Onderwerp: Worldwar

ukraine is just a teritory.

That's your personal opinion. But to international law it's a sovereign state.
(gewijzigd)

yeah. i must belive you

I love the irony...

...after I write this:
"Yet, depending on the date you pick (on the map) as the start for your ideology, then you can make up lots of crap"

@doru
...you anwser with this nonsense, which you can write about any territory in the world, when you ignore all the law, international agreements and history, lol :-o:
"ukraine was never a sovereign state till it was invented by the russians. ukraine is just a teritory... seeking for owners" - aaa!

please... you might also add to this nonsense that Romania is a made up "land seeking new owners" that was a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, as it would be equally wrong as the lunatic statement about Ukraine being "invented by the russians", if anything... it was the other way around :-p, as Ukrainians are the direct descendents of Kievian Rus (the clue is in the title) and Muscovy took to power and conquest few hundred years later, after the kingdom of Lithuania, and the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.
As for Moldova it is slightly more complicated and I partially agree with you, similarly to Belarus under Lukashenko since 1994/5, and similarly to Kosovo/Albania situation, but these are all very separate and different cases. Still Belarus and Moldova are sovereign states with borders to be respected, whether you like it or not.

(upside-down) Ukraina =/= Muscovie

A 1648 map by Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan called Delineatio Generalis Camporum Desertorum vulga Ukraina (General illustration of desert planes, in common speech Ukraine)
(gewijzigd)

I think you should decide what principle to follow:
-auto-determination of people, so do a referendum and respect it.
-international right, so if a state rule a territory it is always legit.

If someone ask for international law, without knowing that it only means that who has the strenght to impose his will is the king of a country, he's making a real mess.

http://www.cbn.com/tv/cbn-live

i beg you, watch this channel (are plenty like this ), they are christians, watch and learn
(gewijzigd)

the moment I turned it on, there was a scam ad about curing cancer

thank you very much

I agree - to a certain extent ;-) - when following rationality, of course... principals are crucial.

-self-determination of people, yes - with rational legitimate arguments behind it.
Which means: language, history and culture and proof of it, for start. Basically understanding and following the concept of nation states, and respect for humanity.
Definite NO! to self-determination of states, within already functioning states (from minorities of other nationals). Immigrants should be assimilating as the Danish Queen stated yesterday, if you choose to live in another country, respect its law - simple, don't make up a fictional state to impose your own law.

So to make it clear - definite no to all religious states that put religious law above state law (like IS). No to made up states that have no legitimate history, own language or culture. For example what is Lugańsk republic?! (more precisely what was it in 2012, there was nothing of the sort, like the fiction/parody states)... what is Kosovo?! (a bit more complex example) still these are basically states within states (Albania within Serbia) and (Russia within Ukraine) - made up from other nationals. No, no, no to that.
More so these are foreign nationals driving legitimate nationals out from their territory, in essence it is a expansionist strategy not a nation per say - under a different misleading state name.

When you follow this rationaly, you should have no problem with:
-international law, and international (states) organisations rule. A strong large body so overwhelming that can enforce peace and compromise on conflicted sides.
Definitely it should not be a question of military conquest, however it is often the case... unfortunately. Talks, arguments, and arrangements = diplomacy ...should always be the anwser. (UN generally seemed to that large body enforcing those peaceful resolutions. Definitely countries should not be broken apart by the political (parties) differences.

Treaty of Versailles - although definitely not perfect, was a very good example.
Dutch-Belgian border another good one.


left above "Lugansk rep."(future Russian Fed.region?)=state within a state= total destruction


Small difference? massive difference... legitimacy and means. (peaceful means)
PS: And please, don't call those illegitimate referendums (almost at gun point), legitimate referendums - they simple were not, full stop.
Even the Catalonian referendum was not legitimate, unfortunately in their case (as the state of Spain it functioning) that is why Catalonia is still Spain - currently, the only legitimate referendum was in Scotland so far, it failed.
Not masked armed russian speaking soldiers pretending to be from a fictional country, more celebration... of language, history and culture :-D within the bounds of standing law.

...all quite simple, really... in theory... :-]


:-]
honestly, how f*****g hard is it get? ;-(
(gewijzigd)

And yet another spam, just eat an apple and calm down. SInce you're a fan of "peace humanism and rationality", how come you don't talk about the Papua Conflict, Somali civil war, the Afghanistan war, the Korean conflict, The Philippines war and the list is so long that would take me all the morning to write it down? How come everything noarows to Russia in your view?

Do you really think that someone is interested about your personal hatred?
(gewijzigd)

-self-determination of people, yes - with rational legitimate arguments behind it.

who decide them.
self determination as a principle shows that if a part of uganda wants to join sweden, and sweden accept it, it should be done. no other discussion.
No people, territory and language (nor culture). Doesn't care about existing states (states are like underwear, "mutandae sunt!!")

So to make it clear - definite no to all religious states that put religious law above state law (like IS). No to made up states that have no legitimate history, own language or culture. For example what is Lugańsk republic?! (more precisely what was it in 2012, there was nothing of the sort, like the fiction/parody states)... what is Kosovo?! (a bit more complex example) still these are basically states within states (Albania within Serbia) and (Russia within Ukraine) - made up from other nationals. No, no, no to that.
More so these are foreign nationals driving legitimate nationals out from their territory, in essence it is a expansionist strategy not a nation per say - under a different misleading state name.

I would say no self determination when I don't like it.
:|

When you follow this rationaly, you should have no problem with:
-international law, and international (states) organisations rule. A strong large body so overwhelming that cab enforce peace and compromise on conflicted sides.
Definitely it should not be a question of military conquest, however it is often the case... unfortunately. Talks, arguments, and arrangements = diplomacy ...should always be the anwser. (UN generally seemed to that large body enforcing those peaceful resolutions. Definitely countries should not be broken apart by the political (parties) differences.


well this definetly doesn't make sense at all.
International law is a large body of AGREEMENT between sovereign states.
The only real rule it follows without the states will is the principle of effectiveness.
The rest (as history definetly demonstrate) are only words.


About Russia and Ucraine.
I think we should decide if we want a German/USA colony or a Russian colony. The rest is propaganda. Both sides.

well said: desert planes called ukraine :)))

i see there that is a part of the russian provinces. ukraina is mentioned only in the title of that map, for designing a desert territory. i can not see there any indication about a sovereign state fighting for its independency.

btw: romania was not a part of the austro-hungarian empire. only a part of the romanian territory was occupied and colonized by the austro-hungarians. i don't hope that you know our history.

you are ..

ukraine is not a state , romania is a state..how is your logic ? dorule i haven't seen a man with such bad mind, or it's impertinence

(gewijzigd)

i could explain to you, but it does not make sense to waste my time...

I give up... ...you answer your own question, which was already answered, and negate it. :-]

"who decide them." = International_law

"International law is a large body of AGREEMENT between sovereign states."
Yes, all human and state relations are agreements between people, borders are made up! they are agreements made by large bodies (Belgium and Holland again, as a good example) that can be made diplomatically without violence and occupation, it is only common sense that a large body should do that, as they did a do do :-) (obviously not perfectly). So UN helps.

It should definitely not be a question of one country stealing land of another, again simplicity and common sense at its best.

As for your Uganda theory, it is your random opinion which has not much to do with reality or what I wrote, it is negating what I wrote in its essence: back to "with rational legitimate arguments behind it" + language, history and culture. For example Catalonia should make their case, and keep on making their case in the UN in my view - until Spain gov. brakes (..also literally) yet I don't see much point in reality, as regionalism within EU makes more sense economically in my view, or another example if India wanted to re-join the British crown, they would have legitimate arguments for it, and could make them but that is just speculation, in reality this would be a extremely rare situation.

"The rest (as history definetly demonstrate) are only words." - some truth in that, and it is unfortunate, but the so called "civilised world" or "first world" have shown that this does not need to be the case. Unfortunately some governments are still living in the past, and are dragging others into that. No thank you, mr.Putin.

It is all there, just understand it and use it. For example Humanism which I strongly advocate: International_humanitarian_law, I and twisted paradoxical way, although unarguably wrong and forced, the theft of Crimea was humane, which is extremely "nice" in this brutal conflict, unfortunately for Putin, that was the end of the element of surprise in his offensive (war) strategy.

"I would say no self determination when I don't like it." - precisely no, as the world is not black and white, there hardly ever is a yes or no answer - that's only in mathematics. My answer was quite straight forward: yes, with rational arguments behind it, and no use of violence, or overpowering by surprise (which in case of Crimea was an "act of war" and negation of previously agreed diplomatic agreements by Russia.) Also I would like to point out "self determination" is not exactly self-determination when using force against other people, using war... in either direction one sides legitimate citizens lose their homes. :-]

Clear principle: "Definite NO! to self-determination of states, within already functioning states" Which brings me neatly to the start of my posting in the thread, that is (Putin)Russian strategy for destabilization of ex-soviet republics. To make it clear: It is Russian expansionism into not Russian territory. (Georgia and Ukraine, so far... :-]) For example all US military interventions, do not expand the United states territory literally, Russia fed. did - major difference.
Hopefully not the start of the title of this thread.
(gewijzigd)

@illuminati
...simple answer to your nonsensical accusations, I have nothing against Russians, I do have a lot against Putin's gov. foreign policy hence "Russian", along with their military offensives in Georgia and Ukraine. I live in Poland which was attacked by Russia twice in the last 90 years (a life span, of my grandparents generation), and was occupied by Russia for many years which had direct impact on their and subsequently my life. Conflict in a country that borders my country has more implications on my or your life and future.. than for example war in Syria, which has more impact than internal affairs in Venezuela. Simple.



Many people are interested in the two world war's history, and how it came to be, that this kind of human or social misjudgement came to be, I find that the current foreign affairs of eastern Europe (yours and my region) show the essence of this kind of mentality which is being pushed, and pushed. I mean the right wing radicals, that seem to spring up all over Europe as a opposition to in my view, Russian foreign policy of re-building the fallen not so long ago soviet union, or building the union of ex-soviet states "Eurasian Customs Union" as it is currently called. Current affairs that potentially could lead to a larger conflict, which I hope won't happen, and historically when it does happen Poland seems to be the first casualty.

"the deconstruction of the (Polish) state has just ended, now people will start disappearing"
- Janusz Kurtyka, 6 april 2010 (died in the Smoleńsk airplane crash 4 days later...) :-]

(gewijzigd)

@doru - lol :-)
"btw: romania was not a part of the austro-hungarian empire. only a part of the romanian territory was occupied and colonized by the austro-hungarians. i don't hope that you know our history."
- perfect example of cherry picking, the rest was Ottoman empire, is the moment I referred to... already as a example of this "twisted logic".

As for the map of Ukraine, it was an example of "common speech Ukraine" Ukrainian people, culture and language not state, way before the concept of nation states in our current meaning of the term.
(gewijzigd)

"who decide them." = International_law

LOL, if you fail to see the nonsense of state that should allow people to decide to erase them i quit.
self determination has no need of other principles/laws of any type, or it is a false self determination.


"International law is a large body of AGREEMENT between sovereign states."
Yes, all human and state relations are agreements between people, borders are made up!

so if a state choose too not to follow an international law it is free to do it, and it is possible without any kind of legal persecution. So those you call international laws are only trash papers.
The only principle that exist in international law is effectiveness. That's the state of facts (and doctrine) the rest is newspaper's bullshits.

If one fail to understand that it is only the strenght to impose its will that deteminate the existence of a state, it is useless to discuss.
In fact you use a lot of fantasies (rationality, culture language historyetc, humanitarian law, no use of violence, etc.)


Definite NO! to self-determination of states, within already functioning states

Let's make an example Islamic state (aka ISIS) is surely a "functioning state". So it must be respected? It's border not touched and it's politics and action are only their own business?
And North korean concentration camps are only an internal affair?

For example all US military interventions, do not expand the United states territory literally, Russia fed. did - major difference.

LOL, I've a militar USA air base at 50 km from my home, I do not feel a great difference.
They won the war against my country, now they rule it. The rest is good for selling newspapers.

(gewijzigd)