6 ms·

It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. On a side

It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. On a side note, the kind of justifications / rationalization you give for the annexation - somebody installed politicians there that were not pleasing Russia enough - are not only factually incorrect, too, they are also irrelevant to the question whether the Crimea was annexed by Russia or not. I don't know where you think the "green men" militia came from, but I know for certain that they were Russian military (and no, not on vacation). And let's not forget that a Buk system was provided directly from Russia that then downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 283 crew and passengers. Dutch authorities and international investigators have uncovered and documented every single minute of this crime, from the arrival of the BUK system to its hasty departure afterwards, and identified the Russian officers involved in it by name and picture. These are the facts.

Dahoon 6y ago
Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.
- nl 6y ago
  The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.
  - buran77 6y ago
    The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "international law"? How much outside interference do you think the elections in Ukraine got and how much of it was condemned? There was no "innocent side" in the whole Crimean issue. Whether local or on the other side of the world, all parties involved played the same game to try to gain something. Civilians as usually took the brunt of the conflict. Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending. Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.
    - thefounder 6y ago
      Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?
      - elmo2you 6y ago
        Mark those words carefully, because you are likely going to regret them. To a degree it's understandable that those who are constantly bombarded by their own relentless propaganda fail to see that they are indeed the bad guys. But this machinery that has so many so thorough brainwashed, has no intention of stopping. Also, it will have to get increasingly more criminal to sustain itself. As so many of these systems before it, it will eventually turn on itself (it is already doing that, big time) and eventually destroy itself from the inside out. Only the strongest believers will be able to hold on to their faith in being the good guys. Others will wonder: "Why didn't we see it (coming)", ignorant of how many outsiders did already see it coming for a long time. Either way, a lot of people will have a similarly painful realization as the Germans had after WW2. Don't take my word for it. You will see.
      - buran77 6y ago
        You didn't actually contradict anything I said though. You just let your personal feelings decide which identical half of the coin looks better. Don't fall prey to emotion just because the facts make you angry or don't fit the narrative you learned to love. All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not accepting reality doesn't make you right. The US isn't inherently better or worse, more or less immoral than other superpowers but it does have the military, economic, and political power to do whatever they need to do to grow it or at least not lose any of it. If it means bombing a hospital, imposing sanctions on an enemy, or strongarming an ally they'll do it because not doing it means giving up an inch. One here, one there, pretty soon they're a mile behind. So no quarter given.
        jonathanstrange 6y ago
elmo2you 6y ago
> It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. It is always a bit amusing, though also somewhat infuriating, whenever somebody writes something like this. It often is a good indicator of what likely is to follow. Truly ironic, that the people who (apparently) know the least about international law are usually the first to mention it. Even more that most of these people appear to come from countries that probably are the biggest violators of international laws, by historical track record. I'm not even going to argue with you, for you rather obviously take personal convictions over actual knowledge. Good luck with that. Here is a fact for you: the forces/interest behind most of this will come back to roost one day. Maybe rather sooner than you think. One thing I'm pretty sure of: you're not going to like. Don't say that nobody tried to warn you, when it turns out that the joke was always on you.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Your comment is an irrelevant ad-hominem argument. That's may be okay for Reddit but I'd expect a bit more from someone posting on HN. Besides, that international law was broken by Russia is not my personal opinion, it's backed up by the majority of countries and by almost all scholars in international law, see e.g. [1] for a good analysis. You're just plain wrong in both of your posts. [1] https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_crisis_-_an_international_law_perspective.pdf https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_cri...
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    You may call it an ad-hominem attack, if you like. However, what I am doing is calling you out .. I honestly don't know if you are a deliberate propaganda mouth piece or just an unfortunate victim of it. Either way, the moment you mentioned international law in relation to this issue, and even had to nerve to declare that the truth of your convictions are factually undeniable, you yourself were the one who pretty much shoved all-in and closed the door for any meaningful discussion. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror first, if you want to blame someone for being called out for that. I have a pretty decent track record of being rather respectful (definitely beyond and above average) towards to opinions of other. Just maybe not for people who talk like you. You can take your (abuse of) political correctness and .. EDIT: I see what you are trying, but you still don't get it (regarding international law). Good luck and goodbye.

Dahoon 6y ago

Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.

nl 6y ago
The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.
- buran77 6y ago
  The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "international law"? How much outside interference do you think the elections in Ukraine got and how much of it was condemned? There was no "innocent side" in the whole Crimean issue. Whether local or on the other side of the world, all parties involved played the same game to try to gain something. Civilians as usually took the brunt of the conflict. Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending. Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.
  - thefounder 6y ago
    Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?
    - elmo2you 6y ago
      Mark those words carefully, because you are likely going to regret them. To a degree it's understandable that those who are constantly bombarded by their own relentless propaganda fail to see that they are indeed the bad guys. But this machinery that has so many so thorough brainwashed, has no intention of stopping. Also, it will have to get increasingly more criminal to sustain itself. As so many of these systems before it, it will eventually turn on itself (it is already doing that, big time) and eventually destroy itself from the inside out. Only the strongest believers will be able to hold on to their faith in being the good guys. Others will wonder: "Why didn't we see it (coming)", ignorant of how many outsiders did already see it coming for a long time. Either way, a lot of people will have a similarly painful realization as the Germans had after WW2. Don't take my word for it. You will see.
    - buran77 6y ago
      You didn't actually contradict anything I said though. You just let your personal feelings decide which identical half of the coin looks better. Don't fall prey to emotion just because the facts make you angry or don't fit the narrative you learned to love. All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not accepting reality doesn't make you right. The US isn't inherently better or worse, more or less immoral than other superpowers but it does have the military, economic, and political power to do whatever they need to do to grow it or at least not lose any of it. If it means bombing a hospital, imposing sanctions on an enemy, or strongarming an ally they'll do it because not doing it means giving up an inch. One here, one there, pretty soon they're a mile behind. So no quarter given.
      - jonathanstrange 6y ago

elmo2you 6y ago

> It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. It is always a bit amusing, though also somewhat infuriating, whenever somebody writes something like this. It often is a good indicator of what likely is to follow. Truly ironic, that the people who (apparently) know the least about international law are usually the first to mention it. Even more that most of these people appear to come from countries that probably are the biggest violators of international laws, by historical track record. I'm not even going to argue with you, for you rather obviously take personal convictions over actual knowledge. Good luck with that. Here is a fact for you: the forces/interest behind most of this will come back to roost one day. Maybe rather sooner than you think. One thing I'm pretty sure of: you're not going to like. Don't say that nobody tried to warn you, when it turns out that the joke was always on you.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
Your comment is an irrelevant ad-hominem argument. That's may be okay for Reddit but I'd expect a bit more from someone posting on HN. Besides, that international law was broken by Russia is not my personal opinion, it's backed up by the majority of countries and by almost all scholars in international law, see e.g. [1] for a good analysis. You're just plain wrong in both of your posts. [1] https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_crisis_-_an_international_law_perspective.pdf https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_cri...
- elmo2you 6y ago
  You may call it an ad-hominem attack, if you like. However, what I am doing is calling you out .. I honestly don't know if you are a deliberate propaganda mouth piece or just an unfortunate victim of it. Either way, the moment you mentioned international law in relation to this issue, and even had to nerve to declare that the truth of your convictions are factually undeniable, you yourself were the one who pretty much shoved all-in and closed the door for any meaningful discussion. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror first, if you want to blame someone for being called out for that. I have a pretty decent track record of being rather respectful (definitely beyond and above average) towards to opinions of other. Just maybe not for people who talk like you. You can take your (abuse of) political correctness and .. EDIT: I see what you are trying, but you still don't get it (regarding international law). Good luck and goodbye.