|
|
Russian Federation117 Posts
On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:22 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
While Putin is likely to want a restoration of the USSR I doubt even he expects to get that far. Atleast this in his lifetime. Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong. I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed. Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression.
The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract.
|
On March 19 2014 22:53 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 22:49 mcc wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:22 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 21:15 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:It's not mood in Russia :D It's just another Russian retard. Hope, noone really thinks that it's right. I just hope that some day we will free from such retards especially in diplomacy. Would say that it's fair to say that it's the mood among the people in power? While Putin is likely to want a restoration of the USSR I doubt even he expects to get that far. Atleast this in his lifetime. Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong. I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed. Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. Promises are always non-binding. Even treaties. I think the promise to Gorbatchev to not extend NATO east was already mentioned. How did that turn out ? Once West saw Soviet Union split and Russia weakened and not able to protect its interests promises were forgotten. Are you surprised ? And of course the numbers probably do not add up, though considering only cca 80% participation it is possible that with all the fear spreading and propaganda they actually might be correct. Though I doubt it. But the conjecture that majority would want to join Russia seems very plausible anyway. If not, where are the massive protests. Do you think even armed soldiers would stop the movement supported by more than 50% of the population. Did not stop Maidan protesters. And again. The agreement was with the ukraine, not the NATO. I don't understand why people try to point at the NATO, when there's a thing between the Ukraine (non-nato) and Russia. I suppose russia would be fine if the ukraine voids that statement as well and purchases (well they're too poor now, but the theory) nuclear weapons again, correct? PS: "seems very plausible", try to sell that a prisoner who might be punished by death. There's certain things in the world where "maybe, yeah, might be enough or smth" is not good enough.
And you are not getting the point, which is that promises are always non-binding in reality. And are broken often immediately when situation in which they were brokered changes. Of course Russia would not be fine with nuclear armed Ukraine, how does that have anything to do with my point.
And your analogy is completely flawed, comparing the diverse group of people to one person mostly is. Joining Russia is not a death punishment, they will actually be joining less of a failed state than they are in now (not much better though). And I hate to break it to you, but basically all complex social issues are of "seems very plausible" nature.
|
On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong.
I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed.
Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract.
I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea.
|
On March 19 2014 23:02 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 22:56 m4ini wrote:also there are no agreements possible with the ukraine at the moment becausethe ukraine doesn't have a legit government. but that's a fact you and some other people in the west ignore constantly.
Oh by that standard, you agree that the referendum was illegal then? Since it was unconstitutional? Because that's what the other part of the world constantly ignores? of course the referendum was illegal, by Ukranian standards. If Tibet managed to pull off what Crimea did whole western world would rejoice and congratulate it, even though it would be illegal. Doing something that is illegal does not always make it wrong. Especially when considering the laws are of a supposedly corrupt and unstable country... However from what I managed to read about, legal experts do admit that referendum was in fact legitimate
Corrupt and unstable would apply to the country from at least 2004 'till today when the constitution is your measure. Just saying that as soon as you justify the crimean issue you are basically putting the original country up for sale to the highest bidder in terms of attracting votes for annexation!
In Crimea the problem arise when a neighboring country is annexing it. Tibet would "just" be a separate country. I think that distinction is significant.
|
On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:22 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:19 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
Would say that it's fair to say that it's the mood among the people in power? While Putin is likely to want a restoration of the USSR I doubt even he expects to get that far. Atleast this in his lifetime. Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong. I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed. Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems.
*sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation.
An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argument about troops who're legal but illegal.
|
On March 19 2014 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum.
And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract. I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea.
just look at the current situation from a russian perspective:
crimea is no longer a part of the ukraine (this is a FACT right now, doesn't matter if you like it or not)
the ukraine soldiers stationed in crimea have no business being there.
the ukraine minister of defense (of the swoboda party) does not want to withdraw his soldiers and encourages them to use their weapons because he hopes when the situation escalates the west will interfere and help him out.
and russia is the aggressor here?
On March 19 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:22 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
While Putin is likely to want a restoration of the USSR I doubt even he expects to get that far. Atleast this in his lifetime. Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong. I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed. Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems. *sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation. An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law.
i don't see any difference here? broken promise against broken promise. doesn't matter at all if it's written down or not.
|
On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:22 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
While Putin is likely to want a restoration of the USSR I doubt even he expects to get that far. Atleast this in his lifetime. Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong. I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed. Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression.
This is very close to being correct. Here's a thorough analysis of the Agreement by an Oxford international lawprofessor.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea russia is the aggressor are you srs
|
On March 19 2014 23:22 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true.
The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help.
It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract. I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea. just look at the current situation from a russian perspective: crimea is no longer a part of the ukraine (this is a FACT right now, doesn't matter if you like it or not) the ukraine soldiers stationed in crimea have no business being there. the ukraine minister of defense (of the swoboda party) does not want to withdraw his soldiers and encourages them to use their weapons because he hopes when the situation escalates the west will interfere and help him out. and russia is the aggressor here? Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong.
I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed.
Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems. *sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation. An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law. i don't see any difference here? broken promise against broken promise. doesn't matter at all if it's written down or not.
That basically amounts to sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANANA". But should I ever buy a house from you, let's not sign a contract, I just promise to give you the money afterwards. Surely that's equally good in your eyes.
|
On March 19 2014 23:28 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:22 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity.
One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen.
You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now?
Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract. I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea. just look at the current situation from a russian perspective: crimea is no longer a part of the ukraine (this is a FACT right now, doesn't matter if you like it or not) the ukraine soldiers stationed in crimea have no business being there. the ukraine minister of defense (of the swoboda party) does not want to withdraw his soldiers and encourages them to use their weapons because he hopes when the situation escalates the west will interfere and help him out. and russia is the aggressor here? On March 19 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum.
And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems. *sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation. An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law. i don't see any difference here? broken promise against broken promise. doesn't matter at all if it's written down or not. That basically amounts to sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANANA". But should I ever buy a house from you, let's not sign a contract, I just promise to give you the money afterwards. Surely that's equally good in your eyes.
and where is your argument exactly?
if you are george w. bush senior, helmut kohl or mikail gorbatchev i sell the house to you, no problem. as such an honorable and public person you will surely live up to your "promise" you just made in front of witnesses that can confess it was made.
|
On March 19 2014 23:32 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:28 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 23:22 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract. I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea. just look at the current situation from a russian perspective: crimea is no longer a part of the ukraine (this is a FACT right now, doesn't matter if you like it or not) the ukraine soldiers stationed in crimea have no business being there. the ukraine minister of defense (of the swoboda party) does not want to withdraw his soldiers and encourages them to use their weapons because he hopes when the situation escalates the west will interfere and help him out. and russia is the aggressor here? On March 19 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true.
The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help.
It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems. *sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation. An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law. i don't see any difference here? broken promise against broken promise. doesn't matter at all if it's written down or not. That basically amounts to sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANANA". But should I ever buy a house from you, let's not sign a contract, I just promise to give you the money afterwards. Surely that's equally good in your eyes. and where is your argument exactly? if you are george w. bush senior, helmut kohl or mikail gorbatchev i sell the house to you, no problem. as such an honorable and public person you will surely live up to your "promise" you just made in front of witnesses that can confess it was made.
Wow, you actually don't know the difference between a contract and a promise. Just wow. No wonder Putin's propaganda works on these people.
|
On March 19 2014 23:33 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:32 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 23:28 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 23:22 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
[quote]
It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia).
But let's not argue about it now.
Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract. I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea. just look at the current situation from a russian perspective: crimea is no longer a part of the ukraine (this is a FACT right now, doesn't matter if you like it or not) the ukraine soldiers stationed in crimea have no business being there. the ukraine minister of defense (of the swoboda party) does not want to withdraw his soldiers and encourages them to use their weapons because he hopes when the situation escalates the west will interfere and help him out. and russia is the aggressor here? On March 19 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity.
One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen.
You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now?
Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems. *sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation. An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law. i don't see any difference here? broken promise against broken promise. doesn't matter at all if it's written down or not. That basically amounts to sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANANA". But should I ever buy a house from you, let's not sign a contract, I just promise to give you the money afterwards. Surely that's equally good in your eyes. and where is your argument exactly? if you are george w. bush senior, helmut kohl or mikail gorbatchev i sell the house to you, no problem. as such an honorable and public person you will surely live up to your "promise" you just made in front of witnesses that can confess it was made. Wow, you actually don't know the difference between a contract and a promise. Just wow. No wonder Putin's propaganda works on these people.
wow, you actually don't know that a contract doesn't necessarily require written form but is also valid if you can prove what was "promised".
|
On March 19 2014 23:21 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:02 anomalopidae wrote:On March 19 2014 22:56 m4ini wrote:also there are no agreements possible with the ukraine at the moment becausethe ukraine doesn't have a legit government. but that's a fact you and some other people in the west ignore constantly.
Oh by that standard, you agree that the referendum was illegal then? Since it was unconstitutional? Because that's what the other part of the world constantly ignores? of course the referendum was illegal, by Ukranian standards. If Tibet managed to pull off what Crimea did whole western world would rejoice and congratulate it, even though it would be illegal. Doing something that is illegal does not always make it wrong. Especially when considering the laws are of a supposedly corrupt and unstable country... However from what I managed to read about, legal experts do admit that referendum was in fact legitimate Corrupt and unstable would apply to the country from at least 2004 'till today when the constitution is your measure. Just saying that as soon as you justify the crimean issue you are basically putting the original country up for sale to the highest bidder in terms of attracting votes for annexation! In Crimea the problem arise when a neighboring country is annexing it. Tibet would "just" be a separate country. I think that distinction is significant.
I actually don't see a big difference in that. For Ukraine or for the rest, except that if Crimea would be independent it would need incredible amounts of help. And Crimea first seceded from Ukraine and then joined/was annexed by Russia. So supposedly independent country joined another one.
|
In almost every civilized country on the planet, the writing of a contract dramatically increases the likelihood that it is legally enforceable.
|
The difference is that an "signed treaty" without ratification is just a piece of paper with a promise on it that is binding in no way whatsoever, like say the Kyoto Protocol
|
On March 19 2014 23:26 oneofthem wrote:
yea russia is the aggressor are you srs
that doesn't matter. or, the context is more important then who started it first.
|
On March 19 2014 23:39 Kupon3ss wrote:
The difference is that an "signed treaty" without ratification is just a piece of paper with a promise on it that is binding in no way whatsoever, like say the Kyoto Protocol
The bindingness of a signed treaty sans ratification is not one to one with its enforceability nor duty as signer.
|
On March 19 2014 23:39 Kupon3ss wrote:
The difference is that an "signed treaty" without ratification is just a piece of paper with a promise on it that is binding in no way whatsoever, like say the Kyoto Protocol
That's a different legal document. Don't mix apples and oranges. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty, so it becomes binding when it is ratified. Failure to ratify amounts to taking back your signature.
That is not the case with agreements, agreements do not require ratification. The signing is the act which brings them to force.
|
On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 21:52 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
Who cares what the "Russians" want. It's the people in Crimea that count. If they want "back" to Russia, and despite the flaws in the referendum there is little doubt that they do, then by all means let them. Hardly anyone tries to defend Khrushchev's decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine, because almost everyone can tell that it was wrong.
I understand the fear of people in Eastern European countries that this is just the beginning of further Russian expansionism, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to trample on the rights of the Crimeans. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, but any Russian who thinks that the Soviet Union can be easily restored now will be very disappointed.
Crimea is a different matter. The west was all for building nation states and letting the population decide when it came to Yugoslavia, and now that it's Russians it's suddenly different? The EU should use this Russian victory. Let them have Crimea but force them to make concessions to get our approval. Not only concessions to the EU but mainly to the Ukraine to help their situation in these difficult times. Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum. And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract.
It doesn't matter, Russia is quite clearly in violation of its commitments. I don't think anyone objective is disputing that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
