Ukraine Redux

[BruceVC]

 

 

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.

 

 

Yes Culitist sometimes regime change and intervention is about democracy and righteousness. And sometimes its about the humanitarian principle. And sometimes its not and we get misinformation. You need to look at each example on a per case basis. You can't generalize about the reasons for legitimate or illegitimate reasons around Western or NATO intervention

 

Cultist I am generally interested, where do you live if you don't mind me asking?

[Zoraptor]

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 ?

Russia didn't annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia, though I tend to think they should. They're too small to be independent and there's far too much bad blood for them to be Georgian. They're both independent, or 'independent', depending on pov.

 

I've got no personal opinion about Crimea being part of Russia or independent as that isn't my business but should be up to the Crimeans. But I have little doubt that they would want one or the other based on historic data though.

[Cultist]

Yes Culitist sometimes regime change and intervention is about democracy and righteousness. And sometimes its about the humanitarian principle. And sometimes its not and we get misinformation. You need to look at each example on a per case basis. You can't generalize about the reasons for legitimate or illegitimate reasons around Western or NATO intervention

 

Cultist I am generally interested, where do you live if you don't mind me asking?

The tricky part is that diplomatically you can explain absolutely everything. For example such nice fellow as Pol Pot was a perfectly legitimate ruler in "West" eyes and enjoyed their full support. Humanitarian bombardment. Invasions. Everything could be presented as a democratic and righteous. And this is perfectly fine. For me, but not to people such as you, who may suddenly have to deal with facts that peaceful opressed democratic righwing nutjobs hate jews and blacks.

For me it's way easier:

And I'd only say that english is not my native language.

[obyknven]

I just leave this here... graffiti in Crimea

 

Meanwhile on Ukrainian TV.... Ukraine after ban of foreign media fall into parallel reality.

translate .Russia declare war to Ukraine.  US army prepare to defend Ukraine. On other screen - US send 6th fleet in Black Sea.

[BruceVC]

 

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 ?

Russia didn't annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia, though I tend to think they should. They're too small to be independent and there's far too much bad blood for them to be Georgian. They're both independent, or 'independent', depending on pov.

 

I've got no personal opinion about Crimea being part of Russia or independent as that isn't my business but should be up to the Crimeans. But I have little doubt that they would want one or the other based on historic data though.

 

 

Yes Russia didn't  "annex"  Abkhazia or South Ossetia but the result is the same. They aren't part of Georgia anymore and are completely dependent on Russia for both economic and political survival. They claim to be independent states, even though hardly any country in the world recognizes this, but thats not true. They are completely aligned to Russia and will do as Russia says. This suits Russia as they now have a buffer zone on part of there border that protects them from countries friendly to NATO and the West

 

This is the same route the Crimea is going. What do you think would be your reaction, and others, if the USA moved troops to the Turkish border of Syria and then moved those troops into northern Syria. They only did this because the vast majority of northern Syria was rebel controlled and the rebels have decided they want there own autonomous region and they feel there survival is threatened. To prove that the Syrian rebels want there own state a referendum in the region is held and the results indubitably show the citizens of northern Syria don't want to be part of Assad's government. The USA now says " its clear, northern Syria is a separate region as this is what the residents want " and they decree it so. Because they have vast amounts of troops and military in the region Assad accepts it as he doesn't want war with the USA. And Syria becomes a divided land that the USA military ensures no one challengers

 

What would you say in this scenario? Please don't nitpick the realism of my example. This is about the principle and the reality of how Russia has been " gaining" new territories  and there claims they are doing nothing wrong.

Edited March 10, 2014 by BruceVC

[Sarex]

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

 

 

 

OK so you didn't watch the documentary. I will then run down the events for you.

 

Where did it start? Most people agree that the national tensions culminated in WW2. What seems to be forgotten by most people today is that Croatia was an ally of the Nazis in WW2 and that they committed even worse crimes then the Nazis during that time. The worst of the crimes was the notorious concentration camp Jasenovac(in which they killed not only Jews, but also Serbs), which committed crimes that dwarfed that of the Nazis. Why? Because where the Nazis where efficiency exterminating the Jewish population, the Ustase in Jasenovac were not concerned with efficiency, they made sport of their killings, tortured people daily and seeing how long they could keep someone alive while doing it. http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/jasenovac.html

 

After WW2 was over Tito assumed power and quelled the national tension for the most part. After he died there was a power struggle which, as is always the case, sent the country in a downwards spiral. With the countries destabilization, America sees the opportunity to dismantle a major power in Europe not under it's control. They offer Croatia a chance to secede from Yugoslavia with their support, which as can be seen they accept.

 

1st of March, 1992. In Sarajevo at a Serbian wedding in front of a church the groom is killed. This triggers the civil unrest in the City.

23rd of March 1992. Croatian Army attacks the village Hrasno, 6 member of YNA (Yugoslavian National Army ) are killed.

25th of March 1992. Croatian Army block roads to Serbia.

26th of March 1992. Croatian Army in tandem with the local Muslim paramilitary forces commit a massacre in the village Sijekovac.

...More attacks from the Croatian side through out Bosnia.

7th of April 1992. Bosnia and Herzegovina declare independence.

9th of April 1992. Serbian force take over Zvornik.

16th of April 1992. YNA come in to Visegrad and takes over command.

2nd of May 1992. Military objects in Sarajevo are under attack by the Bosnian paramilitary groups. Serbs apprehend the Bosnian president Aliju Izetbegovića.

3rd of May 1992. The Serbs and Bosnian arrange an exchange for Alija Izetbegović and the unarmed retreat of all the Serbian forces under the supervision of UNPROFOR. The retreating Serbs with UNPROFOR at their head are attacked and captured. Alija Izetbegovic is freed. The attacked Serbian forces suffer 32 casualties (One of which was a medic in a sanitary vehicle and also my grandfathers brother), 71 wounded 215 captured. They are released after the war, they seem to be extremely undernourished and to have suffered torture by their captives. Serbian command (Slobodan MIlosevic) orders the retreat of all the Serbian members in YNA from the mainland (Serbs who live in Serbia), from Bosina.

... Continued attacks by the Croat and Bosnian forces.

 

Now for the famous part of the war.

7th of January 1993. Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in Kravici.

16th of January 1993.  Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in the village Skelani.

... Continued attacks by the Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric. Over 150 Serbian villages are razed to the ground.

... Conflicts continue and Srebrenica is under attack by the Serbian forces in an attempt to kill Naser Oric and his forces.

11th of July 1995. Serbian forces capture Srebrenica but NAser Oric escapes via a helicopter and leaves his forces to fend for them selves. Serbian general Ratko Mladic evacuates all the civilians from Srebrenica. Serbian forces capture the 2000 strong Muslim military forces and execute them for the massacre they committed over the Serbs in the area.

 

Now what Mladic did was essentially wrong, but I doubt he could have stopped it even if he wanted to. The Serbian forces had been chasing after Naser Oric for over a year around the Srebrenica area, and they had seen all the horrors that happened in his wake (children killed, pregnant women disembowel, corpses beheaded and mutilated, people crucified upside down and many, many other horrible things). To make the matters worse the Serbian forces were partly comprised of the people from this area.

 

Soon after NATO interferes and soon after that the Dejton agreement is singed.

 

4th of August 1995. Operation Storm starts.

...During it over 200 thousand Serbs are ethically cleansed from their homes.

4th of August is declared a Croatian national holiday.

 

 

So you asked me if Serbia was the victim here? My answer is yes, we have waged a defensive war in Bosnia. If Milosevic had been smart he would have committed the full Serbian might in Bosnia and ended the war inside a week. We would have held all the territory between Zagreb and Serbia. By the time the UN managed to involve it self we would have held all the disputed territory and we could have negotiated from a position of strength. At least like that we would have earned the reputation we have and we would have been in a much better situation now.

 

If you want me to go over the Kosovo conflict, I can go in to detail about that too. But the Kosovo conflict is a different thing all together.

[BruceVC]

 

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

 

 

 

OK so you didn't watch the documentary. I will then run down the events for you.

 

Where did it start? Most people agree that the national tensions culminated in WW2. What seems to be forgotten by most people today is that Croatia was an ally of the Nazis in WW2 and that they committed even worse crimes then the Nazis during that time. The worst of the crimes was the notorious concentration camp Jasenovac(in which they killed not only Jews, but also Serbs), which committed crimes that dwarfed that of the Nazis. Why? Because where the Nazis where efficiency exterminating the Jewish population, the Ustase in Jasenovac were not concerned with efficiency, they made sport of their killings, tortured people daily and seeing how long they could keep someone alive while doing it. http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/jasenovac.html

 

After WW2 was over Tito assumed power and quelled the national tension for the most part. After he died there was a power struggle which, as is always the case, sent the country in a downwards spiral. With the countries destabilization, America sees the opportunity to dismantle a major power in Europe not under it's control. They offer Croatia a chance to secede from Yugoslavia with their support, which as can be seen they accept.

 

1st of March, 1992. In Sarajevo at a Serbian wedding in front of a church the groom is killed. This triggers the civil unrest in the City.

23rd of March 1992. Croatian Army attacks the village Hrasno, 6 member of YNA (Yugoslavian National Army ) are killed.

25th of March 1992. Croatian Army block roads to Serbia.

26th of March 1992. Croatian Army in tandem with the local Muslim paramilitary forces commit a massacre in the village Sijekovac.

...More attacks from the Croatian side through out Bosnia.

7th of April 1992. Bosnia and Herzegovina declare independence.

9th of April 1992. Serbian force take over Zvornik.

16th of April 1992. YNA come in to Visegrad and takes over command.

2nd of May 1992. Military objects in Sarajevo are under attack by the Bosnian paramilitary groups. Serbs apprehend the Bosnian president Aliju Izetbegovića.

3rd of May 1992. The Serbs and Bosnian arrange an exchange for Alija Izetbegović and the unarmed retreat of all the Serbian forces under the supervision of UNPROFOR. The retreating Serbs with UNPROFOR at their head are attacked and captured. Alija Izetbegovic is freed. The attacked Serbian forces suffer 32 casualties (One of which was a medic in a sanitary vehicle and also my grandfathers brother), 71 wounded 215 captured. They are released after the war, they seem to be extremely undernourished and to have suffered torture by their captives. Serbian command (Slobodan MIlosevic) orders the retreat of all the Serbian members in YNA from the mainland (Serbs who live in Serbia), from Bosina.

... Continued attacks by the Croat and Bosnian forces.

 

Now for the famous part of the war.

7th of January 1993. Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in Kravici.

16th of January 1993.  Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in the village Skelani.

... Continued attacks by the Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric. Over 150 Serbian villages are razed to the ground.

... Conflicts continue and Srebrenica is under attack by the Serbian forces in an attempt to kill Naser Oric and his forces.

11th of July 1995. Serbian forces capture Srebrenica but NAser Oric escapes via a helicopter and leaves his forces to fend for them selves. Serbian general Ratko Mladic evacuates all the civilians from Srebrenica. Serbian forces capture the 2000 strong Muslim military forces and execute them for the massacre they committed over the Serbs in the area.

 

Now what Mladic did was essentially wrong, but I doubt he could have stopped it even if he wanted to. The Serbian forces had been chasing after Naser Oric for over a year around the Srebrenica area, and they had seen all the horrors that happened in his wake (children killed, pregnant women disembowel, corpses beheaded and mutilated, people crucified upside down and many, many other horrible things). To make the matters worse the Serbian forces were partly comprised of the people from this area.

 

Soon after NATO interferes and soon after that the Dejton agreement is singed.

 

4th of August 1995. Operation Storm starts.

...During it over 200 thousand Serbs are ethically cleansed from their homes.

4th of August is declared a Croatian national holiday.

 

 

So you asked me if Serbia was the victim here? My answer is yes, we have waged a defensive war in Bosnia. If Milosevic had been smart he would have committed the full Serbian might in Bosnia and ended the war inside a week. We would have held all the territory between Zagreb and Serbia. By the time the UN managed to involve it self we would have held all the disputed territory and we could have negotiated from a position of strength. At least like that we would have earned the reputation we have and we would have been in a much better situation now.

 

If you want me to go over the Kosovo conflict, I can go in to detail about that too. But the Kosovo conflict is a different thing all together.

 

 

Thanks for that detailed post, I appreciate the effort you put into your response

 

I don't want to go into a detailed line for line debate about what you mentioned. Some of what you said is true and some is not IMO.

 

But I'll make some general points.

• All sides committed atrocities in the Bosnian War. I know the Serbs weren't the only ones. But if you look at International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks have been convicted. So you could say " yes this shows how the Serbs have been unfairly targeted"  or you can say " the Serbs committed the most atrocities".  A 1995 report by the CIA found that Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for 90% of the war crimes committed during the conflict
• You say 2000 people were massacred  in Srebrenica. All my sources point at close to 8000. And the number is significant as the charges against the Serbs involved was genocide. Genocide is a very different and more serious charge than most war crimes that people in the Bosnian war were charged with
• If the Serbs were just trying to defend themselves in Bosnia what was the purpose of the brutal  and inhumane Siege of Sarajevo?

Finally I understand why you distrust NATO and the West, I don't agree with it but I understand your view due to how you feel Serbia was treated. All I ask you to do is to accept that NATO intervened in the Bosnian War because of certain atrocities that Serbia perpetuated and would have continued to do so without Western involvement. You shouldn't assume that every time the West looks at a potential conflict area it acts in a disingenuous and hypocritical way

Edited March 10, 2014 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

 

You shouldn't assume that every time the West looks at a potential conflict area it acts in a disingenuous and hypocritical way

 

Why not, is a pretty fair assumption.,  Or do you believe the West does things because it's right and just ? They need something out of it, after all.

[Sarex]

The Hag is the biggest farce in the world, they acquitted Naser Oric from all charges, and the "biggest war criminals" from the Serbian side are dead or dying in Hag without any verdict being passed. The CIA was the biggest weapon supplier and strategic adviser of the Muslim forces in Bosnia, so anything they say to the public is serving a agenda. What are these 90% of war crimes we committed?

 

The numbers of Srebrenica are largely inflated. If you were to compare the bodies burred there with the records of the inhabitants of Srebrenica and the surrounding areas you would find around 6000 missing from that list.

 

Because the city had a Serbian population too, and it was attacked, as I already said, by the Bosnian paramilitary forces. We didn't take/invade the city because we wanted to avoid civilian casualties, but be aware that our forces around the city were more then enough to accomplish the task.

 

I am not assuming anything, the Croatian and Muslim forces didn't have power to do what they did on their own. They were heavily supplied and supported by the CIA, which is not even a secret today. So it's just putting 2 and 2 together.

[BruceVC]

 

You shouldn't assume that every time the West looks at a potential conflict area it acts in a disingenuous and hypocritical way

 

Why not, is a pretty fair assumption.,  Or do you believe the West does things because it's right and just ? They need something out of it, after all.

 

 

Really, you sure about that Malc? Where was the oil and natural resource contracts that the West gained for intervention in the Bosnian Conflict? Isn't it possible that certain Western interventions are about the humanitarian precedent ?

[Malcador]

Well, oil and gas aren't the only gain.  States at a certain level are playing a game between each other, after all.  But I don't believe any of them do things out of the goodness of their hearts.

[rjshae]

I wonder whether UN observers be invited to oversee the Crimea referendum on joining Russia? That would help validate their claim; otherwise I can't see how the vote results would not be considered highly suspect.

[BruceVC]

I wonder whether UN observers be invited to oversee the Crimea referendum on joining Russia? That would help validate their claim; otherwise I can't see how the vote results would not be considered highly suspect.

 

There is NO chance that UN or EU observers will be allowed into the Crimea to oversee the referendum. Already journalists are being blocked and there is an actual boundary and check-points between Crimea and Ukraine manned by Russian supporters and soldiers. Remember Putin knows he doesn't need real legitimacy to absorb the Crimea, he just needs to pretend to follow a semblance of a legal process. But the reality is there is no doubt in my mind that a referendum will reveal that the majority of people in the Crimea want to join Russia, this is not really the point as the actual referendum is illegal and any outcome for Crimea to join Russia won't be recognized by most of the international world.

[213374U]

the point as the actual referendum is illegal

 

Interesting. More or less illegal than the procedure by which Yanukovych was removed from office?

[Meshugger]

I have to say: This situation is quite interesting, since:

 

1) There are no good guys

2) No wants to have a full scale war about it

3) There is little historical claim on either side. At least compared to other wars.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Reading this thread makes me oddly hungry.

 

Will be interesting to see how the expected sanctions affect Russia's economy.

[pmp10]

But the reality is there is no doubt in my mind that a referendum will reveal that the majority of people in the Crimea want to join Russia, this is not really the point as the actual referendum is illegal and any outcome for Crimea to join Russia won't be recognized by most of the international world.

I wouldn't be so certain about that.

Certainly there will be a lot of condemnations to start with but everyone knows that Crimea is a lost cause.

New borders may be recognized as soon as media grow bored and find another topic.

[Gorgon]

Besides, they aren't being asked about independence from Uktaine, that will happen regardless as has already been pointed out. Holding a referendum now with tensions high is also irresponsible. There is no pressing need except for a phony one created by Russia. Remember the fake exodus story. The Russian forgein minister recently stated that the crisis was 'manufactured' by the west. Clearly it is the other way around with Russia creating the situation in which they can snatch Crimea from a country weakened by internal strife.

[obyknven]

Meanwhile in democratic (after Maidan) Ukraine deputy from Parliament with help of thugs kidnap opposition leader from East Ukraine.

http://youtu.be/95TVdG2yHto

 

Err... people, your government support these totalitarian extremists from Maidan, they say this is democracy. They really think: western people are stupid? Or meybe this is true and western people really so stupid? If not why western people dont make protests against such incredible hypocrisy  of own politicans?  Do you understand what such profanation of term democracy just kill democracy as idea?
 

[Elerond]

 

the point as the actual referendum is illegal

 

Interesting. More or less illegal than the procedure by which Yanukovych was removed from office?

 

 

That procedure in my knowledge followed Ukrainian's law, although I see it objectionable as Ukrainian's parliament voted on change of constitution from Yanukovych's new constitution to year 2004 constitution, change of cabinet of ministers impeachment of Yanukovych and raising criminal charges against him in state which could seen as duress, as Yanukovych fled and police decided to stop most of their actions against protesters. So I would say that removing Yanukovych from power was actually legal, but Ukraine's court of law should go it through and procedure should be over watched international observers.

 

Where Crimea's referendum don't follow Ukraine's laws, or international laws or agreements and vote is done in conditions that I also would call state of duress and blocking international observers to see preparation of vote is also highly objectionable and make vote seems more as false democracy than actual referendum. And also Crimea's change of leadership during this crisis was done in highly objectionable circumstances as was vote to call referendum in first place.

 

So from perspective of law I would say that Crimea's situation seems to be purely illegal by laws of every party of crisis where removing Yanukovych from power falls on grey area that should be investigated by next democratically elected parliament and that investigation should be observed by international observers.  

[Zoraptor]

There isn't much doubt at all that Yanukovich's removal was illegal, I gave the reasons earlier (incorrect legal reversion of constitution, duress of votes, insufficient majority even under new constitution- 338 required, 328 actual)
 

Yes Russia didn't  "annex"  Abkhazia or South Ossetia but the result is the same. They aren't part of Georgia anymore and are completely dependent on Russia for both economic and political survival. They claim to be independent states, even though hardly any country in the world recognizes this, but thats not true. They are completely aligned to Russia and will do as Russia says. This suits Russia as they now have a buffer zone on part of there border that protects them from countries friendly to NATO and the West

Nah, they don't have a buffer zone, they still border Georgia. And Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, of those just in NATO.
 

This is the same route the Crimea is going. What do you think would be your reaction, and others, if the USA moved troops to the Turkish border of Syria and then moved those troops into northern Syria.

Yes, I somehow suspected something like this was coming. Situations are massively different. Still, I'll show exactly why as you put in some effort to the whole enterprise.
 

They only did this because the vast majority of northern Syria was rebel controlled and the rebels have decided they want there own autonomous region and they feel there survival is threatened. To prove that the Syrian rebels want there own state a referendum in the region is held and the results indubitably show the citizens of northern Syria don't want to be part of Assad's government. The USA now says " its clear, northern Syria is a separate region as this is what the residents want " and they decree it so. Because they have vast amounts of troops and military in the region Assad accepts it as he doesn't want war with the USA. And Syria becomes a divided land that the USA military ensures no one challengers

 
Northern Syria is not a geographically distinct region. Crimea is geographically distinct, if you asked a five year old to draw regions on a map of Ukraine they'd be able to put a circle around it. Northern Syria has no distinct identity, ethnic or otherwise, from the rest of Syria. Excluding the Kurds, but then I don't for a second think we'll see US troops liberating Turkish controlled majority Kurd areas, and neither would anyone with even a cursory knowledge of international diplomacy. Northern Syria has no history of independence or resistance, outside the last three or so years. Crimea's dates back 20+, and they would have been independent if the Ukrainian constitution were not specifically written to prevent secession. In order for the comparisons to be valid there would have to be all those things- perhaps a Turkish majority in the effected regions so they can return to the neoOttomans or somesuch. But there isn't.
 

What would you say in this scenario? Please don't nitpick the realism of my example. This is about the principle and the reality of how Russia has been " gaining" new territories  and there claims they are doing nothing wrong.

I'd say that the US hasn't learned anything. And yes, I will nitpick the realism because "let's just pretend this is reality instead of what actually is" is not a valid technique in any form of debate, even internet debate. And no, it isn't about principle, nothing in international diplomacy is- unless you're on losing side of reality/ facts on the ground, in which case principle is the only thing you have and in that case it suddenly becomes critically important.

[BruceVC]

There isn't much doubt at all that Yanukovich's removal was illegal, I gave the reasons earlier (incorrect legal reversion of constitution, duress of votes, insufficient majority even under new constitution- 338 required, 328 actual)

 

Yes Russia didn't  "annex"  Abkhazia or South Ossetia but the result is the same. They aren't part of Georgia anymore and are completely dependent on Russia for both economic and political survival. They claim to be independent states, even though hardly any country in the world recognizes this, but thats not true. They are completely aligned to Russia and will do as Russia says. This suits Russia as they now have a buffer zone on part of there border that protects them from countries friendly to NATO and the West

Nah, they don't have a buffer zone, they still border Georgia. And Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, of those just in NATO.

 

This is the same route the Crimea is going. What do you think would be your reaction, and others, if the USA moved troops to the Turkish border of Syria and then moved those troops into northern Syria.

Yes, I somehow suspected something like this was coming. Situations are massively different. Still, I'll show exactly why as you put in some effort to the whole enterprise.

 

They only did this because the vast majority of northern Syria was rebel controlled and the rebels have decided they want there own autonomous region and they feel there survival is threatened. To prove that the Syrian rebels want there own state a referendum in the region is held and the results indubitably show the citizens of northern Syria don't want to be part of Assad's government. The USA now says " its clear, northern Syria is a separate region as this is what the residents want " and they decree it so. Because they have vast amounts of troops and military in the region Assad accepts it as he doesn't want war with the USA. And Syria becomes a divided land that the USA military ensures no one challengers

 

Northern Syria is not a geographically distinct region. Crimea is geographically distinct, if you asked a five year old to draw regions on a map of Ukraine they'd be able to put a circle around it. Northern Syria has no distinct identity, ethnic or otherwise, from the rest of Syria. Excluding the Kurds, but then I don't for a second think we'll see US troops liberating Turkish controlled majority Kurd areas, and neither would anyone with even a cursory knowledge of international diplomacy. Northern Syria has no history of independence or resistance, outside the last three or so years. Crimea's dates back 20+, and they would have been independent if the Ukrainian constitution were not specifically written to prevent secession. In order for the comparisons to be valid there would have to be all those things- perhaps a Turkish majority in the effected regions so they can return to the neoOttomans or somesuch. But there isn't.

 

What would you say in this scenario? Please don't nitpick the realism of my example. This is about the principle and the reality of how Russia has been " gaining" new territories  and there claims they are doing nothing wrong.

I'd say that the US hasn't learned anything. And yes, I will nitpick the realism because "let's just pretend this is reality instead of what actually is" is not a valid technique in any form of debate, even internet debate. And no, it isn't about principle, nothing in international diplomacy is- unless you're on losing side of reality/ facts on the ground, in which case principle is the only thing you have and in that case it suddenly becomes critically important.

 

Zora, you are very naughty.  I asked you specifically to NOT nitpick my analogy because thats not the point. I was giving you an example to try to get you to see how unacceptable what Russia is doing. You failed to learn something today, you are incorrigible

 

An Internet debate is not always about a persons ability to explain facts but sometimes a personal story or a story about the vicissitudes of particular set of circumstances in this great journey of life. You need to open yourself up more to others opinions, its not healthy to feel you need to be right all the time

[obyknven]

 

[TrashMan]

Where did it start? Most people agree that the national tensions culminated in WW2. What seems to be forgotten by most people today is that Croatia was an ally of the Nazis in WW2 and that they committed even worse crimes then the Nazis during that time.

 

 

1) That was the short-lived puppet-state (of germany and italy) NDH, which promptly (and thankfully) collapsed. It was a brutal regime that was only possible because of the two axis powers. It is estimates that 200.000 serbs and 30.000 jews were killed, with an unknown number of croats. Anyone and anything that was deemed a threat to the regime was removed. Within 4 years due to the heavy resistance and allied intervention it finally ceased existing.

It's a blight on Croatias history.

 

Ironicly, there are still fascists and communists groups present that fight in the political landscape to this day. They mostly just embezzle/steal and keep blaming the other side for everything.

 

2) Worse? Hardly. Overblowing things much?

 

 

 

 

After WW2 was over Tito assumed power and quelled the national tension for the most part. After he died there was a power struggle which, as is always the case, sent the country in a downwards spiral. With the countries destabilization, America sees the opportunity to dismantle a major power in Europe not under it's control. They offer Croatia a chance to secede from Yugoslavia with their support, which as can be seen they accept.

 

Of course they accepted. Croatia was shafted in Yugoslavia. Positions of power were held by Serbs. Money was going to Serbia. It was a federation in name only.

"Bratstvo i Jedinstvo" (brotherhood and unity) my ass!

 

 

 

1st of March, 1992. In Sarajevo at a Serbian wedding in front of a church the groom is killed. This triggers the civil unrest in the City.

 

The entire war was started by serbs. The paramilitary brigades they armed and trained?

The planned de-population of specific areas (Krajina) and then bringing in the most hard-line serbs? The process done by driving people away with both soft and hard methods (from making life impossible for croats in those areas by economical/legal means to downright violence and threats)

The barricades and unrests engineered by them. The ambush massacre of the police force sent to dismantle the barricades?

 

What a joke.

the Croatian army had nothing. It was short of everything - officers, guns, ammo, veichles. Everything was held by the YU army, which was controlled by the serbs.

And despite that, the mighty YU army was utterly defeated.

 

 

 

 

... Continued attacks by the Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric. Over 150 Serbian villages are razed to the ground.

... Conflicts continue and Srebrenica is under attack by the Serbian forces in an attempt to kill Naser Oric and his forces.

11th of July 1995. Serbian forces capture Srebrenica but NAser Oric escapes via a helicopter and leaves his forces to fend for them selves. Serbian general Ratko Mladic evacuates all the civilians from Srebrenica. Serbian forces capture the 2000 strong Muslim military forces and execute them for the massacre they committed over the Serbs in the area.

 

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]} (Bosnian: Genocid u Srebrenici), was the July 1995 killing of more than 8,000^{[1][13][14][15][16]}Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. The killing was perpetrated by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

 

In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, ruled that the massacre of the enclave's male inhabitants constituted genocide, a crime under international law.^[24] The forcible transfer of between 25,000 to 30,000 Bosniak women, children and elderly which accompanied the massacre was found to be confirming evidence of the genocidal intent of members of the VRS Main Staff who orchestrated the massacre.^[25]

 

 

 

 

 

4th of August 1995. Operation Storm starts.

...During it over 200 thousand Serbs are ethically cleansed from their homes.

4th of August is declared a Croatian national holiday.

 

Ethnicly cleansed? No, there was no ethnical clensing.

The 200 000 that left, left under the order or the YU army - and there's more then enough video evidence of YU commanders going around villages and ordering the people to leave.

 

The Croatian army had nothing to do with it. Unless you count fear of the army, but that is not clensing. the CA didn't drag people out of their homes and forced them to march to Serbia.

 

Of course, there was looting and murder, but that is what happens in such heated wars, especially in large rural areas where oversight is hard. It was not planned or organized on any scale

Edited March 11, 2014 by TrashMan

[BruceVC]

 

Where did it start? Most people agree that the national tensions culminated in WW2. What seems to be forgotten by most people today is that Croatia was an ally of the Nazis in WW2 and that they committed even worse crimes then the Nazis during that time.

 

 

1) That was the short-lived puppet-state (of germany and italy) NDH, which promptly (and thankfully) collapsed. It was a brutal regime that was only possible because of the two axis powers. It is estimates that 200.000 serbs and 30.000 jews were killed, with an unknown number of croats. Anyone and anything that was deemed a threat to the regime was removed. Within 4 years due to the heavy resistance and allied intervention it finally ceased existing.

It's a blight on Croatias history.

 

Ironicly, there are still fascists and communists groups present that fight in the political landscape to this day. They mostly just embezzle/steal and keep blaming the other side for everything.

 

2) Worse? Hardly. Overblowing things much?

 

 

 

 

After WW2 was over Tito assumed power and quelled the national tension for the most part. After he died there was a power struggle which, as is always the case, sent the country in a downwards spiral. With the countries destabilization, America sees the opportunity to dismantle a major power in Europe not under it's control. They offer Croatia a chance to secede from Yugoslavia with their support, which as can be seen they accept.

 

Of course they accepted. Croatia was shafted in Yugoslavia. Positions of power were held by Serbs. Money was going to Serbia. It was a federation in name only.

"Bratstvo i Jedinstvo" (brotherhood and unity) my ass!

 

 

 

1st of March, 1992. In Sarajevo at a Serbian wedding in front of a church the groom is killed. This triggers the civil unrest in the City.

 

The entire war was started by serbs. The paramilitary brigades they armed and trained?

The planned de-population of specific areas (Krajina) and then bringing in the most hard-line serbs? The process done by driving people away with both soft and hard methods (from making life impossible for croats in those areas by economical/legal means to downright violence and threats)

The barricades and unrests engineered by them. The ambush massacre of the police force sent to dismantle the barricades?

 

What a joke.

the Croatian army had nothing. It was short of everything - officers, guns, ammo, veichles. Everything was held by the YU army, which was controlled by the serbs.

And despite that, the mighty YU army was utterly defeated.

 

 

 

 

... Continued attacks by the Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric. Over 150 Serbian villages are razed to the ground.

... Conflicts continue and Srebrenica is under attack by the Serbian forces in an attempt to kill Naser Oric and his forces.

11th of July 1995. Serbian forces capture Srebrenica but NAser Oric escapes via a helicopter and leaves his forces to fend for them selves. Serbian general Ratko Mladic evacuates all the civilians from Srebrenica. Serbian forces capture the 2000 strong Muslim military forces and execute them for the massacre they committed over the Serbs in the area.

 

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]} (Bosnian: Genocid u Srebrenici), was the July 1995 killing of more than 8,000^{[1][13][14][15][16]}Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. The killing was perpetrated by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

 

In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, ruled that the massacre of the enclave's male inhabitants constituted genocide, a crime under international law.^[24] The forcible transfer of between 25,000 to 30,000 Bosniak women, children and elderly which accompanied the massacre was found to be confirming evidence of the genocidal intent of members of the VRS Main Staff who orchestrated the massacre.^[25]

 

 

 

 

 

4th of August 1995. Operation Storm starts.

...During it over 200 thousand Serbs are ethically cleansed from their homes.

4th of August is declared a Croatian national holiday.

 

Ethnicly cleansed? No, there was no ethnical clensing.

The 200 000 that left, left under the order or the YU army - and there's more then enough video evidence of YU commanders going around villages and ordering the people to leave.

 

The Croatian army had nothing to do with it. Unless you count fear of the army, but that is not clensing. the CA didn't drag people out of their homes and forced them to march to Serbia.

 

Of course, there was looting and murder, but that is what happens in such heated wars, especially in large rural areas where oversight is hard. It was not planned or organized on any scale

 

 

Its such a refreshing change to see you take a topic seriously for once and give your opinion. I'm not saying you  right and I'm not saying you wrong but I have found your post very interesting. I'm also glad you were prepared to discuss the Croation position in the Bosnian War because there has been a lack of information from that perspective

 

Also I want to recognize and appreciate the point that  you acknowledge the fact that during WW2 the Croats did commit atrocities You aren't avoiding this but this is in the past and it doesn't reflect Croatia today. Its the same thing for me around Apartheid, I know South Africa implemented a racist system that dehumanized people based on the color of there skin. But it doesn't define me or my country nowadays. And it isn't something that I personally feel guilty about. This is one of the reasons I am such a supporter of social justice, I use to live in a country that legalized bigotry and I know how harmful it can be

 

I have had several discussions with Serbs, like Sarex, about the Bosnian War and they generally either deny atrocities that happened or have a very different perspective to what most people believe. To accept something that happened in a countries past doesn't undermine your country or make you a terrible person. In fact I would argue it shows strength as you accept the truth about your history but you look forward to a more positive future and how you won't repeat the mistakes of the past