4 ms·

In Kosovo there was active, widespread genocide going on. Absolutely nothing of such kind was happening in Crimea. Additionally the Kosovo constitution offered

by mtrimpe 13y ago

In Kosovo there was active, widespread genocide going on. Absolutely nothing of such kind was happening in Crimea. Additionally the Kosovo constitution offered room for secession and it's secession was consequently recognized by the vast majority of the international community. The votes on the UN council as to the legality of Russia's actions [1] say enough, but Huffinton Post wrote a fairly comprehensive article [2] about the topic. P.S. If you plan to link to the RT counter-piece [3] just let me know and I'll list all the factual inaccuracies for you. [1] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ukraine-vote.jpg http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/u... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/crimea-is-not-kosovo_b_4936365.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/crimea-is-not... [3] http://rt.com/news/kosovo-crimea-referendum-recognition-441/ http://rt.com/news/kosovo-crimea-referendum-recognition-441/

vasac 13y ago
Lies, lies, lies... In Kosovo there wasn't widespread genocide, especially not before NATO started dropping bombs - by far biggest atrocities (not genocide) started after March 24, 1999. Also you conveniently forgot those guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Status_as_a_terrorist_group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Status_a... - local Russians in Crimea didn't pull anything remotely similar and I guess that they could if they wanted to provoke conflict. And if you plan to put some more lies about Kosovo I'll be glad to educate you more.
- selimthegrim 13y ago
  Normally the day I side with Serbian nationalists is a cold day in hell, but vasac is right. This is the end result of one of the worst kludges of the 1974 SFRY constitution, a master class document in doublespeak and not actually resolving issues between parties. Case in point: Hungarians and Albanians were "nationalities", not "nations". Why couldn't they be "nations"? Because they "already had one". Way to make your minorities feel disenfranchised at one fell swoop.
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  OK. I stand corrected on the genocide. Still; the NATO intervention was to stop a war between insurgents (supported by the populace) and a government that started waging war against the insurgents. In that case the equivalent would have been for Russia to militarily support the situation in Kiev, and it bears no similarity whatsoever to invading and annexing the, at that point, completely peaceful Crimea.
  - vasac 13y ago
    First, I'm sorry for a hash tone of my first message. Second, I could argue that Russians just skipped the insurgency part. It would be trivially easy for them to create/support insurgency at Crimea and leave Ukrainian forces with no good choice: either they retreat immediately or they retreat under Russian assault (which will be justified as a war/genocide/whatever prevention). On Serbia/Kosovo: discrepancy between military might between Serbia and Albanians from Kosovo was so great that any insurgency was practically suicide. But if you know that you will be backed by NATO insurgency suddenly looks like a good idea. My point being that NATO action wasn't just consequence of war but part of a cause. Might makes right - works everywhere.
    - mtrimpe 13y ago
      Well; the Maidan insurgency was suicide for quite a few of the protesters. History is littered with insurgencies that won through losing. But as for Crimea vs. Kosovo; without international intervention the Kosovo situation would still have been explosive. Crimea was already mostly independent and had a referendum for more independence coming up already and showed no signs of destabilizing. Also; I'm not aware of dramatically self-serving incentives for NATO's intervention in Kosovo like there clearly are in Crimea (gas reserves, lease for black-sea naval base, destabilizing post-Maidan Ukraine, nationalization of Ukrainian assets, prestige through this 'little war' and restoring former USSR glory.) My recollection from Kosovo was that NATO intervention was done begrudgingly in an honest attempt to stabilize an explosive situation. Once again; I'm honestly curious about your perspective on this...
      - 13y ago

by mtrimpe 13y ago

vasac 13y ago

Lies, lies, lies... In Kosovo there wasn't widespread genocide, especially not before NATO started dropping bombs - by far biggest atrocities (not genocide) started after March 24, 1999. Also you conveniently forgot those guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Status_as_a_terrorist_group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Status_a... - local Russians in Crimea didn't pull anything remotely similar and I guess that they could if they wanted to provoke conflict. And if you plan to put some more lies about Kosovo I'll be glad to educate you more.

selimthegrim 13y ago
Normally the day I side with Serbian nationalists is a cold day in hell, but vasac is right. This is the end result of one of the worst kludges of the 1974 SFRY constitution, a master class document in doublespeak and not actually resolving issues between parties. Case in point: Hungarians and Albanians were "nationalities", not "nations". Why couldn't they be "nations"? Because they "already had one". Way to make your minorities feel disenfranchised at one fell swoop.
mtrimpe 13y ago
OK. I stand corrected on the genocide. Still; the NATO intervention was to stop a war between insurgents (supported by the populace) and a government that started waging war against the insurgents. In that case the equivalent would have been for Russia to militarily support the situation in Kiev, and it bears no similarity whatsoever to invading and annexing the, at that point, completely peaceful Crimea.
- vasac 13y ago
  First, I'm sorry for a hash tone of my first message. Second, I could argue that Russians just skipped the insurgency part. It would be trivially easy for them to create/support insurgency at Crimea and leave Ukrainian forces with no good choice: either they retreat immediately or they retreat under Russian assault (which will be justified as a war/genocide/whatever prevention). On Serbia/Kosovo: discrepancy between military might between Serbia and Albanians from Kosovo was so great that any insurgency was practically suicide. But if you know that you will be backed by NATO insurgency suddenly looks like a good idea. My point being that NATO action wasn't just consequence of war but part of a cause. Might makes right - works everywhere.
  - mtrimpe 13y ago
    Well; the Maidan insurgency was suicide for quite a few of the protesters. History is littered with insurgencies that won through losing. But as for Crimea vs. Kosovo; without international intervention the Kosovo situation would still have been explosive. Crimea was already mostly independent and had a referendum for more independence coming up already and showed no signs of destabilizing. Also; I'm not aware of dramatically self-serving incentives for NATO's intervention in Kosovo like there clearly are in Crimea (gas reserves, lease for black-sea naval base, destabilizing post-Maidan Ukraine, nationalization of Ukrainian assets, prestige through this 'little war' and restoring former USSR glory.) My recollection from Kosovo was that NATO intervention was done begrudgingly in an honest attempt to stabilize an explosive situation. Once again; I'm honestly curious about your perspective on this...
    - 13y ago