War in Ukraine, assorted opinions

[Roman Alymov]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

It's 175 years back.  No argument.

How many years ago Gibraltar was occupied by UK? )

[sunday]

Just now, Roman Alymov said:

How many years ago Gibraltar was occupied by UK? )

Gibraltar is still a colony, not a part of the UK proper.

[Roman Alymov]

Just now, sunday said:

Gibraltar is still a colony, not a part of the UK proper.

I do not think it is much difference. But it is up to you of course, i only was arounf there as regular tourist

[sunday]

Just now, Roman Alymov said:

I do not think it is much difference. But it is up to you of course, i only was arounf there as regular tourist

There is a difference in international law, but little in actual practice.

[ink]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

It's 175 years back.  No argument.

Remind me, when did the US's "Crimea in the Pacific" become a state? Like Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc., Hawaii is I'm sure you'll claim, just a natural extension of the 13 Colonies.

As for the UK, paragons of international law and good behaviour that they are, when was it that they evicted the population of Diego Garcia? Oh right, 1968. About the same time the UN declared British possession of that and other islands illegal. They went on to lease it to the US as a strategic bomber base and general black site for the war in Afghanistan. But that's all fine and dandy, because...? Well, why don't you tell me why it's fine and dandy?

 

EDIT: Just some fun reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians

Tl/dr: The UK, fully supported by the US, is in breach of international law (latest ruling in 2019) but refuses to relinquish the strategically well-positioned islands.

Edited August 27, 2023 by ink

[Mike1158]

So, when is Russia/Putin, going to reclaim Alaska then?

 

Shirley, it's part of Russia, no?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase

[Mike1158]

So, found this already....... 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/russia-nationalists-want-alaska-sold-us-150-years-later-a7659941.html

 

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/03/31/after-crimea-russians-say-they-want-alaska-back-a33489

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Remind me, when did the US's "Crimea in the Pacific" become a state? Like Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc., Hawaii is I'm sure you'll claim, just a natural extension of the 13 Colonies.

As for the UK, paragons of international law and good behaviour that they are, when was it that they evicted the population of Diego Garcia? Oh right, 1968. About the same time the UN declared British possession of that and other islands illegal. They went on to lease it to the US as a strategic bomber base and general black site for the war in Afghanistan. But that's all fine and dandy, because...? Well, why don't you tell me why it's fine and dandy?

 

EDIT: Just some fun reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians

Tl/dr: The UK, fully supported by the US, is in breach of international law (latest ruling in 2019) but refuses to relinquish the strategically well-positioned islands.

Thete is a good podcast on Guam's native population and it's history with the US  

 

[JWB]

5 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

More about the story Зачем разворотили кладбище ЧВК «Вагнер» под Самарой - 25 августа 2023 - 63.ru

Flattening graves is obscene. Plus from the article:

Do you like how the cemetery will look like in the future?

No, not in the Orthodox tradition

It looks pagan to me.

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

15 hours ago, ink said:

18 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

It's 175 years back.  No argument.

Remind me, when did the US's "Crimea in the Pacific" become a state?

Where should this discussion lead? Which rule should be legalized with it? Should the new rule be that people now want a rule that anyone can attack anyone?

And thinking further: Because the police and the judiciary cannot completely stop crime, we will dissolve the police and the laws. Because they're pointless? Lawlessness shall be the new law? That candy I won't have glued to my shirt.

[ink]

47 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Where should this discussion lead? Which rule should be legalized with it? Should the new rule be that people now want a rule that anyone can attack anyone?

And thinking further: Because the police and the judiciary cannot completely stop crime, we will dissolve the police and the laws. Because they're pointless? Lawlessness shall be the new law? That candy I won't have glued to my shirt.

I understand where you're coming from.

However, I do think that people are starting to go a bit nuts and are posting maps of Russia showing imperial expansion going back to the 16th century as though no other country has expanded its borders since then... Or are otherwise shouting "landgrab" from their computers in countries that are still in illegal possession of land they've grabbed.

It just strikes me as a bit topsy-turvy* and I don't at all mind pointing that out.

[Mike1158]

What I find topsy turvy is, a nation telling an enfoeced member state, to bugger off as they are not wanted.  THEN turn around and invade later because suddenly, they want that nation for themselves.  You belong to us again.

 

Can anyone show me another example of that?

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Mike1158 said:

What I find topsy turvy is, a nation telling an enfoeced member state, to bugger off as they are not wanted.  THEN turn around and invade later because suddenly, they want that nation for themselves.  You belong to us again.

 

Can anyone show me another example of that?

Ukrainian–Soviet War - Wikipedia

[JWB]

 

[Ssnake]

Putin is a pathological liar - maybe as an occupational hazard, maybe a requirement for a Don of a state-sized mafia clan. I wish we would stop treating his meandering justifications for his actions as if they were serious arguments. He makes shit up by tactical necessity.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 8/27/2023 at 10:37 PM, ink said:

Remind me, when did the US's "Crimea in the Pacific" become a state? Like Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc., Hawaii is I'm sure you'll claim, just a natural extension of the 13 Colonies.

As for the UK, paragons of international law and good behaviour that they are, when was it that they evicted the population of Diego Garcia? Oh right, 1968. About the same time the UN declared British possession of that and other islands illegal. They went on to lease it to the US as a strategic bomber base and general black site for the war in Afghanistan. But that's all fine and dandy, because...? Well, why don't you tell me why it's fine and dandy?

 

EDIT: Just some fun reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians

Tl/dr: The UK, fully supported by the US, is in breach of international law (latest ruling in 2019) but refuses to relinquish the strategically well-positioned islands.

That is all incredibly interesting, and would be a worthy argument. If Ukraine in fact actually owned Diego Garcia. As it does not, then I have to ask what the relevance is?

It is somewhat different to reference a small island that was depopulated (wrongly, as you rightly suggest) 60 years ago, and an integral part of Ukraine that was illegally annexed less than 10 years ago that has over a million people on it. And even if it wasnt, one cannot say the one justifies the other anyway. If you are coming from the position that international law applies to everyone, it surely applies to Russia and Ukraine no less.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Putin is a pathological liar - maybe as an occupational hazard, maybe a requirement for a Don of a state-sized mafia clan. I wish we would stop treating his meandering justifications for his actions as if they were serious arguments. He makes shit up by tactical necessity.

I remember his Crimean address, where he castigated people like me who suggested he had designs on the rest of Ukraine. 'We dont need that' he said, which is perhaps the only time in his life he was completely right, even when he was lying.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 8/28/2023 at 2:08 AM, JWB said:

Flattening graves is obscene. Plus from the article:

Do you like how the cemetery will look like in the future?

No, not in the Orthodox tradition

It looks pagan to me.

 

Looks like the Siegfried line.

[ink]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That is all incredibly interesting, and would be a worthy argument. If Ukraine in fact actually owned Diego Garcia. As it does not, then I have to ask what the relevance is?

It is somewhat different to reference a small island that was depopulated (wrongly, as you rightly suggest) 60 years ago, and an integral part of Ukraine that was illegally annexed less than 10 years ago that has over a million people on it. And even if it wasnt, one cannot say the one justifies the other anyway. If you are coming from the position that international law applies to everyone, it surely applies to Russia and Ukraine no less.

 

I think you misread what I was responding to. Someone was saying that Western landgrabs were in the distant past and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. I was just pointing out that a) they didn't take place all that long ago, and b) some are still active (the most recent ruling that the UK occupation of Diego Garcia is illegal was in 2019 - utterly ignored by the UK and US).

Hawaii isn't such a tortured parallel to draw either. Russia clearly colonised Crimea at some point in the past, the population now are broadly in favour of being part of Russia (though not all), it is a popular tourist destination and it is a strategic naval base that wasn't always part of its current mother country. Sure, there are differences one could point to too.

Of course, you're completely right, one does not justify the other and I would love nothing better than to live in a world in which Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine and Britain gave Diego Garcia back to its rightful owners. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by ink

[Stefan Kotsch]

Now, Diego Garcia is the least helpful negative example. No state based in the UN was attacked here.

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

Edited August 29, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch

[ink]

26 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Now, Diego Garcia is the least helpful negative example. No state based in the UN was attacked here.

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

No but a state based in the UN has multiple UN resolutions and international court rulings stating that Britain is in illegal possession of the islands, that they should be returned, and that the inhabitants should be allowed to go home. Britain has ignored all of this, with US support, with no legal or moral justification, just because Diego Garcia is a convenient strategic bomber base and potential black site.

[Stefan Kotsch]

Yes, I read that. But, I can't see any parallels with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Here Mauritania has even turned to a court. And the UN is busy with it. Has Russia even once declared a claim to the Ukarine for an international court or before the UN? At least once? I have never heard of it. On the contrary, Russia has recognized Ukraine's borders under international law. On multiple occasions.

[ink]

21 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Yes, I read that. But, I can't see any parallels with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Here Mauritania has even turned to a court. And the UN is busy with it. Has Russia even once declared a claim to the Ukarine for an international court or before the UN? At least once? I have never heard of it. On the contrary, Russia has recognized Ukraine's borders under international law. On multiple occasions.

There are no parallels with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There are parallels with claims that Western countries no longer engage in landgrabs because that's 19th century behaviour/thinking. That's obviously a bogus claim - see Diego Garcia - and I'm happy to call it out.

The fact that Mauritius has been turning to the UN and international courts combined with the fact that these pleas have been ignored confirms a) how little power Mauritius and the islanders have, and b) how little the UK and US care about international law.

[Stefan Kotsch]

The crime of landgrabs does not really apply to Diego Garcia. Or WiKi writes the untruth.

(Britain's behavior here is a differently evil. Is to be evaluated differently.)

[ink]

9 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The crime of landgrabs does not really apply to Diego Garcia. Or WiKi writes the untruth.

I don't see how. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain it to me.