Russian expansionism in eastern Europe.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, the fat is in the fire now.  We'll see where all these western sanctions take us next.  Russia has already occupied the Crimea, so it has become a fait accompli.

[timmie 988]

As a Serb, who lives in Serbia, I can only say that Putin did nothing which hadn't already been done by the USA and EU ( Germany ). If it was O.K. for them to reckognize Kosovo, then every single region in the world has the right to declare independence and the USA have to be quiet. Putin only fights the West using their own methods.

 

No no no no no, Kosovo is in no way comparable with Crimea.

International law is very conservative: it wants to preserve the status quo, new states cause chaos, so international law doesn't want new states. There are three accepted methods to become independent.

 

1. Negotiations between the different parties, in this case: the Crimea and the Ukrainian government. If they reach an agreement about independence and the conditions of independence, then it is okay. Czechoslovakia became independent this way
2. Referendum, after negotiations between the parties. You have to negotiate about how the referendum will be organized, etc. Also, is a referendum possible under the laws of the nation (in Ukraine this is not the case)? Scotland is an example of this case (if it votes 'YES', it will become independent without a problem at the end of 2014).
3. A unilateral declaration of independence as 'last resort', but ONLY IF there is evidence of a very grave injustice. According to 110 countries and the International Court of Justice, this was the case in Kosovo, which makes the independence legitimate. It is obviously the most difficult case in the three possibilities here.

 

It is obvious that the independence of the Crimea doesn't fit in any of these three possibilities. The referendum was organized without the consent of Ukraine, and the constitution doesn't allow referendums. This makes the referendum illegal. What makes matters worse is that the situation in which the referendum took place doesn't allow it to be fair and correct (the Crimea is military occupied...). This makes the independence of the Crimea a unilaterally declared one, and, according to international law, illegitimate (like for example Transnistria).

 

I am (honestly) very curious to see how many countries will recognize its independence. Given the precedents, not many, but you never know.

[vocar 80]

 

As a Serb, who lives in Serbia, I can only say that Putin did nothing which hadn't already been done by the USA and EU ( Germany ). If it was O.K. for them to reckognize Kosovo, then every single region in the world has the right to declare independence and the USA have to be quiet. Putin only fights the West using their own methods.

 

No no no no no, Kosovo is in no way comparable with Crimea.

International law is very conservative: it wants to preserve the status quo, new states cause chaos, so international law doesn't want new states. There are three accepted methods to become independent.

1. A unilateral declaration of independence as 'last resort', but ONLY IF there is evidence of a very grave injustice. According to 110 countries and the International Court of Justice, this was the case in Kosovo, which makes the independence legitimate. It is obviously the most difficult case in the three possibilities here.

 

 

I am (honestly) very curious to see how many countries will recognize its independence. Given the precedents, not many, but you never know.

 

 

I am more than happy to see that justice is flowering in Kosovo now. You have every non-Albaninan community literary surrounded with barb wire and guarded with international soldiers, you have even monasteries and churches guarded too. Every single graveyard is devastated. Actualy, exactly ten years ago (5 years after NATO came to Kosovo ), you had https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOBIROAPY9k , ethnic cleansing in front of UN, NATO and KFOR soldier's eyes and nobody did nothing. These are the pictures of true justice and democracy, according to 110 countries and ICJ.

 

So, since you are an international justice expert, tell me: which international law allowed NATO to attack souvereign country of Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia didn't attack any NATO member, and that was the only reason when NATO forces could attack other non-member country according to NATO statute itself. Yugoslav regular army and police forces were in action against UCK, an organisation which was declared as terroristic at that time, even by the USA government. During 1997 and 1998. almost every week someone was shot or bombed by UCK - policemen, soldiers, civilians ( even Albaninans ). NATO attacked Yugoslavia without approval of the UN and UN Security council, occupied part of it, made it independent and reckognized it in express time. After that, they started with lobying and bribing other UN members to reckognize Kosovo.

If Kosovo declaration of independece was legitimate, I wonder why it still hasn't been reckognized by Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and many other countries? Why, for example Spain didn't reckognize it? Only USA, Germany and their satellites.

 

Russia sent their troops to protect opressed Russian and non Ukraininan civilians ( USA protected opressed Albanians ), the territory held a referendum, declared independence... what is the difference? If Russia bribe the ICJ and they declare it legitimate, will it really be legitimate then?

 

Russia only does what you showed her to do. If you open yesterdays newspapers, only in Europe: Hungarians in Romania want authonomy, Venetians in Italy, Scots in the UK, Basque and Catalonians in Spain, Russians in Moldova, Serbs and Croats in Bosnia, Turks in Cyprus...try to explain to all of them that Kosovo was legal, and their wishes are not. Good luck!

[Duke87 1,070]

The thing about Kosovo is that there was government-sponsored genocide occurring. The same cannot be said of those other places. It's not so much a question of the region desiring independence as it is a question of the government in control of the region working against the health and safety of the people in it. Venice, Scotland, Catalonia, etc. may not be 100% happy with the status quo, but their people are not physically in harm's way. As such there is not the same urgent need for action to change things.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You know, I had a Serbian girl as a lab partner in Chemistry in my last year of high school.  It was 1955 and she has some interesting tales about things in Europe at the time.  The Balkans don't seem to have really survived the breakup of the Ottoman empire.

 

Meanwhile in the newly independent Crimea, the next move is up to Mr. Putin.  Seems gun-boat diplomacy still works.  Possession is clearly nine points of the law.

 

EDIT: And now ...

 

Seems the old extent of the USSR has placed Russian speakers all about.

  Edited March 18, 2014 by A Nonny Moose  

[vocar 80]

The thing about Kosovo is that there was government-sponsored genocide occurring. The same cannot be said of those other places. It's not so much a question of the region desiring independence as it is a question of the government in control of the region working against the health and safety of the people in it. Venice, Scotland, Catalonia, etc. may not be 100% happy with the status quo, but their people are not physically in harm's way. As such there is not the same urgent need for action to change things.

 

You know, nowadays it surely is trendy to use the term "genocide" especially when it is needed to justify USA intervention. It is also more than interesting that you, from USA supposedly born in 1987, are telling me, in Serbia, who was born in 1982. what happened in my own country in 1997/1999. But I do not want to argue anymore about Kosovo. As far as I am concerned, Putin said everything here: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/putin-shows-resolve-signs-crimean-treaty/496446.html

Try to convince him that your intervention was justified

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

As a Serb, who lives in Serbia, I can only say that Putin did nothing which hadn't already been done by the USA and EU ( Germany ). If it was O.K. for them to reckognize Kosovo, then every single region in the world has the right to declare independence and the USA have to be quiet. Putin only fights the West using their own methods.

 

No no no no no, Kosovo is in no way comparable with Crimea.

International law is very conservative: it wants to preserve the status quo, new states cause chaos, so international law doesn't want new states. There are three accepted methods to become independent.

 

1. Negotiations between the different parties, in this case: the Crimea and the Ukrainian government. If they reach an agreement about independence and the conditions of independence, then it is okay. Czechoslovakia became independent this way
2. Referendum, after negotiations between the parties. You have to negotiate about how the referendum will be organized, etc. Also, is a referendum possible under the laws of the nation (in Ukraine this is not the case)? Scotland is an example of this case (if it votes 'YES', it will become independent without a problem at the end of 2014).
3. A unilateral declaration of independence as 'last resort', but ONLY IF there is evidence of a very grave injustice. According to 110 countries and the International Court of Justice, this was the case in Kosovo, which makes the independence legitimate. It is obviously the most difficult case in the three possibilities here.

 

It is obvious that the independence of the Crimea doesn't fit in any of these three possibilities. The referendum was organized without the consent of Ukraine, and the constitution doesn't allow referendums. This makes the referendum illegal. What makes matters worse is that the situation in which the referendum took place doesn't allow it to be fair and correct (the Crimea is military occupied...). This makes the independence of the Crimea a unilaterally declared one, and, according to international law, illegitimate (like for example Transnistria).

 

I am (honestly) very curious to see how many countries will recognize its independence. Given the precedents, not many, but you never know.

 

Kosovo is actually the same. Only there it was the West that got there first and accepted the referendum. Russia was in that case not happy about it at all. Now Russia is returning the favor by accepting the referendum of Crimea (as well as accepting those regions in Georgia). International law might not like it, but international law has no one to enforce it. Hence Russia is going to get away with this. Besides, Kosovo might technically been legal under international law, but the Iraq war most certainly was not and the Libya intervention might also have been a stretch when NATO bombed the Libyan army. And lets not get started about supporting a coup/revolution, which is also a very illegal way of getting rid of your democratically elected president. Even more so if said revolution happens one day after the president and the opposition sign a deal (which the EU brokered) which would have resulted in a cease fire and early elections. Its the pot calling the kettle black. It also does not matter if the rest of the world accepts it or not. When it comes to who draws the borders, its might makes right. As long as Russia has a large army parked in Crimea and does not get evicted by Ukraine or Ukraines allies, Ukraine effectively has no control over the region. Sucks, but that is how it works. 

[timmie 988]

So, every time someone does something wrong, we have to give everyone else also the right to do something wrong too without being punished? I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argumentation. The legality of the war in Iraq does not determine whether the secession of the Crimea is legitimate. (And to be clear: the war in Iraq was clearly illegal, and that is also the reason why there was a lot of Western opposition against that war, from countries like France, Germany, Canada and Belgium.)

[vocar 80]

So, every time someone does something wrong, we have to give everyone else also the right to do something wrong too without being punished? I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argumentation. The legality of the war in Iraq does not determine whether the secession of the Crimea is legitimate. (And to be clear: the war in Iraq was clearly illegal, and that is also the reason why there was a lot of Western opposition against that war, from countries like France, Germany, Canada and Belgium.)

 

I didn't see that any of these countries put any sanctions against USA or UK, that they frozen accounts of Americans, or even that anyone called Bush, Clinton or Obama "imperialistic".

 

 

So, every time someone does something wrong, we have to give everyone else also the right to do something wrong too without being punished?

 

Actually yes. If you didn't react to some big mistakes that your or some "friendly" government did, it would be the best not to react now when some other "not friendly" country did the same. Every reaction beside this one may be called hypocritical.

[Duke87 1,070]

As far as I am concerned, Putin said everything here: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/putin-shows-resolve-signs-crimean-treaty/496446.html

Try to convince him that your intervention was justified

 

Whether US intervention is justified is an entirely different question from whether independence is justified. I am not attempting to argue the former, and indeed I think we can agree that the US tends to be excessively aggressive with its foreign policy.

 

 

I didn't see that any of these countries put any sanctions against USA or UK, that they frozen accounts of Americans, or even that anyone called Bush, Clinton or Obama "imperialistic".

 

That is because France, Germany, Belgium, and Canada all have closer ties to the US than they do to Russia. When you don't like what your friend is doing, you might decide not to be part of it (as many countries did, in the case of Iraq), but you're going to be less inclined to try and tell them to stop. But when you don't like what an acquaintance is doing, and a powerful friend also doesn't like what said acquaintance is doing, you are in a much better position to lean on them about it.

 

In other words, these countries did not put sanctions against the US for arguably similar actions simply because they could not. Smart countries know who calls the shots: you don't want to be an enemy of the US. Russia, meanwhile, while it is a major player on the global stage, does not have the same clout the US does. Being Russia's enemy will not make your life miserable the same way being the US' enemy will, so you don't worry about keeping them happy the same way you do with the US.

The US government, of course, knows they have this power and they leverage it to the greatest extent they can get away with. Russia does not have this power to the same degree, but they would like to.

[LexusInfernus 908]

So, every time someone does something wrong, we have to give everyone else also the right to do something wrong too without being punished? I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argumentation. The legality of the war in Iraq does not determine whether the secession of the Crimea is legitimate. (And to be clear: the war in Iraq was clearly illegal, and that is also the reason why there was a lot of Western opposition against that war, from countries like France, Germany, Canada and Belgium.)

Our crimes go a little further than just Iraq. Again, what we did in Libya was also illegal (we overstepped our mandate once we started actively bombing Libyan army groups) and we back a (temporary) government that is the result of a revolution, which is an illegitimate way of regime change. We have absolutely no right whatsoever to accuse the Crimean parliament and the Russians of doing illegal things when we are no better. And honestly I think Putin has a stronger legal standing at this moment than we do. After all, he has the express permission of the legally elected president of Ukraine to use military force to restore order. 

 

 

That is because France, Germany, Belgium, and Canada all have closer ties to the US than they do to Russia. When you don't like what your friend is doing, you might decide not to be part of it (as many countries did, in the case of Iraq), but you're going to be less inclined to try and tell them to stop. But when you don't like what an acquaintance is doing, and a powerful friend also doesn't like what said acquaintance is doing, you are in a much better position to lean on them about it.

 

In other words, these countries did not put sanctions against the US for arguably similar actions simply because they could not. Smart countries know who calls the shots: you don't want to be an enemy of the US. Russia, meanwhile, while it is a major player on the global stage, does not have the same clout the US does. Being Russia's enemy will not make your life miserable the same way being the US' enemy will, so you don't worry about keeping them happy the same way you do with the US.

The US government, of course, knows they have this power and they leverage it to the greatest extent they can get away with. Russia does not have this power to the same degree, but they would like to.

 

See the double standard? Western Europe allows the US to start illegal wars because we like the US. But if a country that we don't like does the same thing, we start complaining and threatening with sanctions. We are therefor massive hypocrites, and we lack any moral high ground to judge other countries. Russia sees the West as arbitrary in its interpretation of international law and I have to admit they have a point. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@vocar: When you sleep with an elephant next door to a polar bear, beavers tend to be very cautious.

 

All the gum beating in the world isn't going to change anything now.  The next move is in Moldava.

[vocar 80]

@A Nonny Moose,

 

I really can't tell at the moment how will this situation escalate, but I am sure that there will be another referendums and independence declarations, based on Kosovo and Crimea case, all over the world.

 

For several days, while I've been reading the news about Crimea, about discussions and parallels between Kosovo and all the other disputed areas, in my head one sentence keeps showing in front of my eyes again and again.

It says: "Our shadows will be walking through Vienna, strolling through the court, frightening lords."

That sentence was found written on a wall of Gavrilo Princip's cell, after he died.

[Captain 32]

Excuse me, not have time to read the previous posts (will do it later) - just want share the latest news from Ukraine. Today accidentally snared video where Ukrainian authorities are invading office of the director of national TV and threatening to violence required to sign the dismissal. Journalists showed 5 minutes plot, where they were shown a video of the national celebration of the squares of the Crimea. Other channels were forbidden to demonstrate that the Crimea celebrates reunification with Russia.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkirLw0EXU

 

AND OFC
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/osce-media-freedom-representative-outraged-by-attacks-against-managers-of-ukrainian-national-tv-340016.html

 

 

PS: As a Russian citizen associated with political activities I responsibly declare - Russia will not to carry out the expansion of the West. Crimea - is interesting geopolitical game with NATO and the West. But it is important to understand that without the will of the people of the Crimea would have been impossible. Ukraine intends to continue talks with NATO and wants to exit from the CIS. The appearance of NATO bases in the Crimea tantamount to murder Russia on the Asian continent. Moldova and Ukraine in its current boundaries and other countries from CIS - area of interest for the Customs Union. It makes no sense in assume social responsibilities when this countries can work with other governments under someone else's responsibility, and to receive the money here and now within the existing boundaries, but expanding economic partnership with the single currency. And it's not the dollar.

[jmsepe 2,039]

Wait, I think the issue here is this. Does Crimea has the legal authority on their constitution or any other platform that allows them to dislodge from Ukraine without the consent of the latter and make itself a part of another country, say Russia?

 

If the answer is yes then I don't see why the western world is ranting so much about it. Otherwise, they definitely have the reason to do so.

 

 

 

So, every time someone does something wrong, we have to give everyone else also the right to do something wrong too without being punished?

 

Actually yes. If you didn't react to some big mistakes that your or some "friendly" government did, it would be the best not to react now when some other "not friendly" country did the same. Every reaction beside this one may be called hypocritical.

 

 

Vocar actually has the point here, it maybe on seen on a different case to case basis although yes, it is really a stupid argumentation. But between using logic which works perfectly only in a utopia and a real case scenario where there are certain factors involve, it maybe best to keep silent unless you are sure to be in the winning or rather stronger side. 

[Jasoncw 11,949]

I think the difference between Ukraine and other recent countries is that the other countries had pressing issues of violence that most would agree justifies some kind of action (whether or not the action that was taken was the correct one). The other difference is that the US isn't annexing anything. Even in Libya, the government there was friendly with the US. The same with Egypt. Also, the US isn't just the US, it's acting with aligned interests and values to most of Europe, it's just the US that usually does the bulk of the "dirty work" because it's politically convenient for European leaders.

 

What's happening in Ukraine is peaceful as far as those things go, and the Russian forces are destablizing things rather than stabilizing them.

 

 

imo, what Russia should have done, is go to the UN and say "This is happening here. Send in some international forces to maintain stability while the government transitions. Also, this region has historically not wanted to be part of Ukraine. Organize a legitimate referendum."

 

Instead what Russia did was invade the country, lock down the crimean parliment and have them elect their guy, and then tell everyone to vote on a referendum where both of the choices are essentially being annexed by russia, while being occupied. How can russia expect anyone to think that's legitimate?

 

 

What I don't understand is why Russia took this course of action when a much more agreeable one was so easy to take. I also think the focus right now shouldn't be on what country crimea is in, but how it gets there, and that all the people in both places are safe. And I think it's reasonable for Russia to have an active role in this, but not in the way that it has.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let us understand the modern take on a popular revolution.  How do the events in the Ukraine/Crimea differ from the American insurrection of 1775?  The only real difference is the communication network, eh?

 

The Americans should applaud the people of Crimea for seeking their mother land and detaching themselves from a state to which they had been attached unwillingly.  The geopolitics of the situation notwithstanding, the ruled are ruled only by their own consent.

[jmsepe 2,039]

I think the difference between Ukraine and other recent countries is that the other countries had pressing issues of violence that most would agree justifies some kind of action (whether or not the action that was taken was the correct one). The other difference is that the US isn't annexing anything. Even in Libya, the government there was friendly with the US. The same with Egypt. Also, the US isn't just the US, it's acting with aligned interests and values to most of Europe, it's just the US that usually does the bulk of the "dirty work" because it's politically convenient for European leaders.

 

What's happening in Ukraine is peaceful as far as those things go, and the Russian forces are destablizing things rather than stabilizing them.

 

 

imo, what Russia should have done, is go to the UN and say "This is happening here. Send in some international forces to maintain stability while the government transitions. Also, this region has historically not wanted to be part of Ukraine. Organize a legitimate referendum."

 

Instead what Russia did was invade the country, lock down the crimean parliment and have them elect their guy, and then tell everyone to vote on a referendum where both of the choices are essentially being annexed by russia, while being occupied. How can russia expect anyone to think that's legitimate?

 

 

What I don't understand is why Russia took this course of action when a much more agreeable one was so easy to take. I also think the focus right now shouldn't be on what country crimea is in, but how it gets there, and that all the people in both places are safe. And I think it's reasonable for Russia to have an active role in this, but not in the way that it has.

 

Perhaps because Russia has clear and definite hidden intentions? 

[Fatherted 129]

I really can't decide what stance to take, so consider me now neutral.

Crimea should be allowed a second vote AFTER all militaries have retreated from the area, with assurances from both sides that it will not have any repercussions in rejoining Ukraine or Russia, or becoming an independent State. I find it difficult to believe 96.5% of the population want to rejoin Russia, as the military will have been...influential. Also, the amount of CCCP (USSR) flags flying worries me.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There seems to be a few hammer and sickle flags but mostly the Russian national flag.  I doubt that the communist sympathizers are in any great number anywhere after the collapse.  We are now faced with a done thing, so what can we do?  Invade?  The would put more than the fox in the hen house.

 

Maybe the guys with the hammer and sickle were being sarcastic?

[Captain 32]

> Also, the amount of CCCP (USSR) flags flying worries me. 

All those who were born here before 1991 - were born in the USSR. Do not forget about it. These flags mean that people want to live in the home country - the Crimea in the Soviet Union was part of Russia. In the world of Russian Soviet Union is associated with unity and strength of the Russian people, which was destroyed by the pro-American President Gorbachev in 1991.

 

> What I don't understand is why Russia took this course of action

 

You are absolutely right. But Washington appealed to the UN to block any attempts to hold a referendum. Russia had to block actually American resolution, and was to hold a referendum in one form or another until started the shooting or the Civil War.

[47ply 1,100]

any way you look at it I fear it will get bloody

[beebs 129]

What I don't understand is why Russia took this course of action when a much more agreeable one was so easy to take. 

I don't think it's coincidental that Sevastopol, the home of Russia's Black Sea Fleet is in Crimea. Russia and the Ukraine have an agreement to base the fleet in Sevastopol until 2017 (it might have been recently extended?). With the Ukraine threatening a turn towards the EU (and away from Russia), it seems likely to me that Putin felt this would be an opportunity to permanently secure the land.

[krbe 193]

To give a short answer on Crimea's declaration of independence (and subsequent accession to the Russian Federation); no, there is no basis in international law prohibiting Crimea from unilaterally declare independence. See ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo para. 79. There is no need for any "grave injustices" - that was indeed the case in Kosovo, and that was what the Security Council responded to. To generalise: the right to self determination implies the right to unilaterally declare independence.

 

In the real world, it is not so simple however. Just because you want to determine for yourself, doesn't mean that you can; and you can't expect much support. Realpolitik is to ensure that you have mighty friends - in the case of Kosovo, NATO and the EU was a force more powerful than Serbia and Russia. The ethnic cleansing carried out also ensured that there would be little real support from other nations. Once upon a time - from circa Rwanda to circa now - it was easy to rally peoples and nations to protect all kinds of foreigners, so easy that a new doctrine, Responsibility to Protect, with a catchy acronym, R2P, was invented.

 

But independence is a tricky thing. It's hard to achieve, and unless the host state is willing to relinquish land, military action is needed, which is generally prohibited (Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter). Hence the Kosovo case hinges on Security Council resolutions, obtained because Milosevic thought "ethnic cleansing" was a smashing idea; while Russia circumvented this by encouraging "self defence" forces (as long as they were not acting under state authority, it is not "force" as the UN Charter understands it).

 

Was the election illegal?

Ukrainian Law: Yes. The Constitution has rules, which were not followed.

International Law: No. International law is concerned with the relations between states - not internal relations.

 

 

Was the declaration of independence illegal?

Ukrainian Law: Yes. Seceding violates Ukraine's territorial integrity.

International Law: No prohibition on declarations of independence. There is a right to self determination.

 

What is the statues of the forces present in Crimea?

The forces present in Crimea brand themselves - and are branded by the Russians - as "self defence forces". If the soldiers are indeed Russian soldiers acting as Russian soldiers - under Russian command and orders - Russia is in breach of UN Charter art. 2(4) which prohibits the use of force against another country. If they are indeed "self defence forces" - i.e. not Russian soldiers - the UN Charter does not apply, even if they are Russians. In this case they would "merely" be subject to domestic Ukrainian penal law.

 

Since the declaration of independence however, the Crimean government is free to invite Russian forces. Prior to this, I believe the Russians were basing their actual forces' presence on an invitation extended by president Yanukovich, whom the Russians regarded as the legal ruler of Ukraine. As the head of state, Yanukovich was/is free to invite Russian forces to Crimea and Ukraine.

What I don't understand is why Russia took this course of action when a much more agreeable one was so easy to take. I also think the focus right now shouldn't be on what country crimea is in, but how it gets there, and that all the people in both places are safe. And I think it's reasonable for Russia to have an active role in this, but not in the way that it has.

Taking it to the UN would absolutely not be "agreeable". Russia has a veto in the Security Council, effectively blocking any kind of action not advantageous to Russia; further, why risk a Cyprus situation when it is much quicker and much easier to establish self determination for Crimea? This is the third time Russia backs a self determination movement based on the precedent cited above. There were indeed critical Western voices when we all decided it'd be jolly good to let the Kosovars decide for themselves (Spain springs to mind). If Putin believe he can absorb the "costs" the West is constantly threatening with - something I believe he might just be able to do, after the US and Europe decided to abdicate the industrial throne - isn't an intervention in Crimea something that is unheard of.

[vocar 80]

@Krbe

 

 

Hence the Kosovo case hinges on Security Council resolutions, obtained because Milosevic thought "ethnic cleansing" was a smashing idea;

 

Bombing of Yugoslavia was not allowed by the Security Council nor UN General assembly. It was a military action which NATO started without any approval of the UN.

Secondly, KLA is a terroristic organisation ( USA also called them as terrorists ), which killed a large number of policemen, soldiers and civilians during period of 1997-1999. The West had sent OSCE observers to Kosovo, led by William Walker, which tried to find any reason for bombing, and finally made a set up after one legitimate police action against the terrorists in a village called Račak. After fire exchanging, the observers came into the village, and forbid Yugoslav police to enter the village for a couple of hours. They had put some bodies of dead UCK members in one trench, took off uniforms from them and put civilian clothes on, and after that, they said it was a mass grave of civilians who were shot on purpose from Yugoslav police squads. Several years ago, pathologist from Finland admitted that she was under high pressure from the west to set the evidences against Yugoslavia.

After that, there were "peace negotiations" in France led by Madeleine Albright and bombing.

 

Today, the biggest international companies in Kosovo, which is enormously rich in coal, zinc and nickel ore etc., are led by Albright, Wesley Clark ( NATO head general at the time ), and other important exNATO and USA politicians.

[krbe 193]

Bombing of Yugoslavia was not allowed by the Security Council nor UN General assembly. It was a military action which NATO started without any approval of the UN.

 

My post does not in any way address the legality of the bombing of Yugoslavia, merely the political situation surrounding Kosovo. As you may recall, 1244 (1999) after Yugoslavia accepted the peace proposal, does in part advocate a return to pre-war (in the greatest sense) status, partly fuelled by the Helsinki Accord principles, but that such an arrangement became unrealistic due to the Yugoslavian constitution.

 

Kosovo is likely only the first of several self-determined areas under protection of a greater power. Russia currently has three, with a fourth possible. A can of worms indeed, and while Russia may resort to 20th century power politics, once again showing us the value of the bullet, Kosovo may have marked the return 18th century vassal states. Not a fact many would consider seriously at the turn of the century, with a major victory for 1990s Western values. I still remember the refugee camp preceding this victory, located across the road from my football club's house.

[Captain 32]

I'm very glad that you understand this situation extremely clearly. 

By Topic. In these days Russia is developing specialized channels that will represent the views of Russia in the international arena. Our media fueled by the desire to create a bipolar zone information in English-speaking area. It will be something more powerful of «Russia Today». 

 

Now Russia wants to be a force for those independent countries, which for one reason or another are suffering or can't get support from the United States. Today, this countries: China, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Georgia and so on. All of these are potential U.S. economic partners, but who don't want to consider the United States as winner country or single world government, which is positioning by itself. Assuming themselves as such state the U.S. imposes its own interests, has the pressure in the UN, uses the best deals for themselves. From the viewpoint of the layman - they are the real corrupt official who acts in terms of strength.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The worst of it is that the United States can barely manage itself let alone be anything much in the world.  It is only since 1945 that the U.S. had any real power at all due to being the sole nuclear-armed state, a status that did not last very long.  The jingoism in the United States has created a bubble of confidence and unless some power sticks a pin in it, it will go on.  Actually the United States of America is really an isolationist state and lacks any general international outlook as can be found  by examining the ordinary man on the street.  Americans only want to be left alone to pursue their individual goals, and except for the current oligarchy protecting its military/industrial complex, is pretty uninterested in world affairs.

[Captain 32]

Ron Paul: Crimea secedes. So what?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/17/crimea-ukraine-russia-ron-paul-editorials-debates/6544163/

 

It reminded known image (Questionable figures, but message is clear):

[GMT 389]

there's 2 things ppl seem to forget about this "crisis":

1) ukraine is basically nothing but another rope in a game of tug of war between the west and the east since ww2, only that the russians seem to pull harder

2) this crimea-thing is the result of the entire western world not taking russia seriously since the ussr collapsed. at least since gorbatshev, there's been plenty of diplomatic incidents between the west and russia, where the latter came forth with offers and/or concerns and we, the west, just ignored it and did "our" thing, despite any russian input.

just to name a few of the bigger:

gorbatshev wanted to create a new defense system beyond nato and the warsaw pact, combining both. declined.

nato promised not to expand towards the russian border. broken.

russia expressed their deep concerns about the nmd-program pushed forward by the bush administration and continued under obama. there were changes to the plan but as a whole, russian concerns were ignored.

putin wanted to establish a free trade zone covering europe and russia. despite several offers and obvious economic ties between the regions, europe didn't show any interest.

or looking at current events: without any hesitation, we accept the new, formally illegal ukrainian "government" because it removed a pro-eastern president. and if this wasn't enough, we express our full support for a racist party, the svoboda, just because they oppose russia (ignoring that their political mindset equals that of hitler's nsdap)

 

this, plus countless smaller things got us were we are now.

the problem is, that, with the fall of the ussr, the western world thought of themselves as the winner in the cold war and started acting as such, losing all "respect" towards russia.

also, we consider our efforts to protect and enhance our sphere of influence (especially the us) and our interests as perfectly fine but condemn every such efforts on the russian side of the world. why? we, the west, are not superior in any instance. no one is to be honest. why do we act as if our actions are justified and any other one's identical action is not, just because it opposes our works?

 

not to mention the pro-western oriented media coverage, feeding the fire even more.

 

edit:

of course, russia has to learn how to fix figures in their favor on elections and referendums, but what did we expect? even if the crimea-referendum wasn't fixed in favor of russian interest, it would've turned out just the way it is presented now: pro-russian. because the majority of crimeans is pro-russian.

but that doesn't match the western mindset so we condemn this referendum as illegal and it's result "forced" onto the crimean people. that the crimea was russian basically ever since the ottoman empire collapsed? ignored. that crimea was russian until given to the ukraine by ukrainian ussr president khrushev thus making it a somewhat questionable move within the ussr? ignored. because it wouldn't fit into the western line of argumentation

  Edited March 21, 2014 by GMT