Can't cure you of this lie, huh? The collection of equipment is (or rather, it was -- the exercises ended and the gear is moved back to its various home bases throughout the country) on the Kazakhstan border. Kazakhstan and Ukraine are different countries, and do not share a border. They don't even border the same sea as each other.Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
I used the phrase "near the Ukraine border" this time instead of "on
the Ukraine border" just to keep you happy, Justin. And you know that
nothing is more important to me than your happiness.
But still it makes no difference. I do and do and do for you, Justin,
and all you do is whine and bitch and moan and whine and bitch and
moan.
By the way, I see Kazakhstan is refusing to go along with Russia's
food import ban. So maybe those massed troops are there for
double-duty -- to be prepared to invade Ukraine to annex east Ukraine,
or to be prepared to invade Kazakhstan to keep them in line with such
policies as food imports. You just never know who Putin is going to
invade next, do you?
John
That's an interesting way of looking at it. It started me musing
about how I would characterize each of these countries, and here's
what I came up with:
- North Korea = Crime syndicate
- Russia = International arms dealer
- Al-Assad/Syria = Mass murderer and torturer -- like the
"Criminal Minds" TV show, but on a massive industrial strength level- Iran = Prostitute (Just use me any way you want, as long as
you say that you hate America)- China = Protection racket (give us your territory and we
won't kill you)
John
Of course it makes a difference. It's still a lie, but at least now it's one relying on weasel-words (after all, the moon is "near" Ukraine, looked at from the proper perspective) rather than one outright objectively falsifiable. I'm not sure I see a shift from concrete to fuzzy as an improvement, mind. the former at least has the virtue of being correctable... the latter is just a vehicle for slinging innuendo.
Nor is Belarus on the other side. And why would they? Only Russia is being sanctioned, and the food import ban is explicitly linked to sanctions (to the point of ending for any particular country the moment that country abandons the sanctions).By the way, I see Kazakhstan is refusing to go along with Russia's
food import ban.
More weaselly lies-by-innuendo. Your sentence implies that Putin's Russia has previously invaded anywhere other than in your imagination. Which continues to be not the case.You just never know who Putin is going to
invade next, do you?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
Ooooooooooooh. I guess you forgot about Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
And of course there's still Crimea.
Like I say, you never know who Putin is going to invade next.
Tell me, Justin, do you actually believe any of the crap you post, or
are you working for Putin's disinformation strategy? Or perhaps your
job depends on the stuff you post. Do you work for Russia Today?
You might enjoy this article:
August 13, 2014 03:47 PM Age: 18 min
Hot Issue – Lies, Damned Lies and Russian Disinformation
By: Paul Goble
Executive Summary
The Russian Federation uses extensive propaganda, outright lies,
and—most importantly—disinformation as part of the hybrid warfare it
is waging against Ukraine and the West. Disinformation combines truth,
what people want to be true, and cleverly disguised outright
falsehoods. Moscow has been actively using such disinformation as part
of a conscious broader policy on Ukraine, and it readily changes or
rejects elements of the false narrative it has been spinning as
political events on the ground shift. Russian disinformation has
landed on fertile soil domestically because it plays on Russians’ deep
rooted emotions and serves to turn people’s attention away from more
immediate political and economic concerns. Abroad, Moscow’s message is
given undue exposure and lack of questioning due to some Western
journalists’ misunderstanding between balance and true objectivity, as
well as the existence of a large constituency whose jobs rely on the
West maintaining strong relations with Russia. In order to limit the
spread and impact of disinformation, Western governments will need to
recognize the difference between simple lies and actual
disinformation, acquire expertise to identify disinformation and parse
the truths and falsehoods within it, as well as develop methods to
answer and counteract such disinformation both at home and abroad. The
policy changes necessary to achieve this will require political will
and some costs, but the costs of doing nothing may be even greater.
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/ho...8a6e56120af336
[Click on link to read entire article.]
Xenakis believes that al-Qaeda are the good guys; pretends 9/11 and the entire rise of Islamism since the late 1970s never happened. Completely omits the fact that the Taliban and al-Qaeda's main international support came from Arabia and the UAE. Ignores the fact that our cold war era rivals all supported the northern alliance at the time of 9/11. Believes that Israel is the aggressor in the middle east, directly contradicting the word of god.
You're a total moron. Do you work for Justin?
Most likely Xenakis you think the following: That 9/11 was carried out with military support from Iraq, Iran and China. That Americans did not realize bin laden was any threat to the US at all until the crew manifests were discovered a couple weeks after 9/11. That the Taliban's main backers were china and Russia. That Islamic extremists are hostile to the Sunni states and are being funded by Russia or Iran. That Iran and al-Qaeda are allies.
Of course, to say that Crimea was invaded by Russia is a pure-out falsehood. Russian troops had been in Crimea while it was still part of Ukraine uninterrupted since Ukraine was split off the USSR. And the numbers of troops during the time around the Crimean referendum and annexation never even went as high as the levels that were written into the treaty (under which those Russian troops had been stationed on then-foreign soil to begin with). Or will you say that America is "invading" Cuba when it rotate troops through Guantanamo? So Crimea isn't an example that supports your innuendo.
That said, I'll give you Georgia (though not Abkhazia or Ossetia, since Russian peacekeepers had been in both places for nigh on a decade prior to Saakashvili's attacking them). That's one. Though it's also fair to point out that Russia withdrew its troops from Georgia as soon as it had finished the task it set out to achieve of breaking the tools that allowed that country to bomb and kill with impunity. But it's still a fair example. So since your attempted implication was that Russia is invading to conquer or otherwise expand, then Georgia doesn't fit the bill, either.
As to the article, everybody lies. The difference (I have observed) is that Russians grew up being lied to by liars who were, to be fair, very bad at doing it. So they expect that what their local mouthpieces say is to be distrusted unless verified. Americans grew up fed by much more skilled liars -- propaganda* is, after all, widely recognized as one thing that America does better than anybody else in the world -- and so are inclined to swallow uncritically the lies told by their own respective Mouths of Sauron. To imply that Western governments need to learn something about lying from Russians is to stand at the very summit of the absurd and then hop up and down to get even that extra height.
Russian governments suck at lying. When they do it, it's impossible to miss.
-----
-sometimes called by one of it's sub-divisions, "marketing".
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
Except that when we rotate troops, we don't annex Cuba.
So let's see. America has had troops in Ramstein Air Base in
Germany's Rhineland for decades. So by your reasoning, if America
invaded Germany and then withdrew its troops from other provinces, but
annexed Rhineland, and made it America's 52nd state, then that
wouldn't even be an invasion?
Once again, do even you believe the stuff you post?
And yes, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Ukraine's Crimea province.
And yes, Russia invaded Georgia and annexed Georgia's Abkhazia and
South Osettia provinces. And now Russia is threatening to invade
Ukraine (again!), and annex east Ukraine.
Meanwhile ISIS commits genocide in Iraq. He quotes Samuel Huntingdon while omitting the fact that Huntingdon predicted a west vs. Islam world war. But in xenakis' world the west and Muslims will fight on the same side against the evil reds. Even though the reds largely ceased to exist as a force 25 years ago. Hence the forces in the middle east that are trying to prevent the middle east from returning to the days of the Arabian nights are the ones who really want to kill Americans and westerners. The heavily armed jihadists who slaughter women and children and put their heads on poles are in Xenakis' world, are destined to be the friends and allies of the Westerners and Americans. In Xenakis's eyes Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc., as well what is the effective policy of the US, are oppressing those peaceful Sunnis and the freedom fighters of ISIS. LOL. Yes, we should understand and support our friends; the Islamic jihadists. Those Christians, Shiites and awlalites are the bad guys here, they're oppressing the peaceful sunnis by not letting the Sunnis chop off their heads and stick them on poles.
Last edited by Cynic Hero '86; 08-13-2014 at 07:54 PM.
I don't know if you've ever actually read anything that I've written,
but if you had, then you'd know that for ten years I've been saying
that Russia would be our ally in the coming Clash of Civilizations
world war, and that the Sunni Muslim countries would be our enemy.
Perhaps you were born in 1986, but judging from the gibberish you keep
posting, you seem to have the reading comprehension level of a fifth
grader. At any rate, you don't have the vaguest clue what I
"believe," and the fact that you think you do makes you a total moron.
Its obvious that you believe the road to 9/11 begins in Moscow and Beijing, completely omitting the fact that China currently has an alliance with Iran, not with the Sunni Muslim states. Either we fight Iran, or we fight the Sunni states. The governments of the Sunni Muslim world are currently allied with the west and not with either Russia or china. Turkey has been a NATO allies since 1952. If a world war broke out today you are more likely to find Russia and china as allies not enemies, the Sunni Arab states and Turkey are allied with the US, and Iran allied with china and Russia. The current geopolitical reality bears little resemblance to Xenakis proposed alignments. Because the Islamism and the war on terror emerged from the unraveling and the closing phase of the awakening, xenakis has to downplay it because his theory says that the alignments of the previous 1T and early 2T determine the alignments of the crisis climax not events in late 2T, 3T or early 4T.
Last edited by Cynic Hero '86; 08-13-2014 at 08:21 PM.
No, you moron. China is very closely allied with Pakistan, which is
very closely allied with the Sunni states. China and India are bitter
enemies, as are Pakistan and India. Russia and India are very closely
allied, and India is very closely allied with Iran, as Hindus have
been allied with Shia Muslims going back to the Battle of Karbala. So
the US is going to be allied with India, Russia and Iran, versus
China, Pakistan, and the Sunnis Muslim states. Just remember that
Russia was our bitter enemy before WW II, was our ally during WW II,
and was our bitter enemy after WW II. You can't make judgments from
today's fatuous political alignments to how nations will act when
they're forced to make hard choices in the context of a generational
crisis war. These major decisions are made by the populations, large
generations of people, not by a few politicians when a nation and its
way of life are threatened.
Once again, you don't have the vaguest clue what I "believe."
During most of the cold war, the US was allied with china against Russia. The US still gives large amounts of military aid to Pakistan both during the cold war and later during the war on terror. India has historically been a Russian ally, not a US one. A sino-Iranian alignment currently does exist. Iran and Pakistan currently cooperate on many issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E...Iran_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2...stan_relations
Well, I'm glad you're referencing the TRUE experts on all subjects,
Wikipedia. It has to be true if it's in Wikipedia.
14-Aug-14 World View - Western countries struggle with whether to send troops to Iraq
*** 14-Aug-14 World View -- Western countries struggle with whether to send troops to Iraq
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Western countries struggle with whether to send troops to Iraq
- Iraq is repeating the events of the 1930s
****
**** Western countries struggle with whether to send troops to Iraq
****
The Obama administration flip-flopped on Wednesday on whether to send
troops to Mount Sinjar in Iraq to save tens of thousands of members of
the ancient Yadizi sect, who had been trapped there by terrorist
militias from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria/Sham/theLevant (ISIS
or ISIL) and who had threatened to exterminate them. At first, the US
said that 130 troops would be landing on Mount Sinjar to aid the
evacuation, but then late in the day said that troops would not be
necessary, since the air strikes had been successful. This may
be the same kind of flip-flop as we saw last year in Syria.
The political problem is clear. Many Western politicians supported
the ground invasion of Iraq when it occurred in 2003, as it was almost
universally believed that Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass
destruction, having previously used them against the Kurds and the
Iranians. Then when the war was won but became unpopular anyway,
these politicians flip-flopped and decided that it was a dumb war, and
shouldn't have occurred. So now they're in danger of having to
flip-flop again, and get dragged kicking and screaming into some kind
of military action in Iraq. Based on our experience in Vietnam, the
most likely result of this is that we'll be dragged into this war step
by step.
Britain's prime minister David Cameron said that Britain will be
sending ammunition to the Kurds, and added that, "The first thing is
to deal with this desperate humanitarian situation with people who are
exposed, starving and dying of thirst ... getting them to a place of
safety." Presumably these plans will have to be adjusted as well, in
light of America's change of plans.
France is going farther than Britain, and has already begun sending
weapons to the Kurds. The office of France's president François
Hollande said in a statement, "To meet the urgent needs voiced by the
Kurdish regional authorities, the head of state (Hollande) decided in
liaison with Baghdad to ship arms in the coming hours."
Possibly the strongest statement was issued by Australia's
prime minister Tony Abbott:
<QUOTE>"There is a darkening situation in the Middle East, in
particular northern Iraq. There is a continuing humanitarian
catastrophe in and around Mount Sinjar.
The murderous hordes of ISIL, now the Islamic State are on the
march. ...
[Australia will] provide what assistance we reasonably can to
protect the people who are at risk not just from the elements,
from starvation, from dehydration, from exposure on Mount Sinjar -
but also who are at risk from ISIL forces.
We have seen over the last few months murderous intent ... towards
everyone who does not submit. Plainly, as President Obama has
pointed out, this is potential genocide.
“We should do what we can to protect people from potential
genocide ... No one wants to stand aside in the face of a
potential genocide."<END QUOTE>
Asked if that could include military action, Abbott said, "We
certainly don’t rule that out."
USA Today and Belfast Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald and France 24
****
**** Iraq is repeating the events of the 1930s
****
The rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria/Sham/theLevant (ISIS
or ISIL) has been spectacular, and their gruesome brutality has become
legendary. But still there are reasons to suspect that ISIS's victory
may be short-lived. Some of the issues facing ISIS are:
- ISIS is holding a huge amount of territory that it occupied
quickly. But to hold onto that huge territory requires resources and
a great deal of administrative skill that ISIS may not be able to
find, as people they govern become increasingly restive.- ISIS's recent successes result from huge caches of American-made
weapons that aren't going to last forever, especially as air strikes
target them.- ISIS's success in Iraq was made possible by the cooperation of
former officers in Saddam Hussein's army, who were motivated by the
hatred of the regime of Nouri al-Maliki, not by a desire to join ISIS.
Those officers could turn against ISIS at any time.
In 2007, I wrote "Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq", and wrote at length
about how the politicians and the mainstream media, many of whom were
openly siding with al-Qaeda in Iraq against President Bush and the
American troops in Iraq, were completely wrong, and that Iraqi Sunnis
joining with the Shias in opposition to al-Qaeda in Iraq. As it
turned out, these politicians and media sources were completely wrong,
and disgraced themselves by opposing American soldiers in Iraq.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the key to
understanding that is to look at Iraq's two generational crisis wars
of the last century: The Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920, and the
Iran/Iraq war that climaxed in 1988. In both of these crisis wars,
Iraqi Sunnis and Shias put aside their differences and joined together
to fight against outside enemies. For Iraqis, their Iraqi nationalism
is more important than sectarian differences. They joined together
once again in 2007, when they faced a major external enemy.
History does not support the view that ISIS will succeed in
permanently biting off the Sunni portion of Iraq as part of its
Islamic State. History supports the view that at some point, perhaps
this year, perhaps next year or the year after, after the euphoria of
victory has worn off, Iraqi Sunnis will eject ISIS.
Another lesson we can learn about Iraq today is to look at what
happened in the 1930s. Iraq today is one generation past the end of
the Iran/Iraq crisis war, and Iraq in the 1930s was almost one
generation past the end of the Great Iraqi Revolution. In my 2007 article, I quoted at length the
Library of Congress (LOC) article on the history of Iraq. Here is a
brief excerpt from that quote:
<QUOTE>"On October 13, 1932, Iraq became a sovereign state,
and it was admitted to the League of Nations. Iraq still was beset
by a complex web of social, economic, ethnic, religious, and
ideological conflicts, all of which retarded the process of state
formation. The declaration of statehood and the imposition of
fixed boundaries triggered an intense competition for power in the
new entity. Sunnis and Shias, cities and tribes, shaykhs and
tribesmen, Assyrians and Kurds, pan-Arabists and Iraqi
nationalists--all fought vigorously for places in the emerging
state structure. Ultimately, lacking legitimacy and unable to
establish deep roots, the British-imposed political system was
overwhelmed by these conflicting demands. ...
The arbitrary borders that divided Iraq and the other Arab lands
of the old Ottoman Empire caused severe economic dislocations,
frequent border disputes, and a debilitating ideological
conflict. The cities of Mosul in the north and Basra in the south,
separated from their traditional trading partners in Syria and in
Iran, suffered severe commercial dislocations that led to economic
depression. In the south, the British- created border (drawn
through the desert on the understanding that the region was
largely uninhabited) impeded migration patterns and led to great
tribal unrest. Also in the south, uncertainty surrounding Iraq's
new borders with Kuwait, with Saudi Arabia, and especially with
Iran led to frequent border skirmishes. The new boundaries also
contributed to the growth of competing nationalisms; Iraqi versus
pan-Arab loyalties would severely strain Iraqi politics during the
1950s and the 1960s, when Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser held
emotional sway over the Iraqi masses.
Ethnic groups such as the Kurds and the Assyrians, who had hoped
for their own autonomous states, rebelled against inclusion within
the Iraqi state."<END QUOTE>
What all this shows is that Iraqi Sunnis and Shias unite when facing a
foreign enemy, but at other times are in total political chaos. By
changing a few of the words, the LOC history could have applied to
much of the last ten years.
Incidentally, the same cannot be said when you mix in the Kurds. To
the Sunnis and Shias, the Kurds were enemies in these crisis wars, and
bitter feelings run very deep because Saddam used chemical weapons
against the Kurds.
People sometimes think it strange to make these historical
comparisons. "Who remembers all that stuff from the 1930s," you may
be thinking. But in fact almost every person reading this article has
some knowledge of America's 1930s Great Depression, having been told
by parents or grandparents. The same is true of the Iraqi people,
except that their knowledge is about the 1930s in Iraq, the material
in the LOC history above. From the point of view of Generational
Dynamics, these generational histories are highly localized, and
understanding a country's generational history tells a great deal
about how they're going to behave today.
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Iraq, Yadizis, Mount Sinjar,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL,
David Cameron, Britain, France, François Holland,
Australia, Tony Abbott, Kurds,
Great Iraqi Revolution, Iran/Iraq war, al-Qaeda in Iraq,
Saddam Hussein, Nouri al-Maliki
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
No. By my reasoning, neither Rammstein, nor Guantanamo, nor Crimea was an invasion. It's your reasoning that tries to square a circle.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
OK, let's try again:
- Guantanamo
- American troops present by permission (leases signed in 1903, 1934)
- No annexation of rest of Cuba
- Conclusion: Not an invasion
- Ramstein
- American troops present with approval of German government
- No annexation of Rhineland
- Conclusion: Not an invasion
- Abkhazia
- Russian troops present, probably WITHOUT permission of Georgia
- Forcible military annexation of Abkhazia
- Conclusion: A Russian invasion
- South Ossetia
- Russian troops present, probably WITHOUT permission of Georgia
- Forcible military annexation of South Ossetia
- Conclusion: A Russian invasion
- Sevastopol
- Russian troops present with permission of Ukraine
- Forcible military annexation of entire province of Crimea
- Conclusion: A Russian invasion
Summary of results:
- Guantanamo -- not an invasion
- Ramstein -- not an invasion
- Abkhazia -- a Russian invasion
- South Ossetia -- a Russian invasion
- Crimea -- a Russian invasion
Lies on all three points. First, what Russian troops there were in Abkhazia (and Russia didn't send troops to Abkhazia when they stopped Saakashvili's attacks in '08 -- only to Ossetia and Georgia) had been there for a decade as peacekeeping forces. Joint peacekeepingforces, together with Georgian and Abkhaz troops. Second, Russia did not annex Abkhazia -- it remains a separate state.
More lies. As with Abkhazia, Russian troops were there for a decade in joint with Georgian and Ossetians in a peacekeeping role. Russia moved in and through Ossetia in '08, but what few troops were left there do so at the explicit request of the government of South Ossetia. Which is, and remains, a separate, most decidedly un-annexed, state from Russia.South Ossetia
Russian troops present, probably WITHOUT permission of Georgia
Forcible military annexation of South Ossetia
Conclusion: A Russian invasion
Only the one lie here (since I already exposed the first part, I assume). The annexation of Crimea was effected via referendum of the people of Crimea. Not through military force. So again, no invasion.Sevastopol
Russian troops present with permission of Ukraine
Forcible military annexation of entire province of Crimea
Conclusion: A Russian invasion
Your "conclusions" are based on falsehoods.
Last edited by Justin '77; 08-14-2014 at 01:35 PM.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
The things you mention are completely irrelevant:
- A referendum is legally completely irrelevant.
- Abkhazia and South Ossetia may not be part of the Russian
Federation, but they were still annexed.
In all three cases, Russia had the option of going to the United
Nations Security Council and presenting its case there. It did not,
and so its actions were violations of international law.
So, in all three cases:
- Russia did not get permission of the sovereign nation (Georgia or
Ukraine), and in fact was explicitly opposed.
- Russia did not get permission from the United Nations Security
Council.
- Therefore, Russia's actions were violations of international law.
- Russia used military force to take control of sovereign territory.
None of the above four statements is a lie.
In my opinion, these four statements amount to an illegal Russian
invasion, backed by military force. That's my view.
So I expect to continue referring to these Russian actions as
invasions, and I expect to continue referring to Russian actions near
the Ukraine border as "threatening" another invasion. You're welcome
to call me all the names you want, but that's my view of the
situation.
Except insofar as we respect the concept of self-determination, of course. Referendum is an expression of self-determination no less than any other democratic event.
But sure, in North Korea, democratic measures are illegal. The laws there specifically make them so.
Do you know what the word 'annexed' means? It's not really an unclear term. Then again, you use 'genocide' as if it described things that are absolutely not genocide, either. So misuse of words is nothing new from you.- Abkhazia and South Ossetia may not be part of the Russian
Federation, but they were still annexed.
What does that have to do with the false claim you made earlier? This smells like a herring, and it looks mighty reddish.In all three cases, Russia had the option of going to the United Nations Security Council and presenting its case there. It did not, and so its actions were violations of international law.
Except that last one in all three cases. And that last one is the literal meaning of the word 'annexation'. Since it's not what happened in any of the three places, your assertion that they were annexed is demonstrably untrue. As I said it was upthread.So, in all three cases:
- Russia did not get permission of the sovereign nation (Georgia or
Ukraine), and in fact was explicitly opposed.
- Russia did not get permission from the United Nations Security
Council.
- Therefore, Russia's actions were violations of international law.
- Russia used military force to take control of sovereign territory.
None of the above four statements is a lie.
Fair enough. Since statement #4 is factually incorrect, we can reasonable conclude that your view -- relying, as it does, on statement #4 -- is similarly contrary to fact.In my opinion, these four statements amount to an illegal Russian invasion, backed by military force. That's my view.
A ∧ B ∧ C ∧ D ⇒ p
¬D ⇒ ¬p
It does make it easier to see clearly when you lay it all out in objective terms, wouldn't you agree?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
You really are a student of Putin and Lavrov. You have no shame in
disinformation.
A region cannot legally vote in a referendum to secede and join
another country. Crimea is still part of Ukraine, except that Russia
has used military force to annex it, in violation of Ukraine's
sovereignty.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are still part of Georgia, except that
Russia has used military force to take control of both provinces, in
violation of Georgia's sovereignty.
If Russia felt that it had the right to use military force in this
way, it should have gone to the UN Security Council. It did not do
so, because it knew it was invading another country in violation of
international law.
By the way, Bashar al-Assad IS a genocidal monster, and HAS been
committing genocide in Syria, and Vladimir Putin IS a war criminal for
supplying him weapons.
Right you are. Per International Law the only way a land area can change from one country to another is for those two countries to conclude a treaty that either transacts the land or, adjusts the border. There is no other way. People can vote to secede but it's meaningless in the eyes of accepted International Law. Of course, we know that the Eastern Barbarians deem International Law "an Atlantacist Conspiracy" ("hey, I read it in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it must be true!").
There is another way. They can go to the United Nations Security Council, andRight you are. Per International Law the only way a land area can change from one country to another is for those two countries to conclude a treaty that either transacts the land or, adjusts the border. There is no other way. People can vote to secede but it's meaningless in the eyes of accepted International Law. Of course, we know that the Eastern Barbarians deem International Law "an Atlantacist Conspiracy" ("hey, I read it in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it must be true!").
get approval there.
