Ukraine Thread

[Montmorency]

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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...Resolution_687

[Gilrandir]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...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...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/2...-app-backdoor/

https://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2...r-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/2017/07/17/414..._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-crimina.../29246988.html

[Gilrandir]

Now Putin admits that THEY held referendum in Crimea.
https://www.unian.info/politics/1019...ession-mp.html

[Gilrandir]

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

[Fragony]

Could escalate