Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-cultural-appropriation-artifacts-looted-war/32657653.html

...where have we seen this before.

International Law says that Crimea is part of Russia now and it is no longer under Russian occupation, therefore, the article is not valid.

...what's "theirs".

Lucky for 'us' in Cyprus i suppose that Turkey did not decide to "take back" the whole island (from the British); wiser perhaps than Putin's policy, who tried to take it (Ukraine) all.

...'we' can expect more of the same from Turkey of course if his contemporary in Russia succeeds with their expansionistic notions.

Now you are trying to compare apples to oranges, which Turkey knows the difference, which is why no part of Cyprus has been annexed by Turkey that would make it legal under International law. Part of Cyprus remains illegally occupied by Turkey and nothing else under International law, just like the state of Israel‘s occupation of Palestinian lands which the West supports of such occupation. Where else do you think Turkey got the idea from to occupy part of Cyprus, without getting into her guarantor status in Cyprus? Russia’s legal annexation parts of Ukraine has been under the UN charter of self determination by the peoples of those regions! I know that the collective West does not accept this, only because they want to cherry-pick what they like and what they do not like, whichever suits their best interests!

[Londonrake]

International Law says that Crimea is part of Russia now and it is no longer under Russian occupation, therefore, the article is not valid.

You're attempting to legitimise something which isn't. Arguing, in essence, a fait accompli.

I've posted this link before (a rarity for me) - but, like references to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the silence I think says it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio ... Federation

International Law of course is one of those moveable feasts. If it relates to the invasion of Ukraine, Bashir Assad's butchery of his population (with Russian assistance) and his use of chemical weapons, or perhaps Chinese illegal activities in the South China Sea, then it's a load of hokum. When it suits the agenda it's something to intimidatingly brandish. A bit like the ole UN . Although, even in that place the vote on Russia's invasion came down to 141 against, 5 for, with 35 abstentions. The supporters being those giants of freedom, Belarus (surprise, surprise) Iran, North Korea, China and India (who seem to be having second thoughts). Historically, dictators do tend to stick together.

FWIW:

The Crimea Crisis. An International Law Perspective

https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_ ... ective.pdf

An unreasonably long read I know but the conclusion pretty much says it all.

The idea it's acceptable you can invade a neighbouring country in order to "save" an ethnic minority, hold a plebiscite under your own rules and supervision, then present the overwhelmingly positive result (it always is) as legitimate probably frightens a lot of countries shitless. At the moment I imagine Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia being at the top of the list.

[Kikapu]

International Law says that Crimea is part of Russia now and it is no longer under Russian occupation, therefore, the article is not valid.

You're attempting to legitimise something which isn't. Arguing, in essence, a fait accompli.

I've posted this link before (a rarity for me) - but, like references to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the silence I think says it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio ... Federation

International Law of course is one of those moveable feasts. If it relates to the invasion of Ukraine, Bashir Assad's butchery of his population (with Russian assistance) and his use of chemical weapons, or perhaps Chinese illegal activities in the South China Sea, then it's a load of hokum. When it suits the agenda it's something to intimidatingly brandish. A bit like the ole UN . Although, even in that place the vote on Russia's invasion came down to 141 against, 5 for, with 35 abstentions. The supporters being those giants of freedom, Belarus (surprise, surprise) Iran, North Korea, China and India (who seem to be having second thoughts). Historically, dictators do tend to stick together.

FWIW:

The Crimea Crisis. An International Law Perspective

https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_ ... ective.pdf

An unreasonably long read I know but the conclusion pretty much says it all.

The idea it's acceptable you can invade a neighbouring country in order to "save" an ethnic minority, hold a plebiscite under your own rules and supervision, then present the overwhelmingly positive result (it always is) as legitimate probably frightens a lot of countries shitless. At the moment I imagine Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia being at the top of the list.

For starters, any Tom, Dick and Harry can write their version of law/history in Wikipedia.

To cut a long story short, Turkey annexed Hatay in 1939 from Syria, which set the precedence of “self determination”, and today, Hatay is still a province of Turkey.

The areas Russia has annexed from Ukraine are mainly Russians who had voted to become part of Russia. Two areas which tried to become “independent” with the approval of Ukraine and they were bombed by the Ukrainians. So Russia helped these bombed people to achieve their goals after Ukraine refused to have a peace agreement where they still would have remained part of Ukraine, but autonomous.

[Londonrake]

For starters, any Tom, Dick and Harry can write their version of law/history in Wikipedia.

To cut a long story short, Turkey annexed Hatay in 1939 from Syria, which set the precedence of “self determination”, and today, Hatay is still a province of Turkey.

The areas Russia has annexed from Ukraine are mainly Russians who had voted to become part of Russia. Two areas which tried to become “independent” with the approval of Ukraine and they were bombed by the Ukrainians. So Russia helped these bombed people to achieve their goals after Ukraine refused to have a peace agreement where they still would have remained part of Ukraine, but autonomous.

...........................................................but, like references to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the silence I think says it all.

International Law of course is one of those moveable feasts. If it relates to the invasion of Ukraine, Bashir Assad's butchery of his population (with Russian assistance) and his use of chemical weapons, or perhaps Chinese illegal activities in the South China Sea, then it's a load of hokum. When it suits the agenda it's something to intimidatingly brandish. A bit like the ole UN . Although, even in that place the vote on Russia's invasion came down to 141 against, 5 for, with 35 abstentions. The supporters being those giants of freedom, Belarus (surprise, surprise) Iran, North Korea, China and India (who seem to be having second thoughts). Historically, dictators do tend to stick together.

FWIW:

The Crimea Crisis. An International Law Perspective

https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_ ... ective.pdf

An unreasonably long read I know but the conclusion pretty much says it all.

The idea it's acceptable you can invade a neighbouring country in order to "save" an ethnic minority, hold a plebiscite under your own rules and supervision, then present the overwhelmingly positive result (it always is) as legitimate probably frightens a lot of countries shitless. At the moment I imagine Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia being at the top of the list.

[Kikapu]

For starters, any Tom, Dick and Harry can write their version of law/history in Wikipedia.

To cut a long story short, Turkey annexed Hatay in 1939 from Syria, which set the precedence of “self determination”, and today, Hatay is still a province of Turkey.

The areas Russia has annexed from Ukraine are mainly Russians who had voted to become part of Russia. Two areas which tried to become “independent” with the approval of Ukraine and they were bombed by the Ukrainians. So Russia helped these bombed people to achieve their goals after Ukraine refused to have a peace agreement where they still would have remained part of Ukraine, but autonomous.

...........................................................but, like references to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the silence I think says it all.

International Law of course is one of those moveable feasts. If it relates to the invasion of Ukraine, Bashir Assad's butchery of his population (with Russian assistance) and his use of chemical weapons, or perhaps Chinese illegal activities in the South China Sea, then it's a load of hokum. When it suits the agenda it's something to intimidatingly brandish. A bit like the ole UN . Although, even in that place the vote on Russia's invasion came down to 141 against, 5 for, with 35 abstentions. The supporters being those giants of freedom, Belarus (surprise, surprise) Iran, North Korea, China and India (who seem to be having second thoughts). Historically, dictators do tend to stick together.

FWIW:

The Crimea Crisis. An International Law Perspective

https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_ ... ective.pdf

An unreasonably long read I know but the conclusion pretty much says it all.

The idea it's acceptable you can invade a neighbouring country in order to "save" an ethnic minority, hold a plebiscite under your own rules and supervision, then present the overwhelmingly positive result (it always is) as legitimate probably frightens a lot of countries shitless. At the moment I imagine Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia being at the top of the list.

If Russia did not have the UN‘s legal charter to annex parts of Ukraine after the historical locals of those regions voted to become part of Russia, then what is stopping Turkey in annexing northern part of Cyprus? Turkey has not done that because it does not meet the legal Standard to annex northern part of Cyprus. It’s annexation of Hatay back in 1939 will not be possible today as it will be Illegal the way it was done back then, and yet, Hatay remains with Turkey today.

[Robin Hood]

Londonrake: Wed Nov 01, 2023 9:21 pm

Kikapu wrote: International Law says that Crimea is part of Russia now and it is no longer under Russian occupation, therefore, the article is not valid.

You're attempting to legitimise something which isn't. Arguing, in essence, a fait accompli.

You however are attempting to de-legitimise something legitimate in Intl. Law by referring to a source which leaves out most of the facts and applies a convenient time line. Try looking at the FULL picture for a change!

Crimea’s independence and admission to the Russian Federation of Independent States is legitimate as it was a decision made by The People under the UN definition of Self Determination. This was possible only BECAUSE Crimea was an autonomous State within Ukraine. The reason Russia did not do the same with Luhansk and Donetsk was because the Kyiv regime refused to negotiate and denied them autonomy. Russia had to wait until Kyiv actually attacked the Donbas, to escalate an eight year attempted genocide by Kyiv, to then recognise the LPR and DPR as break-away states and implemented an RTP response.

I've posted this link before (a rarity for me) - but, like references to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the silence I think says it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio ... Federation

International Law of course is one of those moveable feasts. If it relates to the invasion of Ukraine ....'justified in Law' Bashir Assad's butchery of his population (with Russian assistance) .... ‘Proven propaganda’ ....... and his use of chemical weapons,...’Disproved’.... or perhaps Chinese illegal activities in the South China Sea, (... the clue is the CHINA ref) then it's a load of hokum. When it suits the agenda it's something to intimidatingly brandish. A bit like the ole UN . Although, even in that place the vote on Russia's invasion came down to 141 against, 5 for, with 35 abstentions. The supporters being those giants of freedom, Belarus (surprise, surprise) Iran, North Korea, China and India (who seem to be having second thoughts). Historically, dictators do tend to stick together.

FWIW:

The Crimea Crisis. An International Law Perspective

https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_ ... ective.pdf


An unreasonably long read I know but the conclusion pretty much says it all.

The idea it's acceptable you can invade a neighbouring country in order to "save" an ethnic minority, hold a plebiscite under your own rules and supervision, then present the overwhelmingly positive result (it always is) as legitimate probably frightens a lot of countries shitless. At the moment I imagine Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia being at the top of the list.

It was applied in Kosovo for the NATO alliance ...... when they used that excuse to break up the former Yugoslavia. Didn’t that work well?

And with a more pragmatic perspective!

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/world/europe/ukraine-vote-legality/index.html

Whether Crimea is a legitimate and legal independent State or not, depends on whether you support the Kyiv/US/UK view, or the view of the people of Crimea who made the decision to break with Ukraine! Of course we know which argument you favour but should it not be a case of ‘.....let the people speak’?

Remind me again ..... when did Russia actually invade Crimea?

[Kikapu]

Err, I wouldn’t say, “Nobody”, Zelensky!

Paphitis and Jack Devine still does!

77FC8EE8-1532-4475-B3B3-AA4D99C64437.jpeg

[Kikapu]

Why am I not surprised, or even shocked!

4 Nov, 2023 00:14
HomeWorld News

US and UK oppose anti-Nazi resolution at UN

Washington and its allies have voted against the document aimed at combating extremism and intolerance

The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution condemning the glorification of neo-Nazism, racism, and other forms of hatred, despite opposition from many Western countries – including the US, UK, and Canada.

The resolution that condemns “the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-Fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial and national prejudice” was adopted on Friday by a vote of 111-50, with 14 abstentions.

https://www.rt.com/news/586544-un-resol ... zism-west/

[Londonrake]

Err, I wouldn’t say, “Nobody”, Zelensky!

Paphitis and Jack Devine still does!

Time.jpeg

I don't think Russia will be defeated in Ukraine and never have. In fact, for quite a while I was expressing the view Ukraine's fate was probably inevitable, given the numbers involved.

cyprus47975-11830.html#p938592

.

[Kikapu]

Err, I wouldn’t say, “Nobody”, Zelensky!

Paphitis and Jack Devine still does!

Time.jpeg

I don't think Russia will be defeated in Ukraine and never have. In fact, for quite a while I was expressing the view Ukraine's fate was probably inevitable, given the numbers involved.

cyprus47975-11830.html#p938592

.

I did not mean you when I said Jack Devine. I meant the real Jack Devine.

LR, I know your position on the Ukraine/Russia war as to which side will raise the White flag and which side won’t.