Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

For the first post, that wasn't at all what he was saying, but I don't really care about your opinion.

You saw what you saw and it doesn't mean it was the way you saw. Like it was with Putin's words on Crimea.



Whenever you become too obnoxious, the thread turns into you communicating with yourself by posting link after link.

You forgot what you taught me, Master: attack the argument, not the person.:no:

As for "communicating with yourself": while not idealizing myself and my style of posting I see other reasons for such development: people just lost interest in the topic. So if I see anything that I consider worth posting I do post it.



As far as second post is concerned, I have no idea who the guy is and what he has to do with Bandera.

He is a war (and not only) criminal who seems to be now glorified in Serbia (the very thing you cautioned Ukrainians against giving Bandera as an example).

http://mashable.com/2015/04/09/russian-rebel-commander-kill-ukraine-pows/#XxOx4HL.skqH



"And I wanted Brenus to explain it." Err, why should have to explain your mental process? Be responsible for your words, I am for mine.
MY mental process? You make mutually exclusive claims (Montenegro isn't worth accepting into NATO and NATO is not that stupid to fail to see the worthlessness of Montenegro as a NATO member) and want ME to explain it?

[Brenus]

"Montenegro isn't worth accepting into NATO and NATO is not that stupid to fail to see the worthlessness of Montenegro as a NATO member" These are your words, not mine. Quote?

[Husar]

MY mental process? You make mutually exclusive claims (Montenegro isn't worth accepting into NATO and NATO is not that stupid to fail to see the worthlessness of Montenegro as a NATO member) and want ME to explain it?

I wouldn't call them mutually exclusive if you allow for the existence of some degree of altruism, pride and perhaps also strategic location and public image.
It can be worthless in terms of military contribution, or that is how I understood it, but it still helps the NATO portrayal of a safety umbrella for those who feel threatened and is therefore a worthy member.
By the way, too lazy to check the originals now, but the two positions you "quoted" there basically say the same thing, that NATO shouldn't/wouldn't accept Montenegro.

[Gilrandir]

"Montenegro isn't worth accepting into NATO and NATO is not that stupid to fail to see the worthlessness of Montenegro as a NATO member" These are your words, not mine. Quote?

Be my guest:


Montegro: 622,000 hbts.
US (NATO) base in Kosovo.
Really, what would be the interest of Montenegro for NATO? Naval Bases? Croatia would be more than happy to offer that... And Croatia has all the former military naval ports built by Tito.

The only thing worth to fight for in Montenegro is olive oil and Malboro made in Russia smuggling....

Ergo: Montenegro is worthless for NATO.


"So NATO is inveterately stupid in accepting Montenegro?" No.

Ergo: NATO is not that stupid to see Montenegro is worthless for it.

Yet we know NATO IS COOPTING Montenegro. How come?


I wouldn't call them mutually exclusive if you allow for the existence of some degree of altruism, pride and perhaps also strategic location and public image.
It can be worthless in terms of military contribution, or that is how I understood it, but it still helps the NATO portrayal of a safety umbrella for those who feel threatened and is therefore a worthy member.


This is how I see it. Not so Brenus.

[Brenus]

"Ergo: Montenegro is worthless for NATO." No. Your words, not my quote. Your opinion is a country populated of 600,000 inhabitants (hbts) is worthless, not mine.
"How come?" :laugh4: That is easy to answer: To bite Russia.:laugh4:

"I wouldn't call them mutually exclusive if you allow for the existence of some degree of altruism, pride and perhaps also strategic location and public image." Altruism? We speak of the same NATO? Strategic location? Did you had a look on a map, recently? Public image, perhaps.
Montenegro feel threatened by whom?
And can I remind you that two NATO member-states of NATO and more or less at war? So much of the "safety umbrella" .

[Gilrandir]

"Ergo: Montenegro is worthless for NATO." No. Your words, not my quote. Your opinion is a country populated of 600,000 inhabitants (hbts) is worthless, not mine.


# 1238 - the whole post:



Montegro: 622,000 hbts.
US (NATO) base in Kosovo.
Really, what would be the interest of Montenegro for NATO? Naval Bases? Croatia would be more than happy to offer that... And Croatia has all the former military naval ports built by Tito.

The only thing worth to fight for in Montenegro is olive oil and Malboro made in Russia smuggling....


My words, you say?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This thread doth wander...

[Brenus]

"My words, you say?" Yes. Where do you read unworthy (worthless)? You are a linguist, you know the importance of words. There are no reason for NATO to built bases in Montenegro, it is not the same of Montenegro is unworthy as you said, is it?
You put a disdain that I didn't. YOUR words, not mine. And you can try to distort the wording as much you want, YOU put an adjective in it.
So, except to upset Russia, what is the reason to have Montenegro in NATO? Naval bases? No. Land bases? No. Airbases? No. For each NATO as plenty of all all around the Balkans. This not a the disdain you showed to Montenegro, it is a reality check.
You should try it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How about this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgKzXRjXzjI) for an argument in favor of Montenegro.

Other than being another country with a language desperately short of vowels to break up those strings of consonants, what is not to like?

[Brenus]

Oh, I am in favour of Montenegro and Serbia.
Contrary to Gilrandir probably, I went often in this country kad bilo je Jugoslavija.
And I like their music,
Zabrejano Pusanje (Bosnia) https://youtu.be/zU73yqxM7iU
https://youtu.be/0IofpvkGJPM
Merlin (Bosnia), https://youtu.be/2Xda4BUoZ3I
Riblja Corba, https://youtu.be/VE80eImDdAQ
Balasevic and others.
And their women are beautiful. https://youtu.be/vwMyF7ic_Ys
https://youtu.be/sOId3rZrBMk
Goran Bregović, Emir Kusturica:
https://youtu.be/EZf00ad3G6o
and of course:
https://youtu.be/UqOL7LOR6ko
A black sense of humour: When they shot down the Invisible bomber, they printed a post card saying: Sorry, we didn't see it.
And Belgrade by Night with the flames of the bombing during the night. Fantastic people...

[Kralizec]

"How come?" :laugh4: That is easy to answer: To bite Russia.:laugh4:

...or, it could be a case of Montenegro wanting to pursue closer relations with USA and Europe. And the rest of NATO welcoming that.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


(edit: Canada too :P)

[Gilrandir]

"My words, you say?" Yes. Where do you read unworthy (worthless)? You are a linguist, you know the importance of words. There are no reason for NATO to built bases in Montenegro, it is not the same of Montenegro is unworthy as you said, is it?
You put a disdain that I didn't. YOUR words, not mine. And you can try to distort the wording as much you want, YOU put an adjective in it.
So, except to upset Russia, what is the reason to have Montenegro in NATO? Naval bases? No. Land bases? No. Airbases? No. For each NATO as plenty of all all around the Balkans. This not a the disdain you showed to Montenegro, it is a reality check.
You should try it.

I didn't show any disdain. This is YOUR interpretation (or rather perversion) of my words. I used the word in the meaning:

worthless adjective (NOT IMPORTANT)

not important or not useful:
She was criticized so much by her employers that she began to feel worthless.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/worthless

For me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...For me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally.

Superficially, NATO is simply a defense alliance. On that prima facie basis, your basic point of assessment -- value to defensive alliance -- would clearly suggest Montenegran irrelevance.

NATO is, functionally, much more than that -- for good or for ill. I think Kralizec as the right of it in his post immediately above.

[Brenus]

"For me" Key words. Your words. And because you are now obliged to accept these are you words, you try to twist around:laugh4:
So, if worthless if not offensive (and it is) why did you start all this polemic?:laugh4:

[Gilrandir]

"For me" Key words. Your words. And because you are now obliged to accept these are you words, you try to twist around:laugh4:

I said that "for me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally." The second part of the equation is mine, but the first is yours. I used the word "worthless" in the meaning "not important or not useful" which allowed me to claim the two statements are synonymous. Evidently, you imparted this word with a different meaning. So it is a simple misunderstanding. No intentional twisting or other sins you accuse me of.



So, if worthless if not offensive (and it is) why did you start all this polemic?:laugh4:

It is not offensive in the meaning I used it. Just like in: The information on how a language and a dialect are different is worthless. No disdain or humiliation. Just stating the fact that someone isn't interested in the information. That simple.

As for starting a polemic: I found what I considered to be a contradiction in your claims. When you explained that NATO did see a purpose in accepting Montenegro (to piss off Russia) I figured out that, in fact, your statement was ironical or didn't convey the whole of your mind on the issue. Again that simple. Much too often you impart me with attitudes and opinions that would fit perfectly into the image of me you have in your mind, but which, alas, doesn't coincide with the real me.


In other news:
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/hague-tribunal-recognizes-crimean-annexation-as-a-military-conflict-between-russia-ukraine-56154, where

Also listed in the report are several key criminal complaints in connection with the annexation of Crimea, including the oppression of Crimean Tatars, arrests and unfair trials, killings and kidnappings, and forced military service.

And I remember you were very sceptical that Tatars are in for persecutions after the annexation. So I applied reality check, as you taught.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brenus/Gilrandir:

Have you considered marriage? The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple, locked into the same endless argument for the rest of their lives.

[Brenus]

"The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple" Well, I tried in vain to stay out, but sometimes...

[Gilrandir]

Brenus/Gilrandir:

Have you considered marriage? The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple, locked into the same endless argument for the rest of their lives.

More logical development would be a divorce, wouldn't it?

[Gilrandir]

A follow-up on "the Montenergo coup" - officials take it seriously (some even resign):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/montenegro-investigating-russia-alleged-election-coup-plot

They even mention names of people (Eduard Shirokov and Vladimir Popov) who are alleged organizers of the coup.

And this, evidently, doesn't bode well for Ukraine:
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/13673280/mike-flynn-trump-new-national-security-adviser-russia-isis-obama-clinton-turkey

[Seamus Fermanagh]

More logical development would be a divorce, wouldn't it?

Your "classic" old married couple would never do that -- they love the argument too much to actually end it.

[Gilrandir]

This is even more disquieting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-the-entire-national-security-establishment-has-rejected-trumpexcept-for-this-man/2016/08/15/d5072d96-5e4b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

Like Trump, Flynn has advocated forging closer ties with Russia. In interviews with The Washington Post, Flynn acknowledged being paid to give a speech and attend a lavish anniversary party for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network in Moscow last year, where he was seated next to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

[Gilrandir]

Can we say that Russian Foreign Office's spokesperson is a nazi/anti-semite?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/russian-spokeswoman-accused-of-fanning-jewish-conspiracy-after-t/

[Sarmatian]

What's happening in Kiev these days? I've found a few mentions of riots and clashes between the police and protesters, rubber bullets, tear gas, the whole nine yards, but media in English is surprisingly silent about that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A quick look suggests the militiamen don't want peace with the separatists, which is not unexpected.

On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO.

[Brenus]

"On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.

[Gilrandir]

Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.

Chill out. As the events of the last 2.5 years have shown, the West will not move further than expressing indignation and protest. On a second thought it will - I forgot grave concern.


What's happening in Kiev these days? I've found a few mentions of riots and clashes between the police and protesters, rubber bullets, tear gas, the whole nine yards, but media in English is surprisingly silent about that.

http://www.unian.info/kiev/1636182-clashes-with-police-reported-in-kyiv-amid-revolution-anniversary-events.html
http://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-euromaidan-third-anniversary/28130367.html
Now everything calmed down.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.

What should NATO do then, in your opinion?

[Brenus]

"What should NATO do then, in your opinion?" Back down. Be what NATO was supposed to be, a defensive alliance, not the armed arm of the USA's foreign policy.
According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.
There is no need to build more bases, to push for more putch.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy. Understanding that the last time Russia had someone telling the world that russia was the enemy, Russia paid it by million of dead.
Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.
Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing. I am one the rare left on this forum who did train to face the Red Storm in the 80's and this one was far more serious than today Putin's Russia.
Facts are facts. The expansionist power today is NATO. The one having military installations all around the world is NATO. The one spending the most in military is NATO. Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico. NATO have bases in Poland, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan and I can carry on.
So, the solution would have been to think first before acting and bragging. It might be to late to think, and we might be in the slope that no one controll any more, as in 1914, when every step could have been avoided, every thing could have been stop if someone in the "aggressor" side had had the idea to do so.

Reminder:
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia [b] 87.2
4 Russia 66.4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[Montmorency]

One thing that's hard to swallow is, if we take Russian aggression to be of minimal impact - then what exactly is so frightening about NATO expansion? NATO is a defensive alliance and most of its members have minimal military commitments, let alone an appetite to challenge Russia. America wants to contain Russia, but it hardly wants to fight it either abroad or within Russia's borders. Today NATO is about sharing expertise and policy papers, exchange programs and technical conferences. There is nothing aggressive about this unless you specifically feel the need to keep your own options for aggression open, as Russia evidently does. The fact in itself of a check on your ability to project power should not threaten you unless you are yourself looking for conflict.

[Husar]

One thing that's hard to swallow is, if we take Russian aggression to be of minimal impact - then what exactly is so frightening about NATO expansion? NATO is a defensive alliance and most of its members have minimal military commitments, let alone an appetite to challenge Russia. America wants to contain Russia, but it hardly wants to fight it either abroad or within Russia's borders. Today NATO is about sharing expertise and policy papers, exchange programs and technical conferences. There is nothing aggressive about this unless you specifically feel the need to keep your own options for aggression open, as Russia evidently does. The fact in itself of a check on your ability to project power should not threaten you unless you are yourself looking for conflict.

I guess Russians are not so sure about the US not planning to shred them one day. From within NATO that thought may seem ridiculous today, but maybe not so much if one grew up there.
I generally agree with you though, especially the argument that sounds like "well, if every neighbor is under NATO protection, they can't invade, murder and enslave them anymore" would seem a bit weird indeed. :sweatdrop:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"What should NATO do then, in your opinion?" Back down. Be what NATO was supposed to be, a defensive alliance, not the armed arm of the USA's foreign policy.
According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.
There is no need to build more bases, to push for more putch.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy. Understanding that the last time Russia had someone telling the world that russia was the enemy, Russia paid it by million of dead.
Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.
Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing. I am one the rare left on this forum who did train to face the Red Storm in the 80's and this one was far more serious than today Putin's Russia.
Facts are facts. The expansionist power today is NATO. The one having military installations all around the world is NATO. The one spending the most in military is NATO. Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico. NATO have bases in Poland, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan and I can carry on.
So, the solution would have been to think first before acting and bragging. It might be to late to think, and we might be in the slope that no one controll any more, as in 1914, when every step could have been avoided, every thing could have been stop if someone in the "aggressor" side had had the idea to do so.

Reminder:
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia [b] 87.2
4 Russia 66.4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I am not sure that I agree. However, you gave a clear and concise answer to my prompt, so I thank you sir.

[Brenus]

"I am not sure that I agree" I can't ask for more. Thanks.

"the argument that sounds like "well, if every neighbor is under NATO protection, they can't invade, murder and enslave them anymore" would seem a bit weird indeed" A bit, as in Cyprus?

"NATO is a defensive alliance" Did you follow the news during the last 10-20 years?

[Gilrandir]

According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.


Brenus, Brenus... :no:
Now the Impeccable You do what you claim I (the Clueless One) do. Show me at least one post where I used the words you have put into my mouth. Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do.



So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.


It is a lie because the USSR was self-sustaining so it could do without the West's money, technologies and goods for quite a time. But even so it eventually collapsed.



Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy.


Georgia hadn't treated Russia as an enemy, it had a bone to pick with Abkhasia and South Ossetia. And Russia thought it its personal issue.

Russia had been Ukraine's strategic partner (according to 1997 Treaty of friendship and cooperation). Do I have to remind you how a partner and friend started to act in February 2014?
Just don't give me the "protection of threatened Russian-speakers by evil nazis" thing.


Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia.


:laugh4: Do negotiate, please. Keep negotiating even if Russia violates what has been agreed upon the next day after the protocol has been signed. Bask in your naivete.



The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.


The entire Coup could have been avoided without the violent dispersion of Maidan meeting on December 1.



Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing.

Ok. Let's call you Putinversteher.


Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico.


If it did you would sooner or later hear about "the oppressed Russian-speaking minorities of Brighton beach" and "Russia is where Russian is spoken".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brenus:

I would probably not go as far as you do in suggesting that NATO is functioning primarily as an "arm of" US foreign policy efforts. However, I acknowledge that it has been used by the US in that fashion on several occasions and Europe using NATO to leverage USA actions has been MUCH rarer (Libya maybe? Hard to think of many examples of the reverse of the coin, being fair to your point).

Yet, while it began as a defensive alliance to prevent/respond to Soviet aggression (and insure US combat deaths from the outset thus requiring us to participate immediately and not after an 18-36 month lag period), it has been more than simply a defensive alliance for most of its history. It has always been a pressure group [we are all saying the same thing, so you better listen] to promote the defense of Western interests.

In that larger spirit, is not a somewhat more "forward" stance by NATO likely to be the best route to curtail Russian expansionism in the Baltic and towards the Middle East? After all, Putin has already demonstrated a willingness to "cherry pick" portions of the old Tsarist/Soviet sphere of influence and bring them under the Russian umbrella where he feels he can get away with it. Would not a somewhat more pushy stance convince him to desist? Especially since, as you rightly noted above, the current semi-democratic Russian Republic is no where near the military threat the old Soviet regime was. They may still have that dash of paranoia that seems to permeate Russian culture, but Putin and others are not the Politburo living in fear of their own people blinking the wrong way. Thus, the current regime is less oriented towards suppression and, perhaps, a bit more rational. Certainly rational enough to back off if the price seems too high, yes?

[Montmorency]

Русская армия, Чёрный Ворон,
Снова готовят нам красный гром.

:wink:

[Brenus]

"Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do." Easy: The entire thread about Ukraine, plus link with aircraft carrier smoking and planes crushing. Pick your choice.
End of my answers to you until you accept civilised debates and stop practicing personal attacks.

"Yet, while it began as a defensive alliance to prevent/respond to Soviet aggression" I like this answer. NATO was created before the Communist equivalent. But yes, it was preventive.

"In that larger spirit, is not a somewhat more "forward" stance by NATO likely to be the best route to curtail Russian expansionism in the Baltic and towards the Middle East? After all, Putin has already demonstrated a willingness to "cherry pick" portions of the old Tsarist/Soviet sphere of influence and bring them under the Russian umbrella where he feels he can get away with it": Agree, but you cannot hope the one you are targeting will not see it and react. And it is kind of asymmetric warfare, except Russia can still obliterate Earth several times but can't invade for real a small country without extreme difficulty. And again, NATO is doing exactly the same, following the pattern developed by the USA, especially in Central and South America (but not only). I know it is a bit in the past, but USA got involved in Vietnam in organising a Coup against a Vietnamese Nationalist and installed their puppet.
And NATO/US get away first with Yugoslavia then with Kosovo, so spread the model until Ukraine where it failed. Putin's operation on Ukraine is a copycat of Kosovo. Same pretext, same modus operandi, and almost same results. Anexion of internationally recognised part of a sovereign Country, with the same disdain for international law and treaties.
If US/NATO can curtail russian expansionism (Reminder: Kosovo was invaded and carved from Serbia before Putin), so Russia can curtail NATO expansion...

"It has always been a pressure group [we are all saying the same thing, so you better listen] to promote the defense of Western interests" This I will disagree. It was used to promote US interests. If one western power was doing something US didn't like, NATO support vanished as in the Suez operation. I don't blame US for this, I blame others to ignore this reality.
Perhaps Iraq is the ultimate example of this.

[Montmorency]

This I will disagree. It was used to promote US interests. If one western power was doing something US didn't like, NATO support vanished as in the Suez operation. I don't blame US for this, I blame others to ignore this reality.
Perhaps Iraq is the ultimate example of this.

By its nature then, NATO has to be more multipolar than any Russian-backed organizations. Putin acts precisely for himself and close backers, but the US can't simply control NATO as it pleases without some compromises or favors among the alliance.


If US/NATO can curtail russian expansionism (Reminder: Kosovo was invaded and carved from Serbia before Putin), so Russia can curtail NATO expansion

So where is the balance? Perhaps we should keep the "Intermarium" in mind, if not as a political idea then as a geographic one.

[Brenus]

"So where is the balance?" The balance? NATO used the fall of USSR followed by a weak Russia to push East. No way you can say now "sorry, we didn't mean it".
Russia has now an aggressive, nationalist leader, and have the taste for respect back.
So NATO has to deal with situations a bit more carefully in order not to end like in Ukraine.
Balance would start by stop pretending Western Powers didn't exploit the situation. And stop pretending that Tupolev Bear are Nuclear bombers. If Russia still had Anatra D-series or Sikorsky S16, NATO would classified them as Fighters!!!
To recognise that Russia has geostrategic interest, and can be nervous when NATO installed missile at its borders, and when regime change occurred, have to be less arrogant and/or obvious in its participation in the process. NATO doesn't care of democracy as proved by Kosovo. No Country was expelled from NATO for being dictatorships. In fact, a lot of NATO members became member when they were a dictatorship.

[Montmorency]

To recognise that Russia has geostrategic interest

If in seeking to maintain their interests, Russia violates perhaps one of the most important international dictums for the US - no unmanaged territorial changes - then all bets come off. You keep mentioning Kosovo, but whatever you think of the respective parties involved the US interest here and throughout the Balkans was primarily to pacify the region (at least in the short-term). Russia's actions in Crimea are partially a tit-for-tat in response to the Kosovo incident (less so than Georgian intervention), but the irredentist nature of Crimean "re-absorption" is so serious that it overshadows even efforts to dislodge the US from its financial hegemony. I believe that a US administration would even be willing to go so far as to "abandon" a swathe of the Intermarium as a buffer for Russia were Putin to reverse or at least renegotiate the Crimea transfer.


No Country was expelled from NATO for being dictatorships. In fact, a lot of NATO members became member when they were a dictatorship.

By the loose standard you seem to be using, all those countries would still be dictatorships.

[Brenus]

"By the loose standard you seem to be using, all those countries would still be dictatorships." ? Why would they? The regime changes in Greece, Portugal and Spain had nothing to do with NATO. NATO is indifferent to regime if it suits.

"but whatever you think of the respective parties involved the US interest here and throughout the Balkans was primarily to pacify the region (at least in the short-term)" That is your opinion and it might be true. But, put yourself in Russia's post Yeltsin leader, how will you see it? The only reel result is a US base.

As Georgia is concern, it was the same pattern than Croatian Storm Operation, attack on refugees camp and ethnic cleansing... What the Georgian President failed to see was NATO wouldn't back him up as it did for the Croats, and Russia was really at the door and had the power to intervene...

[Montmorency]

Why would they? The regime changes in Greece, Portugal and Spain had nothing to do with NATO. NATO is indifferent to regime if it suits.

I thought you were referring to recent enlargements. Spain was post-Franco when admitted, and harping on founding members seems a little petty.



As Georgia is concern, it was the same pattern than Croatian Storm Operation, attack on refugees camp and ethnic cleansing... What the Georgian President failed to see was NATO wouldn't back him up as it did for the Croats, and Russia was really at the door and had the power to intervene...


I don't think that's correct. The Georgians were responding to escalation; where they failed was in calling Putin's bluff that he would respond to any direct intervention. With the two provinces already being under partial Russian administration/occupation, there should never have been any notion that Georgia could simply roll in like Gaza.

While there's no reason to believe that had the Georgian army been allowed free reign they would have demonstrated a pristine humanitarian record, in the end the Russian counterattack and political entrenchment ensured that it was largely ethnic Georgians who got 'stormed'.

[Gilrandir]

"Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do." Easy: The entire thread about Ukraine, plus link with aircraft carrier smoking and planes crushing. Pick your choice.


As you have taught me (as a linguist), words are important. You were persistent in demanding direct quotation of your words containing "worthless". I think I'm right in believing I can demand the same attitude from you too.

But I can save you the trouble: you will not find any. What I tried to show by the posts you mentioned is that Russian armed might is to a great degree exaggerated. I NEVER said that "Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped." But if you are still sure that you can give the relevant words of mine, be my guest.



End of my answers to you until you accept civilised debates and stop practicing personal attacks.


:laugh4: So, Sarmatian calling me obnoxious is not a personal attack, and me reiterating what you yourself claim is? Again: perform the reality check.

But: A nice dodge - playing hurt dignity instead of admitting your bad call.



And NATO/US get away first with Yugoslavia then with Kosovo, so spread the model until Ukraine where it failed.

It says a lot when you think that events of 2013/2014 in Ukraine was NATO's/US operation.



Putin's operation on Ukraine is a copycat of Kosovo. Same pretext, same modus operandi, and almost same results.
Anexion of internationally recognised part of a sovereign Country, with the same disdain for international law and treaties.


You contradict yourself in two successive sentences. In Kosovo case, there was no annexation.

Moreover, your other claims are wrong as well:
1. The pretext of Kosovo intervention was the REAL use of military force by Serbia against Kosovars. The pretext of Crimea annexation was the IMAGINED (you would call it LIKELY) attack of Ukrainian nazis against the locals.
2. As for modus operandi: in Crimea Putin sent his green men pretending those were local militias. Only a year (or about that) later he admitted those were Russian regular army. NATO intervened openly. Putin has resorted (and keeps doing it) to the hybrid warfare in which "local pitmen and tractor drivers" wage "civil war" against "Kiev nazi junta" while Russian regular army is at the root of all the set-to and Russia supplies the occupied Donbas with ammo, fuel, money and weapons.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.

First of all, I was trying to subtly make the point that NATO has a certain ideological drive behind it aside from purely practical or current political concerns. Also, control of the entire Adriatic coast is desirable from a strategic point of view, as is control of the entire Balkans. That way if NATO is attacked through the Balkans we would be able to move troops and materials more easily.

Aside from that, maybe Montenegro is afraid of Russia?

It's not like NATO (or the EU) is annexing countries Brenus, they're asking​ to join.

[Sarmatian]

:laugh4: So, Sarmatian calling me obnoxious is not a personal attack, and me reiterating what you yourself claim is? Again: perform the reality check.

I was calling your behavior obnoxious, not you, a subtle but important difference.

Although, to be frank, I would have no problem calling you obnoxious and that wouldn't be an incorrect abridgment of my opinion of you. Unlike Brenus, I'm not a very civilized and polite human being.

[Gilrandir]

I was calling your behavior obnoxious, not you, a subtle but important difference.

Although, to be frank, I would have no problem calling you obnoxious and that wouldn't be an incorrect abridgment of my opinion of you. Unlike Brenus, I'm not a very civilized and polite human being.

What about your exhortation to attack arguments, not a person? Or is it valid only if this person is not obnoxious?

By the way, being subtler is expressing his attitude doesn't make one more polite or civilized.

[Brenus]

"Aside from that, maybe Montenegro is afraid of Russia?":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: You never had put a foot in Montenegro!!!!

[Sarmatian]

What about your exhortation to attack arguments, not a person? Or is it valid only if this person is not obnoxious?

By the way, being subtler is expressing his attitude doesn't make one more polite or civilized.

It's valid always. It's just that I'm an ass and don't care in majority of cases.

[Montmorency]

Is it time, then?

:shrug:

Pick one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQzqV-6-4do

https://i.imgur.com/6q384H6.png

[Gilrandir]

It's valid always. It's just that I'm an ass and don't care in majority of cases.

And you expect others to follow what you preach but you don't find it a binding tenet for yourself?

[Sarmatian]

And you expect others to follow what you preach but you don't find it a binding tenet for yourself?

I expect very little of people. As they tend to give very little, it usually works out well.

[Gilrandir]

I expect very little of people. As they tend to give very little, it usually works out well.

Perhaps it is because they follow your pattern of actions and not your preaching.

[Gilrandir]

On Russia finacing Hungarian far-right:
https://www.ft.com/content/66d3993a-b0b8-11e6-9c37-5787335499a0

[Gilrandir]

On Ukrainian nationalism:
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-brexit-and-the-myth-of-ukrainian-nationalism

[Gilrandir]

Lavrov badmouths. Again.
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russias-foreign-minister-runs-his-potty-mouth-once-again-56495

[Crandar]

How is this related to the Donbass conflict Gilrandir? Or are you trying to turn the thread into a "bash the Russians" fest?

[Gilrandir]

How is this related to the Donbass conflict Gilrandir? Or are you trying to turn the thread into a "bash the Russians" fest?

Who said it is a thread about Donbas conflict? It is "Ukraine thread". And if you read information carefully you might have noticed that the footage of the incident was published by Ukrainian television.

[Crandar]

So since the thread concerns only Ukraine, basing Lavrov and Russia is even more off-topic than I originally assumed. Glad to have been corrected, thanks.

[Gilrandir]

So since the thread concerns only Ukraine, basing Lavrov and Russia is even more off-topic than I originally assumed. Glad to have been corrected, thanks.

You evidently missed "Ukrainian television" which somehow concerns Ukraine.

[Sarmatian]

Results of the 18th round of Ukrainian Premier League, as reported by Ukrainian television


12.12. 18:00 Dyn. Kiev Shakhtar Donetsk 3 : 4
11.12. 18:30 Stal Kamianske FK Zorya Luhansk 0 : 2
11.12. 16:00 Oleksandriya Ch. Odessa 2 : 1
11.12. 13:00 Karpaty Zirka Kropyvnytskyi 2 : 3
10.12. 13:00 Volyn Lutsk Vorskla Poltava 0 : 1
09.12. 18:00 Dnipro Olimpik Donetsk 1 : 1

[Hooahguy]

With Rex Tillerson (who explicitly stated that he is anti-sanctions) as Secretary of State I would be interested to see if the Russia sanctions hold up. It really comes down to congress and if they will buck the president on this or end up easing sanctions (if not totally removing them).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He was anti-sanctions when they were getting in the way of making money for his stockholders.

Now the USA itself is his "stockholder." We shall see if he takes a different stance in his new executive role.

[Hooahguy]

I would be skeptical that he would change his tune much. He has stated that sanctions dont work, so it would be strange to do an about-face on this. But in the end though it is congress who decided sanctions so Im not too worried. What I am worried most about though is him recognizing the Russian takeover of Crimea.

[Husar]

Rex Tillerson? Sounds like a B-movie villain... :creep:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

De jure we never will. De facto, the US and NATO already have.

[Gilrandir]

I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?

[Hooahguy]

I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?
Im expecting a fight against him, but thats really the only nominee I would expect an actual fight against. Many in the GOP have already stated their displeasure with the appointment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?

There is a tradition that the President gets their choice for all but judicial appointments unless something "over the top" is discovered while vetting. Even then, the number of people voted down by Congress is very small -- usually the nomination is withdrawn if somebody finds a gnarly skeleton in a closet somewhere.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would be skeptical that he would change his tune much. He has stated that sanctions dont work, so it would be strange to do an about-face on this. But in the end though it is congress who decided sanctions so Im not too worried. What I am worried most about though is him recognizing the Russian takeover of Crimea.

Well- what's the point of sanctions?

We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.

At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.

[Hooahguy]

Well- what's the point of sanctions?

We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.

At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.

Sanctions are essentially economic violence. We arent going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine so this is the next best thing. True, the impact of sanctions on Russia haven't been much when compared to the impact of falling oil prices (most economists think that the Russian economy has been impacted three times more by falling oil prices than by sanctions). But they havent made it easy either. The arms embargo has certainly hurt, as the sale of the French Mistral carriers was cancelled. Limiting sanctions to just arms sales would definitely make it easier for their economy to recover. Im skeptical that sanctions have caused the anti-west sentiment, they have been blaming the west on their troubles for years before all this happened. And mind you, sanctions by the EU didnt really begin until the MH17 disaster, a disaster which the evidence solidly points to Russian implication.

[Gilrandir]

Well- what's the point of sanctions?

We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.

At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.


You may be right speaking of the sanctions which are being enforced now - they may be annoying, but aren't that effective. But, in my opinion, you draw a wrong conclusion. Why weren't/aren't sanctions effective? Perhaps because the West is reluctant to introduce the sanctions that WILL hurt? So, if you want sanctions to be effective choose the ones properly - like the one with quick money or whatever it is called. Otherwise it is complaining that the disease persists making the patient take halfdoses of medicines.

As for sanctions as a cause of anti-west hysteria in Russia - this:



Im skeptical that sanctions have caused the anti-west sentiment, they have been blaming the west on their troubles for years before all this happened.



The arms embargo has certainly hurt, as the sale of the French Mistral carriers was cancelled.

Oh, come on! Who needs those cockleboats when they have this:
19263

[Hooahguy]

You may be right speaking of the sanctions which are being enforced now - they may be annoying, but aren't that effective. But, in my opinion, you draw a wrong conclusion. Why weren't/aren't sanctions effective? Perhaps because the West is reluctant to introduce the sanctions that WILL hurt? So, if you want sanctions to be effective choose the ones properly - like the one with quick money or whatever it is called. Otherwise it is complaining that the disease persists making the patient take halfdoses of medicines.

I am in agreement. The most effective sanctions would be the ones that halt the flow of oil and gas into Europe. Russia relies heavily on that for revenue but so does the EU rely heavily on Russia for energy. It would certainly cause a crisis in both Russia and the EU (unless the EU found alternative energy sources) so it will probably never happen. Another form of sanction that could happen is banning Russia from the SWIFT interbank payment system which would cripple the Russia economy further as they wouldnt be able to transfer money to banks in other countries, causing a default. Foreign direct investment has already been fleeing the country since Crimea and Ukraine happened (over $200 billion as I recall), but I suspect that also has to do with the FSB seizing private property so investors are reluctant to put in the money if they fear the FSB just taking it away.

[Gilrandir]

Bellingcat published a map of Russian artillery strikes of 2014 aimed at Ukraine:
https://bellingcatukraine.carto.com/builder/79a5c4ec-c29d-11e6-9676-0e05a8b3e3d7/embed?state=%7B%22map%22%3A%7B%22ne%22%3A%5B47.35184985856322%2C37.72430419921874%5D%2C%22sw%22%3A%5 B48.03126417018395%2C39.74578857421875%5D%7D%7D

[Gilrandir]

Found a picture of a Soviet poster dating back to WWII (the guy on the picture is not me). It shows Goebbels whose propaganda is silenced after some military setbacks. But somehow the face on the poster resembles not only Goebbels...
19282

[Gilrandir]

I realize it doesn't belong here, but the topic was broached in this thread, so it is logical to follow the developments here. Montenegro prosecutors still believe in the coup and its being related to Serbia and Russia.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/28/montenegro-hunts-serbs-russians-planned-election-day-attacks/

[Gilrandir]

A court's decision on Russia's involvement in Ukraine:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-01/cp170006en.pdf

[Seamus Fermanagh]

current date and Putin status?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

current date and Putin status?

It's 26/01/2017 and Putin is the most successful Fascist of the Third Millenium.

Shame on us all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's 26/01/2017 and Putin is the most successful Fascist of the Third Millenium.

Shame on us all.

As a Catholic, I have no problem thinking of this as the 3rd millennium, though I believe others keep the count differently. Moreover, we've done barely more than 1% of that millennium, so his competition for most successful is limited so far.

[Kagemusha]

It's 26/01/2017 and Putin is the most successful Fascist of the Third Millenium.

Shame on us all.

At least now there is a "America first" in power to challenge him. One has to wonder will we get "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles" fellow to Germany after Merkel....One has to wonder how Putin is so terrible while his kindred spirit Trump is so great?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

At least now there is a "America first" in power to challenge him. One has to wonder will we get "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles" fellow to Germany after Merkel....One has to wonder how Putin is so terrible while his kindred spirit Trump is so great?

er....you are aware that "America First" is U.S. Jargon for quasi-isolationism, yes? Like most new first-term POTUSes, Trump is really focused on domestic concerns at the outset of his presidency.

[Kagemusha]

er....you are aware that "America First" is U.S. Jargon for quasi-isolationism, yes? Like most new first-term POTUSes, Trump is really focused on domestic concerns at the outset of his presidency.

Yes. I am familiar with the jargon, but focusing in internal affairs does not make Trump a flower of democracy, now does it? I could post some of his jargon concerning women, minorities, media, torture etc. But i prefer not to post such language in this forum. There is a short path from populism to fascism and fascism is not restricted to Russia.Never has, never will.

[Pannonian]

Found a picture of a Soviet poster dating back to WWII (the guy on the picture is not me). It shows Goebbels whose propaganda is silenced after some military setbacks. But somehow the face on the poster resembles not only Goebbels...
19282

Tut tut. Attack the post, not the poster.

[Gilrandir]

Yes. I am familiar with the jargon, but focusing in internal affairs does not make Trump a flower of democracy, now does it?

It makes him a flower of flawed democracy:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-20


Tut tut. Attack the post, not the poster.

Did I attack anyone or anything in my post?

[Pannonian]

It makes him a flower of flawed democracy:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-20



Did I attack anyone or anything in my post?

It's a pun.

poster
noun
1. a large printed picture used for decoration.
2. a person who publishes something online, typically on a blog or social media website or application.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes. I am familiar with the jargon, but focusing in internal affairs does not make Trump a flower of democracy, now does it? I could post some of his jargon concerning women, minorities, media, torture etc. But i prefer not to post such language in this forum. There is a short path from populism to fascism and fascism is not restricted to Russia.Never has, never will.

Virtually all of our political history mitigates against a shift into fascism. We have had our darker and harsher periods as a Republic, that cannot be denied, but our citizenry is too entrenched in their own liberties and too well armed to beget a dictatorship. Worst case with us is an aggressive single issue POTUS -- like Polk -- and those folks tend to last only one term. Are we trending a bit that direction at the moment? Perhaps, but the pendulum will swing back.

[Montmorency]

Virtually all of our political history mitigates against a shift into fascism. We have had our darker and harsher periods as a Republic, that cannot be denied, but our citizenry is too entrenched in their own liberties and too well armed to beget a dictatorship. Worst case with us is an aggressive single issue POTUS -- like Polk -- and those folks tend to last only one term. Are we trending a bit that direction at the moment? Perhaps, but the pendulum will swing back.

Some American leftists now have a fear that Trump can somehow become autocratic, but the more somber caution that the real threat is of sliding into a one-party state. Then again, your rebuttal might be that by the nature of the attempt the white Republican base could not be suppressed simultaneously to avert their eventually agitating against an increasingly-disappointing nationwide incumbency.

That style might be particularly suited to the forgotten "Have I got a reply for you" contest. Oh well.

To which the leftist retort would be that such an era would bring untold pain to their marginalized demographics and a transition away from a GOP state would not guarantee a transition away from (another flavor of) white supremacy.

...why I only count myself one of the tourists these days. :shrug:

[Kagemusha]

Virtually all of our political history mitigates against a shift into fascism. We have had our darker and harsher periods as a Republic, that cannot be denied, but our citizenry is too entrenched in their own liberties and too well armed to beget a dictatorship. Worst case with us is an aggressive single issue POTUS -- like Polk -- and those folks tend to last only one term. Are we trending a bit that direction at the moment? Perhaps, but the pendulum will swing back.

My friend. I am talking about Mr.Trump, not US as a state or nation. I personally find the comparison between the characters of Putin and Trump rather interesting. Thank the almighty that you do have checks and balances and hopefully Trump will come to understand the limits of his power.

[Gilrandir]

Russia officially recognized DPR's and LPR's passports.
https://www.unian.info/war/1784497-russia-recognises-dpr-lpr-passports.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's today and Putin is a Fascist.

Just in case anyone was wondering.

[Montmorency]

Have we moved so far that we may no longer refer to Eastern-European states as "post-Cold-War" or "former Soviet"?

Cause "post-war" sure seems finished.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd say Post-War has now become a historical period, what with Germany having achieved political and economic hegemony over Western Europe and German comics using Hitler to make fun of Trump.

The Cold-War is still very much reverberating through our lives though, witness Russian paranoia and the recent Romania protests against graft.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd say Post-War has now become a historical period, what with Germany having achieved political and economic hegemony over Western Europe and German comics using Hitler to make fun of Trump.

The Cold-War is still very much reverberating through our lives though, witness Russian paranoia and the recent Romania protests against graft.

Russian paranoia predated the Cold War....predated the Tsars even. Predated Russia for that matter. It is a formative part of their psyche.

[spmetla]

Russian paranoia predated the Cold War....predated the Tsars even. Predated Russia for that matter. It is a formative part of their psyche.

Which is why their foreign policy is not all too different from what it was two hundred years ago. Keep the near abroad very close, secure 'warm' water ports in the Med, Black and Baltic Seas keep the Polish, Germans and French in check and secure hegemony over central/south asia.

[Gilrandir]

The Cold-War is still very much reverberating through our lives though, witness Russian paranoia

Not only paranoia, but the absence of elementary logics as well: they didn't (and don't) recognize DPR and LPR, but they do recognize "official documents" issued by the people they don't recognize as the ones who may issue them. :wall:

[Sarmatian]

Russian paranoia predated the Cold War....predated the Tsars even. Predated Russia for that matter. It is a formative part of their psyche.

How can Russian paranoia predates Russia?


Not only paranoia, but the absence of elementary logics as well: they didn't (and don't) recognize DPR and LPR, but they do recognize "official documents" issued by the people they don't recognize as the ones who may issue them. :wall:

Not really that weird. Because the regions are in limbo, so to speak, the ordinary people living there are hurt the most, regardless of their political affiliations or lack thereof. Anything that makes it easier for them is good.

Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo, but recognizes a quite a lot of document issues by Kosovo government and vice versa. It's basic decency. Even if political situation makes normal relations impossible, an effort should be made to make lives slightly "more normal" for people when possible.

[Montmorency]

How can Russian paranoia predates Russia

It comes with the territory. Literally.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How can Russian paranoia predates Russia?

Because the Rus came before Russia, clearly.

I blame the Vodka - I hear it leads to maudlin paranoid drunkeness, unlike the Mead the original Norse Rus would have drunk - which leads to riotous and violent drunkeness.


Not really that weird. Because the regions are in limbo, so to speak, the ordinary people living there are hurt the most, regardless of their political affiliations or lack thereof. Anything that makes it easier for them is good.

Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo, but recognizes a quite a lot of document issues by Kosovo government and vice versa. It's basic decency. Even if political situation makes normal relations impossible, an effort should be made to make lives slightly "more normal" for people when possible.

I'm sorry, but your example just shows how wrong-headed the policy is.

[Sarmatian]

I'm sorry, but your example just shows how wrong-headed the policy is.

Never said it wasn't, but that's the way it is, at the moment. Not doing little things to make life easier for people would make it even worse, not better.

[Gilrandir]

Not really that weird. Because the regions are in limbo, so to speak, the ordinary people living there are hurt the most, regardless of their political affiliations or lack thereof. Anything that makes it easier for them is good.


Attempts "to make it easier for ordinary people" (I greatly doubt that such was Putin's intention, though, - rather a statement of support for DPR's and LPR's leaders who are increasingly disillusioned in Russia) don't make the move logical. Recognizing documents written by those who aren't allowed to do that beats all legal considerations. It's like recognizing a note from a kid's mother that he was sick the day before so he didn't come to school as a medical certificate. It certainly makes it easier for the kid to skip classes (when he learns to ape his mother's hand).



Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo, but recognizes a quite a lot of document issues by Kosovo government and vice versa. It's basic decency. Even if political situation makes normal relations impossible, an effort should be made to make lives slightly "more normal" for people when possible.


Invalid comparison. Serbia still considers Kosovo its territory. Does Russia consider DPR and LPR their part?

If one reads Putin's decree carefully one would notice that it never uses the names of DPR or LPR. It speaks of "certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine" never specifying what are those. Do they include those areas of Ukraine which are beyond the сurrent front line or those that were mentioned in the Minsk agreement (the latter states that Debaltsevo taken by Russians AFTER the agreement was signed is ostensibly a part of Ukraine-held territory)?

Anyway, this recognition is de facto an end to the Minsk agreement.

[Gilrandir]

The Hague Court has started hearings on Ukraine vs Russia trial. Russia denies all charges claiming that the separatists found old Soviet weapons in mines.
http://24-my.info/russia-in-the-hague-the-weapons-found-in-the-soviet-mines-of-the-donbass/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-09/russias-lawyer-goes-off-script-in-mh17-hague-hearings/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/2017-03-09/russias-lawyer-goes-off-script-in-mh17-hague-hearings/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/2017-03-09/russias-lawyer-goes-off-script-in-mh17-hague-hearings/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/2017-03-09/russias-lawyer-goes-off-script-in-mh17-hague-hearings/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-crash/@96068/jit-flight-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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/ukraine-sues-russia-international-court-justiceforfinancing/) 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 (https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-11&chapter=18&clang=_en), 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):


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 (https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/Special/1999%20International%20Convention%20for%20the%20Suppression%20of%20the%20Financing%20of%20Terrorism. pdf):


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:


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:


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 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/166/19314.pdf) 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? :dizzy2:



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...

:laugh4: 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-and-europe/2015/10/08/mh17-the-open-source-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.

19540

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Putanist?..."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.

Why should I be? I am not the one exploiting her disability for advantage. If anything, I was being snide towards Western culture's response to her disability and our overly emotional response to pets and the fact that we tend to focus on such things instead of the substantive aspects of this issue (her talent vis-à-vis the singing and Russian exploitation of these superficial elements for political advantage).

[Sarmatian]

Well, there is the entire idea that Russia purposefully orchestrated a win for disabled Crimean singer so that Ukraine ends up between a rock and a hard place.

It is just as conceivable that most Russians get overly emotional about disabled persons and her being from Crimea certainly helped her chances. Basically all she had to do to win was have a song that doesn't suck utterly.

Sympathy votes go a long way. Ukraine won last year with a song titled "1944" which is about persecution of Crimean Tatars...

[Brenus]

Why should I be? I am not the one exploiting her disability for advantage. If anything, I was being snide towards Western culture's response to her disability and our overly emotional response to pets and the fact that we tend to focus on such things instead of the substantive aspects of this issue (her talent vis-à-vis the singing and Russian exploitation of these superficial elements for political advantage).
That is your view. She was chosen because she is in a wheelchair... Or perhaps because she has talent? Or she touches the Russian soul?
https://youtu.be/gkv17jMnFNY
Funny enough, a French group did sing about deportation and war (Je n'oublie pas)
https://youtu.be/tJful-Jtc9o?list=RDtJful-Jtc9o.
Hungary had a song about Palestine (Wars for Nothing)...
https://youtu.be/MdybVsBESQc
All these songs were playing on feelings and emotional response. YOU are the one saying it is a exploitation. My wife is watching this king of programs (UK & US) and I don't count how many times I heard about moms having cancer and contestants losing best friends and so and so... So, you make a exeption of this handicapped person for your political view. That is why you should be ashamed.

Ukraine decided what politically correct is, so some are banned, some not, 1944 was not... Ukraine will do to European Song Contest what did happened to Olympic Games...
But I least I give to Ukraine it is clearly for their political view, not because she is on a wheel chair.

[Gilrandir]

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

We need a new term...

Putanist?

"Putana" means "a prostitute" in Russian. This is no joke.

http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&l2=1&s=prosty



It is just as conceivable that most Russians get overly emotional about disabled persons and her being from Crimea certainly helped her chances.

She is not from Crimea. She was on a tour in Crimea. And according to Ukrainian laws one can only enter the peninsula via continental Ukraine. Otherwise it is considered illegal crossing of the border and such people are banned from visiting Ukraine.



All these songs were playing on feelings and emotional response. YOU are the one saying it is a exploitation. My wife is watching this king of programs (UK & US) and I don't count how many times I heard about moms having cancer and contestants losing best friends and so and so... So, you make a exeption of this handicapped person for your political view. That is why you should be ashamed.

This is what Russia wants to hear - callous people jeer at a poor invalid and deny her right to show her talent.



Ukraine decided what politically correct is, so some are banned, some not, 1944 was not...
It is not only about her political stance (although it adds spice to the issue). See above on her violating the law.

[Brenus]

"It is not only about her political stance (although it adds spice to the issue). See above on her violating the law.
Of course.

"This is what Russia wants to hear - callous people jeer at a poor invalid and deny her right to show her talent." See, poor invalid... Deny to show her talent... You are playing on it. For what I read, she is a talented artist recognised a such in Russia before the contest. As she was chosen by the Russian public, which according to some are against Putin's Clique, I assume she has some success in her own country. So, far for been deny to show her talent. You reduce her as an invalid, implying that without being on a wheelchair, she is nothing, talentless...

This Ukrainian stupid decision is just playing right in the Russian's game, if any. And it won't be any game without Ukraine's decision to ban her.
But better to blame Putin than a ill political decision, I suppose...

[Kagemusha]

Putin doesnt care about blame. If you make a bad move in a chess game and your opponent gains advantage because of that, is the blame his? The same applies to this larger scenario in Ukraine. Russia was underestimated and they capitalized on that mistake.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is your view. She was chosen because she is in a wheelchair... Or perhaps because she has talent? Or she touches the Russian soul?.

Sorry to have been unclear. I presumed she was talented and appealed to the audience -- the political shenanigans would not work if she was unskilled. thanks for the clip btw

[Pannonian]

When is her story being turned into an Oscar-bait film? Are we waiting for the denouement before the rights get snapped up? Brits like Tom Hooper are also quite good at doing this kind of sentimentalist crap (eg. The King's Speech).

[Gilrandir]

"This is what Russia wants to hear - callous people jeer at a poor invalid and deny her right to show her talent." See, poor invalid... Deny to show her talent... You are playing on it. For what I read, she is a talented artist recognised a such in Russia before the contest.

So, far for been deny to show her talent. You reduce her as an invalid, implying that without being on a wheelchair, she is nothing, talentless...

When and where did I deny her talent? She sings nicely and the song is not bad.
BUT: does Ukraine have to change/disregard its laws because a) she is talented; b) she sings well; c) she is an invalid?



As she was chosen by the Russian public, which according to some are against Putin's Clique, I assume she has some success in her own country.

The initial presupposition is wrong. She was not chosen by public. She was appointed by a jury after a closeted session and the decision was announced to the public. Do I have to say that the jury included the top officials connected with the cultural sphere who can never be against Putin's Clique since they are a part of it?




This Ukrainian stupid decision is just playing right in the Russian's game, if any. And it won't be any game without Ukraine's decision to ban her.
But better to blame Putin than a ill political decision, I suppose...
Again a wrong initial presupposition. Where did I say (or perhaps you have found any sources on that?) that Ukraine denied her entrance? The decision is still pending. I believe that the Ukrainian authorities are searching for a way out that will look most adequate and will be digestable for the community.

There are different options besides sheer ban and just letting her in (not voiced by the officials, mind you) discussed. Some people say that she should be banned but the ban should be lifted for the period of the contest where she should be allowed ONLY to stay at a hotel, attend the rehearsals and sing at the concert. After she is done she should be escorted to the airport and a stamp of banning her from visiting Ukraine for the term stipulated by the law should be put into her passport. Others say that she should be asked at crossing the border to say who Crimea belongs to - and depending on her response she should be either banned or let in. Still others suggest that at the airport she should run the guantlet between the lines of invalids who suffered injuries in Donbas and that those invalids should occupy the first two rows at the concert to serve a silent reproach to the artist who supports Russian policy towards Ukraine.

All of these are opinions from different people not responsible for the ultimate decision, but those who are (SBU) are still making up their mind (or are searching for way to explain why their desicion was the best one).

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile, Ukraine introduced a ban on trade with "DPR" and "LPR".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-announces-economic-blockade-of-rebel-held-territory/2017/03/15/ec2e12a2-096b-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.d93929622743

[Brenus]

Again a wrong initial presupposition. Where did I say (or perhaps you have found any sources on that?) that Ukraine denied her entrance? The decision is still pending. I believe that the Ukrainian authorities are searching for a way out that will look most adequate and will be digestable for the community.
My mistake.
However, last time we had this kind of debate, when you told me that the Communist Party won't be banned, at the end, it was... So, as we say in French, boiled cat fears even cold water... It lost a bit in translation...

[Gilrandir]

My mistake.
However, last time we had this kind of debate, when you told me that the Communist Party won't be banned, at the end, it was...

Again wrong. I never said it WOUDN'T (WON'T) be banned. I said it WASN'T banned AT THAT MOMENT and that the court was considering its ban. I didn't claim anything certain about the outcome of the trial.

[Brenus]

Again wrong. I never said it WOUDN'T (WON'T) be banned. I said it WASN'T banned AT THAT MOMENT and that the court was considering its ban. I didn't claim anything certain about the outcome of the trial. Casuist.

[Gilrandir]

Casuist.

Precisionist. You once said that it was terribly important.

[Brenus]

Precisionist. You once said that it was terribly important.

Reality check. You pretended it was not against the Communist Party. It was. Simple.

[Gilrandir]

Reality check. You pretended it was not against the Communist Party. It was. Simple.

Do you want to start it over again? The reality OF THAT MOMENT was that Communists were not banned. They were on trial. Ostensibly nobody knew what the outcome of it would be. The court's ruling came several months later, AFTER this question was being discussed on these boards.

[Brenus]

You can repeat it as long you want. The project was to ban the Communist Party as expressed by the Nazi in charge. Communist party was ban.
The result is what you denied. Ukraine banned a political Party (decommunisation laws). Fact you were contesting against all evidence. And fact which happened.

24 Jul 2015
Pavel Petrenko has signed a decree banning all communist parties from participating in elections in the country.
“You know, I think today is the day of historical justice. Today the minister has signed the decision according to legislation adopted by the Upper Rada [upper chamber of the Ukrainian parliament]. In accordance with this law communist parties lose their right to take part in political and election processes,” the secretary of Ukraine’s national security council Aleksandr Turchinov said during a briefing on Friday.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One word "labeling" attacks....again? That makes BOTH of you recidivists.

[Brenus]

One word "labeling" attacks....again? That makes BOTH of you recidivists.
Well, Gilrandir refuses to stand-up to his opinions, comments and analyses. So, someone has to put him in front of what he claimed and confront him with the reality.
I am not sure it will give results however.
Russian tanks are still not rolling to Berlin.
US troops are now at the borders of Russia.

[Gilrandir]

You can repeat it as long you want. The project was to ban the Communist Party as expressed by the Nazi in charge. Communist party was ban.
The result is what you denied. Ukraine banned a political Party (decommunisation laws). Fact you were contesting against all evidence. And fact which happened.


I never denied it was banned. It was. But WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT it wasn't. Perform the reality check. Although I admit that your reality may be somewhat different from the reality others live in. Much like Putin's.



24 Jul 2015
Pavel Petrenko has signed a decree banning all communist parties from participating in elections in the country.
“You know, I think today is the day of historical justice. Today the minister has signed the decision according to legislation adopted by the Upper Rada [upper chamber of the Ukrainian parliament]. In accordance with this law communist parties lose their right to take part in political and election processes,” the secretary of Ukraine’s national security council Aleksandr Turchinov said during a briefing on Friday.

:laugh4: There is no "Upper Rada" in Ukraine. And the Ukrainian parliament is ONE CHAMBER. If you refer to sources like that it is no wonder your reality looks so distorted. And this refers to your post below as well.


Well, Gilrandir refuses to stand-up to his opinions, comments and analyses. So, someone has to put him in front of what he claimed and confront him with the reality.
I am not sure it will give results however.




Russian tanks are still not rolling to Berlin.


Did I claim they would be? If I did I would be very much obliged if you exemplified your reality check with a quote.



US troops are now at the borders of Russia.
Perhaps they are because Russia moved its troops into Crimea and a part of Donbas?

[Brenus]

"There is no "Upper Rada" in Ukraine" Yeah, as it change the reality of the ban...

"Perhaps they are because Russia moved its troops into Crimea and a part of Donbas?" Deployment of US forces was effective BEFORE Crimea...

"Did I claim they would be?" Long time ago, check yourself, be consistent... You denied every you pretend, then ask me to look for it. No thanks...

[Gilrandir]

"There is no "Upper Rada" in Ukraine" Yeah, as it change the reality of the ban...


It shows the reliability of sources you use for your reality check. And as for the ban: we were discussing it in 2014:

Ukraine-in-a-thread

Yours (#3437, September 21, 2014):
Of course, the vibrant Ukrainian Democracy made Communist Party illegal… Remind me someone...

Mine (#3440, the same date):
Again Brenus tells a lie (which he no doubt drew from his reliable sources): it was the faction of the Communist party in the parliament that was disbanded, ostensibly since it didn't have the minimum number stipulated by the law (we all should abide by the law in any situation, especially concerning the parliament, as Sarmatian never tires to remind us).
The prohibition of the party is being on trial still.

Yours (#3442):
“Parliament Speaker Oleksander Turchynov declared yesterday that “[with ten deputies quitting], there are not enough MPs for the faction’s functioning.” He further added that “We have corrected a historical error by disbanding the faction. I hope there will be no more communist ideology in the Ukrainian society.”
But I am the liar.

Mine (#3443):
You had said that the Communist party was illegal. Then you give a quotation that corroborates what I maintain - that the Communist faction was disbanded. Yet the party (not the parlaimentary faction) is still functioning. Turchinov hopes that it will not (future tense, mind you) due to the results of the trial which is still under way.
And you still claim that (read the first sentence).
Liar, liar.


And further on this discussion went. Mind the date - SEPTEMBER 2014. After that Communists took part in the parliamentary elections but didn't make it into the parliament culling 3.88% of votes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2014#Summary_results

And now you go presenting the information of 2015 as the proof that I denied the ban? That's rich.




"Perhaps they are because Russia moved its troops into Crimea and a part of Donbas?" Deployment of US forces was effective BEFORE Crimea...


You used the word "now". Remember?


US troops are now at the borders of Russia.

Like BEFORE they weren't?



"Did I claim they would be?" Long time ago, check yourself, be consistent... You denied every you pretend, then ask me to look for it. No thanks...

In view of what I said above I will not ask you to do anything. All your charges are empty words. In fact, everything you blame me in is applied to you, not to me.

But the most pathetic in it that you are so proud of being able to do "reality checks". This ability fails you again and again. First you saw ethnic cleansings in Ukraine...

Ukraine-in-a-thread #767

Ethnic Cleansing? So Putin is right, he is actually protecting the Russian Minority… And I thought it was a fight for democracy and freedom…


... then you claimed Svoboda had 1/3 seats in the Ukrainian parliament...

Ukraine-in-a-thread #2232

Member of his Nazi Party are. His party, Nazi, has 1/3 of the seat in the Ukrainian Parliament.


Should I remind you of your "successful" reality checks in cases of the unhindered Breton language use and the difference between a language and a dialect? And of a failure to apply it after you claimed Lagarde was one of the worst ministers of Finance in French history? So much for your claim that I predicted Russian tanks rolling to Berlin.

Like I said, your reality and the real world don't match.

[Brenus]

Still Communist Party was banned. That is the reality.
All your comments are just smoke screens. You will never change, and probably happy with it.

[Tristuskhan]

And of a failure to apply it after you claimed Lagarde was one of the worst ministers of Finance in French history?

Just on that one, Brenus and I gave figures of the awful deepening of the national debt during her time in office. If I remember well you answer she may not be responsible for it. I'm still trying to figure how the Ministre des Finances could be ignorant of the disaster brewing. She may have been aware and then she's just one of those b++++++ds who pushed us down and then not to be trusted. Or she may have been unaware and then she's the most incompentent minister of the last century.
Good luck to the World, anyway, with such people in power.

[Crandar]

Meanwhile in Ukraine:
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/videos-ukrainian-ultra-nationalists-destroy-statue-of-communist-hero-russian-banks/
Nice, nice.

[Greyblades]

Meanwhile, the monument to Nikolai Shchors, a Red Army commander during the Russian Civil War in 1917, was vandalised by unknown people and left without a part of the horse’s leg, in Kiev on Tuesday. The Ukrainian was member of the Russian Communist Party and renowned for his personal courage during the Russian Civil War where the communist forces triumphed over the monarchists.

Should have just called it a racist symbol and demanded it's "decolonisation", they would have gotten more than just a leg.

[Gilrandir]

Still Communist Party was banned. That is the reality.
All your comments are just smoke screens. You will never change, and probably happy with it.

They are not just my comments. They are YOUR POSTS showing inability to perform your notorious reality check. And if you fail to prove your point and show such failures now and then :shrug: be happy living in the warped reality.


Just on that one, Brenus and I gave figures of the awful deepening of the national debt during her time in office. If I remember well you answer she may not be responsible for it. I'm still trying to figure how the Ministre des Finances could be ignorant of the disaster brewing. She may have been aware and then she's just one of those b++++++ds who pushed us down and then not to be trusted. Or she may have been unaware and then she's the most incompentent minister of the last century.
Good luck to the World, anyway, with such people in power.

My point was kinda twofold. First, the minister of finance is not THE ONLY person responsible for it. The crisis could have its toll as well. Second, such claims as our friend Realitychecker forwarded need a comparative analysis to expose its validity. The said comparison was never offered.

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile in Ukraine:
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/videos-ukrainian-ultra-nationalists-destroy-statue-of-communist-hero-russian-banks/
Nice, nice.

I like it too. Especially when the news about Ukraine comes from....

BEIRUT, LEBANON (12:45 A.M.) – Dozens of Ukrainian nationalists vandalised two branches of Russian-owned banks, Sberbank and Alfa Bank, in the Ukrainian city of Nikolayev on Tuesday.

Another claim I like:

The action was reportedly organised by the National Corps, a party formed from the Azov Civil Corps and veterans of the far-right Azov Battalion, who committed atrocities against the Russian-speaking minority in eastern Ukraine during the Donbass war.

1. No proofs of the said atrocities are given.
2. In Eastern Ukaine Russian speakers are a majority.
3. The head of Azov is a Russian-speaker from Kharkiv who speaks Ukrainian haltingly and with an accent.
4. A good portion of other Azovians are from Eastern Ukraine, mostly the city of Mariupol where it was founded (and where it got its name after the Sea of Azov). They are also Russian speakers.


Meanwhile, the monument to Nikolai Shchors, a Red Army commander during the Russian Civil War in 1917, was vandalised by unknown people and left without a part of the horse’s leg, in Kiev on Tuesday.

According to a law adpoted in Ukraine last year all monuments connected with Communism (and its leaders) are to be demolished. In Kyiv all of them were, except this one. So legally speaking, it has no right to stand where it does.

The Ukrainian was member of the Russian Communist Party and renowned for his personal courage during the Russian Civil War where the communist forces triumphed over the monarchists.

It is too simplified a picture of the Civil War of 1917-1922. There were more than two beligerents, notably numerous national liberation forces including the Ukraininan one.


Conclusion: a sloppily written peice of news which looks like a hearsay reported by one who is not well versed (to put it mildly) in the subject.

[Crandar]

Yes, surprisingly Kiev remained silent, so I had to look in Beirut.

Αsking for proof of atrocities committed by the Azov Batallion is similar to asking for proof of the naughtiness of SS and therefore similar to Holocaust denial, but if you insist, you can start by that Wikipedia paragraph and its linked UN reports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Human_rights_violations_and_war_crimes
I stand corrected for the statue, though, I didn't know that the Ukrainian government had already gone full-Nazi, banning parties it dislikes.
I guess it's a natural evolution from the rioters beating old communist veterans and ethnic minorities, imitating the Lvov pogrom. Despicable.

[Brenus]

"They are not just my comments. They are YOUR POSTS showing inability to perform your notorious reality check. And if you fail to prove your point and show such failures now and then be happy living in the warped reality." Whatever.

[Husar]

In related news, Russia continues sabre rattling: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russia-just-cut-its-defense-budget-by-whopping-25-19831


A new report from Jane’s suggesting that the Kremlin is undertaking draconian defense cuts is wrong, a top analyst specializing in Russian affairs says. While the Jane’s report cites cuts of twenty-five percent—or one trillion rubles—the actual reductions are only about seven percent or roughly 230 billion rubles.

Unacceptable of course, here is a relevant graph from a reliable German source:
http://www.der-postillon.com/2017/03/minus-7-prozent.html

19548
(It says planned military expenditures for 2017 in billion US-dollars)

[Gilrandir]

Yes, surprisingly Kiev remained silent, so I had to look in Beirut.


Do you mean that you monitor on a regular basis ALL Ukrainian sources, either in Russian, Ukarainian or in English and found them surprisingly silent on the topic? Such poor searching skills. I guess I can help you:
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F%D 0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%96_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%8 5_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96
http://www.dw.com/uk/%D1%87%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83-%D0%B2-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96-%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83-%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1%96-%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8/a-37928008
http://ua.censor.net.ua/news/426655/aktyvisty_provely_piketuvannya_rosiyiskyh_bankiv_v_ivanofrankivsku

https://www.unian.info/economics/1819532-dozens-of-atms-of-russian-banks-vandalized-in-ukraine-photo.html

If you can't read them, I can assure you that this news has been discussed in Ukraine for a couple of weeks. It seems that you are under impression that "Kiev" conceals it from someone (especially from you). You can at least address other more reputable sources which would not make such glaring blunders and whose reportes are closer to the scene than Beirut.

https://sputniknews.com/business/201703201051771512-kiev-russia-sanctions-banks/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukraine-imposes-sanctions-russian-banks-46173581



Αsking for proof of atrocities committed by the Azov Batallion is similar to asking for proof of the naughtiness of SS and therefore similar to Holocaust denial, but if you insist, you can start by that Wikipedia paragraph and its linked UN reports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Human_rights_violations_and_war_crimes


Did you read what you linked? First of all, the war crimes in it are referred to as "alleged" (meaning not proved legally). Second of all, where did you see me denying atrocities? I can very well assume that the war being a dirty thing done without white mittens such cases may happen on both sides of the conflict. I denied atrocities against Russian-speaking minority. If the atrocities did take place they were not linguistically or ethnically motivated. The wikipedia article never mentions it.



I stand corrected for the statue, though, I didn't know that the Ukrainian government had already gone full-Nazi, banning parties it dislikes.

Somehow, only two kinds of ideologies and parties propagating them are banned in Ukraine - the Nazi one and the Communist one. Now tell me why banning Nazis is a democratic thing to do and banning Communists is a nazi thing to do.



I guess it's a natural evolution from the rioters beating old communist veterans and ethnic minorities, imitating the Lvov pogrom. Despicable.

Do you mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oib-c8bQo

It was in Kharkiv in spring 2014 when a pro-Ukrainian rally was dispersed by pro-Russians and one of the demonstators was kicked in the face by a woman (a nurse by profession).

So, I would like to have a similar proof of beating old communist veterans and ethnic minorities. It is true if some old people come with the symbols of communism some overly zealous people may try to take them away. The process may involve some pushing and shoving, but it is an overstatement to speak of beating. As for "beating ethnic minorities", I never heard of it (I mean beating people BECAUSE they were ethnic minorities).

Generally, it is sad to see a person so ridden by stereotypes and fake news who denies himself critical thinking and believes that Ukrainians are a bunch of nazis whose main aim is to imitate progroms and hunt for pensioners and minorities. This is the very picture of Ukraine Russian media are trying so hard to create.

[Crandar]

So, why did you mention Beirut and doubt the report, if the news were also published by Ukrainian media? A bit self-contradictory.

I suggest reading the three linked reports, because there, there are more definitive statements than allegations.

I am not in favour of banning Nazism, but Nazism=/=Communism. I understand that the allies of Hitler could have a different viewpoint, because of their inability to admit their cruelty, but the civilised world is capable of discerning between gulags and death camps, between purges and holocaust, between a bloodthirsty government and a bloodthirsty ideology.

Nice deflection about Kharkiv. Meanwhile, in reality.
https://www.rt.com/news/258557-ukraine-nationalists-attack-vday/
They even attacked a Mongol child in Barcelona, Jesus. Nice to see however how you justify the bullying of old people, I'm sure UPA used similar arguments when dealing with Poles.

[Gilrandir]

So, why did you mention Beirut and doubt the report, if the news were also published by Ukrainian media? A bit self-contradictory.


It was YOU who gave a source from Beirut explaining it that "Kiev is surprisingly silent about it". I knew all the way that Ukraine doesn't hush these stories as you seem to think.



I suggest reading the three linked reports, because there, there are more definitive statements than allegations.


This is why I referred to THEM, not to a Beirut written story of doubtful value containing a number of mistakes.



I am not in favour of banning Nazism, but Nazism=/=Communism.

If one compares the number of victims Ukraine suffered from both, Communists will have a confident lead.



I understand that the allies of Hitler could have a different viewpoint, because of their inability to admit their cruelty, but the civilised world is capable of discerning between gulags and death camps, between purges and holocaust, between a bloodthirsty government and a bloodthirsty ideology.


I don't know who you mean by the allies of Hitler. Ukraine? The USSR? UPA?
The first didn't exist as an independent state at that time. The other two at different times were allies of Hitler and at other times fought against him. Much as "the civilised world" was hobnobbing with Hitler and helping him to gulp down the civilised Czechoslovakia.

As for discerning the difference: one must judge both by the result. Which for Ukraine was quite identical.

As for inability to admit cruelty: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-13/world-war-ii-isn-t-quite-over-for-poland-and-ukraine

The Ukrainian leader sought to mollify his Polish hosts, kneeling before a memorial to the victims of the Volhynia massacre.

Did any leader of "the civilised world" do the same apologizing for Dresden or Hiroshima bombing?



Nice deflection about Kharkiv. Meanwhile, in reality.
https://www.rt.com/news/258557-ukraine-nationalists-attack-vday/

I didn't deny such facts, but you said something about beating. Where is it? And the beatings of ethnic minorities?



They even attacked a Mongol child in Barcelona, Jesus.

The source, please. Otherwise I will hold it one of the Russian propaganda stories telling how Ukrainians crucify small boys in Donbas and rape epileptical elderly women and own two Russian-speaking slaves each.
http://english.gordonua.com/news/exclusiveenglish/the-crucified-boy-and-two-slaves-top-10-fakes-of-the-russian-propaganda-60117.html



Nice to see however how you justify the bullying of old people, I'm sure UPA used similar arguments when dealing with Poles.

I didn't justify anything. I stood for truth. And the truth is the was no BEATING as you claim. Read my previous post carefully.

And I don't justify UPA. What you don't seem to know (or are reluctant to admit) is that atrocities were there on both sides and the ones committed by UPA came as an answer to the Polish pacification policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification_of_Ukrainians_in_Eastern_Galicia

[Crandar]

My comment about the silence was a response to you highlighting Beirut, please don't try to weasel out of your self-contradiction. My initial post was only a link and twice the word "nice". Oh, and the phrase "Meanwhile in Ukriane".

As I said, the allies of the Nazis have of course a different perspective. They would have had an even more radically different one, if the heroic Red Army didn't stop Hitler's plans about the Slavs. Or Sarmatians, if you prefer.

I believe that the civilised world understands the difference between strategic bombing and a genocide. The ethnic minorities part is included in the three UN reports you chose to ignore.

Finally, if 35 killed Ukrainians are equal to 100,000 killed Poles, then there's something wrong with your moral compass.

Oh, and the proof thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8758zmGZQU

[Gilrandir]

My comment about the silence was a response to you highlighting Beirut, please don't try to weasel out of your self-contradiction. My initial post was only a link and twice the word "nice". Oh, and the phrase "Meanwhile in Ukriane".

I don't see any self-contradiction in what I said. If you explain it clearer perhaps I will see.



As I said, the allies of the Nazis have of course a different perspective.

If you don't specify "the allies of the Nazis" any further discussion is impossible.



They would have had an even more radically different one, if the heroic Red Army didn't stop Hitler's plans about the Slavs. Or Sarmatians, if you prefer.


Arguing with you is next to impossible since you don't hear (or pretend not to) what I say. So for the last time:

1. I don't deny the valor of those who fought Hitler.
2. Almost all the sides who eventually ended up fighting Hitler at some stage were his allies (in a broad sense of the word - either de jure or de facto, signing treaties of friendship (the USSR) or helping him to invade other countries (Britain and France in Munich)).
3. In view of the previous, no one has a moral high ground to accuse anyone.
4. There were participants in WWII who fought against both Germans and Soviets.
5. Atrocities were rampant everywhere, and ANY atrocities are bad.



I believe that the civilised world understands the difference between strategic bombing and a genocide.

So Hiroshima and Dresden were strategic bombings? And they are quite OK? Now I don't think you have right to speak of any moral compass or astrolabe.



The ethnic minorities part is included in the three UN reports you chose to ignore.


How could I ignore something I didn't see? Give me the text and I will judge.



Finally, if 35 killed Ukrainians are equal to 100,000 killed Poles, then there's something wrong with your moral compass.


My moral compass (evidently different from yours) tells me not to gauge the degree of guilt by the number of victims, but to denounce ANY atrocities.
By the way, the number of Ukrainians killed by Poles was much greater than 35:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw%C5%82okoma_massacre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDTUs-fTlOY
http://www.holm.kiev.ua/?lang=2

The martyr’s death symbol for Kholm Ukrainian population is the village of Sagryn where on March 10, 1944 the Army Krajowa soldiers slaughtered atrociously its peaceful residents: during one night over 300 Ukrainian farms were burnt, over 1200 Sagryn inhabitants and those who came from the neignbouring villages were tortured and murdered.

But you seem to think that only those committed by UPA and Nazis deserve denouncing, while those committed by "the Good Side" (like mass rapes of German women by the Soviet soldiers) are a righteous anger of the wronged. Well, carry on, dude.



Oh, and the proof thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8758zmGZQU

:laugh4: I see a man hitting another of Asiatic appearance several times on the face.
1. How do I know the perpetrator was a Ukrainian?
2. How do I know the perpetrator was a Ukrainian nazi?
3. How do I know the victim was Mongolean (and not Chinese or Korean)?
4. How can the ethnic/racial character of the conflict (and not just simple bullying, robbery attempt or a conflict over other things - like a girl or football preferences) be proved?

But even if it was the way you describe it - what do you want to prove? That there are Ukrainian nazis? I don't deny it. There are nazis in Ukraine as much as anywhere. Or do you think I support this guy in the video? By the way, it may come as a shock to you, but there are Nazis in Greece and they behave no better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqUDvjak54o

Generally, I have an impression that your agenda amounts to:
1. Historically Ukrainians were Hitler's friends.
2. Ukraine is now ruled by nazis and it is no wonder because see #1.
3. As opposed to Ukraine, all the civilised world has already exterminated those ignoble practices so it can teach Ukraine what is right and what is wrong.

If you are so adamant in your delusions and don't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit into this frame - :shrug:

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile, SBU made the ban official:
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/410787.html

And another assassination of a Russian official, now in Ukraine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/23/former-russian-mp-denis-voronenkov-shot-dead-in-kiev

[Crandar]

Girlandir, please be consistent.
You said that the genocide in Volhynia and Galicia were a response to Polish atrocities. When I laughed at your example, you used some hardly convincing sanctimonious deflection and, because you knew no sane person equates 35 with 100,000, you gave me a massacre committed after the genocide in Galicia.
Do the Ukrainians act proactively? Jesus.

The rest of your post is whattaboutism, intentional misunderstanding of what the English word ally means, refusal to acknowledge the universally recognized necessity of bombing them to prevent an operation that would cost 5 to 10 million extra dead Japanese and a constant refusal to read three linked reports in a damn wikipedia paragraph.

[Gilrandir]

Girlandir, please be consistent.
You said that the genocide in Volhynia and Galicia were a response to Polish atrocities.
When I laughed at your example, you used some hardly convincing sanctimonious deflection and, because you knew no sane person equates 35 with 100,000, you gave me a massacre committed after the genocide in Galicia.
Do the Ukrainians act proactively? Jesus.

Crandar, please, be attentive and read what I WROTE, not what you THINK (or you WISH) I wrote.
I said it was a response to PACIFICATION POLICY, not to atrocities. Mass atrocities started later, when the WWII broke. And yes, both sides participated in them. This is what you stubbornly refuse to admit choosing to rub in the number of victims killed by one side and ignoring the other.

Summarizing the debate:
My view of the story:
UPA killed Poles - yes, how cruel.
Armia Krajowa killed Ukrainians - yes, how cruel.
Conclusion: let's admit it, apologize and move on.
Your view of this story:
UPA killed Poles - yes, how cruel.
Armia Krajowa killed Ukrainians - hardly convincing. And if it happened casualties were too petty to speak of and be indignant about.
Conclusion: Ukrainians are a root of all evil.

Although I must admit you are very consistent in pursuing this conclusion.



The rest of your post is whattaboutism,


What about the Mongol? Any news of other Ukrainian nazis beating Malaysians, Cambodians or Tibetians?



intentional misunderstanding of what the English word ally means,

Since "ally" is someone united with someone else FORMALLY by a treaty, UPA was never an ally of Germany. Moreover, an organization can't possibly ally (sign a treaty) with a country. Unlike the USSR: http://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=442



refusal to acknowledge the universally recognized necessity of bombing them to prevent an operation that would cost 5 to 10 million extra dead Japanese

Wonderful! Hiroshima was bombed TO SAVE JAPANESE! And Dresden, I presume, to save Germans. Now you would tell me that Ukrainians are cruel? If you claim that both were "the universally recognized necessity", name the universe in which this is recognized. I bet it is the civilised universe of the winners of the WWII. But do the losers of the WWII hold the same opinion?



and a constant refusal to read three linked reports in a damn wikipedia paragraph.

I didn't know you wanted me so little as to read three tiny repots two of which are 53 pages long and one - 49 pages long. That I won't. What I did read was the wikipedia paragraph you referred to:

Human rights violations and war crimes
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR) have connected the Azov Battalion to alleged war crimes such as mass looting, the use of torture, beatings of detained civilians, the abduction of journalists, electrocution and waterboarding. An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February 2015". Another OHCHR report noted use of rape and torture, writing: "A man with a mental disability was subject to cruel treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence by eight to 10 members of the 'Azov' and 'Donbas' battalions in August-September 2014. The victim's health subsequently deteriorated and he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital."


It said NOTHING of ethnically or linguistically motivated crimes, which you claimed to have been committed by Ukrainian nazis. Seeing the nature of your allegations and your inability to furnish proofs (not just "hardly convincing sanctimonious deflections" with Mongols and never-beaten pensioners) I think I'm right in believeing I would find NOTHING in report which would corroborate your empty accusations. But if you are so eager to prove your point, read the reports yourself and quote the parts that expose ethnic or/and linguistic motivation of the ALLLEGED crimes mentioned in them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gilrandir:

Be careful when arguing against morality in international affairs. However poorly honored in the past -- and you are correct that most (all?) polities have, in the past, done things that current moral sensibilities find reprehensible -- the attempt to impose some form of higher moral standard/some code of behavior that surpasses the nation-state, still has value. Without that effort, even where it is limited to a desire for the "respect" of other nations, we are left with nothing but realpolitik.

Under the rules of realpolitik, Crimea belongs to Russia by right of conquest.

[Gilrandir]

Gilrandir:

Be careful when arguing against morality in international affairs. However poorly honored in the past -- and you are correct that most (all?) polities have, in the past, done things that current moral sensibilities find reprehensible -- the attempt to impose some form of higher moral standard/some code of behavior that surpasses the nation-state, still has value. Without that effort, even where it is limited to a desire for the "respect" of other nations, we are left with nothing but realpolitik.

Under the rules of realpolitik, Crimea belongs to Russia by right of conquest.

I said nothing about disrispect of morality in any sphere, including international affairs. My stance is that before attempting to impose a higher moral code everybody should agree that in the past no nation (whether in alliance with Hitler or opposing him) was exempt from exercising dirty practices. Then everybody should apologize for the past grievances and stop referring to them to push their current agenda.

[Sarmatian]

That's a silly excuse. Everyone committed crimes, so everyone's equal. Not by a long shot.

As long as excuses are found for those crimes and as long as criminals are revered by certain groups, organizations or states, it will talked about. You can't not discuss it when in 2017 a person like Bandera is honoured.

[Brenus]

Gilrandir, Under the rules of realpolitik, Crimea belongs to Russia by right of conquest.

It was given to Ukraine by the right of conquest.

[Gilrandir]

As long as excuses are found for those crimes and as long as criminals are revered by certain groups, organizations or states, it will talked about.

If you read what Crandar said, he found enough excuses for bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden.

As for revering criminals, I posted a picutre of a certain Arsen Pavlov aka Motorola whose mural appeared on a wall in Belgrade. Has anyone bothered to erase it yet?



You can't not discuss it when in 2017 a person like Bandera is honoured.

I think we've been through with discussing Bandera. He was a controversial figure, who had dark and light sides to him. One may praise the latter and condemn the former. At least no court (including the Nuremberg one) found him (or the whole UPA indeed) guilty.

As for honoring people: every nation has some honored public figures unpalatable for some other nations. For example, Suvorov, a highly praised Russian general of the late XVIII century is a sinister figure for the Poles who turned their uprisal into bloodbath. He is revered in Russia, military schools for boys are called after him and no one in Poland bats an eyelid. Pilsudsky was the initiator of pacification policy in Galicia. Ukraine doesn't mind when he is glorified in Poland. Bogdan Khmelnitsky is revered in Ukraine as one of the greatest leaders who liberated Ukraine from the Polish. His military successes were often accompanied by massacres of Jewish population. Does Isreal protest when Khmelnitsky is glorified in Ukraine? Should I mention Genghis Khan after whom half the infrastructure objects in Mongolia are named? And? Do China or Central Asian states protest? And all of them are guilty of killing thousands people.

Conclusion: history is full is dirty and noble deeds. One must now both and condemn the former and glorify the latter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was given to Ukraine by the right of conquest.

Not sure the dissolution following the end of the "cold war" is really "conquest," per se, but it certainly did result from a prolonged political/economic struggle.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you read what Crandar said, he found enough excuses for bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden.

At its roots, ethics on the battlefield is ultimately guaranteed by reprisal. The laws and customs of war are an attempt to ameliorate the need for reprisal by curtailing those events that prompt the need for reprisal.

During that conflict and among those nations involved, neither the USA nor the British were the first to specifically target a largely civilian population center. Japan's actions in China were brutal even by Asian "standards of warfare" and both Warsaw and Rotterdam preceded any British efforts targeting civilian populations.

Moreover, for all of the shock and horror associated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and we didn't have many who really understood radiation all that well, especially among decision makers), the Tokyo Fire Raid killed more people.

[Montmorency]

Interesting consideration just now, and one I haven't seen in discussions of WW2 nuclear strategy: if in hope of causing the Japanese government to submit unconditionally (or nearly so) without resort to nuclears, would fire bombing and other mass destruction have proved ethically-superior (all discussion I have seen regards Japanese readiness to surrender in the abstract, or the cost-benefit ratio to amphibious invasion of the main islands.) Though plenty take some issue with strategic bombing in the war, it would indeed have been a continuation of prior means, and it would have been relatively cheap and simple.

In the end the nuclear bombs were about effecting speedy surrender toward immediate occupation, and demonstrating to the Soviet Union the power precipitating the surrender. Questioning the ethics of nuclear weapons is invariably caught up in anxiety about the American empire. I think this means more to people than any perceived inhumanity or existential threat of the weapons themselves.

[Gilrandir]

Not sure the dissolution following the end of the "cold war" is really "conquest," per se, but it certainly did result from a prolonged political/economic struggle.

I might be mistaken, but Brenus probably means that Crimea was conquered by Russian empire in 1873 and remained a part of it (and later the USSR) till it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.


Interesting consideration just now, and one I haven't seen in discussions of WW2 nuclear strategy: if in hope of causing the Japanese government to submit unconditionally (or nearly so) without resort to nuclears, would fire bombing and other mass destruction have proved ethically-superior (all discussion I have seen regards Japanese readiness to surrender in the abstract, or the cost-benefit ratio to amphibious invasion of the main islands.) Though plenty take some issue with strategic bombing in the war, it would indeed have been a continuation of prior means, and it would have been relatively cheap and simple.

In the end the nuclear bombs were about effecting speedy surrender toward immediate occupation, and demonstrating to the Soviet Union the power precipitating the surrender. Questioning the ethics of nuclear weapons is invariably caught up in anxiety about the American empire. I think this means more to people than any perceived inhumanity or existential threat of the weapons themselves.

I wasn't talking only of NUCLEAR bombings. I tried to draw attention to the fact that all parties to WWII at one time or another were involved into deeds of (to put it mildly) questionable morality which can't be justified by any strategic considerations or need for reprisals. They can be EXPLAINED by such reasons, but not JUSTIFIED.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I might be mistaken, but Brenus probably means that Crimea was conquered by Russian empire in 1873 and remained a part of it (and later the USSR) till it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.

I could be mistaken, but I do not think so. The assignment of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was more or less a bureaucratic streamlining thing. The USSR did not give any meaningful separate status to parts of the union save as a means to have multiple votes in the UN general assembly.

[Sarmatian]

I wasn't talking only of NUCLEAR bombings. I tried to draw attention to the fact that all parties to WWII at one time or another were involved into deeds of (to put it mildly) questionable morality which can't be justified by any strategic considerations or need for reprisals. They can be EXPLAINED by such reasons, but not JUSTIFIED.

Still not the same, not even close. And Bandera is still a war criminal.

Considering the mural, I have no idea, and I don't care. There are idiots everywhere, some have more and some less talent for drawing. It had nothing to do with government and no one gives a ****.

[Brenus]

Not sure the dissolution following the end of the "cold war" is really "conquest," per se, but it certainly did result from a prolonged political/economic struggle.

I was referring to the "gift" of Crimea to Ukraine by Khrushchev... Amazing how the West is found of Communist Dictatorships borders when it suits.

"I might be mistaken, but Brenus probably means that Crimea was conquered by Russian empire in 1873" and this too.

[Gilrandir]

Still not the same, not even close.

You are entitled to have you opinion of Dresden bombing or German women rapes in 1945 considering them somehow better than Nazis' atrocities. I don't.



And Bandera is still a war criminal.


I see. Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam.
You may call him that. As well you may call Begin a terrorist, Pilsudsky an oppressor of Ukrainians and Chenghis Khan a bloody conqueror. Yet they are revered in their home countries.



Considering the mural, I have no idea, and I don't care. There are idiots everywhere, some have more and some less talent for drawing. It had nothing to do with government and no one gives a ****.

If a war criminal is portrayed on the wall of a European city and no one (including the authorities) gives a damn - well, that speaks a lot of such people and I believe their right to condemn other war criminals is thus forfeit.

[Sarmatian]

You are entitled to have you opinion of Dresden bombing or German women rapes in 1945 considering them somehow better than Nazis' atrocities. I don't.


Good for you.


If a war criminal is portrayed on the wall of a European city and no one (including the authorities) gives a damn - well, that speaks a lot of such people and I believe their right to condemn other war criminals is thus forfeit.

Well, that's that, then. If graffiti are the standard now...

On a side note, I remembered an interesting graffiti case in Sarajevo after the war.

Somebody wrote in big letters on Post office wall in the center of Sarajevo

THIS IS SERBIA

and then somebody wrote underneath

You idiot, this is the post office

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was given to Ukraine by the right of conquest.

As a response to my statement that, under realpolitik Crimea could be construed as belonging to Russia by right of conquest, I do not see the link.

Russia conquered the Crimea in 1873. It was territory "owned" by the Tsars who also "owned" the Ukraine.

How does this suggest that Ukraine conquered Crimea? Crimea being a part of Ukraine was bureaucratic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea), with Ukraine retaining control more or less by inertia in 1991.

The 1873 conquest of Crimea by the Tsars and subsequent "Russification" efforts may well have established a populace that deemed itself more "Russian" then "Ukrainian," a factor used by the Russians along with covert troop deployment to take control of Crimea and annex it since the Ukrainian internal problems developed in 2014. So it may be argued that the Tsarist conquest helped establish the position allowing its reacquisition by Russia more recently, but I cannot see how the Tsarist conquest of Crimea means that Crimea was Ukrainian by right of conquest.

You may argue that Russia's conquest of Crimea allowed the right to dispose of the territory as they deemed fit, including it's transfer to Ukrainian oversight under Kruschev's politburo. But while that may legitimize Ukraine's claim to the Crimea, a claim reinforced by their inclusion of that territory as theirs while assuming independence (which claim was accepted by Russia), the legitimacy does not stem from any Ukrainian conquest.

THAT was what underscores my earlier comment to Gil.' It is the accepted customs of international law -- an attempt to impose a moral/ethical framework to replace 'might makes right' -- that supports Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Might, in the form of 'by right of conquest,' would underscore and support Russia's annexation. Therefore, I suggested that his implicit argument suggesting that no country could claim the moral high ground was rhetorically counterproductive to his larger goal of a free and independent Ukraine maintaining sovereignty over its 1992 borders.

[Brenus]

"How does this suggest that Ukraine conquered Crimea? Crimea being a part of Ukraine was bureaucratic, with Ukraine retaining control more or less by inertia in 1991." So, when a dictator gives a piece of land to a crony, it is ok then?
But, there is something interesting in this sentence: by inertia. That is where the problem is. No one asked before or after the population's opinions, as in the "good old times" of the colonies. Then, as for Asia, Africa and others parts, ethnic conflicts started...
Then, by pure ideology and a lot of arrogance, ignoring the changes of time, the EU and US thought it will be like with the good old drunk Yeltsin and Yugoslavia and Orange Revolutions.

[Brenus]

THAT was what underscores my earlier comment to Gil.' It is the accepted customs of international law -- an attempt to impose a moral/ethical framework to replace 'might makes right' -- that supports Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Might, in the form of 'by right of conquest,' would underscore and support Russia's annexation. Therefore, I suggested that his implicit argument suggesting that no country could claim the moral high ground was rhetorically counterproductive to his larger goal of a free and independent Ukraine maintaining sovereignty over its 1992 borders.
I agree with this. The problem of course is that USA and EU had themselves broken International treaties with Serbia bombing and the secession of Kosovo.
Yugoslavia was one of the highest point of hypocrisy and break of international rules. First, not all populations had a right to separate, (btw, it was few days ago the anniversary of the Bombing campaign against Serbia) but some had. It was the first time that borders established by a Dictator were recognised without any discussion and against the recommendation of an EU commission. Pure geopolitic, but far from International rules and laws.
This was an opened door for the Putin alike...

[Gilrandir]

Good for you.

And not that good for YOU.



Well, that's that, then. If graffiti are the standard now...


It is not about the mural, it is about the reaction (or rather the absence of it) from any quarter - either from the population or from the authorities. Such absence equals tolerating glorification of war criminals.



THAT was what underscores my earlier comment to Gil.' It is the accepted customs of international law -- an attempt to impose a moral/ethical framework to replace 'might makes right' -- that supports Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Might, in the form of 'by right of conquest,' would underscore and support Russia's annexation. Therefore, I suggested that his implicit argument suggesting that no country could claim the moral high ground was rhetorically counterproductive to his larger goal of a free and independent Ukraine maintaining sovereignty over its 1992 borders.

It is not about moral or ethics. It is about abiding by laws and the treaties signed.


It was the first time that borders established by a Dictator were recognised without any discussion and against the recommendation of an EU commission.

It doesn't matter who established the borders. What matters is the international recognition of them. After it had happened the borders drawn by any dictator are as good as those established by democratic negotiations. In case of Crimea, its belonging to Ukraine (to be precise, the sovereignty of Ukraine within its current borders) was promulgated in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. After this all attempts to weasel out are against the law.

[Sarmatian]

It is not about the mural, it is about the reaction (or rather the absence of it) from any quarter - either from the population or from the authorities. Such absence equals tolerating glorification of war criminals.


Do you really expect governments to react to each graffiti? I can assure you there are much worse.

Do you really think that population of Serbia have:
1) seen the graffiti?
2) understood the graffiti?
3) care about it?
4) have a deeper understanding of this particular conflict?

They have trouble giving a damn about Kosovo, conflict in Ukraine may as well be happening on Mars as far as the general population is concerned.

[Brenus]

It doesn't matter who established the borders. What matters is the international recognition of them. After it had happened the borders drawn by any dictator are as good as those established by democratic negotiations. In case of Crimea, its belonging to Ukraine (to be precise, the sovereignty of Ukraine within its current borders) was promulgated in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. After this all attempts to weasel out are against the law.

Yes. However when EU & USA showed they didn't feel that international laws and treaties/agreements were binding when their interests demanded, it was an opened door to people like Putin. In doing this, they broke the rules, and Ukraine is paying the price...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is not about moral or ethics. It is about abiding by laws and the treaties signed.

But the whole point I am making is that laws and treaties are the "CHILD" of morality and ethics. Absent some appeal to a higher morality/ethical standard, the laws or treaties are meaningless. Without some higher standard against which all behaviors are measured, you are left with nothing more than G. J. Caesar's dictum about the victors doing whatever they want and the defeated enduring whatever the victor wishes (a.k.a. might makes right).


It doesn't matter who established the borders. What matters is the international recognition of them. After it had happened the borders drawn by any dictator are as good as those established by democratic negotiations. In case of Crimea, its belonging to Ukraine (to be precise, the sovereignty of Ukraine within its current borders) was promulgated in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. After this all attempts to weasel out are against the law.

While it does matter how/by whom the borders were established in terms of levels of practical support etc., you are absolutely correct as to the illegality of Russia's annexation of Crimea. Russia broke the treaty signed with Ukraine, with the "plebiscite" for an Crimean 'anschluss' with Russia being blatantly inappropriate by all accepted international standards and an abrogation of the treaty signed with Crimea.

What I have been arguing is that applying the old classic "all have been immoral in the past" standard to undercut the "morality score" of any international actor, implicitly undercuts the spirit of the entirety of international law. Without some appeal to a higher, generally accepted ethical standard, you devolve to old fashioned might-makes-right sensibilities. By that old bronze-age standard, the Russians have a RIGHT to the Crimea because Ukraine isn't powerful enough to do shit to stop it.


With a higher standard of accepted practices in place, then other nations MUST work to redress the issue, and not acknowledge it and support it, because that kind of annexation despite treaty and under questionable plebiscite support is not condoned by UN era standards of ethical behavior among nations.


I do note however, that the West's collective response has been pretty anemic. It should have been handled in much the same manner as was the annexation of Kuwait in 1991. And yes, that does mean facing down a nation armed with nuclear weapons by asserting that any resort to those weapons will bring about a collective response in kind by the coalition opposing the annexation. You cannot bluff with this kind of stuff, it must be credible. The West's unwillingness to take this step has allowed Russian to use Caesar's approach.

[Montmorency]

Seamus, how would you address Brenus' interpretation of Yugoslavian intervention and Kosovar independence for this issue?

If you already said something about it, please link me to the post. This thread is a repetitious blur to me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with this. The problem of course is that USA and EU had themselves broken International treaties with Serbia bombing and the secession of Kosovo.

And few if any countries have adhered to the moral high ground and honored all treaties in both letter and spirit as they should. But a past failure can not be deemed as invalidating efforts to honor treaties and act morally moving forward or you implicitly discard any effort to act morally in the future.

My priest will issue absolution for past sins, knowing that I will probably be a recidivist despite my best intentions. But he is encouraging me to at least TRY to do better moving forward and has not discarded the principle that striving to act morally is worthy of the effort even if past transgressions exist.


by inertia...

I very much think it was inertia. Nobody seriously consulted the will of the Crimeans prior to 1997. I was simply asserting that sovereignty by treaty and agreement absent conquest was not "by conquest." I was not attempting to suggest that the wishes of the Crimeans themselves had been considered -- I actually suspect that they were not, which aided Russia's efforts to take over.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus, how would you address Brenus' interpretation of Yugoslavian intervention and Kosovar independence for this issue?

If you already said something about it, please link me to the post. This thread is a repetitious blur to me.

I haven't taken on that theme directly. It would require more research than I have time for at the moment. How much right did we have to intervene in the Balkans...I would need to think through the premises of all parties a bit to evaluate that myself.

[Sarmatian]

Without going into history too much (who had moral right to a territory, who was where first and so on...), from the legal aspect the parallel is evident. Yugoslavia was recognized as a single country after ww2, and the internal borders were created later, as borders of administrative divisions. When tensions started to brew, ultimately the international community (represented by the West at the time, as Russia was impotent and China shied away from international crisis) that those administrative borders were sancrosanct. Those administrative lines would become state borders. One might say the legal principle was set.

After less than a decade, the principle was broken with Kosovo independence. But there was a caveat, namely that by committing various atrocities against the population of Kosovo, Serbia has lost the right to that part of its territory. So, the spin was that the principle wasn't really broken because there was a more important principle to be upheld, namely stopping an ongoing genocide.

From the legal point of view, the entire intervention in 1999 was illegal. There was no consensus in the UN, it was a unilateral decision by NATO. Even NATO statute was ignored, which states that NATO can not be used in an offensive manner. So, attacking a sovereign country that didn't attack or even threaten to attack a NATO member was obviously an illegal action, but the spin was that NATO wasn't really attacking - it was proactively defending Kosovo Albanians. The moral need for intervention was so great, that it superseded any and all laws.

I would have liked to have seen what legal hoops the judges of ICJ would have had to jump through to absolve NATO from blame if Serbia hadn't withdrawn the lawsuit against 8 NATO members.

Russia is doing the same thing now, maintaining that they haven't really broken any laws or treaties because Crimeans decided to secede from Ukraine in a plebiscite. Again, there's a facade of legality, but even if somebody were to question the legality, the moral imperative was so strong that it superseded everything else - people of Crimea simply couldn't have been left to Nazis in Kiev.

As there isn't an international court that can enforce its decisions in the entire world, the bottom line is the we're still in the "might makes right" territory, regardless of how civilized we like to present ourselves, although no one is willing to admit it.

[Gilrandir]

Do you really expect governments to react to each graffiti? I can assure you there are much worse.


What if there was doctor Mengele or Mussolini depicted on a wall? No one would give a damn? Local authorities SHOULD be interested in people depicted publicly. Otherwise you may soon see other as unsavory people looking at you from walls and fences.



Do you really think that population of Serbia have:
1) seen the graffiti?

I have, and they haven't?



2) understood the graffiti?
3) care about it?
4) have a deeper understanding of this particular conflict?


Read above on what indifference may lead to.


But the whole point I am making is that laws and treaties are the "CHILD" of morality and ethics. Absent some appeal to a higher morality/ethical standard, the laws or treaties are meaningless. Without some higher standard against which all behaviors are measured, you are left with nothing more than G. J. Caesar's dictum about the victors doing whatever they want and the defeated enduring whatever the victor wishes (a.k.a. might makes right).

Moral rules are not always embodied into laws. For instance, adultery is immoral, but it is not illegal (well, not in the "civilised societies"). Moreover, some laws which were based on obsolete moral norms have been repealed (like sodomy was a crime in the USSR - and perhaps in other countries). So there is no direct correlation between moral and law. In view of this I would put more emphasis on law than on morality, especially in international issues, since moral codes of different societies may vary. Mind you, I say "MORE emphasis", which means I don't reject morality as a factor altogehter.



What I have been arguing is that applying the old classic "all have been immoral in the past" standard to undercut the "morality score" of any international actor, implicitly undercuts the spirit of the entirety of international law. Without some appeal to a higher, generally accepted ethical standard, you devolve to old fashioned might-makes-right sensibilities.


Again, emphasis should be made on legality/illegality, morality is too fuzzy a notion.



I do note however, that the West's collective response has been pretty anemic. It should have been handled in much the same manner as was the annexation of Kuwait in 1991. And yes, that does mean facing down a nation armed with nuclear weapons by asserting that any resort to those weapons will bring about a collective response in kind by the coalition opposing the annexation. You cannot bluff with this kind of stuff, it must be credible. The West's unwillingness to take this step has allowed Russian to use Caesar's approach.

There is one more factor (besides morality and law) to count with when such situations arise: money. In case of Kuwait all you say about morality and law was coupled with financial considerations which promised a profit after the jusitice has been restored. In case of Russia such consideration promised only financial losses. And this seemed to have outweighed in the West's collective mind.



I very much think it was inertia. Nobody seriously consulted the will of the Crimeans prior to 1997. I was simply asserting that sovereignty by treaty and agreement absent conquest was not "by conquest." I was not attempting to suggest that the wishes of the Crimeans themselves had been considered -- I actually suspect that they were not, which aided Russia's efforts to take over.

Before Anshcluss, Austria had a referendum which brought a positive result (for Hitler). So people WERE asked what they wanted. Yet somehow it didn't make the Anschluss legal.



So, attacking a sovereign country that didn't attack or even threaten to attack a NATO member was obviously an illegal action, but the spin was that NATO wasn't really attacking - it was proactively defending Kosovo Albanians. The moral need for intervention was so great, that it superseded any and all laws.


The same can be said of attacking Iraq in Kuwait in 1991. Yet this war is considered to be a righteous one.

[Brenus]

The same can be said of attacking Iraq in Kuwait in 1991. Yet this war is considered to be a righteous one. I think the 1991 war was a UN war. Saddam had invaded a sovereign country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687

[Gilrandir]

I think the 1991 war was a UN war. Saddam had invaded a sovereign country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687

It became a UN war because Iraq couldn't veto those resolutions you refer to. Plus the finacial considerations which I have mentioned. In other cases, when the principle world players are involved invasions of sovereign countries pass unnoticed. Or, for a change, UN can throw philippics but no one cares.

[Brenus]

It became a UN war because Iraq couldn't veto those resolutions you refer to. Plus the finacial considerations which I have mentioned. In other cases, when the principle world players are involved invasions of sovereign countries pass unnoticed. Or, for a change, UN can throw philippics but no one cares.

UN is not perfect but it is what we have.
Or we let NATO,China and Russia decide what is moral or not, what is legal or not. I give you that with the NATO involvement in Yugoslavia, it was not a knife but a machete in the contract.
At least, the French Parliament did vote to send troops in Iraq (Kuwait). To be fair, I agreed with the vote.
I am not sure it was the right move anymore... Do we have to help dictatorships invaded by other dictatorships?

[Gilrandir]

UN is not perfect but it is what we have.
Or we let NATO,China and Russia decide what is moral or not, what is legal or not.

They still do it, whether with the help of the UN or without it. The UN needs a reform to remove the dictatorship of the permanent members, otherwise it is useless when they are involved in a conflict - and they almost always are.



At least, the French Parliament did vote to send troops in Iraq (Kuwait). To be fair, I agreed with the vote.


While ostensibly it was meant to restore justice, the financial prospects for the parties involved were one of the reasons it happened (in my view).

[Brenus]

They still do it, whether with the help of the UN or without it. The UN needs a reform to remove the dictatorship of the permanent members, otherwise it is useless when they are involved in a conflict - and they almost always are.
While ostensibly it was meant to restore justice, the financial prospects for the parties involved were one of the reasons it happened (in my view).
I can't disagree... I am dishonored...

[Sarmatian]

They still do it, whether with the help of the UN or without it. The UN needs a reform to remove the dictatorship of the permanent members


Why do you assume democracies are better?

Iraq invasion was done by democracies. It was based on false information, against a country that didn't threaten them or their citizens. It resulted in several hundred thousand deaths, billions of dollars in damage and no one answered for that.

At best, someone blushed when it was brought up.

[Gilrandir]

Why do you assume democracies are better?

Iraq invasion was done by democracies. It was based on false information, against a country that didn't threaten them or their citizens. It resulted in several hundred thousand deaths, billions of dollars in damage and no one answered for that.

At best, someone blushed when it was brought up.

I didn't say democracies are better. What I claimed was that international involvement to do justice isn't brought about by moral considerations (only). The latter are disregarded when the democracies fear being in the red after/because of "doing justice".

[Sarmatian]

I didn't say democracies are better. What I claimed was that international involvement to do justice isn't brought about by moral considerations (only). The latter are disregarded when the democracies fear being in the red after/because of "doing justice".

Yeah, I misunderstood your post.

[Gilrandir]

Ukraine is under cyberattack:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/ukraine-hit-massive-cyber-attack1/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm really surprised nobody picked this up.

So, the Attack in Ukraine was not, in fact, Ransomware but a good old fashioned virus attack. Dubbed "NotPetya" because it masquerades as the Petya Ransomeware the virus destroys data with virtually no hope of recovery. Apparently is found its way into the wild via a backdoor malicious inserted into a Tax App widely used in Ukraine.

Rather more interestingly, the makers of the virus apparently had access to the NSA's Eternal Blue exploit weeks before it was released by the "Shadow Brokers".

This suggests some link between those who promulgated NotPetya and the Shadow Brokers themselves. The most likely explanation is that both are Russian, possibly state sponsored, and their aim is to further Russian political goals, namely crippling Ukraine and discrediting the US. If so this means by extension that Russia may be indirectly responsible for WannaCry which crippled the NHS back in March.

https://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2017/07/notpetya-medoc-tax-app-backdoor/

https://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2017/07/notpetya-developers-obtained-nsa-exploits-weeks-before-their-public-leak/

[Sarmatian]

Let me see if I follow your logic - since NotPetya originated in Ukraine, it must have been planted by Russians. Since it was based on Shadow Brokers code possibly before it was released to the public, it means that Shadow Brokers are Russian. Since they are Russian, it is quite conceivable that they are controlled by the Russian state. Since the code was acquired from NSA, it means that NSA is under Russian contr...
No wait, you still didn't get that far.

Do follow that train of thought, I'm interested where you're gonna end up.

[Gilrandir]

Let me see if I follow your logic - since NotPetya originated in Ukraine, it must have been planted by Russians.
Who said it originated in Ukraine? It hit Ukraine heavier than other countries (about 75% of all attacks were against Ukrainian computers). But from what I heard it was developed (= originated) in the USA.

[Sarmatian]

Who said it originated in Ukraine?

Originated, as in, first affected devices were in Ukraine.

[Gilrandir]

New information on MH 17: on the eve of the shooting down Russia closed its airspace:
https://en.lb.ua/news/2017/07/17/4141_forbes_russia_closed_its_airspace.html

[Fragony]

It was probably a horrible mistake no matter who did it, people just make them. Maybe I am really naive, but I can't believe it was done on purpose

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was probably a horrible mistake no matter who did it, people just make them. Maybe I am really naive, but I can't believe it was done on purpose

I suspect that you are correct. However, I believe prosecutors seek to pursue charges that it was a reckless/negligent act by those who fired and that they are therefore legally culpable.

[Fragony]

I suspect that you are correct. However, I believe prosecutors seek to pursue charges that it was a reckless/negligent act by those who fired and that they are therefore legally culpable.

Plane just shouldn't have been there. Our minister of foreign-afairs who must have known it was dangrous was immediatly 'promoted' for an invented job in Brussels. Lots of politics, but I think it was just a mistake, a mistake with horrible consequences but still just a mistake

Pretty disapointed in my usualy smart countrymen. A picture was shown of a Russian seperatist holding a bunny-pet. It was immediatly interpetated as a trophy, I thought it was something else 'look at this wtf happened' but I was pretty alone in considering that and got some really nasty reactions for considering they had it all wrong

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Need a date/status update on Vlad.

[Sarmatian]

Just assume he's a fascist until told otherwise.

[Strike For The South]

Nobody ever listens to me until it's too late.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nobody ever listens to me until it's too late.

Doomed to the path of Cassandra you are. Poor lad. But at least you have your memories of cher Louis.

[Gilrandir]

A follow up on MH 17.
https://www.rferl.org/a/mh17-criminal-probe-to-appeal-to-the-public-for-help/29246988.html

[Gilrandir]

Now Putin admits that THEY held referendum in Crimea.
https://www.unian.info/politics/10191819-putin-s-words-on-crimea-referendum-must-be-used-as-confession-mp.html

[Gilrandir]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46340283

[Fragony]

Could escalate

[rory_20_uk]

Could escalate

It could. I'm not sure how. Ukraine can't expect any support from NATO countries since those with the ability have no interest and those without can't annoy Russia since Russia will act. By itself? Russia is already causing a massive amount of issues and could ramp them up.

Russia is proving to be an expert in the "grey" area of warfare - the "not quite hostile enough but still really hostile". Democracies are increasingly difficult to get "riled up" and probably rightly so - why should our soldiers fight and potentially die when not all Ukrainians are doing so? Give the locals training, give them army surplus and if they want to fight for their rights then so be it. But against heavily armed Russian mercenaries, I doubt they do.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

It could. I'm not sure how. Ukraine can't expect any support from NATO countries since those with the ability have no interest and those without can't annoy Russia since Russia will act. By itself? Russia is already causing a massive amount of issues and could ramp them up.

Russia is proving to be an expert in the "grey" area of warfare - the "not quite hostile enough but still really hostile". Democracies are increasingly difficult to get "riled up" and probably rightly so - why should our soldiers fight and potentially die when not all Ukrainians are doing so? Give the locals training, give them army surplus and if they want to fight for their rights then so be it. But against heavily armed Russian mercenaries, I doubt they do.

~:smoking:

Can escalate because of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ this was so dumb. Because of these idiots we will be involved if things clashes. Russia never harmed us but because of the EU we will be drawn in anyway. Screw them, Russians are nice people.

[Montmorency]

Can escalate because of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ this was so dumb. Because of these idiots we will be involved if things clashes. Russia never harmed us but because of the EU we will be drawn in anyway. Screw them, Russians are nice people.

I don't know that they're any nicer than Ukrainians. Or any other group, really.

Timely question: were the Brits on "the wrong side" of the First World War?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't know that they're any nicer than Ukrainians. Or any other group, really.

Timely question: were the Brits on "the wrong side" of the First World War?

Probably. But the Brits had not realised they were not all powerful and were merely quite powerful - the time to prevent Prussia gaining power in continental Europe was siding with France in the Franco-Prussian war - siding with the damned Republic against Victoria's own family...? After that was missed the cost to recreate the "balance" was pretty much the Empire - sure, it would have faded but this was the start of the catalyst.

Britain should have stood with their historic allies in Prussia / Germany and defeated their historic enemies the French - illustrated that France still dislikes Britain (and vice versa) even though the two were allies in both world wars and beyond. But it was a fratricidal mess where the lower orders were pulled in like chess pieces.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Probably. But the Brits had not realised they were not all powerful and were merely quite powerful - the time to prevent Prussia gaining power in continental Europe was siding with France in the Franco-Prussian war - siding with the damned Republic against Victoria's own family...? After that was missed the cost to recreate the "balance" was pretty much the Empire - sure, it would have faded but this was the start of the catalyst.

Britain should have stood with their historic allies in Prussia / Germany and defeated their historic enemies the French - illustrated that France still dislikes Britain (and vice versa) even though the two were allies in both world wars and beyond. But it was a fratricidal mess where the lower orders were pulled in like chess pieces.

~:smoking:

Well, the right answer to my question was 'That's a bad question'.

From a realist perspective, there's Lord Palmerston's famous line. Germanic fratrimony is a creepy and hollow idea for obvious reasons, but it was certainly never a popular one such that it could motivate competing powers to team up against the world or whatever the hypothetical is.

Do the French and British even "dislike" each other today more than the Canadians and Americans do each other?

[Husar]

should, should, should. Germany should have listened to Bismarck and continued his great foreign policy instead of pushing for colonies and "glory". Austria should have booted the Habsburgs centuries earlier. Austria, Denmark and France should not have tried to prevent the unification of Germany. Where from do they get the right to deny other people their own nation? Russia should not have tried to subjugate Serbia and neither should Austria.

And DVDs should not have region codes, that's just perverted.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Anything changed?

Anyone aside from Ukraine willing to bleed to stop/reverse Russian hegemonic efforts to the East of Odessa?

If not, then worrying over this latest incident is a bit silly.

[Gilrandir]

Russia never harmed us

Oh really https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/europe/netherlands-russia-gru-intl/index.html
Short memory?


Screw them, Russians are nice people.

How do you know? You might have met a couple of Russians OUTSIDE RUSSIA and have arrived at that conclusion? Anyway, making such general conclusions about large groups is always at fault.

But even if we admit validity of such conclusions, could you name any nation that isn't/wasn't nice? Weren't Germans nice people in 1938? Have they become nicer since then?

Among other news: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-26/ukraine-imposes-martial-law-in-some-areas-after-russia-flare-up

[Fragony]

Been to your country, also been to Russia. People are not the politicians. All countries spy on eachother we do that as well

[Gilrandir]

Been to your country, also been to Russia. People are not the politicians.


So nice people elect bad politicians? Are they still nice after that?



All countries spy on eachother we do that as well

It was not just spying. You said Russia didn't do you anything bad. So is it not so bad when somebody meddles with chemical weapons on your territory?

[Fragony]

We do noot have these weapons

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Been to your country, also been to Russia. People are not the politicians. All countries spy on eachother we do that as well

Those driven to acquire and use power are different personality types from those who just enjoy/live life day to day. Pretty much an ubiquitous aspect of the human condition, Frags. And as Gil' has noted, the Russian people have been tolerating or supporting Putin's efforts. The internal opposition to Putin is scattered, with only those protests/opposition to corruption issues having anything resembling a broad base of support. Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_Russia)

30k people for an anti-war protest? I could probably gin up an anti-war protest of that size just on the campus of UC Berkeley (though admittedly, even among universities they are known for being something of a 'People's Republic').

[Fragony]

Those driven to acquire and use power are different personality types from those who just enjoy/live life day to day. Pretty much an ubiquitous aspect of the human condition, Frags. And as Gil' has noted, the Russian people have been tolerating or supporting Putin's efforts. The internal opposition to Putin is scattered, with only those protests/opposition to corruption issues having anything resembling a broad base of support. Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_Russia)

30k people for an anti-war protest? I could probably gin up an anti-war protest of that size just on the campus of UC Berkeley (though admittedly, even among universities they are known for being something of a 'People's Republic').

Well can't really blame them for supporting Putin, he is a dangerous guy but Russia needs that I guess, the west was never be supposed to creep uo on them but still it does, and China is dangerous for them as well, Russian territories are already in schoolbooks. Russia is powerful but doesn't seem to be interested in conflict, they are ready for it of course, everyone should be

[Montmorency]

Those driven to acquire and use power are different personality types from those who just enjoy/live life day to day. Pretty much an ubiquitous aspect of the human condition, Frags. And as Gil' has noted, the Russian people have been tolerating or supporting Putin's efforts. The internal opposition to Putin is scattered, with only those protests/opposition to corruption issues having anything resembling a broad base of support. Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_Russia)

30k people for an anti-war protest? I could probably gin up an anti-war protest of that size just on the campus of UC Berkeley (though admittedly, even among universities they are known for being something of a 'People's Republic').

It's known as such by conservatives.

I wonder if you could point out an example of a protest on Berkeley campus in the past 50 years that reaches that number. Note that 4 of the 5 largest national protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size) in American history have taken place in the past few years.

Americans just don't protest like other peoples, very rarely have.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's known as such by conservatives.

I wonder if you could point out an example of a protest on Berkeley campus in the past 50 years that reaches that number. Note that 4 of the 5 largest national protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size) in American history have taken place in the past few years.

Americans just don't protest like other peoples, very rarely have.

Oh, I know I am playing with the Berkeley stereotype a bit. And I am in complete agreement with you that most of our culture doesn't do the protest thing the way it occurs around the world. I was just pointing up for Frags that active Russian opposition to Putin's leadership isn't that broad.

[Hooahguy]

The Russian military in the Ukraine area seem to have started conducting a readiness check (https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12205788%40egNews&fbclid=IwAR0C51e63fHQ4gAdT1JD2nz_mOGKLDHUUbc3a44Fo-lXjLdfnkU_HFWidD4) of some sort. Some on Twitter says this is a move like they did in 2014 before they took Crimea. Others say its just a harmless facility check. Not sure what to make of it but the recent tensions dont help. NATO wont come to the aid of Ukraine. Literally a 0% chance. Now will some NATO allies send aid in case of war? Likely yes. But an all out war? Nah. Not unless someone does something very dumb.

Also Frags, don't forget MH17. I would wager that the families of 193 of your countrymen don't.

[Gilrandir]

We do noot have these weapons

Then they have brought these weapons with them, like they did in Salisbury.

[Gilrandir]

Let us see what Trump will do (or at least say) about this whole story. I remember him blaming Obama for Crimea annexation saying that if he had been president at that time there would have been no annexation. Now he has his chance to do something. But so far he only mumbles he doesn't like what is happening betweem Ukraine and Russia.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let us see what Trump will do (or at least say) about this whole story. I remember him blaming Obama for Crimea annexation saying that if he had been president at that time there would have been no annexation. Now he has his chance to do something. But so far he only mumbles he doesn't like what is happening betweem Ukraine and Russia.

USA isn't willing to bleed for Ukraine or Crimea. Nothing gonna happen.

[Gilrandir]

USA isn't willing to bleed for Ukraine or Crimea. Nothing gonna happen.

I know that. I just want to see Trump squirming on his words about the milksop Obama and the toughie me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know that. I just want to see Trump squirming on his words about the milksop Obama and the toughie me.

That's years ago now. His political memory is much shorter ranged. I think it's some kind of turbulence resulting from the eddies surrounding his immense narcissism.

[rory_20_uk]

I know that. I just want to see Trump squirming on his words about the milksop Obama and the toughie me.

He lacks the insight - you're forgetting that he's has his beliefs and fits reality around that rather than perceiving reality and forming what he thinks: he fired those missiles and that shows how 'ard he is.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-azov-blockade/russia-blocks-ukrainian-azov-sea-ports-minister-idUSKCN1NY0NO

[Crandar]

The opposition has accused Poroshenko of using the martial law to postpone the elections. Martial law wasn't even declared when Crimea was occupied, so it definitely seems suspicious now. What are your thoughts on the upcoming presidential elections?

[Gilrandir]

The opposition has accused Poroshenko of using the martial law to postpone the elections.

First of all, martial law was introduced in 11 out of 24 oblasts (regions) of Ukraine, not in the whole country.
Second of all, it is to last a month till December 26 (reduced from the initial 2 months) and elections are scheduled for the 31 of March, 2019.
Third of all, the elections were officially declared and the corresponding law was passed (as was demanded by the opposition), so there is a slim chance the elections could be postponed. It may happen if Russia does something aggressive and the martial law is prolonged. I don't believe it's gonna happen. For once, it can't be done automatically. It is to be put through the parliament each time.



Martial law wasn't even declared when Crimea was occupied, so it definitely seems suspicious now.


The procedure of declaring martial law includes three steps:
1. The Council of National Security and Defense initiates introduction of martial law.
2. The president issues a decree to that effect.
3. The parliament votes it in turning into a law.

When Crimea was occupied Ukraine didn't have a president, Security council was not functioning (as it is headed by the president), the majority in the parliament belonged to the runaway Yanukovych. In view of that it couldn't have been introduced. Besides the procedural obstacles, back then Ukraine didn't have any effective troops to respond to the introduction of martial law and the top commanders of the army were also Yanukovych's stooges (and former Russian citizens). So in 2014 declaring martial law would be just empty words. Most importantly, back then Russia denied any involvement in Crimea events (and later in Donbas events, and still later in MH17 downing). It is very different from what happened in the Kerch strait where Russian ships openly attacked Ukrainian ones in neutral waters when they were in fact heading back to Odesa from where they came and four missiles were shot at them from planes (well, two from a plane and two from a helicopter). Now Russia can't deny it was done by its regular troops.

Plus Poroshenko produced reports of Russia building up its forces in the sea of Azov, having sent there ships from the Caspian Sea and the north by internal waterways. Plus constant reports (not by Poroshenko) of ships heading to or from Ukrainian Azov sea ports (and not just Ukrainian ships, but from all over the world, including the EU) being detained from 2 to 7 days by the Russian navy which entails huge fines and consequently financial losses of the businesses involved. It started in April this year when the Kerch bridge began functioning and has been aggravating ever since despite the fact that according to the 2003 treaty between Russia and Ukraine Azov was to be internal sea of both countries so all ships bearing their flags were to be let pass freely.

Introduction of martial law may seem an overreaction if we consider only the last Kerch strait piracy case, but in view of all the happenings that began in April the latter accident appears to be the last straw and martial law is (partially) meant to make the world pay attention to the situation around Azov. At least that's how I see it.



What are your thoughts on the upcoming presidential elections?

That's a long talk. In short, people are dissatisfied with the current situation in the country, very often putting all burden of blame on Poroshenko. I'm not his fan and I didn't vote for him in 2014, but I can't but note the injustice of such approach. I realize his shortcomings, but many people fail to see that when a country is at war, the life is unlikely to improve rapidly if at all. And that is what populists (like Lyashko and Tymoshenko) promise in case they are elected and many people seem to believe them. Tymoshenko tops poll results. People don't realize that the keys to peace in Donbas are kept in the Kremlin and Putin is unlikely to revise his stance on the issue preferring to wait for a change of the government in Ukraine after the March presidential elections hoping to get a more amenable president or the parliamentary elections which are to be held in fall next year.

Anyway, the election campaign hasn't officially begun and four months which are left till the elections seem to be quite a long time so a lot might change.

[Gilrandir]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46575548

[Gilrandir]

https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-amends-constitution-to-cement-eu-nato-course/4776669.html

[Gilrandir]

An update on presidential elections:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47767440

[Montmorency]

Don't know anything about Zelezny, but perhaps more notable is that Trump confirms (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/golan-heights-whats-stake-trumps-recognition) "Finders Keepers" doctrine for clay:


President Donald J. Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights upends a half century of U.S. policy. The strategically important plateau has been widely considered under international law to be occupied territory since its 1967 seizure from Syria. In his proclamation, Trump cited security needs as paramount, though in practice Israeli control has not been challenged for decades. Experts warn the move could weaken international prohibitions on acquiring territory by force.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On the one hand, this is a problem. On the other hand, the Russian "frozen conflict" doctrine relies on the fiction that territory cannot be annexed by force (when it obviously can).

One thing which Ukraine could theoretically do is recognise the de facto independence of the rebel areas and once this is done they would be free to join NATO.

Ukraine would thereby yield territory in exchange for stability and a permanent check on Russian expansion.

Hardly an ideal situation, but possibly a better long-term option than the status quo.