Ukraine and Russia may go to war

[Thorgalaeg]

I said that de facto Russia has more sovereignty than Eastern European states. Answering your direct question. Not referring to anything else.

Important detail. Eastern European states disagree though, maybe they want or already are OTAN members because that curious perception you Russian seems to share, i wonder where the idea comes from...

The "idea of eastern European countries having to limit its sovereignty so Russia doesn't feel its own sovereignty threatened", I assume, refers to Russian opposition of NATO membership of some EE states. Which is a question of sovereignty. Which is fine. I do believe that neighbours should try not to pose as threats to one another, but in a world where your actions are completely unaccountable to your neighbours... which is what you are invoking, I believe Russia can live with the idea of Ukraine and others being a member of NATO. Provided that Cuba in their sovereign and independent way invites Russian nuclear missiles back to their island. It is their own sovereign and independent decision if they decide to do so. I think it will go down just fine.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Gelion]

Important detail. Eastern European states disagree though, maybe they want or already are OTAN members because that curious perception you Russian seems to share, i wonder where the idea comes from...

Whats curious about saying that Russia de facto is more sovereign than other states? Who has more sovereignty in your view Syria or the United States?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

True. Start with fixing the two wrongs. Then we'll on to fixing the "other wrong that makes a right".

Not all NATO members are created equal, some are more agressive than others, nor does NATO have any hold over its members, they can and do pursue their own interests...

Sounds like NATO members has a carte blanche do invade others and run for cover of NATO when others fight back. Not a good public image.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...) Not a good public image.

It really does not need a "public image" - its members are held accountable by their own electorate for their own actions as it should be.

Its standing nations is well enough though judging by the number that want to join.

 

[Yeekim]

Because the Estonians were lucky to able to join NATO at a time when Russia could not stop them ?

And sometimes THAT is all it takes

Provided that Cuba in their sovereign and independent way invites Russian nuclear missiles back to their island. It is their own sovereign and independent decision if they decide to do so. I think it will go down just fine.

Given the technological advancement in ~60 years since Cuba missile crisis, I actually don't see what this would change.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/russia/
You're already able to target and hit any point in the US anyway.

 

[red_elk]

It is not a matter of deserving, it is a matter of law

Which law? Spanish, Russian, Georgian, Soviet one, according to which Estonia was part of the USSR?
May be UN charter, which gives people right for self-determination?
Every country defines law according to its own interests, usually not giving much rights to the minorities.
Your position is that Spain and Georgia have sovereignty, but Catalonia and Ossetia don't, so vae victis?

It is a matter of deserving. Ignoring fairness is a way to more conflicts and uprisings.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So @Gelion you gave up any real attempt on defending Russia outrages (i understand you, they are hardly defendible) and all your arguments are basically "but USA did it too!" If someday you get caught speeding try using the same strategy.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Which law? Spanish, Russian, Georgian, Soviet one, according to which Estonia was part of the USSR?
May be UN charter, which gives people right for self-determination?
Every country defines law according to its own interests, usually not giving much rights to the minorities.
Your position is that Spain and Georgia have sovereignty, but Catalonia and Ossetia don't, so vae victis?

It is a matter of deserving. Ignoring fairness is a way to more conflicts and uprisings.

International law. I know it must be an alien concept for you and such.
And btw, please please, explain us why Russia deserves more sovereignty than Estonia or all that pesky eastern European countries.

 

[Gelion]

It really does not need a "public image" - its members are held accountable by their own electorate for their own actions as it should be.

Like in Turkey? You're saying because they didn't vote their government out or rebelled they approve of their exploits?

Its standing nations is well enough though judging by the number that want to join.

Well, considering what you just said, maybe these members want to invade others in full consort with their electorate under the protection of other NATO forces. It think its a great explanation based on what you just said.

Given the technological advancement in ~60 years since Cuba missile crisis, I actually don't see what this would change.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/russia/
You're already able to target and hit any point in the US anyway.

I was proving a point about sovereignity, but thank you for an amazing resource

 

[red_elk]

Given the technological advancement in ~60 years since Cuba missile crisis, I actually don't see what this would change.

Nothing except it will trigger immediate invasion of Cuba by the US.

International law. I know it must be an alien concept for you and such.

Ok, so you aren't even reading my messages past first line.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Nothing except it will trigger immediate invasion of Cuba by the US.


Ok, so you aren't even reading my messages past first line.

Your message was about ignoring international law since first to last line. And again explain us where that sacrosanct Russian sovereignty comes from.

 

[Samson]

Your position is that Spain and Georgia have sovereignty, but Catalonia and Ossetia don't, so vae victis?

De jure and de facto this kind of is a statement of international law, sovereign countries have a right to sovereignty because they are sovereign. Non-sovereign regions do not because they are not sovereign. It may not make it moral, but that is what everyone has agreed the rules are.

 

[Verbose]

Given the technological advancement in ~60 years since Cuba missile crisis, I actually don't see what this would change.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/russia/
You're already able to target and hit any point in the US anyway.

Exactly. The strategic nuclear subs and now "hypersonic" missiles with global ranges were developed precisely so that whether someone or other can put missiles on Cuba, or anywhere else, become moot.

And that technological development process has been successful, in its own way.

So demanding Cuba should be open for Russian missiles as some kind of compensation is entirely beside the point.

Which is why the suspicion most places west of Russia at this point is that what Russia is on about has as good as zero relevance for Russian security, at least understood as the ability to massively retaliate should Russia itself be actually threatened – but is really about Russian ability to directly intimidate others.

That's not offset by whether there are nukes able to go either way in an absolute worst-case scenario, but rather goes to the by now old question of "Who is willing to die for Estonia?", with Russia hoping no one except perhaps the Estonians are, and that kind of lack of solidarity would allow Russia to play off other European states against each other for a new and improved version of divide and conquer.

And of course everyone west of Russia also knows that sticking together is the only thing that might prevent Russia from doing precisely that – whether it involves the US or not.

 

[red_elk]

Your message was about ignoring international law since first to last line.

Heard about this concept?

"The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

 

[Gelion]

So @Gelion you gave up any real attempt on defending Russia outrages (i understand you, they are hardly defendible) and all your arguments are basically "but USA did it too!" If someday you get caught speeding try using the same strategy.

You've stopped responding, projecting your view of what I supposedly do will not help you escape from debate.

Also on outrages:

Yeah, but that tool would blow up Russia's ass too. So, can't really put itself in a situation where has to use it.

Russia would be utterly raped in a direct confrontation with NATO. .

Maybe you should adopt a less personal approach to this topic.

Ok, so you aren't even reading my messages past first line.

A common theme in this thread, no?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Heard about this concept?

"The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

But, but... Russian Federation doesn't allow Russian Republics to freely chose its sovereignty with no interference! The lot of things you should explain to us is growing!

 

[Gelion]

But, but... Russian Federation doesn't allow Russian Republics to freely chose its sovereignty with no interference! The lot of things you should explain to us is growing!

How so?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

How so?

Read the last pages again...

 

[Gelion]

Read the last pages again...

Point me to a post where you're (or someone else) making a point that "Russian Federation doesn't allow Russian Republics to freely chose its sovereignty with no interference." Which you'd perfectly be fine with.

 

[red_elk]

But, but... Russian Federation doesn't allow Russian Republics to freely chose its sovereignty with no interference!

My question was about Georgia, not Russia. You are trying to deflect and evade again.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Yeah, you question was about everyone else but Russia. So, you awkwardly tried to use the ICCPR as a weapon without really understanding the context of it and suddenly backfired. As already established in previous posts Russia doesn't recognize the right of secession to its own republics to begin with, and then pretend Georgia to do it with its regions, same for Ukraine. So as it doesn't Russia invade. You are trying to justify something entirely unjustifiable, it is better Gelion's "de facto" way. What Putin is doing is wrong at any level, legal, moral and probably practical, since it will backfire sooner or later as your argument on the right to self-determination did...
Frankly, some years ago i thought Putin, being a ruthless criminal and all was the best possible leader Russia could get, now i think it will lead Russia to utter ruin once again.