aleksadragutin

Ok since you say they are different, please explain to me why. When someone else is wrong, you bring out the rational thinking, when you're wrong you say something dumb like morally justifying 99 bombing with a statement "it's a punisment because you have a reputation for genocide". Have we punished Croats for Ustashi war crimes and the murder of almost 400000 Serbs? Then you start twisting history. You made a comparison with Georgia but you refuse to make a comparison wirh Kosovo. And then you close up with "you're stupid, i won't argue with you". Would you pleasr explain "rationally" how backing Kosovo and denouncing DPR is not hipocrisy?

That is not a resolution for NATO to intervene, NATO did that without consulting UN. Also that is not my question, my question was why do you treat these situations diferently? As I remember Ukraine also sent the army yet it got your blessing.

And Ukraine has a track record of cooperating with nazis, does that mean we should bomb them in advance? Plus Kosovo declared independance in 2008. In 99 the Serbian army intervined because 1000 terrorists crossed the Albanian border. The scenario now is exactly the same except the others ( anyone who recognized Kosovo ) are now condeming Russia when they supported Albania 16 years ago. The situation is incredibly similar. Serbans only became a minority after the genocide in WW2 and the terror attacks in 98, 99.

That doesn't answer it since Kosovo was inside Serbian borders. Why did France (and the others) act like that in one instant and now does the opposite in the other?

Yes and according to France Kosovo is not Serbia, so how come Donbass is Ukraine?

According to you, according to Russia it's not. Ukraine can't control it so how come it's still Ukraine? If Russia sees it as an independent teritory, it can have diplomatic relations with it as it pleases. What happened to self determination?

International conventions are not even good for wiping your ass anymore. Plus, if US is helping the current Ukraine gov which it recognizes, why can't Russia back the DPR/LPR, which it also recognizes?

Of course :D

There's a picture of the president paying a visit to someone abroad (i think in the us) and in the background you could see a Croatian flag without the crown. Also there could be tons of reasons for disbanding HOS the least likely being the use of Ustashi insignia (probably internal power struggles). You have to admit that there's a bit of Ustashi rethorics in todays Croatia. Found the picture. http://beta.informer.rs/data/images/2015-03-09/10638_kolinda_f.jpg?1425910894

Actually, HDZ is popular today and they promised to continiue the politics of Tudjman (and he draws he's views based on Ustashi policies).

Not sure what we're debating here, since I said the same thing.

I seriously don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything about it's ethics. Just stated the facts. Rusia did recognize Crimea as Rusia without an international treaty.

Didn't really say if it was wrong or not, just stated the obvious facts.

That would mean that they had to define peaceful parts, and there's always a possibility of another rebellions starting in for example Odessa. Besides, Russia does not consider Crimea a part of Ukraine, so it did not agree to hand it over. The fact that western countries consider it Ukraine is another thing. Imagine you could get out of an international treaty just by saying "i don't recognize it as valid anymore".

Crimea was a part of Ukraine, but Sevastopol had a special status, and was part of Russia as a federal city, so the Black Sea fleet is technically in Russian theritory. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol

Then you haven't red my posts.

Yes I'm sure Kaliningrad is a vital target for NATO to once and for all deal with Russia.

Poland borders Belarus. You're free to look it up. If you mean the Russian enclave, it's insignificant to this discussion.

That's a conspiracy theory. It would be impossible to create a whole war with thousands of rebels out of thin air if there was no basis to support it. That means that Donbass sentiment was already anti Ukrainian. Plus Russian spetznaz was a story created by Ukraine to justify it's failure to contain the situation. Now Poland isn't bordering Russia, and would you compare the size of Latvia + Estonia borders to the Ukrainian border with Russia. Off course the geographic position of Crimea plays a huge part as well.

That's not true either. Russia's motive wasn't to bully and enslave. It was to ensure it's survival as a world superpower in the face of expanding NATO, especially after being characterized as a "regional power" and not superpower. It could not stand NATO moving so close to it, and it supported the rebels, so that they could create a buffer zone in Donbass. This was all after losing an ally (Syria) which was fighting against US backed rebels. It's for the same reason that Georgia was invaded. Plus there was an overthrow of the legally elected president that half of Ukraine supported. Then there's the fact that Crimea was artificially joined to Ukraine, and it never really was a part of Ukraine in the first place.

You have got to be kidding me. You're just propelling one story again and again and again. Do you think such a thing in Ukraine is possible? Here minorities have greater rights than the rest because of so called EU standards. I'm trying to explain to you why Russia is reacting in the way that it is, and why NATO is acting like it is, and you just throw everything aside and start talking about fish and sausage and religion. If you ever decide to open your eyes and mind for the sake of discussion, then maybe you'll learn something.

You refuse to see the bigger picture here. I don't see white as black and black as white, because there are no black and white at all, only a million shades of gray. Your black and white view is extremely simplified.

That is not true. EU's companies would have destroyed the Russian domestic companies and thus it's economy (that's why I think the sanctions will make Russia stronger), while NATO isn't around to defend anymore, but to assert it's own imperialistic interests. One of the EU's politically correct shit is the freedom to protest anything, and you can't deny that right to anyone by calling it imperialism. Is it imperialistic that NATO demanded that Russia pulls back it's troops from the Ru-Ukraine border?

No it is not simply imperialism to control Ukraine, do you think that Ukraine is deciding for itself now, it's a runaway train, the last people to control Ukraine will be Ukrainians. Maybe your thinking was influenced by your experiences and or what you learned at school, but Russia is not just mindlessly trying to control everyone. What do you think how would EU and NATO treat Russia if it opened up to them and let them install what ever they wish where ever they wish? If you were the head of Russia I bet you would react in exactly the same way, if not more aggressive.

That's an over simplified view. If the so called Russian aggression is the action that provoked the rise of neo-nazis in Ukraine, please explain to me why is Russia doing this (besides that it is evil and seeks destruction of it's neighbours).