"Russian aggression" in Ukraine

[Camp]

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country. It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.

 

[Eugene]

This was the case in Rus too and it was one of the reasons to adopt Christianity for Vladimir the Great - to consolidate his power.

For your information Vladimir had got power fighting against Christianity and supporting Slavic pagan gods.
He had consolidated his power and joined different tribes basing on pagan religion!

And only several years later he decided to get christened and to christen Rus’.
It was nothing but political decision. He needed it for his foreign policy.

 

[Eugene]

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country. It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.

Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.

Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.

 

[ESay]

Paganism has a lot of different religions in fact.
Varyags’ chief god was Perun who had power over smaller gods of different elements like water, land, etc.
Scandinavians had Odin who had power over whole pantheon of gods.
Absolutely different rites and everything else.
According to your logic buddism, induism, woodoo and many others are the same confessions - they are pagan too.

Actually, the main point is what may be considered as paganism. The term was used by Christians to describe local beliefs which existed before the adoption of Christianity and had a negative tone.

For your information Vladimir had got power fighting against Christianity and supporting Slavic pagan gods.
He had consolidated his power and joined different tribes basing on pagan religion!

And only several years later he decided to get christened and to christen Rus’.
It was nothing but political decision. He needed it for his foreign policy.

Yes, firstly he wanted to unite the tribes by spreading a common pagan religion. Perun was the main god there, btw. His idea failed.

 

[ESay]

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country. It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.

Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.

Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.

Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.

 

[Eugene]

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country. It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.

Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.

Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.

Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.

Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!

This position is nothing but propaganda.
As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.

 

[ESay]

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country. It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.

Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.

Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.

Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.

Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!

This position is nothing but propaganda.
As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.

Something new is considering whether annexation took place or not by counting a number of the killed ones.

annexation
noun
the act of taking control of a country, region, etc, especially by force
annexation

 

[Camp]

Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion

 

[Stratford57]

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country. It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.

Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.

Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.

Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.

Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!

This position is nothing but propaganda.
As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.

Something new is considering whether annexation took place or not by counting a number of the killed ones.

annexation
noun
the act of taking control of a country, region, etc, especially by force
annexation

FYI, Russia has observed the International Law in Crimea and had a referendum.
According to UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

While in Kososvo its parliament decided to separate from Serbia and there was NO referendum, but all "democratic" countries recognized Kososvo but are mumbling about "annexation" in Crimea.

Also, let's talk about Ukraine exiting USSR twice bigger than entering. After the USSR collapse Ukraine basically ANNEXED Russian lands which were given to a Ukrainian republic within one country of the USSR.

This map has been exposed in a big article about Ukraine by CIS-EMO political analyst of an International Monitoring Organization, Stanislav Byshok (a Pole, not a Russian). an independent observer.
The truth about Ukraine: Byshok's lecture at Brown University - Fort Russ

Of course, your Ukrainian "leaders" would tell you a different story, fully alleged, which you are dragging from one thread to another.

 

[Stratford57]

Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion

As always: no sane proof.

Look at the Russian army and its abilities demonstrated in Syria and how efficiently they are cleaning Syria from ISIS (over 87% of Syria is deliberated) then even you, Camp, will understand that if Russian regular troops were in Donbass (as you claim), Kiev would be ruled by Russians (not by Soros puppets) 3 years ago.

Missiles, warplanes & robots: Russian weaponry in Syrian military campaign (VIDEOS)

Russian air strikes kill 2,000+ ISIS, Al-Nusra terrorists in Syria in 11 days – military (VIDEO)

Russian airstrikes kill ISIS warlords, dozens of militants in Syria – MoD

Over 87% of Syrian territory liberated from ISIS – Russian MoD

Even Saudi King with his 1000 people visited Putin this week and signed a lot of documents about cooperation.

Bloomberg:
As Bloomberg writes today, "the Israelis and Turks, the Egyptians and Jordanians - they’re all beating a path to the Kremlin in the hope that Vladimir Putin, the new master of the Middle East, can secure their interests and fix their problems."

And now, none other than Saudi Arabia is the latest to make friendly overtures toward the Kremlin, when Saudi King Salman visits Moscow on Wednesday, the first monarch of the oil-rich kingdom to do so. At the top of his agenda will be reining in Iran, a close Russian ally seen as a deadly foe by most Gulf Arab states.
"Putin Is The New Master Of The Middle East"

And ISIS has been trained and supplied with the most modern weapons directly from Washington, while Ukrainian Army was neither trained nor well weaponed.

 

[Eugene]

All these great history lessons have made the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the justification of continued support for civil war and bloodshed for the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict clear. Obviously, there have been disputes, wars, colonizations, migrations, etc. for hundreds and even a thousand years. That should make it perfectly justifiable and understandable for a country like Russia to send its armed soldiers, tanks, rockets, and artillery into a foreign country. It's a European custom and how they start wars. Worked in the past and is still working. Somebody won a battle hundreds of years ago and it ain't over till the losing side or somebodies side says it's over.

Where on earth you see ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014”?
If it took place Russia would need few days to conquer Ukraine.

Using military is American habbit. They have morr than 800 bases all over the world, they control governments, they are snooping and spying over everybody including allies. And they never hesitate to ruin some country.

Invasion or not, but the annexation of part of the country did take place.

Oh, yes. Annexation with 0 (ZERO) killed. That is something new!

This position is nothing but propaganda.
As well as so-called ‘Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008’ which in fact was just an answer for Georgian attack against civil Tskhinval and UN mission based there.

Something new is considering whether annexation took place or not by counting a number of the killed ones.

annexation
noun
the act of taking control of a country, region, etc, especially by force
annexation

Why don’t you check ‘the right of nations for determination’ in the same dictionary?

 

[Eugene]

Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion

True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.

 

[Camp]

Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion

True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.

100% wrong'
America was in Iraq by invitation of the legally recognized government of Iraq. Iraq was being attacked by forces from and based within Syria that had crossed the border and invaded Iraq. Iraq had the international law behind them to pursue the invaders into the country they came from which was Syria. America, therefore, had the international legal authority as an Allie of Iraq to join with a coalition of nations in that pursuit or those forces and the destruction of those forces still in Syria with the intent to enter into Irag or support of those forces already inside Iraq.

Libya was an internationally endorsed and coalition effort.
A coalition of 19 UN nations participated in Libya based on
UN Resolution 1973. The operations in Libya by coalitions forces were discussed and approved in the United Nations.

No legal authority has ever been given or exists for Russian military activities in Ukraine. Overwhelming evidence of Russian military activity in Ukraine does in fact exist. The most obvious evidence is the admission by Putin that covert military personnel were sent into Crimea in the period leading to elections, which by the way, were not internationally monitored and are still not recognized as legitimate by the international community. Crimea is still recognized as part of Ukraine by the international community of legally recognized entities that recognize or don't recognize governments.

 

[Eugene]

Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion

True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.

100% wrong'
America was in Iraq by invitation of the legally recognized government of Iraq. Iraq was being attacked by forces from and based within Syria that had crossed the border and invaded Iraq. Iraq had the international law behind them to pursue the invaders into the country they came from which was Syria. America, therefore, had the international legal authority as an Allie of Iraq to join with a coalition of nations in that pursuit or those forces and the destruction of those forces still in Syria with the intent to enter into Irag or support of those forces already inside Iraq.

Libya was an internationally endorsed and coalition effort.
A coalition of 19 UN nations participated in Libya based on
UN Resolution 1973. The operations in Libya by coalitions forces were discussed and approved in the United Nations.

No legal authority has ever been given or exists for Russian military activities in Ukraine. Overwhelming evidence of Russian military activity in Ukraine does in fact exist. The most obvious evidence is the admission by Putin that covert military personnel were sent into Crimea in the period leading to elections, which by the way, were not internationally monitored and are still not recognized as legitimate by the international community. Crimea is still recognized as part of Ukraine by the international community of legally recognized entities that recognize or don't recognize governments.

1. USA in 2003 invaded Iraq. That was illegal aggression. USA violated UN resolution 1441. UN, France, Germany and Russia were point-blanc against that invasion.
USA ruined the country. 1 million Iraq citizens dyed by today due to that aggression, ISIS got impact to be organized, the whole Middle East was destabilized.

2. Lybia. UN Security Council announced ‘no flight area’ but after that wide-scaled invasion took place. Yes, that was done by so-called coalition but everyone knows who is ruling that coalition - USA! Europians are your vassals, NATO is your instrument.

3. Syria. USA has no grounds to be there. They are intervents there and Syrian army has legsl rights to fight against the American invaders.
Russia in Syria is officially invited and has right to help Syrians in their actions.

4. In Ukraine there is no a single proof of Russian army presence. Russian authorities never denied that there are many volunteers from Russia in Donbass.
As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.
Because of revolution you organized in Kiev nazi scuads moved to Crimea and were met by Crimeans. Several days later Russian army helped to prevent any unrest in the region.
In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined. International observers were in Crimea! They were officially invited and everyone who wanted took part in observing. Btw there were more observers than usually allowed in the whole USA while your elections.
To recognize or not - it is a question of political games not of international law.
The point is - USA makes decision whether to obbey the law or not...in some case they recognize referendum like it was in Kosovo in others not to recognize. It only shows that USA is not a partner but aggressor.

 

[Stratford57]

Uninvited armed soldiers = invasion
Uninvited tanks crossing a border = invasion

True about Americans in Syria, Iraq, Lybia....
No proofs about Russians in Ukraine.

100% wrong'
America was in Iraq by invitation of the legally recognized government of Iraq. Iraq was being attacked by forces from and based within Syria that had crossed the border and invaded Iraq. Iraq had the international law behind them to pursue the invaders into the country they came from which was Syria. America, therefore, had the international legal authority as an Allie of Iraq to join with a coalition of nations in that pursuit or those forces and the destruction of those forces still in Syria with the intent to enter into Irag or support of those forces already inside Iraq.

Libya was an internationally endorsed and coalition effort.
A coalition of 19 UN nations participated in Libya based on
UN Resolution 1973. The operations in Libya by coalitions forces were discussed and approved in the United Nations.

No legal authority has ever been given or exists for Russian military activities in Ukraine. Overwhelming evidence of Russian military activity in Ukraine does in fact exist. The most obvious evidence is the admission by Putin that covert military personnel were sent into Crimea in the period leading to elections, which by the way, were not internationally monitored and are still not recognized as legitimate by the international community. Crimea is still recognized as part of Ukraine by the international community of legally recognized entities that recognize or don't recognize governments.

Ukrainian coup was ANTI-constitutional to begin with. And it was inspired, sponsored and supported directly from Washington: by Obama’s administration+McCain+Soros.

So, according to democratic principles, which you want everybody to believe USA is supporting, everybody should condemn that all together: the coup, the sponsors, the supporters and the current illegal Ukrainian rulers and demand International Tribunal to judge their war crimes in Ukraine. But those war criminals have been distracting the public attention from themselves and pointing fingers on Russia (with ZERO evidence), whom millions of residents of Eastern Ukraine were expecting to help and to protect from Washington occupation (but it has never happened except for Crimea which we all are very happy about).

The accusation of Russian regular troops present in SE Ukraine are as “convincing” as reports of those mysterious “17 intelligence agencies” accusing Russia of interference in US elections and during the whole year couldn't find even a small hint of it to present to the brainwashed part of American public (which you, Camp, seem to belong to).

Putin: There were no hostilities in Crimea, no bombing raids and no casualties. No one died there. The only thing we did was to ensure the free expression of will by the people, by the way, in strict compliance with the UN Charter. We did almost the same you did in Kosovo, only more.

In Kosovo, parliament approved a secession resolution, while people in Crimea expressed their opinion at a referendum. After that, parliament ratified the decision, and Crimea as an independent state asked to be reintegrated with Russia.

The bombing of Belgrade is intervention carried out in violation of international law. Did the UN Security Council pass a resolution on military intervention in Yugoslavia? No. It was a unilateral decision of the United States.
--
Did the UN sanction the operations in Iraq? No. Before this there were operations in Afghanistan in 2001. Yes, we all know the tragedy of September 11, 2001, but even so, under existing international law, a relevant UN Security Council resolution should have been sought first, which was not done.

Then came Iraq, and then came the resolution on Libya. You are all experts here, you have read the resolution on Libya, and know that it was about establishing a no-fly zone there. But what kind of no-fly zone can we speak of if airstrikes began against Libyan territory? This was a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. And then came Syria.

Were there terrorists in Iraq? There were no terrorists there until the country’s state structures were destroyed. The same was true of Libya, where there were no terrorists at all. But as soon as this country’s statehood was destroyed, who came along to fill the vacuum? Terrorists. The same is happening in Syria.

But let’s remember that as soon as the conflict began in Syria, and it began long before we became involved, terrorists appeared there and began receiving arms supplies. Attempts were made to train these terrorists and set them against al-Assad, because there were no other options and these groups were the most effective. This continues today because these are the most effective fighting units and some think that it is possible to make use of them and then sort them out later.
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

Destabilizing a lot of countries all over the world; creating, training, weaponing and supporting terrorists in Kosovo and ME as well as Nazis in Ukraine, that’s all above we should call "export of Washington democracy”. Our Russian humorist Michail Zadornov said a few years ago: “For the sake of human rights Washington has been killing thousands of humans all over the world”. It's sad, but it’s true.

 

[ESay]

As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.

Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?

In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.

Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?

And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?

 

[Stratford57]

This is just funny: yesterday Erdogan fall asleep during the press conference with Poroshenko. The "Russian occupation"" Poroshenko was talking about must have seemed very important to Erdogan.

 

[Stratford57]

As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.

Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?

In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.

Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?

And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?

Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.

My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?



Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:


The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev

Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:

 

[Eugene]

As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.

Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?

In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.

Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?

And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?

Text of the Agreement can easily be found in internet.

Basic principles of territorial integrity of states was violated many times. In Europe there are such examples as Germany, Yugoslavia and the USSR. None of them happened in fully legal way according to international law. None of them happened basing on wishes of majority of population.

And at last Crimean Tatars in Crimea at last got possibility to teach their children in Tatar language, at last they got moscue built and at last they got leagal right for tge land they live - all those problems were not solved from 1991 till 2014 by Ukrainian authorities.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

As for Crimea Russian army was there on legal grounds - according to agreement between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. According that agreement Russian army had right for actions aiming protection of civilians and preventing of violence.

Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course you can give a link to this agreement and give a citation from it, can’t you?

In March local authorities organized referendum. Basing on the ‘right of nations for determination’ which is one of basic rights in UN Charter Crimea got independence and soon they asked Russia to get joined.

Except of this basic principle there are a number of other basic principles and one of them is a principle of territorial integrity of states. Have you heard about it?

And I will ask once again – do the Crimean Tatars have a right of self-determination?

Esay, you love to ask a lot of questions, however you don't answer many of ours.

My question today is: have you been enjoying celebration an official Ukrainian holiday yesterday, dedicated to glorification of a accomplices of Hitler during WW2, Bandera and Shukhevitch? May be you have even participating Ukrainian torchlight Nazi parade in Kiev yesterday?



Everyone compare it to Hitler's Nazi parade:


The incoming Ukrainian president will have to turn some attention to history, because the outgoing one has just made a hero of a long-dead Ukrainian fascist.
A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev

Their victims were mainly children , women and seniors, their un-weaponed countrymen, who sympathized Red Army:
View attachment 154501

They killed mostly Poles, even your article states that.

So, what's this about sympathizing with the Red Army?