Ukraine Redux

[BruceVC]

 

EU and America need to treat Putin like the loud dog he is, all bark and no bite. He's concerned about his image in Russia, nothing more. Let him froth at the mouth and make threats. In the end it's all bluster, and he'll have to scuttle back to the oil money that put him in office and deal with a discontent civilian population.

 

Considering that he has, without any doubt, acted and acted decisively that analysis doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination. He's bitten, he's won, and there's essentially nothing practical anyone can do now except shout and wave their arms in the air while spouting the usual do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do blather about sovereign integrity and the like- ignoring that Crimea has actually voted to separate from Ukraine multiple times previously (1991, 1992, 1995).

 

 

What has Putin "won". Even if the referendum votes overwhelmingly to join Russia there is no evidence that supports a view that Ukraine or the West will accept this. And this has very little to do with  the fact that the West is militant or hypercritical in there dealings with these types of political situations. Its about the principle of  "do we allow groups of people who populate a part of a country to claim they want autonomy or to just join another country" This is a very slippery slope

 

If the Basque separatists could just vote on independence and the vote was all that mattered both France and Spain would loose territory. Would this be acceptable to the EU?

 

Also I find it ironic that you feel Western countries constantly meddle in other countries affairs and  there independence but the moment Russia does it you are fine. Where do you actually stand on when it is acceptable for a country to invade another country. Does your condemnation only apply to the West in places like Libya or Syria?

[Elerond]

Just a quick reminder to those Democratic Ukraine vs Totalitarian Russia enthusiasts - every time you support new Ukraine goverment you support this nice people:

 

 

"Svoboda" party is one of three new coalition members that comprise Ukraine goverment for the time being.

Same goes for this opressed peaceful Euromaidan activists:

 

 

It is comfortable to ignore them and pretend they are the minority, but you can't support one without another because they ARE the goverment.

And with that logic if you support oppressed Russian minorities you support these nice people? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DJFNygHqK8

Edited March 9, 2014 by Elerond

[Cultist]

Yep. I have no problem with it as I believe in "Might makes right" approach but a lot of people here are die-hard "internet human rights activists" and paint Euromaidan like a gathering of Ghandis and Mother Theresas, being ruthlessly opressed by Satanic Hitlers, completely ignoring inconvenient parts of it.

And there's nothing I enjoy more than making people explain their double standards.

[Cultist]

 

What has Putin "won". Even if the referendum votes overwhelmingly to join Russia there is no evidence that supports a view that Ukraine or the West will accept this. And this has very little to do with  the fact that the West is militant or hypercritical in there dealings with these types of political situations. Its about the principle of  "do we allow groups of people who populate a part of a country to claim they want autonomy or to just join another country" This is a very slippery slope

Try digging into US, GB, Austrian and German statements about Kosovo and Serbia. You'll be surprised.

 

MR. KOH: Good afternoon. Today in the Hague, in response to a request for an advisory opinion from the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, decisively found that Kosovo’s declaration of independence of February 17, 2008, is in accordance with international law.

We never had any doubt that Kosovo is independent. We believe that the court’s advisory opinion now dispels the legal doubts raised by Serbia in putting forward the advisory opinion and request. The court’s opinion was closely tailored to Kosovo’s unique factual situation and thus did not generally opine on rights of self-determination or secession under international law.

As Secretary Clinton indicated earlier today, we call on states that have not yet done so to recognize Kosovo, and we urge Serbia and Kosovo to move beyond these legal questions to work together constructively toward a common European future.

More lulz over here.

[Walsingham]

Doesn't matter if he is wrong as long as he is strong. Me Tarzan, you Jane. 

 

Awesome. I look good in bunches.

[Sarex]

Try digging into US, GB, Austrian and German statements about Kosovo and Serbia. You'll be surprised.

 

MR. KOH: Good afternoon. Today in the Hague, in response to a request for an advisory opinion from the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, decisively found that Kosovo’s declaration of independence of February 17, 2008, is in accordance with international law.

We never had any doubt that Kosovo is independent. We believe that the court’s advisory opinion now dispels the legal doubts raised by Serbia in putting forward the advisory opinion and request. The court’s opinion was closely tailored to Kosovo’s unique factual situation and thus did not generally opine on rights of self-determination or secession under international law.

As Secretary Clinton indicated earlier today, we call on states that have not yet done so to recognize Kosovo, and we urge Serbia and Kosovo to move beyond these legal questions to work together constructively toward a common European future.

More lulz over here.

 

What makes this even worse is that the Serbs were ethnically cleansed from most parts of Kosovo and when we tried to defend our people we got bombed. The whole west supported what happened. The even sadder thing is that what little Serbs remain in Kosovo are still being oppressed and prosecuted, not to mention the yearly defiling of Serbian grave sites and destruction of our churches and monasteries. And unlike in Crimea, the Albanians have no claim on any part of Kosovo, historically or otherwise.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Sarex

[BruceVC]

 

Try digging into US, GB, Austrian and German statements about Kosovo and Serbia. You'll be surprised.

 

MR. KOH: Good afternoon. Today in the Hague, in response to a request for an advisory opinion from the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, decisively found that Kosovo’s declaration of independence of February 17, 2008, is in accordance with international law.

We never had any doubt that Kosovo is independent. We believe that the court’s advisory opinion now dispels the legal doubts raised by Serbia in putting forward the advisory opinion and request. The court’s opinion was closely tailored to Kosovo’s unique factual situation and thus did not generally opine on rights of self-determination or secession under international law.

As Secretary Clinton indicated earlier today, we call on states that have not yet done so to recognize Kosovo, and we urge Serbia and Kosovo to move beyond these legal questions to work together constructively toward a common European future.

More lulz over here.

 

What makes this even worse is that the Serbs were ethnically cleansed from most parts of Kosovo and when we tried to defend our people we got bombed. The whole west supported what happened. The even sadder thing is that what little Serbs remain in Kosovo are still being oppressed and prosecuted, not to mention the yearly defiling of Serbian grave sites and destruction of our churches and monasteries. And unlike in Crimea, the Albanians have no claim on any part of Kosovo, historically or otherwise.

 

 

You don't actually believe the Serbs were the victims in the Bosnian War?

[Sarex]

You don't actually believe the Serbs were the victims in the Bosnian War?

 

What the hell does the Bosnian war have to do with Kosovo? Also what do you know about the Bosnian war? Do you know how may Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and west Bosnia? Or do you want me to start with WW2 where the national tension culminated? Save me from your western media information, because they lied their ass off during the Bosnian war.

 

If you are interested in the Bosnian war watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08

[obyknven]

Ukrainian soldier from Crimea say all media info about confrontations between Crimean selfdefence and Ukrainian army is lie.

http://youtu.be/AMul8jAl3Zw

 

Looks like it's true story.

 

Kievan usurpers send military forces from Western Ukraine (all others don't obey to Kiev orders) to Belarus border, they do want war against Belarus also.

http://youtu.be/DismslZOcno  

[213374U]

If the Basque separatists could just vote on independence and the vote was all that mattered both France and Spain would loose territory

 

No. Go check your sources and read some actual survey statistics instead of swallowing whole the prefabricated opinions the media prepare for you. In fact, Rostere brought this up in the other thread. I already explained how far this is from the reality in the Basque country.

[obyknven]

US say 'Niet' to Ukraine

http://youtu.be/d3PrLtzA1gk

[obyknven]

Western trolls want eat also.

 

 

http://youtu.be/gxm6LA5HzeI

 

 

 

 

[Walsingham]

All this thread is illustrating is the utter futility of treating international relations as if they occur in a court of law.

 

The _only_ important thing to understand is that it was both predictable and predicted that Russia would object strongly to Ukraine shifting further West. The Western powers gave Ukraine to understand that we would support them in the event of a confrontation. We didn't. Just as we did with Georgia.

 

Analysing that information what do we learn? That western alignment is a very ****ing stupid thing to do.

 

Analysing that a bit further what do I conclude? That the 'Obama doctrine' was both naive and actually dangerous. Just as I said it would be back during the elections.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Walsingham

[Malcador]

So what should they have done ?

[Zoraptor]

What has Putin "won". Even if the referendum votes overwhelmingly to join Russia there is no evidence that supports a view that Ukraine or the West will accept this.

So what? Facts on the ground. Argentina may not accept that the UK rules the Falklands, but they may as well be blowing bubbles in a gale for all the difference it makes. The west has no balls- if it's easy they'll do it, if it's hard then they'll look for something easy instead. This is hard, so they'll yell and wave their hands, then only bring it up when convenient and they need to remind people how horrible Russians are.

 

And this has very little to do with  the fact that the West is militant or hypercritical in there dealings with these types of political situations. Its about the principle of  "do we allow groups of people who populate a part of a country to claim they want autonomy or to just join another country" This is a very slippery slope

Sure is, which is why if it's such a problem pouring a big barrel of oil down the Kosovan hill was pretty moronic of the west. Of course, it only becomes a slippery slope when it's someone other than the west doing it, when the west does it it is Principled.

 

If the Basque separatists could just vote on independence and the vote was all that mattered both France and Spain would loose territory. Would this be acceptable to the EU?

There's a quote from Victoria Nuland that very accurately describes my feelings towards the EU.

 

Also I find it ironic that you feel Western countries constantly meddle in other countries affairs and  there independence but the moment Russia does it you are fine.

Sorry Brucey, you ain't going to catch me with that one. I've said repeatedly that the main problem with the west's actions is that they will be used by others to justify their actions and that they undermine 'international law' for whatever that concept is worth- not much, when you're willing to flagrantly ignore it when convenient. It is the slippery slope argument, it's just that people stick their heads in the sand about who exactly started down the slippery slope. You cannot expect only one side to abide by a set of rules, if they do they're morans because the other side has already shown they won't.

 

So far the Russians have been far better than the west has anyway, nobody has died and they've gone for a region which has a long and provable history with Russia, and of opposition to being part of Ukraine. Indeed, it's a region that is only part of Ukraine due to Krushchev and the USSR breaking up inconveniently (Crimea voted to be an autonomous SSR- 95% voter approval- in 1991, but it was only a couple of months before the USSR broke up so it was never implemented). So yeah, I broadly support the Russians here for those reasons, and because the concept of international law is bunkum if only one side adheres to it. If you'd paid attention in the previous thread you'd even have noticed I wasn't implacably opposed to Kosovo either, just its extremely one sided implementation.

[BruceVC]

 

You don't actually believe the Serbs were the victims in the Bosnian War?

 

What the hell does the Bosnian war have to do with Kosovo? Also what do you know about the Bosnian war? Do you know how may Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and west Bosnia? Or do you want me to start with WW2 where the national tension culminated? Save me from your western media information, because they lied their ass off during the Bosnian war.

 

If you are interested in the Bosnian war watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08

 

 

What has the Bosnian War and Kosovo got to do with each other? You really don't know?

 

Well lets see....

 

• Serbia was directly iinvolved in both conflicts and Serbian nationalism played a part in both wars
• Serbia took there military strategy too far, in other words what they were prepared to do to "win"
• In both cases NATO intervened to end the military aspirations of the Serbs

I assume you are Serbian? Do you think that NATO treated the Serbs unfairly? The question is more about the Bosnian War

[BruceVC]

 

What has Putin "won". Even if the referendum votes overwhelmingly to join Russia there is no evidence that supports a view that Ukraine or the West will accept this.

So what? Facts on the ground. Argentina may not accept that the UK rules the Falklands, but they may as well be blowing bubbles in a gale for all the difference it makes. The west has no balls- if it's easy they'll do it, if it's hard then they'll look for something easy instead. This is hard, so they'll yell and wave their hands, then only bring it up when convenient and they need to remind people how horrible Russians are.

 

And this has very little to do with  the fact that the West is militant or hypercritical in there dealings with these types of political situations. Its about the principle of  "do we allow groups of people who populate a part of a country to claim they want autonomy or to just join another country" This is a very slippery slope

Sure is, which is why if it's such a problem pouring a big barrel of oil down the Kosovan hill was pretty moronic of the west. Of course, it only becomes a slippery slope when it's someone other than the west doing it, when the west does it it is Principled.

 

If the Basque separatists could just vote on independence and the vote was all that mattered both France and Spain would loose territory. Would this be acceptable to the EU?

There's a quote from Victoria Nuland that very accurately describes my feelings towards the EU.

 

Also I find it ironic that you feel Western countries constantly meddle in other countries affairs and  there independence but the moment Russia does it you are fine.

Sorry Brucey, you ain't going to catch me with that one. I've said repeatedly that the main problem with the west's actions is that they will be used by others to justify their actions and that they undermine 'international law' for whatever that concept is worth- not much, when you're willing to flagrantly ignore it when convenient. It is the slippery slope argument, it's just that people stick their heads in the sand about who exactly started down the slippery slope. You cannot expect only one side to abide by a set of rules, if they do they're morans because the other side has already shown they won't.

 

So far the Russians have been far better than the west has anyway, nobody has died and they've gone for a region which has a long and provable history with Russia, and of opposition to being part of Ukraine. Indeed, it's a region that is only part of Ukraine due to Krushchev and the USSR breaking up inconveniently (Crimea voted to be an autonomous SSR- 95% voter approval- in 1991, but it was only a couple of months before the USSR broke up so it was never implemented). So yeah, I broadly support the Russians here for those reasons, and because the concept of international law is bunkum if only one side adheres to it. If you'd paid attention in the previous thread you'd even have noticed I wasn't implacably opposed to Kosovo either, just its extremely one sided implementation.

 

 

Okay you make some good points. But I want to ask you a question. Russia is claiming that the way Yanukovych was removed was illegal. But a referrendum to determine if Crimea should join Russia would also be "illegal" according to the Ukrainian constitution. Whats your view on the referrendum?

[Mor]

Just a quick reminder to those Democratic Ukraine vs Totalitarian Russia enthusiasts - every time you support new Ukraine goverment you support this nice people

Democratic vs Totalitarian? I suppose its more of the West vs East Russian retarded rhetoric. Anyway, I already commented on this issue before.

 

Although, while it is not surprising that Russian bullying --in attempt to subdue a country into becoming a submissive satellite state that should care more about Russian interest that its own-- give rise to nationalism. It is amusing how uhm "Totalitarian Russia enthusiasts"(?) try to portray the situation in Ukraine as fascist and what not, considering Russia track record with xenophobia and racism. Btw how goes your attitudes toward various minorities and "dark asses" in particular, and how goes your new patriotic laws, which include the adaption of educational history texbooks to paint a more patriotic picture? It would be interesting to see what would happen if your nationalized tv would give tenth of the time they spend on Ukraine to this issue in russia.

[Zoraptor]

Okay you make some good points. But I want to ask you a question. Russia is claiming that the way Yanukovych was removed was illegal. But a referrendum to determine if Crimea should join Russia would also be "illegal" according to the Ukrainian constitution. Whats your view on the referrendum?

 

 

On the first point there's very little doubt it was illegal- the vote was made under duress, it was made using an older constitution without the repeal of the newer being made lawfully, and even then they did not have the required super majority as there were insufficient members present to get 75% even with a unanimous vote- they only achieved a super majority of those present. Russia's position is certainly correct in a legal sense there.

 

On the second, it is clear that the Ukrainian constitution was written specifically to stop secession as it requires both central government approval and a referendum across the whole country. To use an example from the last thread that would be like Great Britain refusing Ireland's independence based upon referendum votes from Scotland, Wales and England. Indeed, the current Scottish referendum is Scotland only. Having said that the referendum is clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution.

 

The difference in practical terms is that the impeachment/ removal process is designed to be difficult, as you'd expect, but could legitimately have been done- if they hadn't driven off so many Party of Regions and Communist members. The secession process is practically impossible though, as Mr Yatsenyuk etc have made it clear it will not be considered under any circumstances, and the maximum allowed might be more autonomy and reversion to the old Crimean Constitution that Kiev abrogated in 1995.

[Walsingham]

So what should they have done ?

 

They should either have made it very clear that we would not be ready to deploy military forces - necessitating Ukraine building its military to keep deterrent status with Russia. Or they should have had plans in place, and political will to implement those plans, to deliver sufficient military powers ourselves.

 

Look at Russia's role in the Syrian crisis. They leveraged a very small military force to good effect because Putin has political drive and focus. I still hate the corrupt shiny-head ****er, but that's irrelevant to international politics.

 

As you're all illustrating tremendously well, citing precedent and moral imperative only works _in a court-room_ because there is a judiciary to make a final arbitration that is enforced by the police and prisons. At a simple practical level that doesn't exist here. It's always negotiated later in international law.

 

You just can't swan around smiling and shaking people's hands as the US president and think that it's going to be enough.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

You don't actually believe the Serbs were the victims in the Bosnian War?

 

What the hell does the Bosnian war have to do with Kosovo? Also what do you know about the Bosnian war? Do you know how may Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and west Bosnia? Or do you want me to start with WW2 where the national tension culminated? Save me from your western media information, because they lied their ass off during the Bosnian war.

 

If you are interested in the Bosnian war watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08

 

 

What has the Bosnian War and Kosovo got to do with each other? You really don't know?

 

Well lets see....

 

• Serbia was directly iinvolved in both conflicts and Serbian nationalism played a part in both wars
• Serbia took there military strategy too far, in other words what they were prepared to do to "win"
• In both cases NATO intervened to end the military aspirations of the Serbs

I assume you are Serbian? Do you think that NATO treated the Serbs unfairly? The question is more about the Bosnian War

 

 

Whatever you think about the wars in Yugoslavia in the last ~25 years, I highly recommend you watch the documentary that Sarex linked. While it glosses over a few things (especially the 19th/earth 20th century history), and is told from a somewhat Serbia perspective, there is indisputable first source information in it that flies in the face of what was told in the news to most of the world. What happened in Yugoslavia and Albania, and how those wars came to be, is not what most people outside of those nations think.

[Walsingham]

I'm going to be honest on this Serbian issue: I don't give a **** what history says. Anyone involved in organised mass attacks on civilians is a ****.

[BruceVC]

 

Okay you make some good points. But I want to ask you a question. Russia is claiming that the way Yanukovych was removed was illegal. But a referrendum to determine if Crimea should join Russia would also be "illegal" according to the Ukrainian constitution. Whats your view on the referrendum?

 

 

On the first point there's very little doubt it was illegal- the vote was made under duress, it was made using an older constitution without the repeal of the newer being made lawfully, and even then they did not have the required super majority as there were insufficient members present to get 75% even with a unanimous vote- they only achieved a super majority of those present. Russia's position is certainly correct in a legal sense there.

 

On the second, it is clear that the Ukrainian constitution was written specifically to stop secession as it requires both central government approval and a referendum across the whole country. To use an example from the last thread that would be like Great Britain refusing Ireland's independence based upon referendum votes from Scotland, Wales and England. Indeed, the current Scottish referendum is Scotland only. Having said that the referendum is clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution.

 

The difference in practical terms is that the impeachment/ removal process is designed to be difficult, as you'd expect, but could legitimately have been done- if they hadn't driven off so many Party of Regions and Communist members. The secession process is practically impossible though, as Mr Yatsenyuk etc have made it clear it will not be considered under any circumstances, and the maximum allowed might be more autonomy and reversion to the old Crimean Constitution that Kiev abrogated in 1995.

 

 

Interesting perspective, so what would  you feel about a referrendum only in Crimea where results would obviously show autonomy or actually joining Russia. Russia then says " the Crimea  has spoken" and because Russia has the military advantage and presence in the area they now annex Crimea like they did with regions in Georgia ?

Edited March 10, 2014 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

You don't actually believe the Serbs were the victims in the Bosnian War?

 

What the hell does the Bosnian war have to do with Kosovo? Also what do you know about the Bosnian war? Do you know how may Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and west Bosnia? Or do you want me to start with WW2 where the national tension culminated? Save me from your western media information, because they lied their ass off during the Bosnian war.

 

If you are interested in the Bosnian war watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08

 

 

What has the Bosnian War and Kosovo got to do with each other? You really don't know?

 

Well lets see....

 

• Serbia was directly iinvolved in both conflicts and Serbian nationalism played a part in both wars
• Serbia took there military strategy too far, in other words what they were prepared to do to "win"
• In both cases NATO intervened to end the military aspirations of the Serbs

I assume you are Serbian? Do you think that NATO treated the Serbs unfairly? The question is more about the Bosnian War

 

 

Whatever you think about the wars in Yugoslavia in the last ~25 years, I highly recommend you watch the documentary that Sarex linked. While it glosses over a few things (especially the 19th/earth 20th century history), and is told from a somewhat Serbia perspective, there is indisputable first source information in it that flies in the face of what was told in the news to most of the world. What happened in Yugoslavia and Albania, and how those wars came to be, is not what most people outside of those nations think.

 

 

I'm happy to watch that video but I still need an answer. Do you guys think that Serbia was treated unfairly by NATO in respects to the Bosnian War?

[Cultist]

 

Just a quick reminder to those Democratic Ukraine vs Totalitarian Russia enthusiasts - every time you support new Ukraine goverment you support this nice people

Democratic vs Totalitarian? I suppose its more of the West vs East Russian retarded rhetoric. Anyway, I already commented on this issue before.

 

Although, while it is not surprising that Russian bullying --in attempt to subdue a country into becoming a submissive satellite state that should care more about Russian interest that its own-- give rise to nationalism. It is amusing how uhm "Totalitarian Russia enthusiasts"(?) try to portray the situation in Ukraine as fascist and what not, considering Russia track record with xenophobia and racism. Btw how goes your attitudes toward various minorities and "dark asses" in particular, and how goes your new patriotic laws, which include the adaption of educational history texbooks to paint a more patriotic picture? It would be interesting to see what would happen if your nationalized tv would give tenth of the time they spend on Ukraine to this issue in russia.

What? What "your laws"? Do you really think that anyone who do not support ukrainian revolution is a russian?

I don't really care what Russia want to do, for me most interesting and entertaining part is how hard people try to ignore ugly and inconvenient parts of new administration. Plus, how Russia uses the very same arguments that were used for interventions during Kosovo, Libya and Iraq campaigns. And how everyone changes their opinion because "That were democratic and righteous revolutions against all that is Evil and this is a totalitarian undemocratic unfree Satanic invasion to opress all that is Good!".

Surely I don't blame west for supporting ultraright nutjobs in some country, because, once again - "Might makes right" but it's one of the greatest source of lulz for the time being that makes righteous internet democracy activists extremely uncomfortable.