The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Robin Hood » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:16 pm

Londonrake wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:BTW

Any sensible comments on the UN's condemnation of the Russian land grab in Ukraine?

Any sensible comments on the condemnation of said under international law?

Any sensible comments about the 1997 "binding" agreement that Russia signed to guarantee the integral rights of Ukrainian territory?

Please - nothing that involves USA/Western/Israeli/Martian war crimes. :roll:


Any comments on the Ukraine coup and its illegal government? No of course not! :roll:


Please address the above and I would be delighted to reciprocate.


Don't think so! Note previous request for you to ........ :arrow: :x
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Londonrake » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:35 pm

Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Londonrake wrote:BTW

Any sensible comments on the UN's condemnation of the Russian land grab in Ukraine?

Any sensible comments on the condemnation of said under international law?

Any sensible comments about the 1997 "binding" agreement that Russia signed to guarantee the integral rights of Ukrainian territory?

Please - nothing that involves USA/Western/Israeli/Martian war crimes. :roll:


Any comments on the Ukraine coup and its illegal government? No of course not! :roll:


Please address the above and I would be delighted to reciprocate.


Don't think so! Note previous request for you to ........ :arrow: :x


There is no answer. Russia's intervention in the Ukraine clearly and (quite easily) provably contravened international law. To claim that it's inadmissible, due to - whatever- whilst the same law is inviolate in support of their Syrian actions is hypocritical.
Londonrake
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Get Real! » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:37 pm

Londonrake wrote:Russia's intervention in the Ukraine clearly and (quite easily) provably contravened international law. To claim that it's inadmissible, due to - whatever- whilst the same law is inviolate in support of their Syrian actions is hypocritical.

Whose international law? You mean the one that ignores British war crimes? :)

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/11/iraq-n17.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/633071 ... war-crimes

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/ma ... rimes-iraq

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... war-crimes

Your hypocrisy is starting to get as nauseating as that of Paphitis, although it’s pretty hard to catch up to the king! :lol:
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 40430
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Robin Hood » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:13 am

Get Real! wrote:
Londonrake wrote:Russia's intervention in the Ukraine clearly and (quite easily) provably contravened international law. To claim that it's inadmissible, due to - whatever- whilst the same law is inviolate in support of their Syrian actions is hypocritical.

Whose international law? You mean the one that ignores British war crimes? :)

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/11/iraq-n17.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/633071 ... war-crimes

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/ma ... rimes-iraq

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... war-crimes

Your hypocrisy is starting to get as nauseating as that of Paphitis, although it’s pretty hard to catch up to the king! :lol:


He IS another Paphitis, has all the same values and opinions. The difference is this one is spiteful, smug, sarcastic but educated with it! :roll:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Londonrake » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:22 pm

Get Real! wrote:
Londonrake wrote:Russia's intervention in the Ukraine clearly and (quite easily) provably contravened international law. To claim that it's inadmissible, due to - whatever- whilst the same law is inviolate in support of their Syrian actions is hypocritical.

Whose international law? You mean the one that ignores British war crimes? :)

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/11/iraq-n17.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/633071 ... war-crimes

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/ma ... rimes-iraq

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... war-crimes

Your hypocrisy is starting to get as nauseating as that of Paphitis, although it’s pretty hard to catch up to the king! :lol:


If you are having a nausea problem - don't post.

I'm sure your links are very interesting. Perhaps you should raise a thread on the issue.

The matter here though is very, very simple and nothing to do with war crimes at all. It's a matter of honesty.

I have been following "The War on Syria" for quite some time. I have lost count of the occasions when I've read that the main justification for Russian involvement in Syria is covered under International Law.

I haven't argued with that. I'm sure it is absolutely correct. What I point out though - and I feel that to any reasonable person I have made a valid case - is you cannot claim that for their Syrian activities whilst rejecting out-of-hand the fact of the Ukraine war's condemnation under the same laws. It's having your cake and eating it. AKA (real) hypocrisy.

Either International Law is an ass, in which case it obviously can't be reasonably used in support of Russia in Syria. Or it's authoritative. In which case what the Russians have done in Ukraine is illegal.

What's your pleasure?
Londonrake
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Londonrake » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:32 pm

Robin Hood wrote:He IS another Paphitis, has all the same values and opinions. The difference is this one is spiteful, smug, sarcastic but educated with it! :roll:


You keep trying to tie me into this Paphitis person. I'm nothing to do with the member. I am beginning to like him though! :lol:

I will be as spiteful as you - but only if necessary. So far I think you are ahead on that one. You certainly are off-Forum. You have a habit of going off the reservation and knee-jerking, coupled to a nasty bastard streak. It usually backfires on you but for some odd reason you never seem to learn from it. Groundhog day.

Smug is subjective. I am smug about the paucity in a lot of your arguments. You have a tendency to paint yourself into corners. You rely a good deal on intellectual bullying but it doesn't work with me. I know what you actually are.

I asked you to make this a blank sheet situation. The recent failed "Blackman" thing clearly demonstrates your contempt for that proposition. I have an awful lot more ammo than you though.

Bring it on.
Londonrake
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Robin Hood » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:21 am

LR:
I haven't argued with that. I'm sure it is absolutely correct. What I point out though - and I feel that to any reasonable person I have made a valid case - is you cannot claim that for their Syrian activities whilst rejecting out-of-hand the fact of the Ukraine war's condemnation under the same laws. It's having your cake and eating it. AKA (real) hypocrisy.

Either International Law is an ass, in which case it obviously can't be reasonably used in support of Russia in Syria. Or it's authoritative. In which case what the Russians have done in Ukraine is illegal.


In your mind you have made ‘.... a valid case’ but that is easy to do when, as you have a habit of doing, you leave out anything that would counter that view, or shift the time line. It seems those that want their cake and eat it are supporters of your rather one sided view, which is wholly supportive of US involvement in events. So any ‘reasonable’ person, would see that your case is a very selective and one sided view. How can those that openly ignore inconvenient International Law, possibly condemn others for doing so? :roll:

Lets take Ukraine from the point the troubles started?

In contravention of International Law, there was a US sponsored and organised coup to invoke regime change in Ukraine. All well documented.

In brief: Without any attempt at an election the US installed an extreme right wing fascist government; the US and their allies then recognised this government within hours; the fascist thugs threw out the existing parliamentary members that disagreed with them; they then threatened openly the ethnic Russians particularly in the east; threatened to withdraw Crimea’s autonomy and throw the Russians out of Sevastopol. No condemnation from the US for this intent for a more-or-less a proposed genocide?.

The Russians left their base in Crimea and locked down Ukraine military bases to remove the immediate threat to the population (BTW: This is not contrary to Intl. Law but a breach of the terms of their treaty with the now deposed elected Ukraine government); IMO: had the elected government still been in power they would have approved this move; their actions prevented what later happened in Odessa and Mariupol the deliberate slaughter of hundreds civilians; the elected autonomous Crimean Government held a referendum where over 90% of the population voted to break away from Ukraine; the US and its allies dismissed the referendum and declared result as invalid; then the Crimean government asked Russia to annex Crimea; which they did.

When requested to also annex Donbas and Luhansk, the Russians declined because it was against International Law. They have without doubt been supporting the Eastern Oblast rebels to defend themselves against the unelected government forces, but for you to condemn that as a breach of Intl. Law when you can clearly see what the US and its allies have done in Syria, supplying and supporting foreign Jihadi’s to invoke your regime change, would be the extreme example of hypocrisy.

If the US could instantly recognised this illegal fascist government when the people were never even given an opportunity to vote .......... why did they not accept the clear choice of the people in Crimea to exercise the right to self determination and break away from Ukraine?

Had the US applied the same consideration for the wishes of the Crimean’s and recognised the result of their referendum ............ Russia could not have been accused of breaking any International Law.

It was what the US didn’t do that made it appear that it was Russia that ‘invaded’ and ‘then annexed’ Crimea. So ....to any reasonable person, a clear case of ‘false news’ to demonise Russia for something they didn’t actually do.

The US didn’t recognise the Crimean referendum and accept that was the wishes of the people because that did not suit their plans. This is an example of what the western powers claim as justification for all the wars they start. ..... the right of people to self determination but that is always conditional and is only accepted by the US if it is the outcome the US wants. Unless you believe Samantha Powers almost hysterical claim that they were marched to polls at the barrel of a gun ............Crimea’s separation from Ukraine and a return to Mother Russia was the choice of the vast majority of the people and still is today.

Now, what international Law did Russia break?
:?: :roll: A reasonable person would agree that they hadn’t breached ANY Intl’ Laws but the same clearly cannot be said for the US! The government was illegal; the coup was illegally instigated by a foreign power; recognition by the US was also illegal, as the government took power through a coup.

To me ..... it was the US recognising the coup government but not the result of a referendum ..... that is the hypocrisy! :roll:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Paphitis » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:59 am

Get Real! wrote:At a time when institutions that are meant to uphold/represent international law such as the UNGA or UNSC, are corrupt to the bone and very bribable then it is pointless in quoting them.

Those readers that have any doubts about the UN’s corruptibility need only look at the CyProb or the Palestinian problems to verify the obvious.

You can also contemplate why to this day not a single American politician or military person has been brought to trial despite America’s multiple invasions, occupations, and war crimes in about a dozen sovereign UN-member nations.

So, does the UN have a case against Russia with respect to Crimea?

Under the circumstances the answer to that is… > :lol: :lol: :lol:

Case closed.


yes well that is what the USA, and its allies like Australia and UK have been saying from day 1.

The UN is a corrupt organisation. the veto powers need to be watered down.

or the UN should be disbanded so that the rule of law can be maintained.

You are 100% GR! Welcome Aboard son! 8)

The fact of the matter is, it is completely bogus how the Middle east's only fully democratic nation has Resolutions against it when the other mob has Hamaz and Hezbollah in charge!

you should listen to trump's UN gal, as she makes a lot of sense.

Israel treats women with respect. the other side treats women like animals and Israel is the target. yeh right! :lol:

OH fair enough. We all support a 2 state Solution. but which country in their right mind is going to want a 2 State Solution with Hezbollah and Hamaz on its borders? I mean f@#king seriously you idiots. Why the f@#k would Israel even be prepared to negotiate with these terrorist groups which have a genocidal policy towards Israel? No country in their right mind would enter into negotiations with them. You guys are such Einsteins I can tell! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Netanyahu who visited Australia had to avoid malaysian and Indonesian Airspace, so from Singapore, he did enough air miles to circumnavigate the globe twice over. The question I have, is how did he get to Singapore to begin with? :lol:

Image
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20971
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Robin Hood » Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:10 pm

I don't quite see how you manage to fit this in with the OP of the thread? But anyway ......


Paphtis:
yes well that is what the USA, and its allies like Australia and UK have been saying from day one.

But they are the worst culprits! :roll:
The UN is a corrupt organisation. the veto powers need to be watered down.

Could not agree more. There should be NO veto for anyone. Disband the UNSC and let the UNGA hold votes with say a 60% majority to carry any resolution.
or the UN should be disbanded so that the rule of law can be maintained.

Disagree! The UN should be strengthened so that they and only they, can impose sanctions and ensure International Law is applied to all members. No exceptional nation’s ..... we all live on this Planet and we should all abide by International Law. :x

I think they should also have the worlds military, including all US/NATO/Russian and Chinese weaponry and personnel, put under their general command, a bit like the USSR used to have a political officer or two, on board every military vessel. They could be high ranking officers from a multitude of Nations and should have the final say on behalf of the UN on any military action. How this would be implemented, I don’t have clue but it would for sure reduce the risk of conflict. :roll:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Paphitis » Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:53 am

USA, UK, Australia are among the biggest financial and material backers of the UN. There is no doubt about it. The EU countries are as well.

But the UN is a Eurovision Song Contest. Countries vote in blocks.

USA, Australia and UK vote in accordance with International law and many times have been hit hard by vetoes in blatant disregard to International law. things like Syria where Russia and China veto us all the time. The South China Sea which is a clear violation of the UNCLOS is another example.

The good thing is this. We do not need any permission from the UN to act. Indonesia and Australia have now put together a Naval Task Force which will be sent to exercise Freedom of passage Rights and dispute China's claims.

the only possible exclusion someone may bring up is Israel.

USA will always vote in favour of Israel, and when it didn't Australia did in defiance of the USA since America went the other way. Musical chairs only. UK threatened it would do so, but didn't. I bet, if Australia goes the other way, UK will vote for Israel. seems like collusion. Very smart collusion.

WHY? Because we are disgusted at the unfair demonization of Israel. We are disgusted that a number of countries do not recognize their existence. We are also disgusted that if you travel to Israel, you are excluded from traveling to a number of other countries if you have the Israeli Stamp in your passport.

We also do not recognize or acknowledge Hamaz and Hezbollah. we also acknowledge Iran's persistence in funding International Terrorist Activities through its militias globally.

Yes, we too are against the settlements and have made that abundantly clear to Israel but we support Israel's right to defend itself against international Iranian terrorism and we also acknowledge that it is impossible for new peace talks to take place with any other authority other than the PLO.

So as you can all see, it isn't a one sided argument here.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20971
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests