminal court though. As for the trial that is under way, Russia said it would acknowledge the court ruling whatever it might be.

I read the link and nowhere I saw a line saying the Russian transported the missile.
So, the investigators will still have to prove (how, if Russia doesn't give the ad hoc documentation?) the missile owner.
Who transported it (armed men in war is not a really good description), with positive identification (here, history of Hitler fabricating the Polish attack on a german border post comes to mind...).

So a man in sober senses can claim that although Buk came from Russia, it wasn't Russian property, but (for example) Ukrainan? And this Ukrainian Buk was highjacked by separatists from a Russian military base well inside the Russian territory and driven unhindered for hundreds kilometers and then smuggled across the border?

First, who will enforce any decision, such as a potential injunction against Russia? Continuing sanctions? Sanctions might already have been phased out by the time a decision is handed down.

The bottom line is, whatever it says in the articles, if you legally declare a country like Russia a terrorist state, there would be chaos in international relations that would last for a very long time.
The entire legal proceeding is really just about giving Ukraine the illusion that their voice is heard.

These are the crucial points. There are no means to enforce the court's ruling if a larger state is proved a perpetrator.

Does Russia supports rebels in Ukraine? Of course, everyone knows that.

But not everyone admits it. Namely Russia. Or at least it claims that it does it spiritually, not financially nor weaponry-wise.

[Brenus]

"So a man in sober senses can claim that although Buk came from Russia, it wasn't Russian property, but (for example) Ukrainian?" Any one with experience with black ops...
My father was involved in a capture/kidnapping of a Viet Minh Captain (commander of one the elite 308 Division's company) in China. As the Viet Minh were not supposed to be in China, and the French not supposed to cross the borders, the thing was just not ever mentioned... Only few years after he received the highest medal for a NCO...
Algerians during the war of independence against the French did exactly this. Taking weapons from the French, hiding in Tunisia, crossing the borders and attacking the French. Reason why the line Maurice was built...

Missile could have been stolen to Ukrainian forces, hidden in Russian territory, then used by who ever... That the most simple one. I can provide more...

"These are the crucial points. There are no means to enforce the court's ruling if a larger state is proved a perpetrator." Unfortunately true...

[Gilrandir]

Any one with experience with black ops...
My father was involved in a capture/kidnapping of a Viet Minh Captain (commander of one the elite 308 Division's company) in China.
As the Viet Minh were not supposed to be in China, and the French not supposed to cross the borders, the thing was just not ever mentioned... Only few years after he received the highest medal for a NCO...
Algerians during the war of independence against the French did exactly this. Taking weapons from the French, hiding in Tunisia, crossing the borders and attacking the French. Reason why the line Maurice was built...

I think (and I believe you realize it too) there is a whole world of difference between penetration an alien territory by a group of saboteurs and hijacking/transporting heavy military machinery. Especially to Russia which can't be compared to Tunisia, Algeria or South Asia in terms of terrain suitable for such operations.

Missile could have been stolen to Ukrainian forces, hidden in Russian territory, then used by who ever... That the most simple one. I can provide more...

Do you know where Buk originated from (or at least was traced to)? The Russian city of Kursk. You can find it on the map and see how far it is from Ukraine. If you are too lazy to look:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-a...urce-evidence/

Buk 3×2 was identified as being part of a military convoy that travelled from Kursk to Millerovo, Russia, between June 23 and June 25. Multiple photographs and videos of the convoy, shared online by Russian civilians who lived along the convoy’s route, were identified. Each image was geolocated to the exact location it was recorded, providing an accurate representation of the route that the convoy traveled.



So your explanation doesn't work.

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile Ukraine faces another challenge.

This year's Eurovision song contest is held in Kyiv. Russia was the last to announce its choice of a contestant. This turned out to be Yulia Samoilova, a handicapped woman of 27 who has spent most of her life in the wheelchair. But Russia's choice is unsurprisingly fraught with cunning. Back in 2014 Samoilova ardently supported the annexation of Crimea and in 2015 gave a concert there. According to Ukrainian laws such people are not admitted to the country. But Ukraine official position on the issue hasn't been clarified yet. This is due to a dilemma:

If Ukraine forbade her entrance there would be a salvo of charges hurtled at it starting with the violation of the contest rules up to usual wails from Russia amounting to: "Now you see how low these nazis have gone - denying entrance to a handicapped person whose sin is no other but the desire to show the power of her spirit and sing to people".

If Samoilova were let in Ukraine would show to its citizens that its laws on Crimea can be negligible and thus indirectly would recognize the annexation (coupled with the likely Russian comments of the kind: "You see Ukraine is a failed state. It can't even enforce its own laws on the territory that is left to it, how can one talk of returning Crimea into this realm of chaos. Moreover, one can see now that Ukraine can be forced into accepting whatever is pushed down on them.").

So the authorities have now to find some way not to lose face and to avoid a scandal as much as possible.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Meanwhile Ukraine faces another challenge.

This year's Eurovision song contest is held in Kyiv. Russia was the last to announce its choice of a contestant. This turned out to be Yulia Samoilova, a handicapped woman of 27 who has spent most of her life in the wheelchair. But Russia's choice is unsurprisingly fraught with cunning. Back in 2014 Samoilova ardently supported the annexation of Crimea and in 2015 gave a concert there. According to Ukrainian laws such people are not admitted to the country. But Ukraine official position on the issue hasn't been clarified yet. This is due to a dilemma:

If Ukraine forbade her entrance there would be a salvo of charges hurtled at it starting with the violation of the contest rules up to usual wails from Russia amounting to: "Now you see how low these nazis have gone - denying entrance to a handicapped person whose sin is no other but the desire to show the power of her spirit and sing to people".

If Samoilova were let in Ukraine would show to its citizens that its laws on Crimea can be negligible and thus indirectly would recognize the annexation (coupled with the likely Russian comments of the kind: "You see Ukraine is a failed state. It can't even enforce its own laws on the territory that is left to it, how can one talk of returning Crimea into this realm of chaos. Moreover, one can see now that Ukraine can be forced into accepting whatever is pushed down on them.").

So the authorities have now to find some way not to lose face and to avoid a scandal as much as possible.

In a wheelchair no less -- why not push ALL of the emotional buttons of the West and have her show up with a cute little puppy as well....

[Strike For The South]

It's March 14th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.

[Gilrandir]

In a wheelchair no less -- why not push ALL of the emotional buttons of the West and have her show up with a cute little puppy as well....

Do not steal their glory. They will come up with something like that yet.

An update: EBC (which is the ultimate boss of Eurovision) said it would agree to the decision of Ukraine in case it chooses to forbid Samoilova entrance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's March 14th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.

Let's be honest, he's more successful than a Fascist.

We need a new term...

Putanist?

[Strike For The South]

Let's be honest, he's more successful than a Fascist.

We need a new term...

Putanist?

Haha you're probably right. I actually don't mind Putanist. A pragmatic fascist for the 21 century.

[Brenus]

"Putanist?" or "Republican" Fits as well...

"In a wheelchair no less -- why not push ALL of the emotional buttons of the West and have her show up with a cute little puppy as well...." I hope you are deeply ashamed of this comment.
Whatever your opinion on Russia's politic, whatever your opinion about her political view to which she is entitled to, you speak of a human being.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Putanist?" or "Republican" Fits as well...

Sure, if you're Octavianus Augustus.

"In a wheelchair no less -- why not push ALL of the emotional buttons of the West and have her show up with a cute little puppy as well...." I hope you are deeply ashamed of this comment.
Whatever your opinion on Russia's politic, whatever your opinion about her political view to which she is entitled to, you speak of a human being.

I think this is a comment on the Kremlin's cynicism, we should be able to discuss that openly. The fact she is confined to a wheelchair does not mean her status as a wheelchair user cannot be used for political gain, nor does it mean she cannot be party to such cynicism.

None of which in any way detracts from the issue of disability and equality generally.