Only 27?!?!?
Posted on 04/25/2015 8:00:40 AM PDT by Towed_Jumper
Only 27?!?!?
I guess its just my general mistrust of people. I do think the Russians are thugs but with the Ukrainians are probably not too far behind, being from the same euro-neighbor hood. The news from Russia can’t be trusted for obvious reasons and due to constant main stream journalistic bias I’m not sure I can trust anything that’s reported. Because of that I have decided to not take a side.
Oh, sure people have already posted “facts” about Russian misconduct and Ukrainian misconduct. To me its all propaganda.
‘No. I must simply state the historical events as they unfolded. There is no “criteria” other than that. What you apparently want me to do is to NOT use correct history so that I would come to a conclusion you agree with. No. I will stick with the truth. If you don’t like it, you can deal with that on your own or whine or whatever, but I will not deviate from the truth. Period.’
LOL. Sounds just great until someone asks you to compare crap and peanut butter. You might state that both are of similar colour and structure, thought pieces of crap are generally more diverse and solid in structure, and they are rich in nutrients as part of natural food chain (making a fertilizer not food but it is not necessary to mention such an ‘irrelevant’ detail). You can also add that peanut butter is tasty but might be an allergene while crap is a natural organic product all the time.
Technically, you wouldn’t say any lies, just left out certain criterion of comparison for both things and see, some ignorant folks are ready to opt for crap based on your description.
Someone would say: ‘Hey! What about smell of your crap??’
But here you are:
‘You really can’t make an argument can you? I feel sorry for you. Everything I said was true. Everything I said still stands. Your whining and irrelevant questions won’t change any of it.’
I agree that most criterion here are irrelevant but it was you who brought a religion into topic regarding Kosovar Albanians but somehow upset when I call Crimean minority by religion.
You are stating Albanian Muslims had their right for secession based on being a majority of Kosovo and stating the presence of Serbian military as ‘oppressors’ of Muslims leaving aside a treatment of Christian minorities by said majority (which were by far more brutal than anything Russians might do to minorities in Crimea).
On Crimea for some reason you aren’t interested in a fact that Russians are a majority there though this fact alone prompts their right to secession based on your own argument regarding Albanian Muslims.
Why have you left it out? Why does it matter for Kosovo to the point of being your major argument but totally ‘irrelevant’ on Crimea? There were Ukrainian military and security services in Crimea as well and though the first was predominately Russian (just like the rest of Ukrainian military) the latter weren’t particularly friendly to Russian nationalism over the last two decades, openly persecuting secessionists.
As for Tatar minorities, why don’t you like me calling them Muslims? Are they Mormon or Amish? And if it is so wrong why do you call Albanians Muslims and Serbs Orthodox then?
Why does alleged persecution of Tatar Muslims is important enough to make your point against Crimean secession, but real genocide of Kosovar Christians by Albanian Muslims is ‘irrelevant’ to mention. Or maybe it is justified, making more room for Muslims to be majority, making more points for their secession?
I know that you picked your sides already like ‘bad’ Russians, Orthodox Christians, Serbs and ‘good’ Muslims, Albanians, Tatars, Ukrainians and no such arguments are touching you (though it was you who brought it) so let’s look at it from objective legal angle.
In reality both Kosovo and Crimea violates at least three principles of so-called international law: Inviolability of Frontiers, Territorial Integrity of (existing) States and Non-involvement (of third parties) into Internal Affairs (though it is much less the case for Crimea as I don’t remember any Russian airstrikes on Kiev but remember Belgrade bombing full well).
One (not you since you are ok with Kosovo situation) may argue that two wrongs doesn’t make right.
It is a popular point of view and it seems justified but only at first glance.
There is another principle of international law and it is primal to three mentioned above: Reciprocity.
It basically means that every actor applying principles of international law in a certain way regardless interests on another actor shouldn’t expect said another actor to act in any different manner. If one ignores another’s objections in one case, he has no business to call violation of same principles when his interests ignored in a same manner in a future.
If it wasn’t this way one could recognize US action against Japan after Pearl Harbor ‘aggression’ which is no better than actions of Japan herself or another wrong thing, which is two wrongs combined and not making good altogether? It is a laughable suggestion isn’t it?
So maybe the principles on international law aren’t as useless and stupid as some people used to think.
As far as I remember Russia was a vocal opponent in NATO action in interest of Albanian Muslims, it was an ally of Serbia and for that reason a party in that situation.
NATO went forward regardless Russian objections and got away with it, and as you said 110 nations recognized it, saying goodbye to said principles.
You can well find an evidence of violation of these principles in Crimea or in Georgian breakaway Republics but the problems is Russia is not obliged to follow it based on reciprocity and no NATO member has a voice in this situation anymore.
You can actually extend Kosovo precedent further. I don’t remember Chinese position on dismembering of Serbia but they may well use it in a Pacific based on precedent, not reciprocity if their position was indeed pro-Muslim.
Who said about Sweden and Estonia? The topic is on Ukrainian Nazis.
Ethnicity Ukrainian did not exist untill 1922 when Bolsheviks had created Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on territory of former Russian Empire. Before that where known 4 closely related Russian ethnicity - Great Russians, Bielorussians, Little Russians and Ruthenians. Ukraine in many Slavik languages has meaning of borderland of no specific country. In Russian towns suburb is named okraine.
It was a foreign invasion. The current government won an election in war time, that’s pretty darn good.
“Ethnicity Ukrainian did not exist untill 1922 when Bolsheviks had created Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on territory of former Russian Empire.”
False. Ethnicity is heavily tied to language and the Ukrainian language sure as hell existed before 1922. In 1897, Ukrainian was the second most common language spoken in the Russian Empire. It was viewed as a SEPARATE language.
“Before that where known 4 closely related Russian ethnicity - Great Russians, Bielorussians, Little Russians and Ruthenians.”
Again, you apparently are not aware of just how self-aware the Ukrainians were about their own culture.
“Ukraine in many Slavik languages has meaning of borderland of no specific country. In Russian towns suburb is named okraine.”
Doesn’t matter. Cossack, do you realize how confused the origins of “cossack” is? Deal with it.
“Usage of mixture of languages and local dialects is not enough to make distinct ethnicity.”
Your claim was that there was no Ukrainian ethnicity before the Soviets essentially invented one in 1922.
You were wrong.
Deal with it.
Future history books will mention that WWIII broke out on Free Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.