“I appreciate your somehow thoughtful and detailed answer but in order for you to be consistent and your answer complete you need to use the same criterias describing both situations.”
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.
“Otherwise, someone reading it may think you have an agenda.”
Oh no, not that! An agenda? How horrible! I do have an agenda: truth. If you think you don’t have an agenda, then you should rethink your screen name.
“I believe you are objective and it is not the case, but would you please try again to remove all doubts?”
No. If you believe I am objective - which is what you just said - then you can have no doubts unless you doubt your own conclusion. A person who doubts his own conclusion but states something as true is either an idiot or a nut. Either way I can’t help you with those problems. If you’re an idiot at this point in your life, you will stay that way. If you’re a nut, I cannot help you. In any case, say what you mean and mean what you say or say nothing at all.
“You said Muslims are persecuted in Crimea but what about Christians in Kosovo?”
1) Your question is based upon a false premise since I never said anything about Muslims in Crimea. I said Tatars. Whether or not the Tatars are Muslims is irrelevant. 2) Your question is not relevant to the issues at hand so I see no point in answering it. If you wish to discuss persecution in Kosovo, start a thread about that.
“You hint Serbs are a minority in Kosovo (as if it justifies their suffering) but are Muslims a majority in Crimea?”
Again, your question is irrelevant. It is also - again - based on a false premise since I clearly labeled the Tatars as a minority in Crimea and I said nothing about Muslims in Crimea. Why would you ask, “are Muslims a majority in Crimea” when I said nothing about Muslims and the only groups of people I mentioned who happen to be Muslim in Crimea - the Tatars - I correctly labeled this way: “Ethnic and religious minorities - especially the Ukrainians and Tatars...”
You seem to be on a desperate and doomed fishing expedition. You’re wasting my time.
“Are any mosques burning or cemeteries desecrated in Crimea?”
Abuse comes in many forms: http://www.newsweek.com/crimean-tatars-fear-increasing-persecution-313111
And since the Russians have already done it in Tatarstan there’s no reason to think Crimea will be spared: http://www.rferl.org/content/Graves_Vandalized_In_Tatarstan/1740775.html
It’s only a matter of time as we see Russians doing this in the Crimea now: http://www.rferl.org/content/crimea-tatars-memorial-vandalized/25233461.html
And the Russians apparently have few qualms about burning Crimean mosques in the recent past either: (2013) http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=41522&no_cache=1#.VT0kdSFViko
(June, 2014) http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/06/vandals-sets-crimean-mosque-on-fire/
(Nov 2014) http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2014/11/window-on-eurasia-unsolved-fire.html
You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?
“What about Kosovo? You said there were Serbian troops trying to keep Kosovo (which was theirs since 1389) but wasn’t there Ukrainian army in Crimea?”
Russia said Crimea belonged to Ukraine. Now they say otherwise. They violated their own treaty.
“It would be also nice for your further analysis if you would evaluate a fact that Crimea was part of Russia since 1783 (while Ukraine was never near a place at the time) and Kosovo a part of Serbia since 1389.”
Both points are essentially irrelevant in the present situation. The Russia of 1783 died in 1918. And the “Russia” that replaced it died in 1991. Since then, the newest Russia, said Crimea belonged to Ukraine. The issue was settled according to all parties involved and was guaranteed by treaty.
Kosovo doesn’t belong to Serbia and Serbia is de facto recognizing that fact. All parties involved are peacefully handling the situation as it exists.
“Also the facts that Crimea was only declared part of Ukraine by a questionable executive order of Communist dictatorship and that Kosovo wasn’t 90% Albanian as far as before WWII (while Crimea was and still is majority Russian since before American Revolution).”
All irrelevant. Russia recognized Ukraine’s legal ownership of Crimea as late as 2014.
“I also like how you are stressing a fact of international recognition of Kosovo as such an important think making the most difference.”
It doesn’t make the most difference, but it does show that others have figured out the obvious.
“Why won’t you call your representatives to make your government recognize Crimea?”
Why would I want my representative to recognize an illegal act carried out by an invasion by Russians?
“It would make it as great and funny as Kosovo after all. Or not?”
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.
‘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.