EPTUkraine Crisis - Page 80
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
| ||
|
Saihv
Finland54 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:19 Derez wrote: The right to intervene in wholesale slaughter of civilians is pretty well defined in the responsibility to protect, its just that it doesn't get applied much because of Russia. What wholesale slaughter? Crimea has already wide ranging autonomy -- legally it is freer than any Russian Federation subject like Tatarstan or Chechnya or Dagestan. But lets say our Russian friends are right and Russia has the right to intervene into Crimea to protect whatever. As soon as Crimea becomes a republic of Russia, does Turkey have the right to intervene into Crimea since the Turkish minority now feels oppressed by the Russians? Why doesnt Turkey have the right to intervene now to protect the Turkish minority in Crimea against the Russian majority in Crimea? | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:13 Sub40APM wrote: Its an ad homniem attack in what way? The situation in Sudatenland does not describe your position? That Germany -- or any country -- has the right to threaten another country to ensure that a minority Germany feels is oppressed can protected? Please quote the post of mine where I mention "oppressed" unless you know, you made that up to prove a point that was never made. You might have noticed that I stopped talking about threats to the Russian speaking population rather quickly since so far all those sparked was Russia showing some muscle. I'm talking about how violent actions against the Russian population of Ukraine would justify a Russian intervention in front of the international community. Besides that, and apart from the whole world domination part afterwards, annexing the Sudentenland was also considered justified by everyone who mattered. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:22 r.Evo wrote: Please quote the post of mine where I mention "oppressed" unless you know, you made that up to prove a point that was never made. You might have noticed that I stopped talking about threats to the Russian speaking population rather quickly since so far all those sparked was Russia showing some muscle. I'm talking about how violent actions against the Russian population of Ukraine would justify a Russian intervention in front of the international community. Besides that, and apart from the whole world domination part afterwards, annexing the Sudentenland was also considered justified by everyone who mattered. "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" Anyway, glad of you to acknowledge that the best example of your theory is the Munich Agreement. And you are right, in 1938 the English and the French found it perfectly acceptable to avoid war. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:22 Sub40APM wrote: What wholesale slaughter? Crimea has already wide ranging autonomy -- legally it is freer than any Russian Federation subject like Tatarstan or Chechnya or Dagestan. But lets say our Russian friends are right and Russia has the right to intervene into Crimea to protect whatever. As soon as Crimea becomes a republic of Russia, does Turkey have the right to intervene into Crimea since the Turkish minority now feels oppressed by the Russians? Why doesnt Turkey have the right to intervene now to protect the Turkish minority in Crimea against the Russian majority in Crimea? I agree with you, none of the conditions for intervention are met. I was just saying that there is an exception where states are allowed to intervene, but that it generally doesn't get used all that often because Russia sees sovereignty as sacrosanct except when it comes to their perceived sphere of influence. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:22 Sub40APM wrote: What wholesale slaughter? Crimea has already wide ranging autonomy -- legally it is freer than any Russian Federation subject like Tatarstan or Chechnya or Dagestan. But lets say our Russian friends are right and Russia has the right to intervene into Crimea to protect whatever. As soon as Crimea becomes a republic of Russia, does Turkey have the right to intervene into Crimea since the Turkish minority now feels oppressed by the Russians? Why doesnt Turkey have the right to intervene now to protect the Turkish minority in Crimea against the Russian majority in Crimea? His point is that Russia was against intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunesia, Libya, Egypt and Syria, while they themself intervene in Georgia and Chechnia. Russias application of the "responsibility to protect" is extremely selective and the argument for selectiveness would only increase if they enter Crimea. If the "responsibility to protect" is to be taken serious Russia should allow others in UN to act on the same arguments as they use. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Current scenario: Russia shows some military presence in their border regions. Theory: It's completely unjustifiable and horrible IF Russia dares to invade Ukraine. Evo: IF violent crimes happen towards the ethnically Russian people in Ukraine Russia has a reasonable justification in front of other countries to intervene. To be more precise, a justification that is really, really hard to argue against from the perspective of other countries since in this scenario Russia would be the good guys aka the people protecting civilians. Russia protecting civilians. I guess we've all forgotten what Putin did to Grozny. It is really, really, really hard to argue against a country invading another country because it claims people of its national ethnic identity are being oppressed in another country? It's Russia. There, argued against, very easily. Again, maybe you have forgotten, it's Russia. And what you're suggesting has never been accepted as sole justification for going to war post-WW2 because it has been used again and again and again for wars of conquest and "protecting our brothers" has never been the real reason. If Russia has legitimate concerns about ethnic Russians being oppressed in the Ukraine, take it to the UN. Unilateral invasions are bad, I thought? I guess it depends on which country is doing it... In other words: Ahahahahahahahahahaha. If you'd like to compare this to the war in Iraq (personally I don't recall Americans living over there and the US stepping in to protect them, but, hey who cares)... what did the UN do against it again? What were the repercussions against anyone having anything to say in it again? In front of the "international community" you guys are making look so glorious on a gigantic white horse no one cared. Oh, right, the majority of the population in quite some countries was basically like "Well it's kinda bad what they're doing" but no one on a political or military level cared enough to prevent or stop it until 8 years after it started. Flew right over your head. If Russia attacking the Ukraine to protect Russians from the new Ukrainian government is so noble, and this is Russia's stated intent, and that is what we have to go on, Russia's word, how is the US attacking Iraq in part to protect the Kurds and Shiites from Saddam's tyranny, as was part of the US's stated intent, that is what we had to go on, the US government's word, how are those two things different? Oh,because you know that the US invaded Iraq for selfish gain. The same way you know Russia's claim of protecting ethnic Russians is not a cover for selfish gain. It's just so reasonable. That's exactly the scenario I'm talking about. If Russia intervenes with a somewhat reasonable explanation (and tbh "They're attacking civilians" still beats the crap out of "Well they have WoMD.. erhm.. they're terrorists... erhm, fuck it might as well grab some oil while we're here.") no one will stop them. There is simply no single country that will step up and say "Yo, we won't let you march into there like that." - why not? Because the international community will see such a reasoning as acceptable for intervening. The international community would accept that? It would not. It has already said it would not. Now you can say that maybe they still would, but the Ukraine is not Iraq, and Russia is not the US. Saddam slaughtering civilians was part of the US stated reason for invasion, it seems you're just ignorant. By the way, how much oil did the US grab from Iraq? That's right, none. Not a single barrel. Again, you're ignorant. We could have. We could have put our soldiers around the oil fields and grabbed as much oil as we could. But. We. Didn't. I'm not saying it would be a great scenario and an awesome move by Russia that I applaud. I don't believe that, assuming this happens, Russia would actually care about bringing democracy, peace and rainbows - they'd look forward to splitting off the pro-Russian territory and population and do with them as they please. You're the one attaching emotional weight to the whole "good guys" part. Sadly, no. You're the one creating fantasy scenarios where Russia could be accepted as the "good guy" yet you're not attaching emotional weight to it? Your reasoning looks like a cloverleaf interchange seen from the sky. Who are the good guys? Well, to pull it back to your Iraq war: It definitely weren't the Iraqi people. Pretty sure the US consistently portrayed the Iraqi people as the good guys being terrorized and massacred by Saddam and then by insurgents. But hell you're not going off facts so who cares. PS: Also where is that Russian minority dominating Ukrainian politics again? As much as Yanukovych was awful for his country he still was democratically elected and everyone from ENEMO to PACE called those elections completely legit. He wasn't exactly put into power by a Russian conspiracy. Please take the time to actually inform yourself before you tell others to be ashamed for explaining things. Being democratically elected means you can't dominate the politics of the country so as to steer the benefits of corruption to you and your friends? Interesting. I guess that means large portions of 19th century US history simply did not happen then. Being democratically elected means you can't throw political opponents in jail and repress dissent? How many examples of countries do we have where precisely that has happened? I guess Yanukovych got that $12 billion fortune by going out and shaking the famed magical money trees that grow on the banks of the Dnieper. Democracy apparently only means free and fair elections. Once you do that and win, party time! You were democratically elected, do what you want, the r.Evos of the world will support you because hey you were fairly elected! Corrupt the government, throw people in jail for no legitimate reason, pass draconian speech and protest laws, have your robocops shoot protesters, whatever. All that matters is that that election was done right. And last I am far more well-informed than you about the Ukraine and Russia which can easily be concluded from what you're saying and what I'm saying and I'm not interested in having the less erudite and their pretzel logic tell me that I need to educate myself. | ||
|
PaleMan
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:31 radiatoren wrote: His point is that Russia was against intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunesia, Libya, Egypt and Syria, while they themself intervene in Georgia and Chechnia. Russias application of the "responsibility to protect" is extremely selective and the argument for selectiveness would only increase if they enter Crimea. If the "responsibility to protect" is to be taken serious Russia should allow others in UN to act on the same arguments as they use. maybe Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunesia, Libya, Egypt and Syria share borders with USA, or maybe Great Britain? Chechnya is a part of Russian Federation, why cannot we kill bandits at our home? Maybe USA will invade Spain cause i heard some ppl want to be independent from Spain, they make some violent acts from time to time killing ppl with bombs etc? We never invaded Georgia, first of all Georgia attacked and killed russian peacekeepers who have all the rights to be there - mandate was granted by UN plus there are a lot of ppl in South Ossetya who has russian passport so we protected our peacekeepers and our citizens | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:45 PaleMan wrote: Chechnya is a part of Russian Federation, why cannot we kill bandits at our home? By kill bandits you mean, make one of the bandits king and hero of russian federation that proclaims Shariat law and gets 20 billion a year from the federal budget as a bribe while he builds Europe's biggest mosque? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
So Russia is building up troops in the area; while I don't trust Russia to be good (because they aren't), building up forces near a place in considerable unrest is a perfectly reasonable course of action in general. | ||
|
PaleMan
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:48 Sub40APM wrote: By kill bandits you mean, make one of the bandits king and hero of russian federation that proclaims Shariat law and gets 20 billion a year from the federal budget as a bribe while he builds Europe's biggest mosque? thats how politics work - you bribe one of the strongest bandits, he kills all others with your help and becomes loyal servant | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
When you intervene, entire country is fighting another. When a country is left alone, it is part of a country against another one. It helps save lives. War is absurd. Force is absurd. There should be never public approval of such interventions. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Chechnya is a part of Russian Federation, why cannot we kill bandits at our home? Yup, this was necessary to kill bandits. 1995: ![[image loading]](http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000vtgu2AgbWlw/s/900/russia-chechnya-grozny-war-ru102563.jpg) 2000: ![[image loading]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/fccd56f8fbd0c4c208b051c5888b364c/tumblr_n09ogrsXEZ1qaf7nco1_1280.jpg) Russia indiscriminately shelled Grozny back into the stone age in 1995 and in 1999-2000, yup, just killing some bandits. maybe Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunesia, Libya, Egypt and Syria share borders with USA, or maybe Great Britain? Does Syria share a border with Russia now? | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
A Russian foreign ministry statement via ITAR-TASS names NATO: “The attempts to unilaterally change the coordinated actions and the unwillingness to realize the real situation come to no good,” the ministry said. “When NATO starts discussing the situation in Ukraine, it sends a wrong signal. The NATO secretary-general says Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance is not the priority of the Ukrainian leadership,” the ministry said. “Does membership remain ordinary priority? Some people try to solve these issues instead of the Ukrainian people,” the ministry said. “We advise everyone to give up provocative statements and respect Ukraine’s non-aligned status in compliance with the law ‘On the Fundamentals of Internal and Foreign Policy’,” the ministry said. Classic. Crimea leaves Ukraine under Russian guidance, Ukraine joins NATO. Gas pipelines still flow through West Ukraine. Russia has nothing to win in this situation. Their best case scenario is to try to build some kind of federation where only the Russian minority has a veto. | ||
|
PaleMan
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On February 28 2014 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote: Yup, this was necessary to kill bandits. 1995: 2000: Russia indiscriminately shelled Grozny back into the stone age in 1995 and in 1999-2000, yup, just killing some bandits. Does Syria share a border with Russia now? Does Russia tried to attack Syria like USA did with Iraq etc? wanna take a look at Grozniy now? ![[image loading]](http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6621/81807755.87/0_7fbae_ba133362_orig.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/2/2/6/1638622.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/3/2/6/1638623.jpg) | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
wanna take a look at Grozniy now? That wasn't his point. The point was, an entire city was leveled because of "some banditkilling". | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On February 28 2014 04:00 PaleMan wrote: Does Russia tried to attack Syria like USA did with Iraq etc? wanna take a look at Grozniy now? so that justifies the destruction of the whole region? | ||
|
PaleMan
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On February 28 2014 04:07 Cheerio wrote: so that justifies the destruction of the whole region? whole region? what region, pls enlighten me | ||
| ||
