Ukraine - Russia Situation
- Thread starter fixidixi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- occupation russia ukraine
BeastVM_Aaron
New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
fixidixi
Active Member
Thats a true story. only one thing to notice: Uploaded: 2014 febr. 10
With the situation escalating fast every day changes things..
In 1994, the USA and UK and Russia promised Ukraine protection of it's border integrity in return for relinquishing it's nukes.
It's now obvious that this deal will be reneged-on, and Putin will be allowed his land-grab.
The saber-rattling is for public consumption, but it could still backfire.
All it takes is one idiot.
It's now obvious that this deal will be reneged-on, and Putin will be allowed his land-grab.
The saber-rattling is for public consumption, but it could still backfire.
All it takes is one idiot.
tchen
New Member
"It's people" does not extend to Ukrainians.
The US doesn't make it standard policy to issue passports and citizenry preemptively in soon to be occupied territories. Asylum is fair - and for that reason it's offered, but asylum without relocation is a loophole, whose pretext is currently frowned upon by those in foreign affairs.
Article 2 (4) though is unfortunately rather loose. But no attempt has even been made by Russia to rationalize it under said article. At least the US came up with one, no matter how flimsy it was. And no, liberating a ethnic majority who you share common ancestry isn't enough hence why the passports have been issued. They're waiting for the eventual military response from Kiev before declaring they're doing it for the protection of 'oppressed' Russians in Crimea under article 51 - never mind that they've been squatting in that territory for weeks relentlessly breathing air on any tiny ember they can spark into a civil war under various uses of unlawful combatants.
Actually we'd all win...I've been waiting for the New Middle Ages since the late 70s. I'm starting to despair that a cool postapocalyptic world is ever going to come about.
The US, UK, etc. actually did not "promise" anything regarding Ukrainian borders.
It's helpful to read the actual memorandum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Note that (a) it's a memorandum, not a treaty - in other words, a fancy diplomatic term for a press release, and (b) nowhere does it say that the US, UK, etc. are legally obligated to defend Ukrainian borders. It merely says they "confirm" and "reaffirm" and such.
Of course, the UN charter, etc. are a different matter. But then again, we're on the subject of international law, which is ultimately meaningless. The only thing that matters in inter-sovereign relationships is force, be it military, economic, etc. That's the reality and will be for the foreseeable future. There is no global organization that is empowered to end conflicts and this is an excellent example. The UN is powerless as long as Russia owns a Security Council veto.
The line about "protecting our ethnic nationals" is one of the oldest in the book and it's always nonsense. As a point of reference, it was a favorite of Hitler's.
It's helpful to read the actual memorandum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Note that (a) it's a memorandum, not a treaty - in other words, a fancy diplomatic term for a press release, and (b) nowhere does it say that the US, UK, etc. are legally obligated to defend Ukrainian borders. It merely says they "confirm" and "reaffirm" and such.
Of course, the UN charter, etc. are a different matter. But then again, we're on the subject of international law, which is ultimately meaningless. The only thing that matters in inter-sovereign relationships is force, be it military, economic, etc. That's the reality and will be for the foreseeable future. There is no global organization that is empowered to end conflicts and this is an excellent example. The UN is powerless as long as Russia owns a Security Council veto.
The line about "protecting our ethnic nationals" is one of the oldest in the book and it's always nonsense. As a point of reference, it was a favorite of Hitler's.
Steve
New Member
Libya was certainly legal and approved by the UN Security Council - Russia and China didn't veto it.
The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan was a huge win for the people of Afghanistan who had an illegitimate government that would block aid movement, impose strict sharia law on women and generally be a bunch of assholes who didn't give the slightest crap about human rights. Last time I checked, Ukraine was a sovereign and had a decent human rights record. 'Humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan' does not at all compare to Russia's actions in Ukraine.
You're referring to Agent Orange/Napalm right? Defoliants aren't considered chemical weapons. It's not illegal to clear vegetation. They weren't used in Afghanistan either so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
This is a decent article on it. It's pretty clearly in breach of international law.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116819/international-law-russias-ukraine-intervention
America hasn't been all good obviously, but mistakes by them don't and shouldn't really undermine their views and those of the overwhelming majority of the international community when a country like Russia completely and without justification invades a sovereign state.
Last edited by a moderator:
wlanboy
Content Contributer
Is this a race to find the one country which did more mistakes?
Does country A owe someone something if it did less mistakes than country B?
I don't think that anybody here (including me) is in a position to weigt guilt against each other.
This is an old conflict and I am missing a lot of diplomacy from all sides including US, EU and RU - which might help to resolve this situation.
I was thinking that the times are over, that we won't fall back to the dark days where we first threaten someone and afterwards talk to each other.
Hopefully someone is able to tell them that it is 2014 and not 1964.
Does country A owe someone something if it did less mistakes than country B?
I don't think that anybody here (including me) is in a position to weigt guilt against each other.
This is an old conflict and I am missing a lot of diplomacy from all sides including US, EU and RU - which might help to resolve this situation.
I was thinking that the times are over, that we won't fall back to the dark days where we first threaten someone and afterwards talk to each other.
Hopefully someone is able to tell them that it is 2014 and not 1964.
In my opinion Russia should be allowed to evacuate it's citizens from the conflict areas, but invading the Ukraine like they seem to be doing now shouldn't be without consequences. Unfortunately the EU needs Russian gas (and has less spine than a jellyfish) and the US also won't do anything else than threatening a bit with economic sanctions. The Russians know this and do as they please.
The whole situation reminds me a bit of Hitler and Nazi Germany annexating parts of Czechoslovakia and Austria. Only I think it's extremely unlikely a third world war is about to break out.
The whole situation reminds me a bit of Hitler and Nazi Germany annexating parts of Czechoslovakia and Austria. Only I think it's extremely unlikely a third world war is about to break out.
tchen
New Member
Kinda more economically symbiotic. Russia supplies about 30% of EU continental gas, a majority of which goes to Germany. Sure the EU has power over Russia but ending bilateral trade would pretty much kill both. Probably why no one is taking the US seriously when they rattle the trade sanction sabre.
fixidixi
Active Member
Two points I failed to understand is: "In my opinion Russia should be allowed to evacuate it's citizens from the conflict areas"
i have heared about unrest and bloody events from Kiev, but havent heared such things from the eastern part of the country.
Are there any reports,images etc out there about actual incidents there or its just the "could happen"?
the other point I'm not clear about is: are those russian-speaking ukranians ukranian and russian citizens at the same time?
i have heared about unrest and bloody events from Kiev, but havent heared such things from the eastern part of the country.
Are there any reports,images etc out there about actual incidents there or its just the "could happen"?
the other point I'm not clear about is: are those russian-speaking ukranians ukranian and russian citizens at the same time?
texteditor
Premium Buffalo-based Hosting
This was effectively a win-win situation for Putin from the outset, it's dumb that the Fox News crew is harping on Obama for not 'putting Putin in his place' or whatever dumb Cold War era tough-guy diplomacy mindset they are obsessed with.
If anything, they should criticize him for playing into Putin's game at all, not for his lack of "Now Listen Here, America Makes The Rules"-posturing.
texteditor
Premium Buffalo-based Hosting
No, but seemingly Russia is ready to give them citizenship to win them over, since they are one of the targets of the recent growth of Ukranian nationalists
tchen
New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
fixidixi
Active Member
"in his first public comments on the issue, Mr Putin denied the heavily armed troops were Russian. He said they were "local self-defence forces" loyal to Moscow, protecting the bases from "nationalists" and "anti-Semites"."
source:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26442381
If ^^ true then why the hell did they go there? If there are "local self-defence forces" already despite there is nothing really to defend against, then why are that bunch of soliders and ammunition needed there?.
reasoning:bs..
also related:
source:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26367786
source:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26442381
If ^^ true then why the hell did they go there? If there are "local self-defence forces" already despite there is nothing really to defend against, then why are that bunch of soliders and ammunition needed there?.
reasoning:bs..
also related:
source:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26367786
Last edited by a moderator: