Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Unless there are UN Resolutions placed against Iran and its terrorism sponsoring programs worldwide against Israel (Hezbollah) , then we can never be in any position to go against Israel.

You can't expect to issue UN Resolutions against Israel, whilst letting Iran off the hook and that is the dilemma you face.

Yes, International diplomacy is unfair and perhaps some of you should try looking at things from Israel's position.

there will NEVER be a peace process either or a 2 State Solution with any organisation such as Hamaz and Hezbollah. That should be abundantly VERY clear to you all.

You can bitch and wine all you like, but any Resolution will ALWAYS be blocked unless everyone starts getting serious.

You can't have it both ways and start poking sticks at Israel whilst Hamaz and Hezbollah surround them and continuously attack the State of Israel all the time.

[Paphitis]

In answer to the proposition that Russia's annexation of the Crimean province was illegal under international law (as frequently used by RH authoritively in defence of their activities in Syria)

https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region
Sixty-eighth General Assembly

Plenary

80th Meeting (AM)

100 Votes in Favour, 11 against, 58 Abstentions for Text on Ukraine

The Legal Position wrt International LaW:
https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroo ... ellum.aspx

"Russia’s claims in support of the Crimea annexation have taken various twists over the past six weeks, yet regardless of which claims Russia adopts, its position lacks justification under international law."

The Russian/Ukraine Friendship Treaty (1997)

"Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation — an agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E ... hip_Treaty

RH's response "You posted something that ‘clearly showed’ nothing. You made a statement without foundation."

Frankly, I regard that as a load of desperate bollox.

I put it to members that RH's position is as a result of his obsessive anti-western attitude, in that absolutely anyone in the World perceived as against them simply has to be right. There is only one criteria in order to gain his support - hatred of the West (principally the USA).

I submit that the UN + the legal position (as stated) plus the contents of the Russian/Ukraine Friendship Treaty of 1997 clearly show, to anybody with an objective view, that the events which occurred and the current situation contravene International Law.

The same law frequently used by RH to support Russia's activities in Syria. Hypocrisy.

Yes good post.

Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreement and has effectively invaded a sovereign State of the UN and changed its borders.

It is without doubt in violation of International law hence why the USA and EU will not lift sanctions against Russia until it withdraws from Crimea, only keeping its mandated base areas in accordance with other international Treaties.

that is what everyone is upset about and why the call into question the UN's legitimacy. little do they know, it is the USA, UK and Australia which are the most cynical about the UN and would love for it to even be dismantled.

The UN isn't an organisation under our thumb. We sometimes win some and we sometimes lose some, even in blatant disregard to International law and the UN Charter itself which means that the UN is in urgent need of reform otherwise it is an ineffective organ of International Diplomacy which forces us to act unilaterally.

Yes you have hit the nail on the head. Robin Hood's position lacks any foundation upon International law. His position is motivated by anti West hysteria.

He would adopt any position against the West irrespective of International law and irrespective of who is right. In the case of Ukraine, it is abundantly clear that Russia has violated International law and the nations of the UN have condemned Russia's actions resoundingly. Over 100 countries have voted against Russia's actions, including both Greece and Cyprus. That is because the law is very clear.

but of course, Robin Hood and get Real will have you think that the UN is corrupt and that somehow the corrupt USA got Greece and Cyprus to vote a particular way as well. NO! They voted against Russia because Russia is WRONG!

And it's reward -----> SANCTIONS from TRUMP with love and his deepest respect to Pootin.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

USA, UK, Australia are among the biggest financial and material backers of the UN. There is no doubt about it. The EU countries are as well.

I am afraid Australia does not even feature in the top 10 Countries that contribute.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-countries-contributing-to-the-united-nations.html

But the UN is a Eurovision Song Contest. Countries vote in blocks.

...... and the biggest block is the US/NATO/Western alliance.

USA, Australia and UK vote in accordance with International law and many times have been hit hard by vetoes in blatant disregard to International law. things like Syria where Russia and China veto us all the time. The South China Sea which is a clear violation of the UNCLOS is another example

.
They vote as a block to suit their common interests, just like any other block. International Law does not come into it.

The US has used the veto more than any other nation since the demise of the USSR and the vast majority of those have been to protect Israel against charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The good thing is this. We do not need any permission from the UN to act. Indonesia and Australia have now put together a Naval Task Force which will be sent to exercise Freedom of passage Rights and dispute China's claims.

BINGO! There you go .... you put it in a nut shell! It doesn’t work because there are those Nations that believe they and thus their allies, are ‘exceptional and indispensable’ and will do just what they want to do, when they want to do it and where they want to do it .....whether it contravenes International Law or not, is irrelevant!

the only possible exclusion someone may bring up is Israel.

Israel IS very much a rogue nation, in many ways, but with the US backing them they come under the ‘exceptional’ umbrella. Israel has nukes ..... the US and its allies ignore the fact ..... North Korea has nukes and the whole World panics! Israel may have up to 400 nuclear weapons, Nth Korea ..... half a dozen and barely the capability to launch them effectively.

USA will always vote in favour of Israel, and when it didn't Australia did in defiance of the USA since America went the other way. Musical chairs only. UK threatened it would do so, but didn't. I bet, if Australia goes the other way, UK will vote for Israel. seems like collusion. Very smart collusion.

The Capital City of the US ...... is Tel Aviv! Yes of course ..... they form the ‘exceptional’ nations block and that includes Israel.

WHY? Because we are disgusted at the unfair demonization of Israel. We are disgusted that a number of countries do not recognize their existence. We are also disgusted that if you travel to Israel, you are excluded from traveling to a number of other countries if you have the Israeli Stamp in your passport.

So, Israel is being demonised ....... you are suggesting the member States of the UN are telling lies and making accusations without evidence? You mean like your accusations against Russia and Syria?

So other countries apply what the US and most Arab countries do with Iranian Stamps? You are now prevented from entering the US and Canada with an Iranian stamp on your passport?

We also do not recognize or acknowledge Hamaz and Hezbollah. we also acknowledge Iran's persistence in funding International Terrorist Activities through its militias globally.

Of course you don’t ..... just like you don’t recognise the rights of the Palestinians or Syrians. Of course the US and its allies don’t fund terrorism then ...... they just use the term ‘moderate terrorist’ to differentiate the good terrorists from the bad terrorists..... but unfortunately they admit they can’t tell the difference?

Yes, we too are against the settlements and have made that abundantly clear to Israel but we support Israel's right to defend itself against international Iranian terrorism and we also acknowledge that it is impossible for new peace talks to take place with any other authority other than the PLO.

You may be against Israeli settlements but I see no threats from the US or the UN to impose sanctions if they do not comply or any other punishment for ignoring International Law and the Geneva Convention. Because the US will veto it!

Explain Iranian international terrorism .......... surely the Worlds biggest promoter and funder of terrorism is the USA.

So as you can all see, it isn't a one sided argument here.

True ..... but you do tend to see just one side of the argument ..... yours!

[Paphitis]

Once again...all hysterical mambo jumbo and opinion.

here are all the Security council official statements and UN Resolutions pertaining to Ukraine and the letter of International law.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un ... s/ukraine/

Particularly this UN Resolution on Ukraine's territorial integrity passed by the UN GA.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/at ... 68_262.pdf

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

17 FEBRUARY 2015S/RES/2202 This was a resolution that endorsed the “Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” signed on 12 February 2015.

I assume this is what you wanted me to read? I have .... but I am damn sure you didn’t!

This is where I have problems with your biased posts. The signatories are Putin, Poroshenko, Holland and Merkel. It is only when you reach Para 10 that you could say Russia had a vague commitment but by the same context, so does Poroshenko! Why single out Putin ....... why not Hollande or Merkel, they were both signatories to the same agreement.

When you read the requirements of the Minsk Agreement and you then take the trouble to get some facts about what is going on on-the-ground, it becomes very evident that ALL the breaches of this agreement are being committed by Poroshenko’s forces! The rebels are defensive, they are not attempting to everthrow an elected leader, even though the one they voted for got chased out of the country and they were given no chance to vote for this one. Russia is no more involved in Ukraine than US/Coalition forces are involved in Syria.

Poroshenko is supposed to remove all heavy weapons to leave a 50km corridor between the Ukraine forces and the rebel armies of Donetz and Luhansk. Has he done that NO .... as most newsreels show. He is pouring tanks and artillery into the Donetz region and has stepped up attacks on the city killing many civilians . But do we hear any condemnation from you staunch Western supporters of International Law ? No ...... only Russia has complained to the UN about the stepped up and systematic destruction of civilian targets and the deaths of the civilian population by Ukraine forces. The UN reaction was what it always is .......... let’s have a meeting!!!!!

I suggest you read my reply to LR ....... I explain why and how I reach my conclusions.

Had there been no pre-planned regime change by the US, there would have been no Maidan armed uprising, if that had not happened there would have been no coup, if there had been no coup there would have been no fascist unelected government, thus no threat to Eastern Ukraine or Crimean autonomy, If that threat had not emerged Russian troops would have stayed in barracks in Sevastopol, there would have been no need for a referendum as everybody up until then accepted the status quo of an Autonomous Crimea.

So, no so called breach of International Law would have occurred, although I am still trying to find the International Law the Russians are supposed to have broken.

So OK, who kicked this all off? Russia? Don’t think so! Their reaction was just that, a reaction to events that were a threat to their national security. Tell me the US or the Australians would react any differently in the same or similar circumstances! How about going back to the start line then? Same old culprit it has always been since the end of WWII.

[Robin Hood]

Self determination shows some benefits for Crimea whilst Ukraine slowly falls a part.

Crimea sees budget revenues double in just 3 years after reunification with Russia

The head of Russia’s Crimean Republic, Sergey Aksyonov, has revealed that the Republic’s revenue figures have nearly doubled those which were being earned by the peninsula during the best days under Ukraine’s rule.

“I want to underline, that even in the best of times with Ukraine, Crimea’s budget stood at roughly 22 billion rubles. So in just 3 years [since reunification with Russia], despite all the blockades and sanctions [from Ukraine and the West], and despite the difficult transition period, Crimea has achieved revenue figures that nearly double those under Ukraine, and that’s without the inclusion of federal aid.”

http://theduran.com/crimea-sees-budget-revenues-double-just-3-years-reunification-russia/

[Londonrake]

Please excuse my temporary absence. I have been on my annual baby bayoneting training course.

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP..............again. Debate seems to have shifted to our neighbouring galaxy.

Russia's intervention in Syria (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is supported by International Law. As often referenced.

Russia's intervention in the Ukraine (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is condemned by International Law.

You simply cannot advocate one and reject the other if you are a supporter of said law, without obviously being a bleedin' hypocrite (Heaven forbid!).

[Robin Hood]

Please excuse my temporary absence. I have been on my annual baby bayoneting training course.

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP..............again. Debate seems to have shifted to our neighbouring galaxy.

No, it is still on Ukraine/Russia and International law.

Russia's intervention in Syria (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is supported by International Law. As often referenced.

Well at least you admit it! So, the circumstances that make Russia's involvement in Syria legal obviously do not apply to the US coalition? Presumably you would then agree that the US coalition is therefore in breach of International Law?

Russia's intervention in the Ukraine (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is condemned by International Law.

I ask again .... exactly what international law has Russia violated? What did they do that contravened International Law? You have never explained.

If you come up with an answer, explain how you conveniently disregard the string of breaches of International Law committed by the US. From planning regime change to recognition of a government installed as a result of a foreign inspired and implemented coup ? Had it not been for the US's illegal activities the trouble in Ukraine would never have started.

You simply cannot advocate one and reject the other if you are a supporter of said law, without obviously being a bleedin' hypocrite (Heaven forbid!).

But that is exactly what you do every time ......... you obviously can't see that ....... you only support international law when it suits you. If the Russians are guilty, then why are the Americans not accused of breaching International Law ? Their breaches are far more clearly identified and defined than those Russia may have committed and yet you ignore them! So why is your view any less hypocritical than mine? At least I try to explain ..... you just make broad statement's.

[Londonrake]

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP..............again. Debate seems to have shifted to our neighbouring galaxy.

Russia's intervention in Syria (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is supported by International Law. As often referenced.

Russia's intervention in the Ukraine (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is condemned by International Law.

You simply cannot advocate one and reject the other if you are a supporter of said law, without obviously being a bleedin' hypocrite (Heaven forbid!).



Absolutely nothing at all to do with anybody else. America, Monglia, Mars.

Dead simple. Is International Law acceptable in both cases - or is it not?

[Paphitis]

Paphitis:

17 FEBRUARY 2015S/RES/2202 This was a resolution that endorsed the “Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” signed on 12 February 2015.

I assume this is what you wanted me to read? I have .... but I am damn sure you didn’t!

This is where I have problems with your biased posts. The signatories are Putin, Poroshenko, Holland and Merkel. It is only when you reach Para 10 that you could say Russia had a vague commitment but by the same context, so does Poroshenko! Why single out Putin ....... why not Hollande or Merkel, they were both signatories to the same agreement.

When you read the requirements of the Minsk Agreement and you then take the trouble to get some facts about what is going on on-the-ground, it becomes very evident that ALL the breaches of this agreement are being committed by Poroshenko’s forces! The rebels are defensive, they are not attempting to everthrow an elected leader, even though the one they voted for got chased out of the country and they were given no chance to vote for this one. Russia is no more involved in Ukraine than US/Coalition forces are involved in Syria.

Poroshenko is supposed to remove all heavy weapons to leave a 50km corridor between the Ukraine forces and the rebel armies of Donetz and Luhansk. Has he done that NO .... as most newsreels show. He is pouring tanks and artillery into the Donetz region and has stepped up attacks on the city killing many civilians . But do we hear any condemnation from you staunch Western supporters of International Law ? No ...... only Russia has complained to the UN about the stepped up and systematic destruction of civilian targets and the deaths of the civilian population by Ukraine forces. The UN reaction was what it always is .......... let’s have a meeting!!!!!

I suggest you read my reply to LR ....... I explain why and how I reach my conclusions.

Had there been no pre-planned regime change by the US, there would have been no Maidan armed uprising, if that had not happened there would have been no coup, if there had been no coup there would have been no fascist unelected government, thus no threat to Eastern Ukraine or Crimean autonomy, If that threat had not emerged Russian troops would have stayed in barracks in Sevastopol, there would have been no need for a referendum as everybody up until then accepted the status quo of an Autonomous Crimea.

So, no so called breach of International Law would have occurred, although I am still trying to find the International Law the Russians are supposed to have broken.

So OK, who kicked this all off? Russia? Don’t think so! Their reaction was just that, a reaction to events that were a threat to their national security. Tell me the US or the Australians would react any differently in the same or similar circumstances! How about going back to the start line then? Same old culprit it has always been since the end of WWII.

yes the Americans and Australians would react differently.

this is what we wouldn't do and have never done in our history.

we have NEVER invaded and permanently sort to alter the boundaries of a Sovereign state.

not even Iraq or Afghanistan.

And, that might one day change with Syria though.

it is pointless comparing Russia to america and Australia. we are NOTHING alike. completely different in the way we think, outlook and in our adherence to international law.

fact is, Russia has violated the minsk agreement and has violated International law.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un ... s/ukraine/

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/at ... 68_262.pdf