Was Russia justified in its actions in Crimea? I didn't pay much attention to it, asking for a debate

Was Russia justified in its actions in Crimea? I didn't pay much attention to it, asking for a debate.

Other urls found in this thread:

reuters.com/article/us-russia-georgia-army-idUSKBN16L1XQ?il=0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>flag
Look at this feminized cuck. Don't you know your military is for expanding your borders and taking wealth by force?

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm asking if there's an argument to be made for doing it beyond going full mongol hordes on the ukrainians.

If you're asking why they're targeting Crimea specifically, it's because it's a resource rich area, and there's already ethnic Russians that speak Russia there making the transition of power possible.

>Was Russia justified in its actions in Crimea?

Was annexing territory legal in the year 2014?
Theres your answer.

Justified by military might.

>Soviet Union signs Geneva Convention
>Russia Annexes Crimea

Where's the problem? Modern Russia hasn't TECHNICALLY signed the convention.

Was annexing territory legal in the year 1954 or 1991?
Theres your answer.

>Was Russia justified in its actions in Crimea?

yes
Crimea was a reaction to the western military coup in Ukraine, which got Nazis (actual ones) into power..

Are you going to Vacation on the Crimea Ivan?

>Was annexing territory
Retard.
Look up what "annexing" means.
It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Asking the people about joining another country is not annexing. It's actually the opposite of that.

I think ukranians were ver y dumb about the situation they could have had accesos to the custums union and to the eu had they been more diplomatic

was NATO (USA)/EU justified in taking Kosovo?

No. It has Russian nationals in it, but so did so much land that Poles, Germans, Finns, Japs, and everyone else was evicted from.

Yes/no based off the the same legal precedent that was passed in Yugoslavia.

>Was annexing territory legal in the year 1954 or 1991?
and 1999 (powered by fascist olive-greens from Germany).

For those cases no one asked the people, what they actually want.

Of course it was, it is holy rightful Russian territory! All of Novorosiya was conquered rightfully, developed and prospered under Russian rule! CRIMEA IS RUSSIA! DONBAS IS RUSSIA! LUHANSK IS RUSSIA! ODESSA IS RUSSIA! TO HELL THOSE WHO DISPUTE IT!

>taking wealth by force?

Connecting to wealth in Ukraine
Sorry 404.

>outbreaks of violence against Russian speaking locals by the Maidan rebels
>Russian language forbidden in 82 schools
>Ukrainian gangs backed by the illegitimate government and the military roaming the area and killing Russian speakers
>97.5% of population voted for it
>Russia had the right to station up to 20k troops in the peninsula as per a treaty in 1998 so they didn't even invade
Pretty much yeah.

Maybe, why not. Probably not this year though. By that time maybe they'll finish that bridge.

Justified by:
1)Historical territory
2)90% population is russian
3)Because we fucking can

Would be an interesting vaca

>CRIMEA IS RUSSIA!
fucking kike
learn about actual history for a moment (history of Crimea), and then you will figure out how retarded you are.
(and no, your oyy holohoax is not history)

Also: UKRAINE IS NAZI! TO HELL THOSE WHO DISPUTE IT!

Kinda ironic. A Jew defending Nazis.

Im sure Rússia could/should have done something better than invading.
Put they were pocked by the EU, and i guess they finnally decided to make a stand, or else it would just go on.
Ukraine has been played to the point they had a nazi as leader, so they would aproach the EU, when EU saw the absolute shitshow it had done, it stoped the aproach and asked the USA and NATO to gradually intervene for her.

Crimea in Ukraine and even Ukraine are communist policies.
No reason to carry on enforcing the will of Bolshevik vermin.
At the time Russia accepted present-day situation it was arguably under duress. Not any longer.
Their move is not legal but it is totally legitimate.

>97.5% of population voted for it
Are we really trusting this when the vote occurred while the area was already occupied? Not saying that Crimea shouldn't have become Russian, but I don't think the process by which it was done was very legitimate.

Crimea is still in the process of de-khokholization. Must be better in a few years.

Has any country with signficant economic or military power in a region EVER followed international law to a T?
He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones

Yes. Crimea is rightful Russian clay.
Most Crimeans are Russians and they are happy being part of Russia.

>3)Because we fucking can

How do you think Russia would fare in a world where everyone operates in that way?

It was probably bullshit so things look nicer but that's irrelevant, majority there clearly wants to live in Russia, and they'll only want it more because now they get federal bux and Russia even if not perfect is far better than cesspool that is Ukraine.

Are you implying everyone doesn't operate that way?

International law has two conflicting principles: the inviolability of borders and the right of self-determination. Only (((the international community))) can decide which applies when.

>in a world where everyone operates in that way?
The real world*

Well inviolability of borders takes precedence. Of course, this is debatable and is debated.

I say that in the end, it was justified. Land-grabbing for the sake of "muh rightful clay" is retarded, but we must alao recognize that the Black Sea, not to mention Ukraine, belongs to Russia's sphere of influence. Russia's Black Sea fleet is anchored at Sevastopol, which is ensured through an agreement with Ukraine. Whoever controls Sevastopol controls the Black Sea. NATO has been illegally expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia feels more and more backed into a corner, and rightly so. NATO is constantly trying to chip away at Russia's sphere of influence, and Ukraine was the last straw. After Maidan, the new Ukro gov was probably the most Russia-hostile one ever. Them ripping up the lease agreement of Sevastopol's port was a very real possibility, and then the Black Sea would be under de facto NATO control. "Protecting Russian minorities" was just the casus belli of the annexation, in reality it was about protecting their sphere of influence from NATO aggression. And that is a just cause in my book. Since I'm a pan-nationalist, the fact that Crimea is Russian-populated is just a side bonus, even if many of them are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from Russia proper. If it had beenany other nationality, I'd be a lot more critical of the annexation though.

Russia is also taking South Otessia from Georgia.

reuters.com/article/us-russia-georgia-army-idUSKBN16L1XQ?il=0

referendum in some time.

>many of them
That's true but Crimea never had Ukrainian majority in history.
You can check historical censuses, you have them on internet.

Based Russia not giving up it's warm water port to a Western installed puppet regime. True Story.

It doesn't. Saying something like that means that people are literal property that has no right to change owner other than with the approval of the owner. If it were so, no decolonization movement would ever be legal or legitimate.

There are, of course, tricky attempst to reconcile the two principles by coming up with ideas that self-determination refers only to cultural autonomy, but not secession, or that it works only for separatism (see Kosovo), but not for joining another state. All of this is bullshit, of course.

The fact is that international law is by its nature full of contradictions, unlike national law, which (in theory, at least) is supposed to be consistent.

>South Otessia

man. it's midnight, i meant South Ossetia. lel.

Neither did I imply that it did, I'm well aware that it had a Tatar/Cossack majority before they were all sent to Siberia

yes and no

Russia swore, along with the USA, in the 90s that they would protect Ukraines territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes. Dumbass fucking Ukrainians believed them. for that reason they're not justified

they are justified because it hould be russian

As I said, it's debatable and is actively debated by jurists. I didn't say I agree with it. But most would agree inviolability of borders is a ''higher'' norm than self-determination. The mere term ''self-determination'' can also acquire different meanings.
>The fact is that international law is by its nature full of contradictions
It is, obviously because international community is highly different from national community.

I don't really get it, why does Ukraine want to be separate from russia, especially now? Did russians treat them differently? either way they dont seem to be doing too well on their own.

Yes.
>Strategically VERY important against a NATO that pushes against the Russian borders
>90% Russian speakers (=huge majority on Crimea identifies as Russian)
>Not a Historic Ukrainian territory, Conquered by the Russian Empire

Tatar.
And funny that you mentioned Cossacks: Cossacks were NOT Ukrainians, EVER.
Cossacks and Ukrainians were separate groups in history.
Ukrainians were peasants, serfs.
Furthermore, most of Cossacks weren't even in present-day Ukraine. Only Zaporizhian Cossacks were.

Not all of them do, hence the war

The fleet base was likely a more important factor in that decision. Plus overwhelmingly russian polulation of the peninsula. The buthurt of ending in a different country after perestroika was still there.
Justified from any kind of international law perspective? Hell, no. Justified from the perspective of the russian fleet getting kicked out in a few years? May be.

Which jurisdiction would tha be in? Crimea's state was special republic with right to secede written in Constitution - kinda like Texas

Sounds like you don't support people's right to self determination

Because western part of Ukraine was historically under major Polish and later Austrian influence.
As for whole Ukraine, well that's because Bolsheviks desired so. To weaken Russian nation.
Ironically most were Russians. That's what communism is. Cancer of mind.

Of course the Crimea, is historically Russian. The Bolsheviks had no business giving it to Ukraine in first place.

>Did russians treat them differently?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

>Are we really trusting this when the vote occurred
As a panic vote under massive russian propaganda that nazis are coming? May be. In any scenario except russians startign mass murders on the streets there a similar referendum would give way above 50%.

What do Russians (a nation) have to do with criminal policies of Bolsheviks, most importantly Georgian Stalin?
Those same Bolsheviks created Ukraine. That wasn't anti-Ukrainian policy, that was anti-peasantry policy.

Do you have any reliable data that shows Crimeans regret it?

It was a YOLO moment.
>end of 2013
>Ukrainian president has to make a choice between joining a trading union with Russia, Belaruse, and Boratstan (economic USSR) or making a step towards joining EU.
>Bunch of people mostly students make a peaceful gatherthing in support of EU
>at night riot police comes and brutally beats the shit of everyone because the someone allegedly threw rocks at cops(no proofs)
>people reee at police
>president does nothing
>maidan
>Russians celebrate people getting beaten to death by cops
>people get mad at Russians too
>Putin uses the chaos and anti Russian sentiments as an excuse to annex Crimea because it has a Russian navy base

Pros:
They own the base and territory around it
Cons:
Sanctions

>What do Russians (a nation) have to do with criminal policies of Bolsheviks
it's not like Russians dominated the USSR or anything

Fuck off Ahmad

>Sounds like you don't support people's right to self determination.

But the Russians do? Do the Chechens have that right? Or only ethnic Russians?

Ethnic Russians did dominate USSR, but their ideology had nothing to do with their Russian origins.

>getting a lot of jihadists to conquer europe by birthrates is wrong!
>sending ukranians away from crimes and putting russians on it so decades afterwards you have a majority there and conquer the region by birthrates is right!
If Russia is right, then it is okay for muslims to go to europe to conquer then by power of numbers instead of force.

It's basically a 50/50 in Ukraine. But only a small percentage of the pro Russian 50% took arms and went to war to defend themself

>russian dominated group genocides ukrainians
>russians had no connection to the event
good luck with that senpai

...

Ukraine had no way to maintain the nukes. They essentially got them decommissioned and secured freely instead of having nuclear material be looted and floating around the world.

>50/50
Not really. It's more 20/60/20, 60% being post-Soviet mentally damaged victims of communism.

It's because Russians were the most important people in the USSR Jews still controlled it

No. Although Ukraine is ethnically more stable without Crimea, it still deserves a huge compensation for this probably-permanent annexation.

You can't understand Crimea unless you look at the right map of the area

The Black Sea is Russia's entry to the Mediterranean. The Sea of Azov are places for ships and ports.

Crimea is huge, too big to be carpet bombed deep underground. If long range anti ship missiles were placed there, Russia would be blocked from the mediterranean.

The new US Long Range Anti Ship Missile has an OFFICIAL range of 400km, which covers pretty much the entire black sea from Crimea.

When NATO started to conduct joint exercises with Ukraine, and they got a pro-Western government, it was only a matter of time. Russia literally has nato bases surrounding it, and NATO defensive installations on Crimea would work like the above.

NATO of course knew that Russia would have to either suck it up or invade. It was a terrible and shitty NATO decision to engage with Ukraine in the first place, they knew this would happen.

>Russia places missiles on Cuba
>The US BTFOs them

Maybe China should station nukes in Mexico. I am sure the US would permit that (They won't)

We operate in that world for 1100+ years and are still the biggest country of them all
So i say we fare pretty good

Holodomor was literally orchestrated by local Ukrainian commies during a time when the rest of the USSR was starving as well.

You do know many Ukrainians (local party chiefs) actively participated in Holodomor, and famine also happened in Russian regions and Kazakhstan?
And you do understand communism do you?
Lenin was ethnic Russian yet he was instrumental in creating Ukraine in the first place.
Also, did Russian people vote for Stalin and communism?
Your logic doesn't hold m8.

>Yes. Crimea is rightful Russian clay.
>Most Crimeans are Russians and they are happy being part of Russia.
This message brought to you by a Russian shill

Since when are Amsterdam, London or Paris Muslim cities from origin? oh wait they aren't. The Crimea of now is of Russian orgin

Man, just watch "Ukraine on fire" by Oliver Stone, he's pretty much get what happend.

>Split from Ukraine due to sudden civil war outbreak
>Hold a vote about being a part of Russia
>Major win monitored by EU agents
Nah give it back goy

It was Russian land before they gave it to Ukraine (who was under Russian rule)

They didn't want the eu to take over and neither did the crimeans

Legit move, the lefts propaganda is nonsense

It was a 95-5 percent win for "stay with russia"

Is he wrong?

Very informative posts, thank you.

Very well thought out.

he is Canadian, why do you even argue with his maple syrup infested brain.

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

Stop believing the kike media

They hate Russian because they are white and Christian

>maiden happens
>Russian population wants out
>Crimea wants the fuck out of there desperately
>Kiev begins posturing and saying they're going to remove Russians from Sevastopol
>states they will take and scrap the base and black Sea fleet if they want to
>want to take the eastern Ukrainian and Crimean Russian military depots and scrap the entirety
>Crimea is almost entirely Russian and was historically Russian in the first place, only given to the Ukrainian SSR (not Ukraine) for administrative reasons in the 50s
>Sevastopol is arguably the most strategically important Russian military base in existence, only second to something buried miles under the Ural mountains

It's beyond justified in almost every way to the point where the retaking became necessary for the security of the Russian state, and an inevitability for any nation who would be put in the same position.

The loss of Sevastopol and the black Sea fleet would be like Guam and Hawaii gaining independence, entering into a union with China, and scrapping and/or selling the entire US pacific fleet and air power to the Chinese. International law dictates that such a thing should not occur, and that we would respect national sovereignty, but international law is voluntary for nuclear powers. You can bet your last dollar that no amount of UN autistic screeching would stop us from taking back our assets under force.

The issue itself stems from the breakup of the USSR along SSR lines when creating the post Soviet republics. Crimea and eastern Ukraine were always a cunts hair away from revolution like Abkhazia, Transnitria, Ossesia, and other Russian republics lost in a new country.

Arguably, the retaking of crimea was always an inevitability, as seen by the air tight military action done in the blink of an eye to retrieve it, like it was always planned for. Maiden was the straw which broke the camels back, and made it into the necessity it became.

>By that time maybe they'll finish that bridge.
Two questions are:
1) Will they ever? Or everything gets stolen as usual
2) Will the bridge get destroyed by nature as the previous one was

Why is Portugal always giving a shit about Slav threads?

>
No, they didn't. But they will get a pass because everyone is sucking Putin's dick.

Well they will never give it back, it was historic russian territory anyway (Fuck off turkroaches)

Both parties, Ukraine and Russia, were doing fucked up shit leading to those events. It's hard to condemn any particular side.
"Justified" is an interesting word here, I think both Ukraine and Russia have just claims to the regions.

>This message brought to you by a Russian shill
His second statement is true though. This is what makes the whole situation so complex.

Yeah, but by invading they have alienated Ukraine completely.

They have all but assured that Ukraine will now look to the West instead of Russia.

It's posts like this that make me remain at this site

Hard to find anything or anyone speaking truth on this matter and with so much depth

>germoney reveals himself at last
nice try subverting your own thread, hohol.

>Russians dominated the USSR
I believe some form of validation is in order.

>To weaken Russian nation.
Mainly to combat Polish influence i would say. These policies probably made sense at the time, but the longterm effects are devastating.

>Ecли нe вoзьмeмcя тeпepь жe зa выпpaвлeниe пoлoжeния нa Укpaинe, Укpaинy мoжeм пoтepять. Имeйтe в видy, чтo Пилcyдcкий нe дpeмлeт, и eгo aгeнтypa нa Укpaинe вo мнoгo paз cильнee, чeм дyмaeт Peдeнc или Кocиop. Имeйтe тaкжe ввидy, чтo в Укpaинcкoй кoмпapтии (500 тыcяч члeнoв, хe-хe) oбpeтaeтcя нe мaлo (дa, нe мaлo!) гнилых элeмeнтoв, coзнaтeльных и бeccoзнaтeльных пeтлюpoвцeв, нaкoнeц — пpямых aгeнтoв Пилcyдcкoгo. Кaк тoлькo дeлa cтaнyт хyжe, эти элeмeнты нe зaмeдлят oткpыть фpoнт внyтpи (и внe) пapтии, пpoтив пapтии. Caмoe плoхoe этo тo, чтo yкpaинcкaя вepхyшкa нe видит этих oпacнocтeй.
>Пocтaвить ceбe цeлью пpeвpaтить Укpaинy в кpaтчaйший cpoк в нacтoящyю кpeпocть CCCP, в дeйcтвитeльнo oбpaзцoвyю pecпyбликy. Дeнeг нa этo нe жaлeть.
Stalin aka the holodomor man to Kaganovich 12 aug 1932.

>Will they ever? Or everything gets stolen as usual
They probably will, from what i've seen the corruption on that project is minimal. Probably too much attention to really go wild.

>Will the bridge get destroyed by nature as the previous one was
I have no idea, i hope they found a way to make it work.

>so complex
Ukrainians have done absolutely nothing with that land. Khohols haven't put it to good use since the 1800. It's the Russian clay. I am an American butt I agree with the annexation

It's honestly easier not even to think of international law as a law system. Law systems require enforcement, and there's no body that can really enforce international law against relevant states.

International relations works like this: The good leaders act to better their Country's position in the world. Sometimes that involves making friends. Sometimes that involves making enemies. They act in their best interest because to not do so is to end up dead and/or conquered.

The shit leaders cuck themselves out and think about "international law" while the good leaders kick their ass.

It's not even about morality. Their first moral responsibility is for the protection of their people.

That development would have happened anyway, only somewhat more gradually. They would have lost the relative battle for attraction over time. Ukraine was lost to them with Yanukovich.

>Dumbass fucking Ukrainians believed them. for that reason they're not justified
It does feel that sides of that agreement started playing Ukrainians against other sides.

By having two anti-russian revolutions in a decade they proved to be undesirable element
Thus we are now currently working on dismantling them as a state

no, and it only put them in a far worse geo political posistion.

and any poster who says they moved in for safter reasons are paid shills, crimea was not the site of any protests and was completely peaceful during euro maiden, they are all pro russian up there after all.

Yes.