Malaysian Airlines MH317

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Which foreign power attacked and occupied any part of Spain back then?

None as far as I'm aware but in the final months of 1936 saw the arrival of foreign troops, International Brigades joining the Republicans and Italian CTV, German Legion Condor and Portuguese Viriatos joining the Nationalists.

All invited and welcomed by either side of the conflict.

[ikalugin]

It started with the Crimean peninsula, and that was not a civil war, but an invasion by an external power sending anonymous troops without emblems and badges on their uniforms. Still they were Russian commandos for sure, with or without Russian uniforms.

Crimean and Donbas situations were significantly different in nature.


Even if we assume that Crimea was exclusively caused by external factors (which considering their vote and the previous separatism attempts is questionable) the Donbas was not - the bulk of people fighting in Donbas were (and are) locals and/or non state actors and are there due to local (Ukrainian) or personal (ie personal agenda for non state actors) reasons.

Which foreign power attacked and occupied any part of Spain back then?

As a nuanced observer I separate Crimea and Donbas.



Donbas follows the same patern as the war in Spain did. You could easily find examples of where territory was occupied by foreighn powers during civil wars - ie during Russian Civil war not only were there many cases of separatism (some were maintained post civil war - Finland and Poland, etc), but there was plenty of outright foreighn occupation ie in the North and in the East.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

None as far as I'm aware but in the final months of 1936 saw the arrival of foreign troops, International Brigades joining the Republicans and Italian CTV, German Legion Condor and Portuguese Viriatos joining the Nationalists.

All invited and welcomed by either side of the conflict.

Certainly right.. Adolf Galland wrote an excellent book also describing what happened in Spain.

However none of the foreign powers involved were in the game to grab land. In the Ukraina Russia certainly was, one of the reasons being the Black Sea harbour of Sevastopol.

Even if the US had managed to keep or convert the whole of Ukraina to the West, and/or the EU to join them, none of them would have actually occupied and kept whole regions, and certainly not by concealed military.

I can understand Putin strategically so to speak and all that, but it does not change one yota from being a war.

[ikalugin]

If it is a war, why does Ukraine maintain peacetime relations (trade, travel etc) with Russia?
If this is a war between Russia and Ukraine, why are militias in Donbas formed from the locals who are fighting for local problems?
Were there any significant political disagreements between eastern and western regions of Ukraine pre 2014?
Would Crimea vote the same way as it did historically in 2014 and 1991 if it was allowed?

You really should be asking questions why you bundle Crimea and Donbas together and buying the un-nuanced Ukrainian "war with Russia" narrative non critically.


As to the annexation - if EU is moving towards being a federative government with their legislative, executive and judicial branches, armed forces and treasury, foreighn policy and so on and so forth, then a colour revolution sponsored by EU (and other parties) followed by an attempt to join EU is annexation by the EU via a coup.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

[...] You really should be asking questions why you bundle Crimea and Donbas together and buying the un-nuanced Ukrainian "war with Russia" narrative non critically. [...]

Maybe because up to 2014 and under international right the Ukraina was one state/nation/country, and the Crimea region belonged to it?
Just because one group of people wants to become citizens of another state does not include any right for them to do so. And it certainly does not allow foreign nation to interfere, and send "helpers".

If german Bavaria wanted to become a part of Austria, held a referndum without allowance of Berlin and then even voted 90 percent to leave, this means nothing.
If Austria would then send concealed military to help them, and just annex the county from Germany, there would be some certain direct response.

Also, i do not really believe in russian 'elections' or 'votes" as long as your "civilian society" does not exist, and this russian "federation" (lol) is rather guided by a one-man dictatorship.

"The final date and ballot choices were set only ten days before the plebiscite was held. Before, during and after the plebiscite was proclaimed, the Crimean peninsula was host to Russian soldiers who managed to oversee public buildings [including voting cabinets] and Ukrainian military installations. The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 96.77 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout."

How utterly.. believable

[...] As to the annexation - if EU is moving towards being a federative government with their legislative, executive and judicial branches, armed forces and treasury, foreighn policy and so on and so forth, then a colour revolution sponsored by EU (and other parties) followed by an attempt to join EU is annexation by the EU via a coup.

The EU has no collective armed forces, and most legislative, executive end judicial branches depend on every single nation, with different laws. There is no president alone deciding as well, it is about consent, elections and votes. Real ones. Let us not discuss possible russian or whatever influence on western elections for now.

[ikalugin]

So when NATO bombs Kosovo and then Kosovo is in the process of being annexed by the EU it is ok?

That is an uninformed position to have, not only the 2014 referendum results are supported by varied polling, they are also supported by historical precedent such as the 1991 referendum and are explained by the broad long term disdain of Kiev for the region and the selective abuse of ethnic minorities there.
Compare and contrast with the 2014 Maidan which was an un-democratic armed and violent take over in Kiev preceded by the same sort of events happening in the western and central regions of Ukraine.

EU does have armed forces under CSDP. As BREXIT and recent legislation within EU shows member states no longer have any degree of real sovereignity. Moreover one of the key reasons for BREXIT was that the EU leadership is not accountable to the people of the member states, so EU is even worse than Russia as it has an unaccountable and unelected tyranical executive and rubber stamp powerless legislative.

[ikalugin]

Example of western reporting on polling:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo.../#3d7522ce510d

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

So when NATO bombs Kosovo and then Kosovo is in the process of being annexed by the EU it is ok?

How can a trade union "annex" anything? Each nation has its sovereignty, but the EU as an international intergovernmental body has not, it is no state or nation. And. it. has. no. own. army. The armies exercise together, as a test for defense against aggressive invasions, maybe you can tell who would be the most likely candidate?

"uninformed" lol, maybe if you ask Putin?
Polls prior to the vote had resulted in two-thirds majorities against a spin-off.
According to the OSCE Chairman, the referendum was not constitutional and therefore illegal. Both preparation and implementation were even less in line with international standards than in the referendum in Crimea.
Sorry, no real referendum, no free election, results tampered with and absolutely no credibility.

"no longer have any degree of real sovereignity"
"EU leadership is not accountable to the people of the member states"
"EU is even worse than Russia"
"unaccountable and unelected tyranical executive"

Either you got your hands on "The Sun" or other Rupert Murdoch media, or there must be interesting things to smoke, in Russia
I guess someone like Farage would even agree with you, since it suits his own tales and lies.
Don't feed the trolls.

[ikalugin]

If it is a federative (or confederative for that matter) government it can annex states.

As BREXIT shows the states no longer have sovereignity as they cannot exercise their right to leave.

The new forces are under the command of the EU body, this is a fairly standard way to form armed forces historically.

The western powers in Europe, especially those in NATO are by far more agressive (we can count from the number of wars of agression they fought) and revisionist (we can count from the number of regime and border changes they have enacted post cold war).

Which is why Russia and Russian allies need strong internal (to fight against subversion, look at for example how Yeltsin got his 2nd term) and external (to deter agression, particularly in the form of a Lybia or Kosovo style air campaign) security. And that is what we exercise against (for example within Zapad-2017).

I am can ask atleast one person on this image:

 

who happened to be one of the decisionmakers (with Putin) during the Crimea crisis. So in a way, yes I do have a degree of the internal knowledge of the conflict, not that this matters, as any normal observer could generate a nuanced view of the conflict, which began with the 2nd regime change operation in Ukraine, then lead to Crimean referendum and the separate uprising in Donbas, which was carried out by local and non state-actors and were caused by internal Ukrainian problems.

Yet the polls resulted in the majority, which supports the referendum result and does not even require a nuanced understanding of how referendum went (ie how different ethnic groups participated in it). And as we have seen in Kosovo, etc, the referendum does not have to be legal within the country, due to the duality of the international legal system. Not that this stops the West from applying double standards when it suits them.

Well, what I have said is true, would you like me to present evidence towards the points I have made.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

If german Bavaria wanted to become a part of Austria, held a referndum without allowance of Berlin and then even voted 90 percent to leave, this means nothing.

It would mean EVERYTHING. You imply that a syndicate of any sort has the right to subjugate people to its rulership and that the so owned subjects have no right not wanting to be governed by it. But that is a violation of two of the three essential human rights. Its also a fallback into the formal reality of the darkest medieval, and ancient times.


Any law, or constituion, that rejects a local, regional population the right to freely decide whether it wants to continue a partnership or not, is invalid in itslf, by itself.

Becasue if people living in a reigon cannot voluntarily deicde ton it,, but get forced to stay in, they are beign woned then, and de facto are seen as the other'S property.

We call that slave owning.

If -bavaria thus would vote in a referendum to leave the federal republic system, then other federal states - namely those who get passively subsidized by Bavaria so far - have no claim for the bavarians that they are not allowed to leave. Any according law and constitutional paragraph must be seen as invalid in itself and as a violation of human rights.

Partnership, alliances, must be voluntarily. Where they are not, it is about conquest, dictatorship, and subjugation. Every partnership, every alliance in principle can be cancelled, no matter whether any rule or treaty say that cancellation is explcitly ruled out. Such a regulation is just the self-justification of the supressor, the slave owner.

Thats what nationalists and career potlicians f today and the eU do not understand, becasue it psut the very fundament fotheir powers and priviliges into question. It would make potlicians fear the people and force them to follow the demands of the people. But i insist on that givenrments must be afraid of the people, and must see themseves as the servants of the people, not the people being servants to the government. People'S interest go first. Parties' interests should not just go last, but should not even exist, for parties themselves should not even exist. Becasuewhere thexy exist, they do so at the explicit cost of putting their interests above that of the people.


No man and no poeple lives for the sake of another man or another people, and no man and no people has any right to demand that other men or other people live for the sake of the first. Its not just about humand rights, most profound basic human rights, about freedom - but also dignity.

[ikalugin]

Interesting military video.