Ukraine General

[Tonci87 163]

Ok, let's draw a parallel between the resolution 1244 and annexation of Crimea. One was "legal" and the other one not. Why? In Kosovo you had terrorist militia come in from a foreign country (supplied by Albanian mafia), attacking villages with Serbian majority, so they would be forced to leave and thus create an Albanian majority. What would any civilized or non civilized country do in such an event. Send in the police of course. We got bombed for that and sanctioned for that and Kosovo was forcibly removed without any referendum. This was according to the "Law".

7 years later Russia pulls the same stunt with Crimea. Occupies it with soldiers from abroad. The difference is that they didn't terrorize locals, and they did organize a referendum. But this time around that is illegal.

That is the kind of hypocrisy I'm trying to expose. If a country supported the NATO aggression on my country as legal, then it is pure hypocrisy to sanction Russia.

Well, the Kosovo bombing was not approved by the UN security council, therefore it can be viewed as illegal. Many countries outright opposed it. However the US and allies could justify it because of the things Milosevic had done in the Croatia and Bosnia wars before. People were sure that Serb forces would again indulge in mass executions, ethnical cleansing and similiar stuff (wich in the end both parties did during the Kosovo war). And many nations were still thinking that Serbia deserved a lesson for attacking UN forces and killing civilians. I think the US Kosovo campaign would not have happened if Milosevic was removed from power in time.

[surpher 1]

This was taken over without review from the ukrainian media and even politicians and experts were claiming it. Later on his blog he did notice that it was wrong, but of course the press did not correct the assumptions.

He did? provide a source.

He (you dont know even who is behind the webpage) did not notice that the light of the sunset did reflect in the windows of the building. A total mess but it did fulfill its role for propaganda.

What are you going on about?

Another example is bellingcat.com who are investigating the MH17 incident, wheras they got a lot more interesting facts and you know who is behind the webpage, the whole research just by videos and images does not replace needed people locally.

The people taking the images/video are they not local enough for you?

[aleksadragutin 9]

Well, the Kosovo bombing was not approved by the UN security council, therefore it can be viewed as illegal. Many countries outright opposed it. However the US and allies could justify it because of the things Milosevic had done in the Croatia and Bosnia wars before. People were sure that Serb forces would again indulge in mass executions, ethnical cleansing and similiar stuff (wich in the end both parties did during the Kosovo war). And many nations were still thinking that Serbia deserved a lesson for attacking UN forces and killing civilians. I think the US Kosovo campaign would not have happened if Milosevic was removed from power in time.

Without going into argument again, I'm gonna pose 3 questions. Why didn't "US and friends" get sanctioned, why didn't Croatia and Bosnian muslims get bombed for what they did 5-8 years earlier, and why did NATO target civilian buildings vehicles and infrastructure and thus knowingly destroyed our infrastructure for years to come (scaring people into acting is a sign of terrorism)?

The international law is a very selective thing.

---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

The people taking the images/video are they not local enough for you?

They are local enough, but then again someone who's researching it from someone elses photos is not.

Edited November 16, 2014 by aleksadragutin

[cozza 24]

I thought it all came down to "Might is right" in the end.

[Tonci87 163]

Without going into argument again, I'm gonna pose 3 questions. Why didn't "US and friends" get sanctioned, why didn't Croatia and Bosnian muslims get bombed for what they did 5-8 years earlier, and why did NATO target civilian buildings vehicles and infrastructure and thus knowingly destroyed our infrastructure for years to come (scaring people into acting is a sign of terrorism)?

The international law is a very selective thing.

---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

They are local enough, but then again someone who's researching it from someone elses photos is not.

You can read tghe answer to your first question in my last post. In the Kosovo war Serbia paid for the attrocities of the Croatia and Bosnia war and for keeping Milosevic in power. That is why the US was not sanctioned.

What exactly did Croatians and Bosniaks do 5-8 years earlier that would call for a bombing?

Did they declare war on somebody? No, Serbia did.

Did they invade somebody? No, Serbia did.

Did they destroy somebodys country? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatians and Muslims deliberatelly target civilians with artillery and Sniper fire on a large organised scale? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia use war ships to shell coastal towns? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia destroy whole cities? No, but Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia conduct a campaign of scorched earth? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia attack and threaten UN troops? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia kill, torture and rape civilians on a organised large scale? No, but Serbia did.

I hope this explains why Serbia was bombed, and not Croatia or Bosnia. As for the targets they bombed..I have no idea. Did they have military value? Was it a all part of a punitive campaign? I guess it was. If you ask me they simply should have bombed Milosevic and then stop.

[aleksadragutin 9]

You can read tghe answer to your first question in my last post. In the Kosovo war Serbia paid for the attrocities of the Croatia and Bosnia war and for keeping Milosevic in power. That is why the US was not sanctioned.

What exactly did Croatians and Bosniaks do 5-8 years earlier that would call for a bombing?

Did they declare war on somebody? No, Serbia did.

Did they invade somebody? No, Serbia did.

Did they destroy somebodys country? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatians and Muslims deliberatelly target civilians with artillery and Sniper fire on a large organised scale? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia use war ships to shell coastal towns? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia destroy whole cities? No, but Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia conduct a campaign of scorched earth? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia attack and threaten UN troops? No, Serbia did.

Did Croatia and Bosnia kill, torture and rape civilians on a organised large scale? No, but Serbia did.

I hope this explains why Serbia was bombed, and not Croatia or Bosnia. As for the targets they bombed..I have no idea. Did they have military value? Was it a all part of a punitive campaign? I guess it was. If you ask me they simply should have bombed Milosevic and then stop.

What the fuck? Oh my good, saying this makes me realize how distorted your image of the war was.

Serbia did not declare war on anybody, the YNA was sent in to stop rebellions.

Serbia did not invade anything since the country at a time was SFRJ.

Cro and Bosnia did destroy cities.

Bosnian muslims regularly crossed the river and slaughtered civilians on the other side.

Croatia expelled 400000+ Serbs in 2 operations.

Serbia didn't conduct scorched earth either.

Not sure about the UN.

Organised civilian sniping on a large scale? Seriously? Do you even know what war looks like? If you're so sure in that then prove it please. Ridiculous.

And yes Croatians and Bosnian muslims did also kill and torture civilians.

This is why there is no good and evil side in a war, and this is why the questions I posed are still open.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Come on guys, you REALLY should create a topic on former Yugoslavia countries, and stop dragging this one off topic !

[mistyronin 1181]

Ok, let's draw a parallel between the resolution 1244 and annexation of Crimea. One was "legal" and the other one not.

You have missed the fact once again. And BTW gone back to your mono-subject.

Look it's really simple. And has nothing to do with the US: The Resolution 1244 is perfectly legal because all the countries in the UN SC voted in favor, including Russia ( China abstained ). Once again Russia could have prevented it to be legal, and instead voted directly in favor.

As I told you before the UN is a source of law, it's like a "parliament" for the International Law. And the UN SC would be like a judge. So:

If Russia gets the approval of the majority of the countries in the UN Security Council and no vetoe vote from the 5 countries ( China, Russia, France, US and UK ) like the Iraq, A-Stan or Libya coalitions did, then it's legal.

That's why the Russian invasion of Crimea is completely illegal. And no, it's not hypocrisy. It's just simple logic.

The whole point of the UN SC is that to make a military operation legal the members must have a majority of votes in favor and no veto from the "main countries" ( UK, France, US, Russia and China ).

Edited November 16, 2014 by MistyRonin
orthography

[Tonci87 163]

What the fuck? Oh my good, saying this makes me realize how distorted your image of the war was.

Serbia did not declare war on anybody, the YNA was sent in to stop rebellions.

Serbia did not invade anything since the country at a time was SFRJ.

Cro and Bosnia did destroy cities.

Bosnian muslims regularly crossed the river and slaughtered civilians on the other side.

Croatia expelled 400000+ Serbs in 2 operations.

Serbia didn't conduct scorched earth either.

Not sure about the UN.

Organised civilian sniping on a large scale? Seriously? Do you even know what war looks like? If you're so sure in that then prove it please. Ridiculous.

And yes Croatians and Bosnian muslims did also kill and torture civilians.

This is why there is no good and evil side in a war, and this is why the questions I posed are still open.

I think your view of the war is quite distoted, and if you look at the international reactions and the tribunals in Den Hague most of the world seems to agree with me. But, hey, you are the guy who thinks that the Srebrenica massacre wasn´t one...

Croatia was already an independent country when the YNA invaded it. All ties to Serbia were cut when the YNA airforce bombed the parliamentary building in Zagreb in a last attempt to stop the independence vote.

Then the YNA destroyed Vukovar in a three month shelling and bombing campaign. The total explosive force of all things dropped on that town is roughly equal to that of two Hiroshima A-Bombs. No House was left undestroyed.

Quite extreme to "stop a rebellion".

The YNA fleet shelled Dubrovnik, Split and some other towns. Yes, direct shelling inside the towns with warship guns, no military targets were even near. The Destroyer Split is infamous for beeing the only war ship in human history to attack the town it was named after.

Towns around the Serb occupied areas were exposed to almost daily shelling for five years to come.

A bizzare way to "stop a rebellion".

And things get much more ugly when we look at Bosnia. Civilian sniping? Just look at Sarajevo and how the Serbian army besieged that city. People there had to cross streets running if they even dared to go out.

[oxmox 73]

He did? provide a source.

What are you going on about?

The people taking the images/video are they not local enough for you?

The name about the blog was posted and you have access to the all the infos you need.

edit: (http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.de/)

About the other webpage. Since I was talking about the overall investigation of the MH17 incident, just random people taking images and videos seems not enough - yes. I think its clear for everyone that you need experts locally, investigations in the air traffic informations, reconstruction of the plane parts, informations from intelligence, military, official statements and so on. Their page contributes but alone from judging videos and images they wont probably solve this.

Edited November 16, 2014 by oxmox

[kukaracho 10]

Nobody awaits us(ukrainians)in Europe.After death of USSR we got our independence accidentally,the same case was in 1917 (back that time Ukraine called UNR(People republic of Ukraine)).So we always was under strong influence of Russia,and West Ukrainian Nazis didn`t like,so they made a god damn Maidan.And we have now war on East Ukraine and dollar that costs 16 hryvnas instead 8 hrn per 1 dollar and the biggest ploblem-allmost destroyed economy.And 2 questions i want to ask.Why you europeans let came in your countries Arabians and other Middle-East dwellers?Why you let them set their laws in YOUR countries?P.S MH17 was destroyed by Ukrainian Armed Forces Su-27 jet fighter.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Kukaracho

[oxmox 73]

Ok, let's draw a parallel between the resolution 1244 and annexation of Crimea.

I cant follow why you both guys are discussing the resolution 1244 or is it about the sovereignty ?

The resolution is dated after the Kosovo War did end with the aim of an interime administration and sending peacekeeper.

Yeah we are going offtopic.

Edited November 16, 2014 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

Nobody awaits us(ukrainians)in Europe.

Ukraine is in Europe, unless the country breaks all continental links and sail somewhere else... :rolleyes:

After death of USSR we got our independence accidentally,the same case was in 1917 (back that time Ukraine called UNR(People republic of Ukraine)).

Yeah, accidents "happenz"..., but the people of Ukraine every time wants the independence... Even conducted a war for it in 1917.. You know... accidents...

So we always was under strong influence of Russia,and West Ukrainian Nazis didn`t like,so they made a god damn Maidan.

Ukraine has indeed been under Russian strong influence, since Russia invaded the Crimean Khanate in 1783 ( and betrayed the inhabitants with the fake Treaty of Pereyaslav ). You have to also remember that the wars between Ukraine and Russia have been happening for more than 500 years.

Hell, even Ukraine devastated Moscow in 1570. Russo-Crimean Wars list

BTW to who do you call Nazi? And why? Have they invaded Europe? Created concentration camps? Quested for a pure race?

No. In fact. A great number of volunteer battalions of the Ukrainian National guard are native Russian speakers. So pro-Russian warmonger Ukrainians are even a minority among Russian speakers in Ukraine.

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:12 ----------

BTW Putin hastily went to sleep, when the different state leaders asked for explanations about Russian stance in Ukraine.

( The Guardian ) Vladimir Putin leaves G20 after leaders line up to browbeat him over Ukraine

Vladimir Putin quit the G20 summit in Brisbane early saying he needed to get back to work in Moscow on Monday after enduring hours of browbeating by a succession of Western leaders urging him to drop his support for secessionists in eastern Ukraine.

Edited November 16, 2014 by MistyRonin

[kukaracho 10]

Under word Nazi i mean Ukraine Partisan Army guerrillas(They were nationalists) that were killing non-ukrainian people like Poles(Volhynia Massacre of Poles for example).And show me fact which confirms that in Ukraine National guard members are native Russian speakers.

[oxmox 73]

Hell, even Ukraine devastated Moscow in 1570. Russo-Crimean Wars list

?

The Crimean Tatars' invasions of Russia....between the forces of Muscovy and the Tatars of the Crimean Khanate.

The Crimean Khanate was a Turco-Mongol vassal state of the Ottoman Empire during 1478 to 1774.

MystiRonin, I dont want to sound like a smartass but this additional info was needed following the link.

There was no Ukraine in this time, Russia and the Ukraine have the same origin - the Kievan Rus.

Edited November 16, 2014 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

And show me fact which confirms that in Ukraine National guard members are native Russian speakers.

A Ukrainian Victory

The attack on Friday was spearheaded by the Azov Battalion, a volunteer unit of mainly Russian-speaking Ukrainians from those eastern regions — the focus of separatist activity intended ultimately to incorporate large swaths of Ukraine into Russia.

Check also the Vice News reports we linked to this thread.

Under word Nazi i mean Ukraine Partisan Army guerrillas(They were nationalists) that were killing non-ukrainian people like Poles(Volhynia Massacre of Poles for example).

What do they have to do with the Ukrainian Government, Army or National Guard? Or any Ukrainian pro-Democracy?

The Crimean Tatars' invasions of Russia....between the forces of Muscovy and the Tatars of the Crimean Khanate.

The Crimean Khanate was a Turco-Mongol vassal state of the Ottoman Empire during 1478 to 1774.

So? They were not Ukrainians-Crimeans? Were they from Mars?

Obviously the majority of locals in the Crimean Khanate were the Tatars, until Stalin deport most of them.

Edited November 16, 2014 by MistyRonin

[surpher 1]

The name about the blog was posted and you have access to the all the infos you need.

edit: (http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.de/)

I know about the blog, how about you show me where he noticed he was wrong, and explain about the sunset reflecting in the windows.

About the other webpage. Since I was talking about the overall investigation of the MH17 incident, just random people taking images and videos seems not enough - yes. I think its clear for everyone that you need experts locally, investigations in the air traffic informations, informations from intelligence, military, official statements and so on. Their page contributes but alone from judging videos and images they wont probably solve this.

They don't claim that it does.

[oxmox 73]

A Ukrainian Victory

Check also the Vice News reports we linked to this thread.

What do they have to do with the Ukrainian Government, Army or National Guard? Or any Ukrainian pro-Democracy?

So? They were not Ukrainians-Crimeans? Were they from Mars?

Obviously the majority of locals in the Crimean Khanate were the Tatars, until Stalin deport most of them.

http://www.sras.org/img/0753fb0f806207b305773d6f383812ca.jpg

I will respond later, going MTBing a bit.

[aleksadragutin 9]

I cant follow why you both guys are discussing the resolution 1244 or is it about the sovereignty ?

The resolution is dated after the Kosovo War did end with the aim of an interime administration and sending peacekeeper.

Yeah we are going offtopic.

On the contrary. This is directly linked to Ukraine conflict. The resolution 1244 itself was about sending peacekeepers (which was not illegal), however in 2007 Kosovo declared independence and was backed by those who bombed Serbia 8 years earlier. This was presented as a legal act. This was the respect they showed for our sovereignty. NATO didn't care about freedom or oppression, it cared only about politics and itself.

Russia exploited this by annexing Crimea, only when Russia tore off a part of "sovereign" Ukrainian territory, this was presented as an act of aggression and an illegal act, by those who did the same thing 7 years earlier.

Some actions which suit NATO are OK, but similar ones that don't are not OK.

The offtopic only started when someone tried to kidnap the topic by mentioning war crimes. Nothing can and shouldn't be used as an argument to justify this kind of hypocrisy.

[mistyronin 1181]

On the contrary. This is directly linked to Ukraine conflict. The resolution 1244 itself was about sending peacekeepers (which was not illegal), however in 2007 Kosovo declared independence and was backed by those who bombed Serbia 8 years earlier. This was presented as a legal act. This was the respect they showed for our sovereignty. NATO didn't care about freedom or oppression, it cared only about politics and itself.

Russia exploited this by annexing Crimea, only when Russia tore off a part of "sovereign" Ukrainian territory, this was presented as an act of aggression and an illegal act, by those who did the same thing 7 years earlier.

Some actions which suit NATO are OK, but similar ones that don't are not OK.

The independence of Kosovo was based in the International Law principle of self-determination of nations, which is the same that used most of the countries of the World to get it's independence.

That principle has nothing to do with the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Army ( recognized by Putin himself ) and the fake referendum done afterwards.

( Cornell University Law School ) Self determination (international law)

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from the customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties. For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.â€

[aleksadragutin 9]

The independence of Kosovo was based in the International Law principle of self-determination of nations, which is the same that used most of the countries of the World to get it's independence.

That principle has nothing to do with the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Army ( recognized by Putin himself ) and the fake referendum done afterwards.

( Cornell University Law School ) Self determination (international law)

I think the Russians in Crimea were pretty self-determined.

[Tonci87 163]

I think the Russians in Crimea were pretty self-determined.

Then why didn´t they have a proper independence movement before he crysis?

See that is what strikes me as really odd. Suddenly guys with guns started to pop up everywhere and attacked police stations while Russian propaganda did it´s best to convince everybody that fashist from Kiev are on their way to kill everybody.

If that region had a popular movement that already worked on establishing independence or union with Russia for a few years and was heavily supressed by the Kiev government, then I would consider this uprising to be valid and an act of self determination. I would congratulate them and wish them best of luck.

As it is now however this whole thing is just an insurgency fueled by the big neighbour who wants to annex a region without waging full war for it.

A popular political movement that has exhausted all political options to achieve it´s goal. That is simply missing in this case. And therefore this isn´t an act of self determination.

[aleksadragutin 9]

Then why didn´t they have a proper independence movement before he crysis?

See that is what strikes me as really odd. Suddenly guys with guns started to pop up everywhere and attacked police stations while Russian propaganda did it´s best to convince everybody that fashist from Kiev are on their way to kill everybody.

If that region had a popular movement that already worked on establishing independence or union with Russia for a few years and was heavily supressed by the Kiev government, then I would consider this uprising to be valid and an act of self determination. I would congratulate them and wish them best of luck.

As it is now however this whole thing is just an insurgency fueled by the big neighbour who wants to annex a region without waging full war for it.

A popular political movement that has exhausted all political options to achieve it´s goal. That is simply missing in this case. And therefore this isn´t an act of self determination.

That started recently because it was just recently that their democratically elect representative was illegally overthrown. I would be pissed off too if something like that was done to my representative.

[mistyronin 1181]

I think the Russians in Crimea were pretty self-determined.

Read about that principle. It's meant to be for historical peoples / nations. You can't become a people / nation in two days.

The only ones in Crimea that could exercise that right, self-determination, are the Tatars, which were ones that were excluded in the Russian faked referendum.

That started recently because it was just recently that their democratically elect representative was illegally overthrown. I would be pissed off too if something like that was done to my representative.

What? The democratically elected parliament voted to overthrow Yanukovich ( after he fleed the country to avoid facing consequences for his criminal acts ) which was their right recognized in the Ukrainian Constitution. Legal.

Edited November 16, 2014 by MistyRonin

[surpher 1]

New MH17 video.

AP Source