|
|
On February 27 2014 19:43 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 19:17 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings.
So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw:
as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now! If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament. At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here. That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
|
Russian law allows Russia to protect their citizens outside their borders.
Which is why Russia always gets somehow involved when russian population anywhere is "mistreated"
|
On February 27 2014 22:28 zezamer wrote:
Russian law allows Russia to protect their citizens outside their borders.
Which is why Russia always gets somehow involved everytime russian population anywhere is "mistreated"
Not exactly.
Nations (and "people") have a generally accepted right to self-determination. If another nation steps in defending the right to self-determination of another group of people it is kind of hard to condemn that if for whatever reason those people can't do it themselves.
|
The point is, noone is attacking Russian minority. They only feel threaten cause of shit they hear/read in russian media. Hell, they are the one storming Crimea parliment with guns. And feeling "threaten" cause of made up shit doesnt count for anything.
|
On February 27 2014 22:45 Silvanel wrote:
The point is, noone is attacking Russian minority. They only feel threaten cause of shit they hear/read in russian media. Hell, they are the one storming Crimea parliment with guns. And feeling "threaten" cause of made up shit doesnt count for anything.
All that needs to happen is an angry mob beating the wrong people to death and suddenly Russia has a reasonable explanation for feeling compelled to "liberate" parts of Ukraine. The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't much missing to allow Russia to "defend" the "right to self-determination" of a "minority that's under attack" in front of the international community.
|
On February 27 2014 22:24 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 19:43 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 19:17 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings.
So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw:
as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now! If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament. At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here. That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled. That's not what's going on here. If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do. If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!" It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
Besides the utter warping of reality, you didn't understand what I said. Having language-speakers in another country gives no justification under international law to intervene in the affairs of another country. It would be an unjustified invasion, nothing less.
You just made up your example with regard to Romania. Germany has never intervened in Romania. According to international law, the situation you described would not lead to an attack on Romania by Germany.
If you think for a second, the principle you purport is insane. When citizens are for example kidnapped in another country (constitutes violence to them), does that mean that a country may attack the said country? Of course not. And, yet, what you propose is even more vague. Mistreatment? Being threatened? You know, I feel like the fact that Estonian isn't a language taught at schools in Germany is sufficient mistreatment, better invade Germany...
Honestly, you've read some article somewhere probably written in the last week by the Kremlin, and now you're talking out of your ass.
|
Russia will defend the russian speaking population if they need to. International law doesn't mean anything
|
Serbia6334 Posts
On February 27 2014 21:21 Ghanburighan wrote:
It's like an attack by zombies, but instead of the stench of death, you recognize them by their poor spelling and insubstantial arguments.
Disregarding someone's personal opinion because their English is not up to your standard, I think you need to calm down.
On February 27 2014 22:04 Saryph wrote:
Sign of true heroes: Using sniper rifles to shoot the heads/necks of unarmed young women in white, with red crosses painted on their bodies, who are doing nothing other than trying to help the wounded.
This is a biased view of events. An unbiased view would be that the fascist/neo-nazi wings of the 'revolution' got their hands on firearms, some of which can be used for long distance sharpshooting. The government, seeing people getting shot at with snipers sent their own sniper teams to take out the opposing snipers. During this time, unfortunately people got shot. In any normal functioning society it takes six months (at least) to build up a case and know for certain which side shot and killed who. I'm sure you sitting in your chair half the world away believe laughable evidence such as 'but the shot came from the government side, my friends uncle who works at Nintendo told me so', but the civilized world doesn't work that way.
|
It's hard to know what's true since both sides obviously twist the truth to fit their agenda
|
It honestly is not that difficult. We have tons of live footage. Just see for yourself, it's not that hard to figure it out. The huge amount of free press reporting on what happened should also give you a pretty good idea. I don't think there's any reason to think that Hesari would give you misinformation regarding who shot who at Maidan.
You shouldn't think that the above trolls represent what's actually the internationally accepted perspective on these issues. If you read the reports of any organization, be it the UN, the Jewish Congress or whatnot, the reports directly contradict what's being purported in this thread. Pointing this out has no effect, though, as other posters can keep on recycling their old statements without any regard to reality.
|
On February 27 2014 22:58 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 22:24 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 19:43 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 19:17 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings.
So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw:
as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now! If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament. At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here. That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled. That's not what's going on here. If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do. If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!" It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair. Besides the utter warping of reality, you didn't understand what I said. Having language-speakers in another country gives no justification under international law to intervene in the affairs of another country. It would be an unjustified invasion, nothing less. You just made up your example with regard to Romania. Germany has never intervened in Romania. According to international law, the situation you described would not lead to an attack on Romania by Germany. If you think for a second, the principle you purport is insane. When citizens are for example kidnapped in another country (constitutes violence to them), does that mean that a country may attack the said country? Of course not. And, yet, what you propose is even more vague. Mistreatment? Being threatened? You know, I feel like the fact that Estonian isn't a language taught at schools in Germany is sufficient mistreatment, better invade Germany... Honestly, you've read some article somewhere probably written in the last week by the Kremlin, and now you're talking out of your ass.
Yes, I made up that example. That's why I started with calling it a "theoretical example".
Besides all that you might want to tune down the personal insults. I don't need an article by the Kremlin to understand that the "insane principle I purport" is what's the basis of hundreds of separatist movements all over the globe. The right of nations to self-determination isn't an exactly new concept.
No one cares about kidnapping anyone, what counts is when people in a specific region with a common ethnical and/or cultural background are under an actual threat. If a protest between pro- and anti-Maidan people gets out of hand and the wrong side gets beaten to death, do you really expect Russia to just stand there and watch? And if they intervene and can reasonably look as if they're trying to restore order and allow everyone a democratic vote do you really think someone would tell them "No, you're not allowed to de-escalate that situation, that's not within your border. Let them smash their heads in until one side loses!"?
|
On February 27 2014 23:11 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 22:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 22:24 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 19:43 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 19:17 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings.
So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw:
as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now! If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament. At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here. That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled. That's not what's going on here. If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do. If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!" It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair. Besides the utter warping of reality, you didn't understand what I said. Having language-speakers in another country gives no justification under international law to intervene in the affairs of another country. It would be an unjustified invasion, nothing less. You just made up your example with regard to Romania. Germany has never intervened in Romania. According to international law, the situation you described would not lead to an attack on Romania by Germany. If you think for a second, the principle you purport is insane. When citizens are for example kidnapped in another country (constitutes violence to them), does that mean that a country may attack the said country? Of course not. And, yet, what you propose is even more vague. Mistreatment? Being threatened? You know, I feel like the fact that Estonian isn't a language taught at schools in Germany is sufficient mistreatment, better invade Germany... Honestly, you've read some article somewhere probably written in the last week by the Kremlin, and now you're talking out of your ass. Yes, I made up that example. That's why I started with calling it a "theoretical example". Besides all that you might want to tune down the personal insults. I don't need an article by the Kremlin to understand that the "insane principle I purport" is what's the basis of hundreds of separatist movements all over the globe. The right of nations to self-determination isn't an exactly new concept. No one cares about kidnapping anyone, what counts is when people in a specific region with a common ethnical and/or cultural background are under an actual threat. If a protest between pro- and anti-Maidan people gets out of hand and the wrong side gets beaten to death, do you really expect Russia to just stand there and watch? And if they intervene and can reasonably look as if they're trying to restore order and allow everyone a democratic vote do you really think someone would tell them "No, you're not allowed to de-escalate that situation, that's not within your border. Let them smash their heads in until one side loses!"?
Yes, that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Self-determination of people has no role to play in this, which is why no-one but you mentions this term in international media. But, even if it were, it doesn't matter. As the right to self-determination does not apply to minorities within a country. It especially does not apply to minorities who can pack up and leave for another country which they originate/associate with. Furthermore, even if it were to apply, the correct procedure is to go to the UN, which would then choose to act. Or not to act, as it may be. In no world is it justified for another country to invade another, no matter what's done to their citizens. Yet, we're talking about this now, when nothing is done to such citizens. In fact, they are sitting pretty in their own autonomous state, and they are represented in the Rada through a democratically elected government.
The reason why I said that you're talking out of your ass is because you're talking out of your ass. You made up your 'theoretical example' with the aim to persuade us to your point of view, but it was misleading at best, malicious at worst.
|
Saddest part of this is if Russia attacks Ukraine to defend the russian speaking minorty from fascists or whatever would be more justified than anything that USA/NATO has done in the past 20 years.
Irony at its finest, but hey Russia is always the evil nation RIGHT?
|
On February 27 2014 23:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
It honestly is not that difficult. We have tons of live footage. Just see for yourself, it's not that hard to figure it out. The huge amount of free press reporting on what happened should also give you a pretty good idea. I don't think there's any reason to think that Hesari would give you misinformation regarding who shot who at Maidan.
You shouldn't think that the above trolls represent what's actually the internationally accepted perspective on these issues. If you read the reports of any organization, be it the UN, the Jewish Congress or whatnot, the reports directly contradict what's being purported in this thread. Pointing this out has no effect, though, as other posters can keep on recycling their old statements without any regard to reality.
Action (who shot who) is meaningless if you don't know the intention behind it. You can't draw any conclusion by "viewing footage" or reading the "free" (sic) press. Medias all have an agendas. And as you pointed out, "the internationally accepted perspective" is nothing but a point of view that is accepted, by no means does it stand as an established truth. We should try to understand things rather than "accepting" them as facts, but eh we simply can't.
|
On February 27 2014 23:19 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 23:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
It honestly is not that difficult. We have tons of live footage. Just see for yourself, it's not that hard to figure it out. The huge amount of free press reporting on what happened should also give you a pretty good idea. I don't think there's any reason to think that Hesari would give you misinformation regarding who shot who at Maidan.
You shouldn't think that the above trolls represent what's actually the internationally accepted perspective on these issues. If you read the reports of any organization, be it the UN, the Jewish Congress or whatnot, the reports directly contradict what's being purported in this thread. Pointing this out has no effect, though, as other posters can keep on recycling their old statements without any regard to reality. Action (who shot who) is meaningless if you don't know the intention behind it. You can't draw any conclusion by "viewing footage" or reading the "free" (sic) press. Medias all have an agendas. And as you pointed out, "the internationally accepted perspective" is nothing but a point of view that is accepted, by no means does it stand as an established truth. We should try to understand things rather than "accepting" them as facts, but eh we simply can't.
Wasn't I the one just pointing out that everyone ought to make up their own mind instead of believing what they're spoon fed? So why are you replying to me? Or did you just want to say "medias all have an agendas", whatever that means... Most people in media want to make money, so they report on what they see to get the first scoop.
|
Actually, what am I doing still in this thread. Goodbye. If anything significant happens, I hope there will be another thread.
|
Well if you indeed said that earlier on, you just contradicted your-self with that latter post :p
|
On February 27 2014 23:17 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 23:11 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 22:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 22:24 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 19:43 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 19:17 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings.
So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw:
as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now! If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament. At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here. That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled. That's not what's going on here. If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do. If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!" It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair. Besides the utter warping of reality, you didn't understand what I said. Having language-speakers in another country gives no justification under international law to intervene in the affairs of another country. It would be an unjustified invasion, nothing less. You just made up your example with regard to Romania. Germany has never intervened in Romania. According to international law, the situation you described would not lead to an attack on Romania by Germany. If you think for a second, the principle you purport is insane. When citizens are for example kidnapped in another country (constitutes violence to them), does that mean that a country may attack the said country? Of course not. And, yet, what you propose is even more vague. Mistreatment? Being threatened? You know, I feel like the fact that Estonian isn't a language taught at schools in Germany is sufficient mistreatment, better invade Germany... Honestly, you've read some article somewhere probably written in the last week by the Kremlin, and now you're talking out of your ass. Yes, I made up that example. That's why I started with calling it a "theoretical example". Besides all that you might want to tune down the personal insults. I don't need an article by the Kremlin to understand that the "insane principle I purport" is what's the basis of hundreds of separatist movements all over the globe. The right of nations to self-determination isn't an exactly new concept. No one cares about kidnapping anyone, what counts is when people in a specific region with a common ethnical and/or cultural background are under an actual threat. If a protest between pro- and anti-Maidan people gets out of hand and the wrong side gets beaten to death, do you really expect Russia to just stand there and watch? And if they intervene and can reasonably look as if they're trying to restore order and allow everyone a democratic vote do you really think someone would tell them "No, you're not allowed to de-escalate that situation, that's not within your border. Let them smash their heads in until one side loses!"? Yes, that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Self-determination of people has no role to play in this, which is why no-one but you mentions this term in international media. But, even if it were, it doesn't matter. As the right to self-determination does not apply to minorities within a country. It especially does not apply to minorities who can pack up and leave for another country which they originate/associate with. Furthermore, even if it were to apply, the correct procedure is to go to the UN, which would then choose to act. Or not to act, as it may be. In no world is it justified for another country to invade another, no matter what's done to their citizens. Yet, we're talking about this now, when nothing is done to such citizens. In fact, they are sitting pretty in their own autonomous state, and they are represented in the Rada through a democratically elected government. The reason why I said that you're talking out of your ass is because you're talking out of your ass. You made up your 'theoretical example' with the aim to persuade us to your point of view, but it was misleading at best, malicious at worst.
In the world I live in lots of countries have been invaded for much, much less.
But hey, minorities living in a country have no right to self-determination. And if they had one, they could ask the UN to enforce it because that's what the UN is for and fights for on a regular basis. Also, what the hell, they could just pack up and leave if they don't like what's going on in their country! Who do these people think they are? People? Ha!
The right to self-determination is one huge clusterfuck in legal terms which is why it's mostly regarded as a principle that gets adjusted the way you need it at the moment. However, it isn't exactly far-fetched to understand that it's a completely reasonable justification for why Russia won't just watch if anything bad happens to ethnic, Russian-speaking, Russians right next to their border.
The same is true for any ethnically-x, x-speaking people next to the border of country-x which is why the comparison to Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons is completely valid.
|
On February 27 2014 23:19 SkelA wrote:
Saddest part of this is if Russia attacks Ukraine to defend the russian speaking minorty from fascists or whatever would be more justified than anything that USA/NATO has done in the past 20 years.
Irony at its finest, but hey Russia is always the evil nation RIGHT?
Russia supported Yanukovich and no attacks on the minority you're talking about have happened yet.
Therefore Russia doesn't even have a reason for now to do anything, the NATO is still way ahead and Russia IS the "evil nation" in this case.
Supporting dictators rarely makes you the good guy.
On February 27 2014 23:28 r.Evo wrote:
In the world I live in lots of countries have been invaded for much, much less.
I can see how that's true, but how exactly does that support anything you're saying?
"People have invaded other people for less, therefore its fine"
Neither from an ethical, nor a jurisdical point of view, that argument makes any sense, just because your neighbour kills somebody doesn't mean it's fine for you to kill somebody 20 years later with the argument "Well I had a better reason than THAT GUY!"
But hey, minorities living in a country have no right to self-determination. And if they had one, they could ask the UN to enforce it because that's what the UN is for and fights for on a regular basis. Also, what the hell, they could just pack up and leave if they don't like what's going on in their country! Who do these people think they are? People? Ha!
I could be completely wrong here, but aren't those people represented by their own democratically voted politicians?
The "russian" side of the Ukraine surely voted as well, you make it seem like they are some supressed minority without any rights, but that doesn't seem to be the case, you also seem to forget that despite of what Russia is using as an excuse here no organized attacks on the russians have occured.
According to Russia they feel "threatened", well according to russia jews felt threatened as well, but the organization of jews themselves in the Ukraine gave out a statement which basically said that people should relax more and that the fascist are a small minority in the country that isn't even anywhere close to being a big political power.
|
On February 27 2014 23:17 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 23:11 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 22:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 22:24 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 19:43 Ghanburighan wrote:On February 27 2014 19:17 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote:
Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings.
So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw:
as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now! If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament. At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here. That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled. That's not what's going on here. If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do. If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!" It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair. Besides the utter warping of reality, you didn't understand what I said. Having language-speakers in another country gives no justification under international law to intervene in the affairs of another country. It would be an unjustified invasion, nothing less. You just made up your example with regard to Romania. Germany has never intervened in Romania. According to international law, the situation you described would not lead to an attack on Romania by Germany. If you think for a second, the principle you purport is insane. When citizens are for example kidnapped in another country (constitutes violence to them), does that mean that a country may attack the said country? Of course not. And, yet, what you propose is even more vague. Mistreatment? Being threatened? You know, I feel like the fact that Estonian isn't a language taught at schools in Germany is sufficient mistreatment, better invade Germany... Honestly, you've read some article somewhere probably written in the last week by the Kremlin, and now you're talking out of your ass. Yes, I made up that example. That's why I started with calling it a "theoretical example". Besides all that you might want to tune down the personal insults. I don't need an article by the Kremlin to understand that the "insane principle I purport" is what's the basis of hundreds of separatist movements all over the globe. The right of nations to self-determination isn't an exactly new concept. No one cares about kidnapping anyone, what counts is when people in a specific region with a common ethnical and/or cultural background are under an actual threat. If a protest between pro- and anti-Maidan people gets out of hand and the wrong side gets beaten to death, do you really expect Russia to just stand there and watch? And if they intervene and can reasonably look as if they're trying to restore order and allow everyone a democratic vote do you really think someone would tell them "No, you're not allowed to de-escalate that situation, that's not within your border. Let them smash their heads in until one side loses!"? Yes, that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Self-determination of people has no role to play in this, which is why no-one but you mentions this term in international media. But, even if it were, it doesn't matter. As the right to self-determination does not apply to minorities within a country. It especially does not apply to minorities who can pack up and leave for another country which they originate/associate with. Furthermore, even if it were to apply, the correct procedure is to go to the UN, which would then choose to act. Or not to act, as it may be. In no world is it justified for another country to invade another, no matter what's done to their citizens. Yet, we're talking about this now, when nothing is done to such citizens. In fact, they are sitting pretty in their own autonomous state, and they are represented in the Rada through a democratically elected government. The reason why I said that you're talking out of your ass is because you're talking out of your ass. You made up your 'theoretical example' with the aim to persuade us to your point of view, but it was misleading at best, malicious at worst.
I am sorry to say the person talking out of his ass is you here.
The situation on the Crimea is difficult at best, but some facts are easily explained. It is an autonomous region with a clear Russian majority, but still considered part of the Ukraine (because it was "gifted" to them). Of course Russia feels some obligation to defend its rights, just the same as Austria felt it was necessary to intercede for Südtirol (South Tyrol) in Italy some years ago.
International law and convention is actually pretty clear about this. Obviously it would be nice if Russia went to the UN with any concerns they have, but let us be honest here for a single second. They feel that the UN is a western Propaganda machine, why exactly should they trust it?
As long as Crimea remains autonomous and their rights are not threatened (note a law forbidding Russian as a national language is not a step in the right direction) Russia will be happy to wave their sword and withhold their money, but if the new regime in Kiew is stupid enough to actually threaten those rights, or god forbid some protest actually escalates you can bet your ass that what r.Evo described is exactly what will happen.
Does Russia have the right to intervene or some law which makes it legal? No, but frankly in international relations law and legalities aren't even half of the picture. Most of the actions taken to get rid of Yanukowitch weren't strictly legal either remember? The question you should ask yourself is if Russia has the might and the pretext to intervene, and sadly that they would have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
