Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[platypus]

Ok. I was somewhat confused by your terminology of Nazi war criminals.

 

[scorza]

By your thinking Scotland has no authority to hold a referendum on independence either.

It doesn't. For the 2014 referendum legal authority to hold a referendum had be temporarily transferred from the Westminster parliament in the Edinburgh Agreement.

 

[Zethor]

For reference Crimea has all three. It is also not dependant on the Ukraine for it's power (another prerequisite) as it is an antonymous state.

By your thinking Scotland has no authority to hold a referendum on independence either.

If Scotland's Parliament were stormed by unknown heavily armed men, followed by a swift vote to remove current leadership and replace it with a new one and another vote for a referedum, the UK would denounce it too, as would any other country.

That's a nice nice deflection by the way, after you ran out of arguments and failed to prove any of your claims.

 

[ubersonic]

It doesn't. For the 2014 referendum legal authority to hold a referendum had be temporarily transferred from the Westminster parliament in the Edinburgh Agreement.

But if Westminister had refused Scotland could have legally done it anyway as the elected representatives of a sovereign state (just like the Crimean parliament).

If Scotland's Parliament were stormed by unknown heavily armed men, followed by a swift vote to remove current leadership and replace it with a new one and another vote for a referedum, the UK would denounce it too, as would any other country.

That's not what happened in Crimea though, the parliament's vote of no confidence in the government passed 61 out of 64, that's almost unanimous

That's a nice nice deflection by the way, after you ran out of arguments and failed to prove any of your claims.

Which ones are you referring to as I haven't seen you disprove any

Or are you simply going by the basis that any anti-Crimean/Russian news is automatically true unless William Hague said it, and any pro-Crimean/Russian news is lies unless repeated by at least 37 independent witnesses?

 

[scorza]

But if Westminister had refused Scotland could have legally done it anyway as the elected representatives of a sovereign state (just like the Crimean parliament).

No they couldn't, hence why legal powers had to be temporarily transferred to the Scottish parliament. Scotland isn't a sovereign state, and neither is Crimea.

 

[ubersonic]

No they couldn't, hence why legal powers had to be temporarily transferred to the Scottish parliament. Scotland isn't a sovereign state, and neither is Crimea.

I want to make it clear here that I am not deliberately trying to be rude or talk down to you. But I am not debating this I am explaining how international law works in this instance. Both Scotland and Crimea are classed as sovereign states under international law and both have a right to self determination which gives their governments power to hold an independence referendum. Asking for the cooperation of their parent body in doing so is merely a formality/courtesy.

Another example would be that the Falklands needed no permission from the UK in order to hold a referendum on remaining a UK overseas territory, because they are antonymous like Crimea.

 

[Zethor]

But if Westminister had refused Scotland could have legally done it anyway as the elected representatives of a sovereign state (just like the Crimean parliament).

Your hypothetical situations have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Scotland is following the letter of the law, the Crimean leaders should have done the same.

That's not what happened in Crimea though, the parliament's vote of no confidence in the government passed 61 out of 64, that's almost unanimous

Did you by any chance miss the part where witnesses stated the vote who done while the heavily armed men were in the building? The very fact that it's almost unanimous is scandalous, the communist parties won their elections with 98% of the votes too.

Which ones are you referring to as I haven't seen you disprove any

Or are you simply going by the basis that any anti-Crimean/Russian news is automatically true unless William Hague said it, and any pro-Crimean/Russian news is lies unless repeated by at least 37 independent witnesses?

You said the Ukrainian Govt. intended to regain control of the breakaway state by force and failed to produce evidence to support this claim with the "exception" of the soviet nostalgic communist site, Pravda. Do you consider that a reliable source of information? Yes or no.

 

[Rroff]

Do you guys really think Russia and Ukraine will actively engage in military action with each other? I personally think the whole deployment and build up of military forces (from both sides) is a bit of a penis measuring thing.

A bit like North and South Korea, they just like to **** each other off a little bit, from time t time, just so one side does not forget the other is still there.

Hard to say really right now - thing is some of those who have come into power in the Ukraine are zealous, idealistic, ultranationalists - its a bit like having a mixture of the BNP and Combat 18 getting hold of the keys to #10 :S so its a little worrying tbh that they might do something stupid in regard to the Crimea.

 

[Stretch]

But I am not debating this I am explaining how international law works in this instance. Both Scotland and Crimea are classed as sovereign states under international law.

No, they're not.

and both have a right to self determination which gives their governments power to hold an independence referendum. Asking for the cooperation of their parent body in doing so is merely a formality/courtesy.

No, it isn't.

There is no way a legally binding referendum can be held on sovereignty without sanction from the exiting sovereign government.

The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination

Self determination is a principle, not a ridged legal framework.

 

[ubersonic]

No, they're not.

Yes they are:

International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.

Which of those are you saying Crimea doesn't have?

----------------------

Scotland is following the letter of the law, the Crimean leaders should have done the same.

They did, the Ukraine denounced it and issued threats.

You said the Ukrainian Govt. intended to regain control of the breakaway state by force and failed to produce evidence to support this claim with the "exception" of the soviet nostalgic communist site, Pravda. Do you consider that a reliable source of information? Yes or no.

Firstly, I didn't say that (in fact I even asked you to please read the posts you quote correctly last time you quoted it) but go ahead twist the context. Secondly, I actually gave you a LMGTFY link as you seemed incapable of working it yourself and you found the Pravda report (I had been reading another one). And thirdly as for considering Pravda a reliable information that depends on the context, compared to Youtube no it isn't, but it's also no less reliable than FOX/RT/BBC/Al Jazeera.

 

[scorza]

Yes they are:



Which of those are you saying Crimea doesn't have?

The capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. Neither Scotland nor the Crimea are currently members of the UN. In the case of Scotland, if the referendum returns a No vote then the SNP have said that their strategy will switch to seeking "devo-max" where all powers except foreign policy and defence concerning Scotland will be transferred from Westminster.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Ubersonic has cherry-picked his definition from Wikipedia. The full quote is

A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2] The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

So, Scotland is actually part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, as are the Falkland Islands, and Crimea is part of the sovereign state of Ukraine.

 

[mlbtheshow]

Not really followed this as i thought they just wanted a new Prime Minister or something... but are we saying Russia could actually kick off a proper war here with Ukraine?

And if so, are we getting involved on the side of Ukraine?

Plus if Russia wins and swallows up Ukraine, what stops them getting back all their other old lands like Lithuania etc?

And also if Russia couldnt beat the Chechens (or at least it seemed like a bloody battle for them)... what odds on them doing the Ukrainians.. or are the latter not that loyal and dont really want their lands anyway?

 

[ubersonic]

Ubersonic has cherry-picked his definition from Wikipedia. The full quote is

/snip

So, Scotland is actually part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, as are the Falkland Islands, and Crimea is part of the sovereign state of Ukraine.

Actually I took it from the same place Wiki did, but thanks for the libel, didn't know I was worth it.

For reference the "state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state" doesn't apply to the Falklands or Crimea as they are both autonomous and in the case of the Falklands self governing.

I do concede however that you may be correct about Scotland, however if being part of the UK stops Scotland from being sovereign then what does being part of the EU mean for the UK? and also the Falklands are soverign yet part of the UK as are a number of places.

Not really followed this as i thought they just wanted a new Prime Minister or something... but are we saying Russia could actually kick off a proper war here with Ukraine?

If Ukraine doesn't do anything silly like attack Russian troops nothing should come of it, well apart from Russia taking back Crimea, but as that's what Crimea want it's not really an issue worth fighting over, Ukraine are just butt-hurt because they wanted to keep it.

And also if Russia couldnt beat the Chechens (or at least it seemed like a bloody battle for them)... what odds on them doing the Ukrainians.. or are the latter not that loyal and dont really want their lands anyway?

The USA have thus far failed to beat both the Vietnamese and more recently the Taliban (wars against that kind of enemy are a lot more difficult to wage than conventional war).

 

[Zethor]

Firstly, I didn't say that (in fact I even asked you to please read the posts you quote correctly last time you quoted it) but go ahead twist the context. Secondly, I actually gave you a LMGTFY link as you seemed incapable of working it yourself and you found the Pravda report (I had been reading another one). And thirdly as for considering Pravda a reliable information that depends on the context, compared to Youtube no it isn't, but it's also no less reliable than FOX/RT/BBC/Al Jazeera.

You claimed denouncing the vote = effectively declaring it's intention to regain control of the breakaway state by force. This is what you said, word for word. By your logic (or rather lack of), when the Western governments denounced the Russian occupation they are "effectively declaring their intention to use force". The Slovakian President denounced the Russia invasion, does he intend to use force against Russia too?
Denouncing and making violent threats are two very different things.

So which other one were you reading? RT.com? You're comparing BBC with RT.com, Pravda and Fox News?

"The creation of Russia Today was a part of a larger effort by the Russian government intended to improve the image of Russia abroad. RT was conceived by former media minister Mikhail Lesin, and Vladimir Putin's press spokesperson Aleksei Gromov."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2005/11/30/spinning_russia
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...l-it-like-it-is/2005/08/15/1123958007022.html

Fox News is the mouthpiece of the US conservataive ring wing, not a reliable source of informantion either, you've just thrown it in there to blurr the lines.

As you said tho, the context is important. Both Pravda and Russia Today are funded by the deeply corrupt Russian Govt. , which also funded the invasion in Crimea. Given that no other news outlets reported any attempts to send troops by the Ukraine Govt. why do you parrot such nonsense as if it is fact?

Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong?

 

[scorza]

For reference the "state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state" doesn't apply to the Falklands or Crimea as they are both autonomous and in the case of the Falklands self governing.

I do concede however that you may be correct about Scotland, however if being part of the UK stops Scotland from being sovereign then what does being part of the EU mean for the UK? and also the Falklands are soverign yet part of the UK as are a number of places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ministers_of_Crimea

Until Friday these were the ministers elected in the Crimean parliament. Note that none of them would seem to have responsibility for foreign relations. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that the Crimea has no capacity for dealing with other sovereign nations, a requirement of sovereignty.

No, the Falklands aren't a sovereign nation either - they're a British Overseas Territory.

The EU isn't a sovereign nation either - it's an economic and political union consisting of 28 member states. It's the member states that are sovereign. Whether or not the EU eventually becomes its own sovereign state is another matter.




If Ukraine doesn't do anything silly like attack Russian troops nothing should come of it, well apart from Russia taking back Crimea, but as that's what Crimea want it's not really an issue worth fighting over, Ukraine are just butt-hurt because they wanted to keep it.




The USA have thus far failed to beat both the Vietnamese and more recently the Taliban (wars against that kind of enemy are a lot more difficult to wage than conventional war).[/QUOTE]

 

[ubersonic]

You claimed denouncing the vote = effectively declaring it's intention to regain control of the breakaway state by force. This is what you said, word for word.

Yep that's what I said because that's effectively what it means. The guy said: "Ukraine will use all legal constitutional methods to preserve the territorial integrity of the state. Crimea was, is and will be a part of Ukraine!” which is pretty clear cut.

Considering the Crimean government denounced his appointment as president of Ukraine and maintain that Yanukovych is still the legitimate president, plus have announced their intent to hold an independence referendum (which he knows will pass as most of Crimea dislike him and want to re-unify with Russia) his statement can only really have one of two meanings: either he intends (or intended before Russia got involved) to take back Crimea by force, or he intends to write them a very angry letter

By your logic (or rather lack of), when the Western governments denounced the Russian occupation they are "effectively declaring their intention to use force". The Slovakian President denounced the Russia invasion, does he intend to use force against Russia too?

No, they are completely different, no direct threats were made or implied.

Denouncing and making violent threats are two very different things.

Indeed.

So which other one were you reading? RT.com? You're comparing BBC with RT.com, Pravda and Fox News?

Either RT or ITAR, yess I am comparing BBC with FOX and RT, just because it's just as biased in another direction doesn't stop it being just as biased in the tone of it's reporting. Their aritcles on Syria, Libya, Georgia, et al attest to this.

Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong?

Because I'm not.

No, the Falklands aren't a sovereign nation either - they're a British Overseas Territory.

Really? then why have numerous British PM's insisted to Argentina that they are sovereign islands which are self governed and entitled to their right to self determination?, strange...

 

[olivier renault]

If Ukraine doesn't do anything silly like attack Russian troops nothing should come of it, well apart from Russia taking back Crimea, but as that's what Crimea want it's not really an issue worth fighting over, Ukraine are just butt-hurt because they wanted to keep it.

Indeed. The EU is also butt-hurt because Russia doesn't play by the rules (which BTW is a bit rich, when it's coming from the US). There'll be some diplomatic wrangling, but probably nothing else, unless someone does something really stupid. I don't know if Crimea can go for complete autonomy. It looks like Russia will just end up annexing it. Is that such a big deal? If it happens peacefully, then it'll be best for everyone.

 

[Westyfield2]

Hmm, not sure how well Ukraine would do if things get serious. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rement-tensions-Russia-continue-escalate.html

 

[Gilly]

Hmm, not sure how well Ukraine would do if things get serious. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rement-tensions-Russia-continue-escalate.html

During its prime the plant repaired more than 60 tanks and more than 55 engines per month, but now they just sit there unused

If it was a repair centre they could conceivably start it up again?

Having said that I don't think Ukraine could do much in straight military battle with Russia.