Printable View
If a leader says "kill civilians", he has done something bad regardless of whether civilians are killed or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
If a leader says "kill enemy combatants" and some soldiers later kill civilians, he can't be blamed unless you got something more to pin on him.
"If a leader says "kill civilians"," Err, he just did exactly this. "Rebels/militants" are civilians... Or if he wants, he can say they are soldiers, but the political price of this would be to recognise the Independentist Movement as a legitimate power...
The Geneva convention defines Civilians as those not engaged in combat, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Ergo, the Rebels are not Civilians.
He tried a unilateral ceasefire - it was not well observed so now the Rebels will be crushed, there will be collateral damage.
I'm not happy about it, but this is not a situation created by the current Ukrainian President, he's just the one who has to deal with it.
I afraid not: Civilians are persons who are not a member of his or her country's armed forces or militias. So, the militants are civilians. Remember, “Terrorist”, “separatists” “rebels” and “mercenaries”: Well, they are civilians. The definition of civilians is not based on carrying weapons, sorry.
And even if suddenly they become combatants, to tell to kill 100 for one become a war crime. The President gave a direct order (as Chief of the Armed Forces) :” For every soldier's life, the militants will pay with tens and hundreds of their own.” So, what is your opinion about it?
Just remind you that when Putin did his speech at the Duma about protecting the Russians everywhere, he was qualified as new Hitler, no question of “empty rhetoric” for him, as the Russian Tanks were obviously warming-up at that time.
They are just late, that is...
You didn't make a distinction between legality and morality in your argument. From a legal point of view, the separatists could be pretty much anything depending on which laws you want to look at or create. From a [common] moral point of view, the separatists are combatants, not civilians.
Comparing Putin to Hitler makes sense in some respects because Putin actually does things that can be seen as parallels to what Hitler did, plus Putin seems to have quite a lot of power personally, having been president in a semi-authoritarian country for so long.
The one case where there really are similarities between Hitler and Putin, is Putin's annexation of Crimea vs Hitler's annexation of Austria. Crimea is full of Russian speakers, Austria was full of German speakers. Whether the annexation marked the start for a more aggressive foreign policy like with Hitler, remains to be seen. I personally doubt it now, but at the same time, I would not be too surprised. Annexing parts of another sovereign country with the use of military force is quite an extreme act, even if no lethal force was used.
“You didn't make a distinction between legality and morality in your argument.” ? Morality? Legality? A head of State, who was involved in the toppling of an elected Government and the storming of official buildings is now telling than the ones who actually replicated what he was involved in are to be shot at the ratio of tens to hundred for one.
So, can you tell me where are the legality or the morality in this? As I mentioned, in both cases, it is a call to murder, just a war crime or a crime against humanity…
“Comparing Putin to Hitler makes sense in some respects because Putin actually does things that can be seen as parallels to what Hitler did, plus Putin seems to have quite a lot of power personally, having been president in a semi-authoritarian country for so long.” So comparing any invaders to Hitler make sense? What is a semi-authoritarian country? Be careful on your answer as you will find that a lot of countries might qualified for this (i.e. the countries voting against the EU constitution and were still forced to signed for it).
Putin did what we did several times (read precedent comments, I will not repeat them again and again) in the last decades.
“Annexing parts of another sovereign country with the use of military force is quite an extreme act, even if no lethal force was used.” Agree, but Putin didn’t start the process, NATO did in carving parts of another sovereign country or making political changes. And they bombed countries in doing it (shock and owe, remember?). So is NATO more Hitlerian than Putin?
I am sure you have solid evidence for Poroshenko being involved in the storming of government buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
As for the toppling of a democratically elected president, he was toppled by an equally democratically elected parliament, so much of a moot point without involving legality.
A call to murder would be "take no POWs". This was a sign to the separatists and the Ukrainian hawks that Poroshenko is not letting up his military offensive despite massive losses.Quote:
So, can you tell me where are the legality or the morality in this? As I mentioned, in both cases, it is a call to murder, just a war crime or a crime against humanity…
Nope, annexation by force with an ethnic argument does.Quote:
So comparing any invaders to Hitler make sense?
For example, that's a country where independent media actively is worked against and where opposition politicians conveniently happen to be doing all sorts of illegal stuff so that they cannot pose a threat after all. For starters.Quote:
What is a semi-authoritarian country?
In a war they did not start, which makes a world of difference between them. Kosovo can easily rejoin Serbia if it so wishes; NATO will not stop it, nor is it necessarily in NATO's interest that it does not.Quote:
Agree, but Putin didn’t start the process, NATO did in carving parts of another sovereign country
Que sera, sera.
Arguing the finer points of morality and legality is, however well intentioned, rather moot.
Anyone out there aside from the current participants willing to bleed to change things? If not, say prayers for those who have been and will be harmed. When the bloodshed winds down in a few months or years, learn how to cope with what emerges.
Que sera, sera.
“Nope, annexation by force with an ethnic argument does.” So carving Serbian territory to give to Ethnic Albanian matches your definition.
“A call to murder would be "take no POWs".” So to put a target, a benchmark on the killing (tens to hundred for one) is not a call for murder? You have a strange definition of call for murder… You definition of human rights and value of human life is at least very selective…
“Kosovo can easily rejoin Serbia” :laugh4:After the covering-up of the ethnic cleansing? You sweep all the ones who wanted to do this first and then you call for a referendum… That is what NATO did (or failed to stop), then you are telling me that is your point of view for democratic change? At least Putin didn’t have to do the first part in Crimea.
As the “semi-authoritarian country” did you read the article from Radio Free Europe? I doubt it as you won’t have chosen it as sample: “According to the Association of Communication Agencies of Russia, free broadcast channels account for more than 97 percent of the country's television advertising market, raking in $4.4 billion last year”: A truly dictatorship, I see now.
“I am sure you have solid evidence for Poroshenko being involved in the storming of government buildings”.
“Poroshenko has held government posts and participated in the Maidan, the popular uprising that led to the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych.” In The Washington Post: Key words: Participated, led to, Overthrow.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2ad_story.html
“As for the toppling of a democratically elected president, he was toppled by an equally democratically elected parliament, so much of a moot point without involving legality.” Yeah, with armed mob patrolling the streets. Pétain did the same in France in 1040: it is still a farce, a mascaraed and a sham. You vote what I am telling you to vote, in fact I even don’t have to tell what to vote, a glance in the street filled with huge men with baseball bats and sharp pointy things is usually enough.
Hitler annexed Austria for Germany, Putin annexed Crimea for Russia, NATO annexed nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Soldiers and militants kill each other in war; that's what war is about. How would the Ukrainian military kill more separatists than it already does through its aim to reclaim its territory without some sort of no POW-policy?Quote:
“A call to murder would be "take no POWs".” So to put a target, a benchmark on the killing (tens to hundred for one) is not a call for murder? You have a strange definition of call for murder… You definition of human rights and value of human life is at least very selective…
NATO ended a nasty ethnic war and has no major stake in what the country borders look like in the area. Putin did a landgrab and is therefore almost per definition interested in seeing Crimea stay within Russia.Quote:
“Kosovo can easily rejoin Serbia” :laugh4:After the covering-up of the ethnic cleansing? You sweep all the ones who wanted to do this first and then you call for a referendum… That is what NATO did (or failed to stop), then you are telling me that is your point of view for democratic change? At least Putin didn’t have to do the first part in Crimea.
This is the point:Quote:
As the “semi-authoritarian country” did you read the article from Radio Free Europe? I doubt it as you won’t have chosen it as sample: “According to the Association of Communication Agencies of Russia, free broadcast channels account for more than 97 percent of the country's television advertising market, raking in $4.4 billion last year”: A truly dictatorship, I see now.
In many aspects, it's bad in Russia, and getting worse in still more. Of course, independent TV channels are not too bad as long as they don't pose too much trouble for the authorities.Quote:
"If implemented, these amendments could lead to cutting off private small- and medium-scale channels from their principal source of revenue, which is advertising," OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatovic said on July 7. "That could further limit media pluralism and free flow of information in Russia."
In other words, no evidence that he encouraged people to storm government buildings. Which is kind of logical that he would not be doing, since it quickly could come right back at him should he become president.Quote:
“I am sure you have solid evidence for Poroshenko being involved in the storming of government buildings”.
“Poroshenko has held government posts and participated in the Maidan, the popular uprising that led to the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych.” In The Washington Post: Key words: Participated, led to, Overthrow.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2ad_story.html
I have never seen any evidence presented indicating that any of the mobs in the street at any time actually possessed such leverage.Quote:
“As for the toppling of a democratically elected president, he was toppled by an equally democratically elected parliament, so much of a moot point without involving legality.” Yeah, with armed mob patrolling the streets. Pétain did the same in France in 1040: it is still a farce, a mascaraed and a sham. You vote what I am telling you to vote, in fact I even don’t have to tell what to vote, a glance in the street filled with huge men with baseball bats and sharp pointy things is usually enough.
I'm only going to reply to this part (maybe more later), because this one gets under my skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I assume you're referring to the Serbia/Kosovo episode, and I admit that the western countries were wrong then. Russia was right in opposing it. Russia was at the same time tremendously hypocritical in opposing it. At roughly the same time, they were supporting seperatist rebellions in numerous post-Soviet republics.
'The West' has done countless of things wrong and is continuing to do so, but to suggest moral equivalency to the likes of Putin's Russia is weapons-grade bullshit.
“NATO annexed nothing.” No? So there is NO US base in Kosovo?
“Soldiers and militants kill each other in war; that's what war is about” Yeah, but what is about here is a President allegedly elected for all Ukrainian Citizens telling to kill 10 to 100 others. That is a call to murder.
“NATO ended a nasty ethnic war and has no major stake in what the country borders look like in the area” NATO did raged an ethnic war, just choosing a side. You can agree with it, just don’t deny it.
“Of course, independent TV channels are not too bad as long as they don't pose too much trouble for the authorities.” Isn’t true in all Countries? Can you give me one UK Channel that is not spreading the official economic theory or report social movement?
“I have never seen any evidence presented indicating that any of the mobs in the street at any time actually possessed such leverage.” Really? You should read or travel a little bit more (see “Orange Revolutions” and other Revolutions including French one). So you are saying that armed mob had no influence at all on the vote, whatsoever? All right, you are trolling me, are you?
“no evidence that he encouraged people to storm government buildings.” So he didn’t participate of the toppling of a legally elected President (and the storming was part of it)? I really stop to believe Media, as you are better informed.
“I have never seen any evidence presented indicating” That reminds me the actual sentence used in the UK by the Government that never see any evidence between unemployment and Poverty, or cuts and use of food bank… Another one you can use: “We are taking the matter very seriously and we will spare no effort in tackling the problem.”
“but to suggest moral equivalency” Yeah, because when we do it , it is right, when Putin is doing it is wrong… The difference, I think, between you and me is I am against in both cases. To be fair, I wasn’t always. I believed in the “right” of intervention, for good of course. Then I saw how we pick and choose who is the nice guys and the bad guys. So I just remember under which pretexts Europe invaded all the rest of the world: all are the highest Human Rights: Anti-slavery Campaign, Protection of Minorities and spreading Democracy… It is just the River-boat policy, square and simple.
It is not the problem of someone stopping someone at the border - it is how the second someone are allowed to reach the border. The latter has a sipmle explanation: the turncoats claim there are training camps in Rostov region from where reinforcements (and weapons) are sent to Ukraine. How can military training facilities exist in a [semi-totalitarian] country without its president condoning (read encouraging) it? A rhetorical question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Conclusion: Russian government unofficially supports separatists weapon-wise, people-wise, propaganda-wise, finance-wise. The proofs are provided by the captured weapons accompanying documents and separatists' evidence. I even saw a video where a (presumably Russian) correspondent was interviewing the newly-arrived separatists and they said that that they were enlisted through governmental voyenkomaty - something like military enlistment offices.
Had there been a US military base in Kosovo before its separation from Serbia? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Had there been a Russian military base in Crimea before its annexation? Yes. Russia had before what Nato received after.
having a base is not an equivalent to annexing and you know that so stop trying to pull this shtickQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
had Nato gone in secured the territory and then added said territory to an existing Nato country then and only then would it be Annexing
What they did was carry out a poorly thought out military intervention in an attempt to weaken the hostile Serbian Government and create a Western friendly Government - it was a bad idea we can all mostly agree on that - it is NOTHING like what Russia pulled with Crimea
By that logic, the US has annexed quite a few countries in this world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
If Poroshenko says "we will leave no stone unturned in the hunt for separatists", do you expect to see great numbers soldiers turning stones in Eastern Ukraine? You don't, because you realise that the literal interpretation does not make much sense practically.Quote:
“Soldiers and militants kill each other in war; that's what war is about” Yeah, but what is about here is a President allegedly elected for all Ukrainian Citizens telling to kill 10 to 100 others. That is a call to murder.
They didn't start it, but they ended it. Whether they ended it the best way possible is not relevant to the original point of comparison vs Crimea.Quote:
“NATO ended a nasty ethnic war and has no major stake in what the country borders look like in the area” NATO did raged an ethnic war, just choosing a side. You can agree with it, just don’t deny it.
If you want to come up with a real counterargument, look for examples where independent media has been shut down for dubious reasons.Quote:
“Of course, independent TV channels are not too bad as long as they don't pose too much trouble for the authorities.” Isn’t true in all Countries? Can you give me one UK Channel that is not spreading the official economic theory or report social movement?
If a mob is to have any influence, they need to realistically be able to actually exert violence. That law enforcement is not capable of arresting an armed mob does not mean that the mob is magically able to whack anyone they like to. Pockets of the city were their domain, not all of it.Quote:
“I have never seen any evidence presented indicating that any of the mobs in the street at any time actually possessed such leverage.” Really? You should read or travel a little bit more (see “Orange Revolutions” and other Revolutions including French one). So you are saying that armed mob had no influence at all on the vote, whatsoever? All right, you are trolling me, are you?
There is nothing wrong in demonstrating against a government with the aim of getting rid of it. It could only be wrong if certain methods were used.Quote:
“no evidence that he encouraged people to storm government buildings.” So he didn’t participate of the toppling of a legally elected President (and the storming was part of it)? I really stop to believe Media, as you are better informed.
But, 15 years after, no one is ready to recognize it as a mistake or to do anything to rectify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Anyway, each passing day makes Russian intervention more likely. Even though many here think of Russia as the Empire from Star Wars in which Putin as the emperor makes all the decision, reality is the Putin also has to balance different political currents in Russia. Violence and murders of Russian civilians makes it that much easier for interventionists to make their case.
Ukraine needs to finish this quickly and with as little bloodshed as possible. Unfortunately, I'm not totally convinced that Poroshenko is 100% in control of the National Guard.
The horse has bolted on that one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
“They didn't start it, but they ended it.” They pick a side and crushed the opposition, looking the winners they championed carried on an ethnic cleansing which they did nothing to stop. They just did exactly the same thing than Milosevic during the war, without the excuse of the war.
“having a base is not an equivalent to annexing and you know that so stop trying to pull this shtick” that is called a Protectorate in Colonial terms: allegedly independent but not at all…
“had Nato gone in secured the territory and then added said territory to an existing Nato country then and only then would it be Annexing” So creating an artificial state and installing a base on it is not annexing? Because you may note NATO could have forced Milosevic out of power, secure the entire Serbian Territory and put a constitution for all Serbian Citizen the same rights and duties. No. They choose to carve a territory; they make sure it was not viable and that it couldn’t join another country (except EU) in order to annex it. Because if you really want peace there, you can as well decide that the Albanian part joined Albania, and the Serbian part stayed in Serbia. But in both case, this wouldn’t fit the plan to have a NATO (US) base for free in a country you totally control. So annexation it is.
“it is NOTHING like what Russia pulled with Crimea” True, Crimea was Russian before a Communist dictator gave it to Ukraine as a “wedding” gift. As Kosovo was never NATO before (Albanian were Maoist and Serbian Yugoslavs so Titist/communists).
Now, you may as well considered that countries should be divided following ethnic lines, so in doing this you would agree with Putin.
“By that logic, the US has annexed quite a few countries in this world.” Few, yes (Panama is one coming to mind).
“You don't, because you realise that the literal interpretation does not make much sense practically.” No, but killing or shelling others, that you can expect some to do it, if they think they will get away with it, or if they will “just” follow orders. No leaders said to turn the stones, some did say to kill 10 to 100 for one, and, oh surprise, they were obeyed. And again, it is not if he meaned it or not, but the fact he said t. It is a call for murder, and I even don’t understand why you try to deny it.
“where independent media has been shut down for dubious reasons.” Won’t bother with that, there are enough radio stations or TV whose licences were not renew for whatever reason, or sold to private companies (TF1 for France, or TV5 licence not renewed, some, oops, 20 years ago).
With this logic the UK should be taking back half the world... you know it doesn't work that way so stop talking crapQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Putin's Russia did a land grab - pure and simple - it was a classic annexation right out of every Empire builders play book - no matter how you try it is not even slightly similar to anything Nato has ever tried (and lets hope they never do...)
on a side note "Wedding gift"? they had to sign over their nukes - it was a bribe to make sure the new Ukraine was not a member of the Nuclear family - pure self interest on Russia's part - as was seizing it back illegitimately now the Ukraine is in turmoil
"on a side note "Wedding gift"? they had to sign over their nukes" in 1954?
"you know it doesn't work that way so stop talking crap" get your fact right, then we decide who is "talking crap".
"it is not even slightly similar to anything Nato has ever tried" Your opinion, not based on hard fact (sovereign nation, international borders, bombing campaign, carving territory -against a signed treaty-, installing puppet regime, ethnic cleansing. So what is the difference with Putin, a part the fact that Putin didnt have to bomb Ukraine?). It is both time land grabbing, but one you agree with. I disagree with both.
"With this logic the UK should be taking back half the world" Oh, half of the World is populated by British?
oh please don't be trite - the USSR left nukes in Ukraine when it collapsed - the US and Russia signed an agreement with the Ukrainian government signing over Crimea in return for the Nukes - Russia has now broken said treaty so unless you are suggesting they should return the nukes Putin had no leg to stand on - and he knows thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
do you even read our posts? I have already said disagreed with Natos actions in Serbia but what Nato did is not equivalent at all - and while YOU may consider the Bosnian government "puppets" I suspect they would disagree with you - Nato set up a totally new country which as a sovereign state would be completely in its rights to ask Nato to leave - Putin invaded a country with soldiers with no insignia and brought a part of it under his control - they are completely different levels on the Tyranny scale ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You never said populated you said "owned" - the British empire spanned 1/3 of the world and using your logic could seize it back - hell the Italians could claim Roman lineage and claim most of Europe - as I said before you are being stupid and you know itQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
and additionally now who is thinking like a Nazi - Ethnic lines do not and should not draw a countries borders up - its a dark path to walk down if you start to try and claim that...
I'm not sure that Crimea was specifically mentioned in the document.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
no true but Crimea was part of Ukraine which (obviously) was - its a bit late for Russia to redraw the borders with the ink having been dry for 20 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
or more specifically
which Russia was clearly in breach of when it seized CrimeaQuote:
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
“Bosnian government "puppets" is in….. Bosnia I Herzegovina, not in Kosovo… I think you are mixing-up events and places…
“oh please don't be trite” Before this date, Crimea was part of Russia, a Communist dictator decided it was Ukrainian. This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
“what Nato did is not equivalent at all” In what aspects exactly? You keep repeating this as a mantra but what is the difference, in term of how and results? I give you that Milosevic never exerted as much violence against the Albanians in Kosovo as the actual darling of the western democracies used in Ukraine against Russian Minorities…
“You never said populated you said "owned": My mistake. However, Crimea is populated by Russians who happened, at least their grand-fathers, of Russian Nationality. It is not a reason because a dictator gave it to another part of his empire that it makes it legitimate. Queen Victoria gave the Congo area to the Belgium King; this doesn’t make the Congolese Belgium.
“its a dark path to walk down if you start to try and claim that...” Agree, but you are the one saying that carving part of Serbia to create a Albanian “state” was legitimate, not at all land grabbing and annexation by a power of someone else territory, not me.
“Nato set up a totally new country which as a sovereign state would be completely in its rights to ask Nato to leave” That is a complete and total colonialist approach. NATO has and had no mandate to create a state. NATO is a military alliance, designed first as defensive, not to conduct aggressive wars. I even can believe you wrote that. So what do you reproach to Putin? To do exactly this? Which is, by the way, what I said from the start: Putin is doing what we did in Kosovo… We opened the door, and he just crossed it.
and about breach of treaty: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,": Resolution 1244 (1999) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting, on 10 June 1999.
So what about Putin is so exceptional?
Before it was part of Russia it was part of the Crimean Khanate - before that the Byzantine Empire, before that the Cimmerian Kingdom (both Roman puppet version and Greek ruled version) and so on and so on - do all of these groups get to make a claim? should they start lining up their occupiers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I must confess: I supported Maidan morally and a little bit financially. So, when my grandchildren ask me fifty odd years later what I was doing in winter 2013/2014 I would say I was busy toppling Yanukovych.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I'm getting tired of this "gift" poppycock. Once again: IT WAS NOT A GIFT! A significant part of Ukrainian territory with population of 1.5 million and the city of Taganrog as its center was assigned to Russia IN RETURN for Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Attachment 13632
The map is pretty much accurate, but there is a mistake: the green-colored territory to the east of present-day Ukraine was given to Russia not in 1924, but in 1954.
What is being done in Donbas is being done not against any minorities but against those who try to separate Donbas from Ukraine whatever their ethnicity may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I think it is about time one put an end to this likening of Maidan and events in Donbas. Let us see what both did during approximately the same time they last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
1. Maidan started as a peaceful protest and remained such for about 1.5 months in spite of the violence used against it. Even when Maidaners got violent, most their weapons were bats and makeshift sharp things.
Eastern protesters started arming themselves with firearms from the inception.
2. When Maidaners did capture administrative buildings, it happened two odd months later.
Easterners did it as a start of protests.
3. The administrative buildings Maidaners stormed first of all were city halls and local regional admimistrations.
Easterners started with SBU and police offices to get at the weapons.
4. Maidaners were generally tolerant to the opponents and there were in fact two Maidans the second of which gathered (or was gathered) by the supporters of Yanukovych.
In Donbas, it is unthinkable to have an opposite view. The recalcitrant are violently supressed or flee.
5. When Maidaners said they would not obey Yanukovych they didn't set up with popular mayors, governors and the like, which appeared to be a hallmark of Eastern protests (and Crimea as well).
6. Maidan protesters never held referendums, proclaimed any quasi-states, called for other countries to bring in their army, or expressed their wish to separate from Ukraine and join someone else, all of which are the Eastern approach to protests.
7. Maidaners didn't kidnap people, torture them, demand ransoms, turn administrative buildings they captured into dungeons, take other people's cars and businesses, burn sport buildings as it is the custom in Donbas.
8. During Maidan about 2 dozen governmental servicemen and 100 civilans were killed. The casualty figures in the East are somewhat different, to put it mildly.
Conclusion: evidently there is a strong helping hand which directed (and is still much involved in) Eastern protests. Unless it withdraws the conflict will last for quite a time.
And Germany and the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It wasn't NATO that carved Kosovo from Serbia, it was the Kosovars that did that themselves through armed insurgency and later their parliament.Quote:
“had Nato gone in secured the territory and then added said territory to an existing Nato country then and only then would it be Annexing” So creating an artificial state and installing a base on it is not annexing? Because you may note NATO could have forced Milosevic out of power, secure the entire Serbian Territory and put a constitution for all Serbian Citizen the same rights and duties. No. They choose to carve a territory; they make sure it was not viable and that it couldn’t join another country (except EU) in order to annex it. Because if you really want peace there, you can as well decide that the Albanian part joined Albania, and the Serbian part stayed in Serbia. But in both case, this wouldn’t fit the plan to have a NATO (US) base for free in a country you totally control. So annexation it is.
In order for NATO's operation to be comparable to Putin's Crimean adventure, there should have been peace in Serbia; then NATO came and occupied Kosovo. That's not what happened.
If you are referring to shelling mentioned in the article, then remember that we do not know who did it, nor do we know why it happened. There is no pattern to back up your claim that the shelling had anything to do with what Poroshenko said.Quote:
“You don't, because you realise that the literal interpretation does not make much sense practically.” No, but killing or shelling others, that you can expect some to do it, if they think they will get away with it, or if they will “just” follow orders. No leaders said to turn the stones, some did say to kill 10 to 100 for one, and, oh surprise, they were obeyed. And again, it is not if he meaned it or not, but the fact he said t. It is a call for murder, and I even don’t understand why you try to deny it.
The other part of the document also mentions "economic pressure" which EU, US and Russia are guilty of much before Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Otherwise, key words are "self-defence" or "otherwise in accordance with the charter of the UN". As we have seen, Charter of the UN apparently allows for a lot of stuff.
That's actually exactly what happened with Crimea. There was an armed insurgency and a referendum for independence and to join Russia immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Kosovo didn't even have a sham referendum.
The only difference is that Kosovo remained independent and didn't join any other state, at least for now.
I have already said it but I will repeat myself: apart from Budapest memorandum which is considered rather vague Russia violated the 1997 "Treaty of friendship, cooperation and partnership" where both parties agreed to honor each other's territorial integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-rus...mea/a-17487632