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 Mar 15, 2017 8:57 am

LR
However, under the very same law the case for Russian intervention in Ukraine has been condemned. To argue against that is clearly a fundamental contradiction (aka hypocrisy)


You conveniently ignore all the contraventions of International Law by the US which, had they not occurred there would have been no need for Russia to become involved in Ukraine the first place. Pity the US didn't keep their nose out of it?
So, that cannot possibly include Crimea (Sevastopol) ........ the Russians were there but with a legal treaty with the ELECTED government. So you must be referring to Donetsk and Luhansk? :?:

Hypocricy? :roll: So it’s OK for the West to militarily support thousands of foreign terrorists in Syria who are intent on regime change, call it a civil war :lol: and to have ‘US/UK boots-on-the-ground’, which they make little attempt to hide, and also 'wings-in-the-air' ..............but for Russia to support ethnic Russians DEFENDING themselves against an illegal regime (also illegally supported by the US) in Ukraine that have sworn to exterminate them ....... then International Law has to be rigorously enforced because that’s not OK ..... with the US? In both cases it is against International Law but you treat ones contravention of IL differently from the other. Do you really understand what hypocrisy is? :roll:

It's simple. You cannot credibly continually quote International Law to support one situation whilst claiming that a second pronouncement using the same law, for the same country, is in some way a "Western plot". That's paranoia (Ohh, good grief. Heaven forbid!)


But you can ? :?: International Law is just that, it should apply to every one! :x

Look at Paphitis’ numerous posts declaring that International Law does not apply to the Coalition, they can do just what they want and you sing from the same irrational hymn sheet! ALL actions by the US coalition, in Syria ARE ILLEGAL as Assad recently pointed out in an interview with a Chinese news channel.

I would add that clearly, any post which does not meet with the "official" supportive stance on Russia is to be avoided. When I floated one on what I think was a fairly innocuous stab at " Actually, things in Russia aren't quite as wonderful as posted" it met with pages of personal and racist abuse. Including being called a "CUNT" and a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Almost all of it absolutely nothing to do with the OP. It just adds to the effect of this being an incestuous Forum. Who on Earth would ever want to post a contradictory view on Russia? "Oh - he's a kiddie paedo victim CUNT who's been "shot down". :roll:

Then you get an OP by the same person which talks about "abusers" and maintaining the "quality" of the Forum. You really would struggle to make it up.


Stop whinging! If you can’t stand being put in your place by those who are maybe not quite as polite as me, and less willing to engage in an equally pointless argument against your very fixed views ............. then do what I previously suggested! ....... :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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:00 pm

Robin Hood wrote:Stop whinging! If you can’t stand being put in your place by those who are maybe not quite as polite as me, and less willing to engage in an equally pointless argument against your very fixed views ............. then do what I previously suggested! ....... :arrow: :x


Tick...................... tock. :wink:
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 Mar 17, 2017 7:19 pm

Londonrake wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:Stop whinging! If you can’t stand being put in your place by those who are maybe not quite as polite as me, and less willing to engage in an equally pointless argument against your very fixed views ............. then do what I previously suggested! ....... :arrow: :x


Tick...................... tock. :wink:


Stop playing your childish games !
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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:06 pm

Games? :?
Londonrake
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:19 pm
Location: ROC

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby tsukoui » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:31 pm

More money for the rural areas to encourage migration out of the cities and assimilation, but urban folk will not take kindly to the return of city's white turds, witness the BNP in Essex not to mention Cornish/Scottish and Welsh Nationalism, whilst the world's majority will rally those who remain to ransack the crown jewels :cry: The people voted Tory, why?
tsukoui
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: Russian and the Ukraine (International Law position)

Postby Robin Hood » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:46 am

Not so simple and straightforward after all? :roll:

There was no internet in 1994 at least not where I was at the time but it seems the events in Crimea as described in this article are historically correct and that Ukraine annexed Crimea by military force in 1995. There was no outcry from the West at the time, presumably because the result was to their advantage ...... but events in 2014 which restored the independent/autonomous status of Crimea did not suit the West so they made a lot of fuss about it and the Crimean’s actions were then used as a reason for sanctions against Russia. As with most of the West’s application of International Law ..... it is very selective?

So Who Annexed the Crimean Peninsula Then? - ARINA TSUKANOVA - 28.03.2017

Due to the international media’s continued claims about the «annexation of Crimea», it’s been difficult for the citizens of the US and Europe to make sense of the details of the peninsula’s recent history.

Exactly three years ago, on March 16, 2014, the Crimeans were offered a choice: to rejoin Russia or to return to the constitution of 1992 that proclaimed Crimea a legal, democratic, secular state whose relationship with Ukraine was based on bilateral agreements. That constitution was unilaterally abolished by Kiev on March 17, 1995, and here’s what’s surprising: no one at that time in the West demanded that the Ukrainian government stop violating the provisions of international law and the rights of the inhabitants of the Crimean peninsula. And then in 1995, special ops forces from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Armed Forces of Ukraine (ZSU) landed in Crimea and Sevastopol in order to establish «Ukrainian law and order», seizing the building housing the Supreme Council of the republic, where the administration of the acting president of Crimea, Yuriy Meshkov, was also headquartered, and demanding that he be turned over. Since Meshkov refused to vacate his office, they tried to poison him.

Full article:

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/03/28/so-who-annexed-crimea-peninsular-then.html
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Previous

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests