Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

So? When Americans bombed Japanase cities and villages, they should have hopped over to Thailand afterwards to kill an equal number of Thais, so they're not accused of bias?

Are you serious?

I'm trying to show that it was not indiscriminate slaughter, as you tried to convince us, but one ethnic/religious group was targeted. Whatever you might say, it reeks of genocide (on a small scale, of course, no match for the Armenian one, for instance).


Meanwhile, Russia proclaims itself above the international law.
http://rt.com/politics/273523-russia...-constitution/
One more reason to sign treaties wit Putin.

[Brenus]

"Meanwhile, Russia proclaims itself above the international law.
http://rt.com/politics/273523-russia...-constitution/
One more reason to sign treaties wit Putin." EUROPEAN Human Right Court. USA always refused to sign on the Human Right Convention. One more reason to sign treaties with USA? And I think that was one point the UK Prime Minister promised during the last campaign, he wants to get rid as well of the European Human Right Convention.

[Gilrandir]

"Meanwhile, Russia proclaims itself above the international law.
http://rt.com/politics/273523-russia...-constitution/
One more reason to sign treaties wit Putin." EUROPEAN Human Right Court. USA always refused to sign on the Human Right Convention. One more reason to sign treaties with USA? And I think that was one point the UK Prime Minister promised during the last campaign, he wants to get rid as well of the European Human Right Convention.

Russia DID sign the Convention (although didn't ratify it) and now refuses to obey what it signed (as was the case with 1994 Budapest memorandum and 1997 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Ukraine). If you don't see the difference, I do.

[Brenus]

"(although didn't ratify it)" Key point. So it is not signed...

[Sarmatian]

Russia DID sign the Convention (although didn't ratify it) and now refuses to obey what it signed (as was the case with 1994 Budapest memorandum and 1997 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Ukraine). If you don't see the difference, I do.

Country is not bound by the treaty until it has been ratified.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Gilrandir]

Country is not bound by the treaty until it has been ratified.

As the latest developments show, Russia is not bound even if it does ratify something. But if you don't ratify it, be honest to yourself and others and proclaim exit from the treaty. Russia is trying to sit on two chairs: it pretends to be a part of the European human rights system when it suits it and spurns it when it doesn't. The same it did to the two treaties I mentioned AND IT RATIFIED THEM too.
The USA is at least aboveboard in staying away from the treaty.

And another propulsion by Russia in the south.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-south-ossetia

[Brenus]

"The USA is at least aboveboard in staying away from the treaty". Yeap. However USA (and others) did sign the International Treaty about Internationally recognised borders, and well, still didn't respected this treaty, as earlier than the Vietnam wars.
NATO countries didn't even respect the treaty they imposed upon Serbia which guaranteed Kosovo as part of Serbia.
If fact, Putin is taking advantage of these US violations of international treaties to justify his breaches of international laws. Germany by constitution can't sent troops in foreign country. However Germany did participate of Serbia's bombing campaign. How? Weellll, they changed the constitution (and international agreements)...
So Putin is doing what was done before (and as much as I remember, the war against Iraq, or the invasion of Afghanistan were not really following international laws neither)...

[Gilrandir]

"The USA is at least aboveboard in staying away from the treaty". Yeap. However USA (and others) did sign the International Treaty about Internationally recognised borders, and well, still didn't respected this treaty, as earlier than the Vietnam wars.
NATO countries didn't even respect the treaty they imposed upon Serbia which guaranteed Kosovo as part of Serbia.
If fact, Putin is taking advantage of these US violations of international treaties to justify his breaches of international laws. Germany by constitution can't sent troops in foreign country. However Germany did participate of Serbia's bombing campaign. How? Weellll, they changed the constitution (and international agreements)...
So Putin is doing what was done before (and as much as I remember, the war against Iraq, or the invasion of Afghanistan were not really following international laws neither)...

We might start a discussion on the niceties of the treaties you referred to and try to see if the treaties in question contained any stipulations the violation of which could result in what the US did or whether the breaches of international laws performed elsewhere were a just cause to violate these very treaties. Moreover, each of us (and perhaps others) would assess them differently: for some the violation of them would be a lesser evil done to protect/promote freedom/democracy, for others - dirty deeds done out of cynical spite; Germany changing its constitution might be considered catering to the shifting purposes of the pan-European tyrant by some and flexibility neccessary to address the challenges of today's world by others (which is being attempted by some ostensibly peaceful counrties, btw :
http://www.rt.com/news/273820-japan-troops-abroad-law/).
We may argue whether the prohibition of using German armed forces abroad covered the use of them as a part of NATO forces or whether this prohibition could be considered void if some international organization (like UNO) sanctioned it... It would be indeed a long and tiresome argument.

But, in my opinion, what differs the cases you mentioned and those connected with the topic is that yours had the vestiges of violations of "general principles of international law" which were usual in the "uncivilized past" and have been largely on the decline as the international relations are becoming "more civilized".
The ones violated by Russia in relation to Ukraine were "more personalized and specified" involving a limited number of parties to them agreeing on some specific point (Budapest memorandum of 1994) or being even a comprehensive bilateral act (1997 Ukraine-Russia treaty of friendship and cooperation). Violating them was a grosser misconduct, in my view. It is like your are going with a (legally registered and inherited from your father) gun along the street and suddenly you are surrounded by cops who say: "Now nice and slow put that gun down, make three steps back and you won't get hurt". You do that and when the gun has been impounded one of the cops (your cousin, btw) start shooting at you.

Still more grievous is the fact that the violations were done by Russia against Ukraine. I don't think you can fully gauge the enormity of what was done by Putin. He attacked the nation who has been considered the fraternal one in regard to Russians for 300 years at least and whose closeness in customs, language, religion, worldview has been emphasized and indeed fostered, especially during the Soviet era (the institute I graduated from was named after 300th anniversary of reunification Ukraine with Russia). All the conflicts that happened between Ukraine and Russia in the past were considered petty misunderstandings and those who were proclaimed to blame (the most well-known characters are Mazepa and Bandera) were stigmatized as traitors targeting the ever-lasting friendship and, forsooth, brotherhood of two closely related peoples (it is curious, though, that "traitors" were always found in Ukraine only).
Indeed, two peoples lived mostly peacefully, often intermingling in various places of both Ukraine and Russia and marrying into each other. I don't know what other international relations can those be likened to, perhaps I can loosely compare them with Canadians and Americans, or (in Europe) Czechs and Slovaks, or Germans and the Swiss.

When the Crimea was annexed, Ukrainians couldn't for quite a time credit what had happened. Can Canadians consider Americans capable of such a deed? Can Slovaks in their worst nightmares envision such a move from Czechs? Can the Swiss be afraid that Germany would some day annex Bodensee and lands to the south of it (to protect the German-speaking community)? Such was the impact of Russian invasion in 2014.

Ultimately it resulted in the pro-Russian stance in Ukraine suffering a seriuos setback. If some politicians start saying something about normalizing relations with Russia, reviving friendly ties with it, enhancing economic cooperation, entering any unions with it, there is always a sentence which they have no answer to: "You mean the Russia that stole the Crimea from us?" Strategically, it is a great defeat for Putin. He succeeded in estranging a large stratum of Russia-oriented Ukrainians.

But even worse is the anti-Ukrainian hysteria fomented by Putin. Russians are taught to believe in the fascist nazi people across the border who are ruled by junta aiming to kill Russians and Russian-speakers.

So, a bottomline: for Ukraine and Russia it was more than just a violation of some treaty, it was (and still is) a much deeper, palpitating and even gruesome issue, involving worldview shifts.