There seems to be an element of "shit or get off the pot" going on now. A group of Russian gangsters issued a demand for able-bodied men who could handle a gun issued a call-up almost 24 hours in Ukraine, but since then, nothing
Printable View
There seems to be an element of "shit or get off the pot" going on now. A group of Russian gangsters issued a demand for able-bodied men who could handle a gun issued a call-up almost 24 hours in Ukraine, but since then, nothing
UK could try, why not? China is quite bigger than UK, results may be unpredictable and not that bright for UK.
But UK still keeps 2 territories within Cyprus "because it is important for intelligence and geo-politic", and pays zero attention to Cyprus's demands to return own territories. 21st century and colonialism still works.
By the way: UK and China had bilateral agreement, there were obligations. USSR transferred Crimea by order of CP USSR. Do you see difference?
Yeah, and logic is: if there were no written words, then taken obligation aren't obligations. Right?
Ah. Then Putin does exactly that with Budapest memorandum: obligation aren't obligations. Why you complain? Memorandum isn't agreement, it is political promises.
By the way: Budapest memorandum still isn't ratified by US Senate, UK and RF parliaments, so it is still promises of Yeltsin, Clinton and Major in written form.
Why promises not to extend NATO to the east are broken? Because of new administration in White House, right? Why promises of warranties to Ukraine are broken? Because of new administration in Kremlin. So?
Unless a country is being invaded and has to protect itself, launching a military invasion with lethal intent is a crime against humanity...any way you carve the turkey. We've all watched this happening our entire lives, and I doubt it will ever end until everybody loses.
Moses, you're rooting for the wrong side. You should be rooting for "The World".
Right. Let me remind to you words: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Korea.
Who was punished for these crimes?
Oh, nobody?
Why?
Why US had withdraw from Rome statute right before intervention to Iraq?
Why US declared sanctions against International Criminal Court members?
Once British minister of foreign affairs David Miliband started to talk with Lavrov on high tones. There was one only phrase what Lavrov told him before to switch phone off: "Who the fuck are you to lecture me?"
PS At next month will be 102 years since fail of British intervention to Russia (including Crimea)
As a memory from that time, there still exists monument in Arkhangelsk: British Mark V
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...angelsk_RU.JPG
I understand the point you’re making Moses,I just dont think it is a very good one
The Budapest agreement was a written agreement signed in public by the heads of government.
You cannot compare this to verbal agreements whispered in secret by people at foreign secretary level and lower.
Maybe it is bad that both of them ended up with with one side going back on promises, but surely you will at least admit that the Budapest Memorandum example is objectively worse than the NATO discussions example?
It’s a bit of a silly argument, as Steve said these things change over the decades, but the only reason I bring it up is because many people taking the side of Russia in treads and comment sections underneath newspaper articles are very prone to using the argument that "Its all the West's fault as Russia was betrayed.”
There is an aspect of "two bald man fighting over a comb" to having a debate on this point, but to use another cliched analogy, I think anybody who uses this argument in Russia's favour just looks makes Russia look a bit like the guy who murdered his parents, and then asked for clemency from the Court on the basis that he was now an orphan.
The answer that one is very easy Moses. The truth is absolutely nobody outside of the West seems to give a dam about respecting national sovereignty and the legalities of invading other countries.
So there won’t be a fuss, unless perhaps from within the western countries themselves.
But I will go through the list you have given and make some comments
Iraq - Probably the blackest mark against the West on your list. I was very opposed to that invasion at the time, as were many in Western countries. This war is probably most frequently referenced in the participating countries nowadays for the massive protests that were generated across the world. I wonder, if there is much opposition is in Russia to any military action in Ukraine, is there any chance that the Russians who oppose it would be allowed to hold massive protests in the capital city, like happened in 2004 when the western countries went to war in Iraq?
Libya - Another rather foolish Western intervention. I think there was at least a defensible argument for deciding to topple Gaddaffi by aiding the rebels in that uprising, given what a vicious dictator he was, but I would like to think that the various Foreign ministries concerned it could have advised Brown and Obama et al that they would leave a mess afterwards that would be very difficult to clear up. I think the western governments just got carried away with the idealism of the Arab Spring.
Syria. At least the West concentrated on merely trying to destroy ISIS in this quagmire. As far as I can see, nowadays they have mainly left Turkey and Russia to fight it out in a proxy war. The ongoing agony of this country is a good example that disasters aren’t necessarily avoided just cause the West limits its involvement.
Afghaistan - Not on your list, but it is a good example of how US military adventurism can cause so much needless suffering in reality, despite any good intentions. One wonders why it did not learn the lesson of Russia in the 1980’s, with their disastrous intervention in that unfortunate country?
Vietnam - The USA decided to intervene in a civil war, and ended up getting it getting its arse handed to it. The disaster meant that Lyndon Johnson realised it was pointless to run for another Presidential term in 1968, thus giving the Yanks Nixon. If Russia had a fully functioning democracy, one could perhaps speculate on how, if Ukraine turns out to be a disastrous intervention for a Putin, how might it impact on his chances for re-election?
Korea - A bit before my time. As far as I know about it, it is just another example that the West (Like Russia in Afghanistan and and Angola in the 80’s) has not had a really successful military intervention in an impoverished foreign country since 1945 ( Although in fairness, the USA got a draw in Korea).