Ukraine Redux

[Mor]

 

I specifically asked what they did in recent times.

And I specifically pointed out why that is not a good gauge. You ask the question that way because it will give the answer you want, I answer the question that should be asked. To take an extreme example, I could not prove that there is significant political dissent in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that there either isn't, or that people willingly support the status quo. It just means that they cannot do so overtly.

 

So bottom line your answer is no. No, you don't have any notable movements/actions, international involvement all the usual jazz in the past decade that says years of foundation building. Only the four years of upheaval following the break of USSR(1991), in which newly formed Ukraine thought unified nationwide political ideology to encourage integration/loyalty into the new state. **

 

You also conveniently neglected that statuesque that emerged after 1994 to date, Crimea has vote for another constitution in 1998, which resolved the institutional conflicts. (btw same year Russia duma voted again that Crimea is part of Ukraine).

 

** Btw, during that time many still thought that Russia and Ukraine should be reunited into one state (maybe Putin should save some more ethnic Russians in Ukraine? ) which is what most people in Creame back then supported, not reunification with Russia but a Commonwealth of sort between Russia\Ukraine\Belarus.

 

--

 

Btw, I find amusing Putin's increasingly authoritarian rule in Russia, its state media/propaganda and education for patriotism, which encouraged the rise of government ~sponsored youth groups which are officially for democratic and anti-fascist. Which work against foreign control in Russia and its culture.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Mor

[Mor]

 

Regardless, fact is that Russia violated their assurances toward Ukraine, their illegal intervention in another sovereign country bypassed international community and normal procedures and they rigged the whole thing up, no wonder there are comparisons to Anschluss.

And the west violated their assurance to Russia that the break up of the WP and German reunification would not see further eastwards expansion of NATO, or over the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. Again, treaties are mutual things, can't expect only one side to obey the ones you find convenient, same as you cannot decide arbitrarily that Kosovo is a Special Case but no other case is special, or special enough, for the same treatment.

 

Again you deflect from Russia Bullying with apple and oranges scenarios and demagogy(like who ever compared Russian actions in Crimea to USA in Iraq before ) knowing that I am not going to address every BS again.

 

For example, the issue with the Anti-Balistic Missile treaty which happened in the same time frame as above(1992), was signed between US and USSR, and US withdrawn from it after USSR dissolved (presumably because of issues with dealing with several former USSR nuclear states) their withdrawal was in accordance with treaty and they gave Russia the required six months notice. Which followed with other diplomatic treaties to fill the blank. So I am not sure what they violated.

 

While here we have Russia who in 1994 assured the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine(former USSR) so that Ukraine join Nuclear non-proliferation pact and terminate their nuclear arsenal. Russia ratified that Crimea is part of Ukraine in 1998. However, since ~2006 once Ukraine decided to move westward leading to Russia actively apply economical/political pressure to subdue them and once this didn't work, f*** assurances and they directly violation Ukrainian sovereignty and its territorial integrity.

 

Maybe to you it is the same, and those who look for excuse will find superficial similarities everywhere, but I see pattern. On one side an international community working together to solve issues, on the other an angry impetuous bully who is angry at west.

 

his removal was illegal under the Ukrainian constitution.

That actually an interesting claim that I didn't know about, that might be true. I'll have to read more about their constitutional majority and see of the vote was actually to impeach for a crime as oppose some other article like being incapacitated(due to the fact that he fled the country in the middle of national crisis). But just as the issue of 2004 changes to constitution, that was found unconstitutional by the court in 2008(?), and yet gave that president powers... its a big tangle for Ukraine and their constitutional courts to solve, but it is Ukrainian tangle, not an excuse for opportunistic Russia to exploit and violate its international obligations in favor of a quick real estate grab. Edited March 18, 2014 by Mor

[obyknven]

 

Btw, isn't the quality of life in Ukraine is better then in Russia?

 

Niet.  Quality of life in Ukraine is worse even than quality of life in Albany. Citizens of Ukraine is very-very poor. During my visits in this country i always feel  yourself as white master in some banana republic - everything and everyone so cheap (for me). After Maidan everything became even worse - government has no money, business flee from country, Ukraine is just failed state. Many Ukrainians want become Russians instead (majority of Ukrainians are descendants of Russian colonists at least ) , - no surprise here.

 

[obyknven]

BTW, I found a more detailed linguistic map here: http://t.co/gV3UYdUZ81

It's map without  proofs and this is just lie. By Independent and creditable sources (i post link to research in previous thread) 60 - 80 % of Ukrainians use Russian language instead of Ukrainian language. It's easy can be noticed during news - everyone (Maidan-supporters also) talk at Russian language.

[Zoraptor]

So bottom line your answer is no. No, you don't have any notable movements/actions, international involvement all the usual jazz in the past decade that says years of foundation building. Only the four years of upheaval following the break of USSR(1991), in which newly formed Ukraine thought unified nationwide political ideology to encourage integration/loyalty into the new state. **

 

You also conveniently neglected that statuesque that emerged after 1994 to date, Crimea has vote for another constitution in 1998, which resolved the institutional conflicts. (btw same year Russia duma voted again that Crimea is part of Ukraine).

 

 

Right, so come up with anything from inside North Korea proving that people there are unhappy, some North Korean institutions going to the UN, opinion polls and whatever other yardsticks you want to apply. Can't do it? Well then, obviously North Koreans really are happy and ecstatic living in Best Korea and everything the west says about it is propaganda...

 

You aren't using a position that has any way logical consistency but relies on circular logic- because it assumes that those institutions you want to see as proof can do the things you want to see, which they cannot, because Ukraine has made it illegal to, so you don't see them, which then becomes proof that everything is AOK in the status quo. Now, you may not end up with a lead overdose for trying in Ukraine as opposed to trying in the DPRK but you could still end up in jail and whatever official body that tried could be- and provably have been- disbanded unilaterally from Kiev. So, in effect you want to see Crimean institutions commit institutional suicide, in the past few years after both the assembly and presidency that tried got squished like a bug and after laws had been specifically (re)written to make it illegal? Not exactly surprising there are no examples.

 

OTOH I actually do have stuff that shows that Crimea wanted separation from Ukraine, you have nothing at all to show that the situation has changed. The onus of proof is actually on you to do so, I've already established the default position. And no, the 1998 constitution does not count as it was not written in Crimea, but in Kiev, and actually proves the exact reverse of what you want. That was the point of the Ukrainian constitution clauses I posted, and why it took 3 years to get a new crimean constitution after Ukraine unilaterally revoked the old one written by the Crimeans themselves. Any attempt post 1995 to write their own constitution runs straight into Kiev's right of veto, by its very definition they cannot call for secession in the constitution or elsewhere, as it has to be approved by Kiev, who will not approve something that allows secession and may prosecute or dissolve any institution/ individual calling for it. Again, claiming that the 1998 constitution shows things have changed is circular logic, because what changed is Kiev made it illegal and impossible to contravene what Kiev wanted. So the 1998 constitution has to reflect what Kiev wants, or there is no constitution.

 

At least until such time as the Ukrainian state apparatus is no longer in a position to impose their will, as now.

 

Again you deflect from Russia Bullying with apple and oranges scenarios and demagogy(like who ever compared Russian actions in Crimea to USA in Iraq before )

 

And again you deflect by pleading special circumstances. The west doesn't do bad things when it abrogates agreements, it doesn't even abrogate them, it withdraws from them (note ABM was abrogated in 2002 and not in the 90s, the dissolution of the USSR did not automatically end any other treaty), due to special circumstances. But Russia withdrawing abrogating agreements is particularly bad, due to other special circumstances. Kosovan independence is OK, due to special circumstances and doesn't establish a precedent, due to special circumstances. The circumstances in Ossetia/ Abkhazia/ Crimea are special, but demand their independence not be considered, due to their extra specially bad circumstances of utter evilness and despicability.

 

It's a pot pourri of inconsistency, a melange of Different Because, a chimeric gestalt of convenient amorphous 'principles' to be stuck to when advantageous, and ignored when not. Every single country does it, the west just has a larger cheer squad and more people who could be the Cirque du Soleil's hit logical contortionist act the knots they tie themselves in trying to justify stuff.

[obyknven]

Brainwashing IRL. One Nation One Ukraine  One Fuhrer (in original Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer),   Kill Russians, who not jumping - they are Russians, etc

http://youtu.be/fo6_uJrmLxE

 

 

 

[obyknven]

The War Nerd: Everything you know about Crimea is wrong(-er)

http://pando.com/2014/03/17/the-war-nerd-everything-you-know-about-crimea-is-wrong-er/

 

Reading the Anglo-American press babble on about Crimea is painful, if you know anything at all about that part of the world.

Mark Ames tried to wipe away some of the slime a few weeks ago in his article, “Everything You Know about Ukraine Is Wrong,” — and you can just assume that everything you know about Crimea is even wrong-er. Today I’ll try to take apart the nonsense going around about the Crimean Referendum and impending union with Russi

Not bad! Not everything is truth, but in comparison with other Western media it's quite good.

[obyknven]

Lol, East Ukrainian armed groups make ultimatum to Kievan usurpers. If Kiev don't remove troops (they concentarted in two rebelled cities Donetsk and Lugansk), and ultra-right extremists aka National guards from East Ukraine, or begin other violent actions against East Ukrainians  - in this case East Ukrainians begin war against Kiev. They well armed, quite trained and good commanded - looks like huge part of Ukrainian army after Maidan send Kiev GTFO. I think days of Kievan usurpers are numered, this make West a looser too, because they so support them.

http://youtu.be/6E_Tx1ZtxnQ

[BruceVC]

@ Mor
 
I wouldn't get into debates with Zora around this topic. He has clearly explained his position. Its okay for Russia to illegally move troops into Crimea, to hold a referendum that has no international credibility and to ensure that despite the fact that Crimea is part of Ukraine Russia is able to use its geographical  military strength and influence to effectively annex the Crimea.
 
All these developments are fine for him, but what bothers him the most is that one of the most corrupt leaders the Ukraine has ever seen, Yanukovych, was possibly removed illegally from power. 

 

I think the double standards and bias should be obvious

Edited March 18, 2014 by BruceVC

[obyknven]

 

All these developments are fine for him, but what bothers him the most is that one of the most corrupt leaders the Ukraine has ever seen, Yanukovych, was possibly removed illegally from power. 

 

I think the double standards and bias should be obvious

You are laughable. Imagine your maxims in Baator, in Russia your maxims looks same way. Laws have absolute values, while good/evil morality is imaginary thing. For example Ukraine want cancel treaties with Russia, but if they cancel treaty about CIS creation - this mean cancel USSR dissolving also - and all Ukraine become Russian territory de-jure - Russia is official USSR successor. In same second we invade Ukraine, but not before, all our actions are justified, we lawful nation (yes we can pervert laws and use them in own interests, but we don't break them as West do, we fair players and better partners because this).

 

[Mor]

Your post are just one big (good written) wank fest, to try to put the best light on any action taken by Russia. First you went on a limb saying that current memorandum don't need a the two decades of status qou option, because it was already decided before that - to which Walsingham simply pointed out: "Because, the situation hasn't, you know, changed at all"). So you argued for what you think that people in Crimea see as valid ( wouldn't an option on referendum show what they think is valid?), while the rest of your post might give the wrong impression to someone unfamiliar with the situation, as if that status que wasn't maintained and challenged by votes/action like in the Falklands issue. Then you tried to build a case of oppression.(which in your last post you even equated to North Korea ) To me I was just huge synthesis based on straws, so I added a time frame and context for all your claims i.e. after effect of fall of USSR, action taken by Ukraine and other involved actors, almost two decades of status qou, which was ratified by all involved parties(including Crimea rada), explaining that the situation/actors in Crimea has changed completely since 1991-4 to 2006ish and separating Crimea/Ukraine issue from Russia, noting the later violations/involvement which appears very much like a putsch or Anschluss.

 

Which you deflected to Western "violations" with apples and orange scenarios(see bellow) a stupid comparison to North Korea, dismissing Crimean constitution on which they voted in favor of what in your expert opinion is the right the only valid one and arguing that you have nothing else notable in recent years( presumably to link to that initial weak argument), because Ukraine is imitating tiny portion of Putins Russia tricks? Sorry but the only thing that I take from this is a reminder of what hypocritical opportunist bully is Russia, who quick to violate its international obligations in favor of an easy real estate grab.

 

you deflect by pleading special circumstances. The west doesn't do bad things when it abrogates agreements, it doesn't even abrogate them, it withdraws from them (note ABM was abrogated in 2002 and not in the 90s, the dissolution of the USSR did not automatically end any other treaty), due to special circumstances. But Russia withdrawing abrogating agreements is particularly bad, due to other special circumstances.

What I said:

 

 

Again you deflect from Russia Bullying with apple and oranges scenarios and demagogy(like who ever compared Russian actions in Crimea to USA in Iraq before ) knowing that I am not going to address every BS again.

 

For example, the issue with the Anti-Balistic Missile treaty which happened in the same time frame as above(1992), was signed between US and USSR, and US withdrawn from it after USSR dissolved (presumably because of issues with dealing with several former USSR nuclear states) their withdrawal was in accordance with treaty and they gave Russia the required six months notice. Which followed with other diplomatic treaties to fill the blank. So I am not sure what they violated.

 

While here we have Russia who in 1994 assured the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine(former USSR) so that Ukraine join Nuclear non-proliferation pact and terminate their nuclear arsenal. Russia ratified that Crimea is part of Ukraine in 1998. However, since ~2006 once Ukraine decided to move westward leading to Russia actively apply economical/political pressure to subdue them and once this didn't work, f*** assurances and they directly violation Ukrainian sovereignty and its territorial integrity.

 

Maybe to you it is the same, and those who look for excuse will find superficial similarities everywhere, but I see pattern. On one side an international community working together to solve issues, on the other an angry impetuous bully who is angry at west.

 

I understand it is hard to understand, but : US withdrawn from the treaty ( which was provided by the "withdrawal" clause ) in accordance with it they gave six month notice to involved members. Which followed by diplomatic process.

 

While Russia decide to take unilateral action, manufacturing justification as they went. No informing\warning the members part to the treaty (No attempt to resolve the issue in the intentional community) just spontaneous coordinated local defense in Crimea after Russian mobilization, which on its own is violation of sovereign state right, but especially bad when its a sovereign state which you disarmed and assured to protect..

 

So what special circumstances?! unless maybe you are in the 'East vs West' and 'means to an end' mind frame ..

Edited March 18, 2014 by Mor

[TrashMan]

Oh really the other way around, you don't say. Go read what Josip Boljkovac said. Tudjman wanted the war he attacked first because both he and Milosevic knew that Croatia had the support of the west.

 

What support?

There was no direct support. Indirect, via some information and the black market - yes. But Serbia was getting support from russia, so that hardly matter.

 

No, Serbia attacked first because you wanted all the territory. The aspiration for a Great Serbia have never died. Simple as that.

 

 

 

 

But the JNA was in Croatia.

Knin and Vukovar are Croatian towns and always have been.

 

"Since the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, Vukovar was part of the Habsburg Monarchy, Slavonia (Transleithania after the compromise of 1867), and soon after in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, created when the Kingdom of Slavonia and the Kingdom of Croatia were merged in 1868.

In 1918, Vukovar became part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia in 1929). Between 1918 and 1922, Vukovar was administrative seat of Syrmia (Srijem) county, and between 1922 and 1929 it was the administrative seat of Syrmia oblast. Since 1929, it was part of the Sava Banovina, and beginning in 1939 it was part of the Banovina of Croatia. Between 1941 and 1944, Vukovar was part of the Independent State of Croatia. During World War II the city was bombed by the Allies. In 2008 an unexploded bomb was found in the city from this period.^[6]From 1945, it was part of the People's Republic of Croatia within new socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vukovar

 

 

"In 1990, an armed insurrection was started by Croatian Serb militias, supported by the Serbian government and paramilitary groups, who seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA began to intervene in favour of the rebellion, and conflict broke out in the eastern Croatian region of Slavonia in May 1991. In August, the JNA launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including Vukovar."

 

Doesn't change the fact that it was still SFRJ and that there where as much Serbian citizens in the city at the time, the army was doing it's job. There was no YNA in Croatia when it was recognized as independent. Anything before that was in the sphere of influence of YNA, because it was still SFRJ.

 

It was not SFRJ, and there was JNA in Croatia when it was recognized as independant. All documented and recorded. Knin is a Croatian city and the JNA was in there, long after Croatia declared independence. JNA airplanes and ships were all over Croatias territory.

 

How you still are capable of continuing the denial is beyond me.

 

 

324, not 1000.

And being afraid and being forcefully evicted are two different things. The issue isn't being scared, since one can be scared for all the wrong reasons too.

 

Over 1000, not 1000.

Oh so the good forces of Croatia were coming with open arms to keep the Serbs in Croatia safe...

 

So you say. Officially it's 324.

 

And the good forces of JNA/RSK were coming with open arms to keep the Croats safe?

 

 

 

All the examples you made, are dictators solidifying their rule. What reason did Milosevic have to kill Serbs in Croatia.

 

I didn't say he ordered it specifically.

I said it happened.

You had tanks running away with civilian convoys, you had tons of civilian people armed. And before that you had purges of Serbs who were disloyal.

Edited March 18, 2014 by TrashMan

[Sarex]

What support?

There was no direct support. Indirect, via some information and the black market - yes. But Serbia was getting support from russia, so that hardly matter.

 

No, Serbia attacked first because you wanted all the territory. The aspiration for a Great Serbia have never died. Simple as that.

 

And that is where Tudjman's transcripts come in to play. They outright confirm, how much support Croatia had from the west. Not to mention that there were interviews with CIA agents who confirm that there was logistic and equipment support to Croats and the Muslim.

 

No mention of Josip Boljkovac?

 

 

It was not SFRJ, and there was JNA in Croatia when it was recognized as independant. All documented and recorded. Knin is a Croatian city and the JNA was in there, long after Croatia declared independence. JNA airplanes and ships were all over Croatias territory.

 

How you still are capable of continuing the denial is beyond me.

 

Denying what, YNA operated in SFRJ. When Croatia declared independence they moved back. It was the same deal in Bosnia. Milosevic order all the Serb soldiers from the mainland to come back home. The only soldiers left in Bosnia were Bosnian-Serbs and the only people in Croatia were the Croatian-Serbs (ie. the Army of Krajina).

 

 

So you say. Officially it's 324.

 

And the good forces of JNA/RSK were coming with open arms to keep the Croats safe?

 

So you say, facts are that we still have over 700 missing persons added to those 324.

 

No, but how does that have anything to do with the intentions of the Croatian Army? You pretty much confirm their intentions.

 

 

I didn't say he ordered it specifically.

I said it happened.

You had tanks running away with civilian convoys, you had tons of civilian people armed. And before that you had purges of Serbs who were disloyal.

 

Ah so the story evolves.

 

***************************************************************

 

Pretty sad you skipped mentioning the defeats we celebrate as victories. I was really looking forward to that.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Sarex

[BruceVC]

 

 

Ah so the story evolves.

 

***************************************************************

 

Pretty sad you skipped mentioning the defeats we celebrate as victories. I was really looking forward to that.

 

 

Sarex are you at a point yet in this discussion where you are prepared to accept that Serbia committed atrocities during the Bosnian War?

Edited March 18, 2014 by BruceVC

[Sarex]

Sarex are you at a point yet in this discussion where you are prepared to accept that Serbia committed atrocities during the Bosnian War?

 

Why are you talking? Where did I deny them? These last few pages it has all been him denying the Croatian atrocities.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Sarex

[213374U]

 

I specifically asked what they did in recent times.

And I specifically pointed out why that is not a good gauge. You ask the question that way because it will give the answer you want, I answer the question that should be asked. To take an extreme example, I could not prove that there is significant political dissent in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that there either isn't, or that people willingly support the status quo. It just means that they cannot do so overtly.

 

Here, let me help:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4049949.stm

 

Personally, I wouldn't bother with Magical Volo V2.0. The guy is so disconnected from reality that he'll dismiss peer-reviewed journals as "random links on the internet", so it's just not worth the effort.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I specifically asked what they did in recent times.

And I specifically pointed out why that is not a good gauge. You ask the question that way because it will give the answer you want, I answer the question that should be asked. To take an extreme example, I could not prove that there is significant political dissent in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that there either isn't, or that people willingly support the status quo. It just means that they cannot do so overtly.

 

Here, let me help:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4049949.stm

 

Personally, I wouldn't bother with Magical Volo V2.0. The guy is so disconnected from reality that he'll dismiss peer-reviewed journals as "random links on the internet", so it's just not worth the effort.

 

 

In life we should always be prepared to debate with someone, lets not get to the point where we end up stifling debate or refusing to partake in debate because of someone else's different opinion.

 

I know this is true because you taught me that 2133 when you pointed out the apparent pointlessness of the famous " BruceVC ...we agree to disagree"  way to end a debate politely

 

You see I do listen to you   

[Zoraptor]

Your post are just one big (good written) wank fest,

Well now, usually when someone uses that sort of description it is because they feel they're losing an argument and are rather baffled as to why, since they cannot actually be wrong.

 

First you went on a limb saying that current memorandum don't need a the two decades of status qou option

Not exactly, I gave the rationale for not including it, ie that it was not a home grown Crimean option but one mandated and imposed from Kiev, I did not advocate it. My personal opinion, as stated, was that it should have been included, I just gave the justification for why it was done that way.

 

as if that status que wasn't maintained and challenged by votes/action like in the Falklands issue.

It wasn't challenged. Again, the Ukrainian constitution was written explicitly so it could not be challenged- and I provided the evidence, direct from said constitution of why that was so. And it is explicitly so, with enforcement means under both Presidential and Rada control. You are, of course, invited to prove how they could have challenged it within that framework, but I'm not holding my breath for anything other than rote repetition of your unsupported point.

 

(which in your last post you even equated to North Korea)

Nope, I used the DPRK to illustrate why your engineered question failed to prove anything in the real world.

 

ratified by all involved parties(including Crimea rada)

Which, per the Ukrainian constitution, would have ceased to exist if it had voted any other way. Much like people would cease to exist if they voted anyone other than Dear Leader in DPRK :smug:

 

You cannot take forced consent under existential threat as actual consent, because it is forced.

 

explaining that the situation/actors in Crimea has changed completely since 1991-4

You've done no such thing. Once again you mistake stating something (repeatedly) for proving something, as the onus is on you to show that the situation has changed, rather than just been suppressed or hidden. The one piece of evidence you've provided is shown to be something that simply could not have happened any other way because that is the way the rules themselves were set up.

 

Which you deflected to Western "violations" with apples and orange scenarios(see bellow)

No, I illustrated how mobile the goalposts were on principles in international law when the west wants to justify something, but how rigid and anchored they are when the boot is on the other foot.

[TrashMan]

And that is where Tudjman's transcripts come in to play. They outright confirm, how much support Croatia had from the west. Not to mention that there were interviews with CIA agents who confirm that there was logistic and equipment support to Croats and the Muslim.

 

A drop in the ocean, given that Croatia didn't have an army or equipment.

JNA had everything. We captured most of what the CA used.

 

 

 

Denying what, YNA operated in SFRJ. When Croatia declared independence they moved back. It was the same deal in Bosnia. Milosevic order all the Serb soldiers from the mainland to come back home. The only soldiers left in Bosnia were Bosnian-Serbs and the only people in Croatia were the Croatian-Serbs (ie. the Army of Krajina).

 

Suuure.

Then I must have been imagining the JNA destroyer that shot at Split.

I must have just imagined JNA aircraft doing bombing runs. I must have imagined JNA artillery, JNA tanks and JNA soldiers.

Clearly a mass hallucination. The destruction and dead are also hallucinations I suppose?

 

The JNA didn't move back. They might have told you they did, or moved some assets to keep appearances. But I saw plenty of JNA forces inside Croatia during the whole time.

 

 

 

No, but how does that have anything to do with the intentions of the Croatian Army? You pretty much confirm their intentions.

 

I'm not confirming anything. It is you who state that their intentions were clear.

 

Now if Croatian forces walked into a town, slaughtered Serbs or force-marched them out of town, they you'd have a case for ethnic cleansing.

However, that didn't happen.

 

 

Why are you talking? Where did I deny them? These last few pages it has all been him denying the Croatian atrocities.

 

Nope. I'm denying the whole "planned ethnic cleansing" bulls***, not anything else.

 

The fact that we trailed 2400 of our own people for various war crimes should make it clear.

How many of their people has Serbia trailed for crimes during the war?

 

 

 

P.S. - the battle of Kosovo (1389) or the battle of Marica (1371)?

Edited March 18, 2014 by TrashMan

[Tagaziel]

Putin's justification for the land grab are hilarious. Guess he'd be fine if Poland and Germany tag-teamed Kaliningrad on the basis of it being "historically German." All you have to do is invade (or, in Putinian newspeak has it, "recognize local self defence units"), set up a separatist referendum, and consistently play dumb. Presto, you can make a landgrab unmolested, as long as you're a big enough bully.

[Malcador]

Presto, you can make a landgrab unmolested, as long as you're a big enough bully.

Not shocking, you can do anything with that qualification.

[Cultist]

Presto, you can make a landgrab unmolested, as long as you're a big enough bully.

Welcome to the real world. Let me be your guide.

[Sarex]

A drop in the ocean, given that Croatia didn't have an army or equipment.

JNA had everything. We captured most of what the CA used.

 

That doesn't matter when you are fighting poorly armed civilians. The biggest support of the west was the deterrent to Serbia to use any real force.

 

 

Suuure.

Then I must have been imagining the JNA destroyer that shot at Split.

I must have just imagined JNA aircraft doing bombing runs. I must have imagined JNA artillery, JNA tanks and JNA soldiers.

Clearly a mass hallucination. The destruction and dead are also hallucinations I suppose?

 

The JNA didn't move back. They might have told you they did, or moved some assets to keep appearances. But I saw plenty of JNA forces inside Croatia during the whole time.

 

I guess you were. Like you were imagining those videos of our generals telling lies and other things you mention. That is the pattern thus far with you.

 

 

I'm not confirming anything. It is you who state that their intentions were clear.

 

Now if Croatian forces walked into a town, slaughtered Serbs or force-marched them out of town, they you'd have a case for ethnic cleansing.

However, that didn't happen.

 

Over a thousand civilian casualties and 200 thousand exiled in a week during operation Storm are disagreeing with you.

 

 

Nope. I'm denying the whole "planned ethnic cleansing" bulls***, not anything else.

 

The fact that we trailed 2400 of our own people for various war crimes should make it clear.

How many of their people has Serbia trailed for crimes during the war?

 

Oh you are denying just that, small potatoes...

 

You keep mentioning that number, could you provide a source for that? Doesn't have to be in English.

 

 

P.S. - the battle of Kosovo (1389) or the battle of Marica (1371)?

 

Battle of Marica is not celebrated but it is thought, as for the Battle of Kosovo it is an important part of our history. It was the "last stand" against the Ottoman empire and it is worth celebrating because the brave Serbs who fought in it knew before hand that it was a losing battle and in spite of it still stood their ground. The battle was a draw, despite of larger numbers on the Ottoman side, but unlike them we couldn't replenish our troops, so in the long run they won. Worth mentioning is that their Sultan was killed in the battle.

 

You mention 2 battles, for one of which you were right. But our history is so much more then that. From the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman empire, to WW1 in which we had the first 2 Allied victories in the most famous battles of WW1, to WW2 where our people protested the Nazis in spite of knowing that we couldn't stand up to them (Not to mention that we delayed Hitlers invasion of Russia by 2 months, which enabled the Russians to survive until the Siberian winter caught the Germans and in term gave them time to prepare for their counter-offensive which won the war).

 

We have a history that any country can be proud of, we always stood our ground, even when the odds were against us, even when the bad choice was the smart one for us. What can your country say about it's history?

[Sarex]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26630062

[BruceVC]

Putin's justification for the land grab are hilarious. Guess he'd be fine if Poland and Germany tag-teamed Kaliningrad on the basis of it being "historically German." All you have to do is invade (or, in Putinian newspeak has it, "recognize local self defence units"), set up a separatist referendum, and consistently play dumb. Presto, you can make a landgrab unmolested, as long as you're a big enough bully.

 

I agree, its amazing how he is so comfortable to utterly stretch the truth to the point of dishonesty. I watched his live interview in Moscow now, he said many things I disagreed with. One of the many questionable comments he made " Russian troops didn't invade Crimea, we were always there "

 

Yeah right, so we didn't see movements of large numbers of Russian troops and military hardware crossing directly into Crimea ...