US fighters ‘captured’ by Russian forces in Ukraine

[Silver Cat]

Nonsense, Ukraine was recognized by Russia as an independent sovereign state when the USSR collapsed and Russia even signed an agreement with Ukraine to lease its naval base in Crimea. In 1994 Russia, along with the US and UK, and later China, signed an agreement to recognize Ukraine's borders, including Crimea, and to never invade Ukraine unless it was in response to an invasion of Russia by Ukraine in order to persuade Ukraine to give up its nukes.

Actually, they recognized Ukraine as an independent state in the case of its neutrality and respect of the basic human rights of all Ukrainian citizens (including ethnic Russians, Jews and Russian-speaking Ukrainians). So, they can revoke their recognition of Ukrainian independence (or just don't recognize post-Maidan regime as a legal government).

 

[toomuchtime_]

Actually, they recognized Ukraine as an independent state in the case of its neutrality and respect of the basic human rights of all Ukrainian citizens (including ethnic Russians, Jews and Russian-speaking Ukrainians). So, they can revoke their recognition of Ukrainian independence (or just don't recognize post-Maidan regime as a legal government).

Bullshit. Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty without any conditions. Putin has no respect for any laws, including Russian laws, or any treaties, including those that Russia has signed that don't suit his mood.

 

[Silver Cat]

Bullshit. Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty without any conditions. Putin has no respect for any laws, including Russian laws, or any treaties, including those that Russia has signed that don't suit his mood.

Actually, those conditions were written in the Ukrainian declaration of the sovereignty. And that's why Russia recognized it. Same way the USA won't tolerate existence of pro-Chonese totalitarian Canada, discriminated and terrorising its English-speakers and going to join Shanghai block.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Actually, those conditions were written in the Ukrainian declaration of the sovereignty. And that's why Russia recognized it. Same way the USA won't tolerate existence of pro-Chonese totalitarian Canada, discriminated and terrorising its English-speakers and going to join Shanghai block.

Again Russia's recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty had no conditions. Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty because the USSR had collapsed and Russia had to secure its interests with the newly released states it had held captive for 45 years. Holding on to Ukraine simply wasn't an option for Russia in 1990. It is, however, quite bizarre that you are attempting to represent Russia as a champion of human rights.

 

[Open Bolt]

The entire world witnessed the Serbian atrocities against ethnic Albanians,

Before NATO's brutal bombing of Serbia, the only atrocities consisted of Kosovar Albanians committing terrorist attacks against Serbs, and frustrated Serbian police massacring villagers when they could not identify the terrorists who were hiding in those villages. It was quite a bit like frustrated US soldiers massacring Vietnamese villagers when they could not find the Vietcong who were hiding in a village.

I agree that those were atrocities, but those atrocities were being committed by both sides, the atrocities were being provoked by aggression from Kosovar Albanians, and Serbia's response was far from a systematic attack against Kosovar Albanians.

Serbia was agreeable to allowing NATO peacekeepers to help end the fighting, but NATO insisted that their forces be stationed permanently throughout all of Serbia. That was an unreasonable request, and Serbia was right to reject it.

NATO's bombing campaign to try to force Serbia to allow NATO forces to be permanently stationed throughout all of Serbia was an illegal act of aggression. And it ultimately didn't work. Serbia refused to sign until the provisions for permanently stationing NATO troops throughout Serbia were dropped.

Now, once NATO began their massive illegal bombardment of Serbia, then (and only then) an organized campaign of ethnic cleansing occurred against the Kosovar Albanians. But that was only a response to the massive act of aggression that was being waged towards Serbia.

More importantly, none of that justified violating Serbia's territorial integrity several years later and forcibly taking Kosovo away from them.

I agree with 100% of what you said about all of the horrible lies Russia always spouts about the nations they invade. But Russia still has a legitimate grievance regarding Serbia.

NATO did it to Serbia before Russia did it to Georgia and Ukraine. And now the West has little credibility when they argue that it's illegal for Russia to do it.

 

[Open Bolt]

Or, without making a peace with Russia, EU will collapse in few years.

The EU is not going to collapse.

Actually, those conditions were written in the Ukrainian declaration of the sovereignty. And that's why Russia recognized it. Same way the USA won't tolerate existence of pro-Chinese totalitarian Canada, discriminated and terrorising its English-speakers and going to join Shanghai block.

We would help Canada defend themselves if they were being forced to do that against their will.

If Canada were freely siding with China by their own choice, I'm sure we would try to persuade them to change their mind, but we would accept that they have the right to decide for themselves.

Ukraine never terrorized its Russian-speaking population. The only one terrorizing Ukraine's Russian-speaking population is Russia itself.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Before NATO's brutal bombing of Serbia, the only atrocities consisted of Kosovar Albanians committing terrorist attacks against Serbs, and frustrated Serbian police massacring villagers when they could not identify the terrorists who were hiding in those villages. It was quite a bit like frustrated US soldiers massacring Vietnamese villagers when they could not find the Vietcong who were hiding in a village.

I agree that those were atrocities, but those atrocities were being committed by both sides, the atrocities were being provoked by aggression from Kosovar Albanians, and Serbia's response was far from a systematic attack against Kosovar Albanians.

Serbia was agreeable to allowing NATO peacekeepers to help end the fighting, but NATO insisted that their forces be stationed permanently throughout all of Serbia. That was an unreasonable request, and Serbia was right to reject it.

NATO's bombing campaign to try to force Serbia to allow NATO forces to be permanently stationed throughout all of Serbia was an illegal act of aggression. And it ultimately didn't work. Serbia refused to sign until the provisions for permanently stationing NATO troops throughout Serbia were dropped.

Now, once NATO began their massive illegal bombardment of Serbia, then (and only then) an organized campaign of ethnic cleansing occurred against the Kosovar Albanians. But that was only a response to the massive act of aggression that was being waged towards Serbia.

More importantly, none of that justified violating Serbia's territorial integrity several years later and forcibly taking Kosovo away from them.

I agree with 100% of what you said about all of the horrible lies Russia always spouts about the nations they invade. But Russia still has a legitimate grievance regarding Serbia.

NATO did it to Serbia before Russia did it to Georgia and Ukraine. And now the West has little credibility when they argue that it's illegal for Russia to do it.

Of course the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal under international law and it is also in violation of treaties and agreements Russia had signed with Ukraine.

Whatever you believe happened in Kosovo in no way justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine which was clearly not based on alleged atrocities against ethnic Russians that only Russian propagandists could see, but was based on Putin's stated intention to "take back" lands he claims properly belong to Russia. The claims of Ukrainian atrocities against ethnic Russians were merely a pretext for the invasion which was part of Putin's plan to "take back" lands he thought properly belonged to Russia. This war is about Russian imperialism and nothing more. The talk about what happened in Kosovo is merely a distraction.

 

[Open Bolt]

Whatever you believe happened in Kosovo in no way justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If NATO can do it, why can't Russia?

The talk about what happened in Kosovo is merely a distraction.

A legitimate distraction.

Russia has every right to point out that they are only doing the same thing that NATO did to Serbia.

As before, I agree with all of your characterizations of Russia's acts and Russia's propaganda.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If NATO can do it, why can't Russia?



A legitimate distraction.

Russia has every right to point out that they are only doing the same thing that NATO did to Serbia.

As before, I agree with all of your characterizations of Russia's acts and Russia's propaganda.

Again, the conflict in the Donbas was not the reason for the Russian invasion, so whatever happened in Kosovo is irrelevant to the situation in Ukraine.

 

[Open Bolt]

Again, the conflict in the Donbas was not the reason for the Russian invasion, so whatever happened in Kosovo is irrelevant to the situation in Ukraine.

The fact that NATO did the same thing that Russia is doing is quite relevant.

It means the West has no credibility when they complain about Russia's actions.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The fact that NATO did the same thing that Russia is doing is quite relevant.

It means the West has no credibility when they complain about Russia's actions.

But Russia did not do the same thing. Russia invaded Ukraine to "take back" land (Ukraine) Putin believes belongs to Russia.

 

[Desperado]

They are not US fighters rather they are mercenaries from the US.
Big difference

 

[toomuchtime_]

They are not US fighters rather they are mercenaries from the US.
Big difference

Not mercenaries, volunteers.

 

[Open Bolt]

They are not US fighters rather they are mercenaries from the US.

That is incorrect. They are lawful members of the Ukrainian Army.

Big difference

There is no difference. Murdering POWs is a serious war crime that will earn the perpetrators a life sentence at The Hague.

 

[Open Bolt]

But Russia did not do the same thing. Russia invaded Ukraine to "take back" land (Ukraine) Putin believes belongs to Russia.

NATO used force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

Russia is using force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

That looks like the same thing to me.

 

[toomuchtime_]

NATO used force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

Russia is using force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

That looks like the same thing to me.

NATO used force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

Russia is using force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

That looks like the same thing to me.

Ok, then I guess to you that's the whole story on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

 

[Open Bolt]

Ok, then I guess to you that's the whole story on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Not the whole story. But it is one significant part of the story.

 

[Desperado]

mercenaries by any other name are still mercenaries
A member of the armed forces of a belligerent is not a mercenary. The Ukrainian government has formally incorporated the International Legion of Defense of Ukraine into its armed forces. Thus, the Legion's reported 20,000 foreign members—including 3,000 Americans—are not mercenaries under Article 47 (2).

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not the whole story. But it is one significant part of the story.

Not in my opinion. The news articles I saw at the time detailed massacres of male Muslims and gang rapes of females and torture by ethnic Serbs with the Serbian government refusing to take any action to stop it. There were no articles about comparable actions taken against ethnic Serbs by the Muslims. After months of negotiations with the Serbian government and that government's continued refusal take any action to stop these atrocities did NATO station troops in Kosovo and when the Sebian government continued to support these atrocities by ethnic Serbs in Kosovo the bombing campaign began to force Serbia to stand down.

There is no rational basis for characterizing this effort as "stealing land." Neither NATO nor any NATO member country benefited from this action and NATO does not control any part of Kosovo. The Russian action in Ukraine is specifically aimed at stealing Ukrainian land for the benefit of Russia; that is stealing.

While NATO's action in Serbia could not be authorized by the UNSC because of Russia's veto, when Russia tabled a resolution to immediately stop the bombing, only three states supported it and the other 12 states voted against it with no abstentions, so while the UNSC was unable to authorized the action because of the Russian veto, it clearly supported it. There is simply no moral equivalence between the NATO action in Yugoslavia to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslim by ethnic Serbs in Kosovo and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

 

[para bellum]

NATO used force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

Russia is using force to wrongfully steal territory from a weaker country.

That looks like the same thing to me.

What territory did NATO steal? What "NATO" territory was the newly acquired lands incorporated into?

Whether or not the situation in Yugoslavia justified military intervention is open for debate, but I don't think the bombing campaign was about taking territory for NATO. It was to put an end to a civil war.

Afterwards, Russia was part of KFOR- as were several other non-NATO states.

I don't think Serbia v. Ukraine is a very good comparison. Ukraine's intended movement towards European integration was clarified in 2004, maybe earlier. Russia's military intervention to prevent that has been going on for 8 years- the civil war that Russia sparked in 2014 was for that very purpose.

But Russia was already running the propaganda war since 2004, and the original Azovs and Wagner were cousins. Putin had to set the stage, hence all the Nazi stuff. WW2 is a big part of the Russian social consciousness/identity- killing Nazis is always good...

Russia is not trying to intervene in a civil war- Russia is conquering territory of a neighbor state. That's very different than NATO bombing Milosevic to the negotiating table (not to excuse that action).

And of course, If Kosovo is not a country, it's because a referendum on independence is not valid. That same argument has to apply to the LDPR and Crimea.