COUP IN KYIV?

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Not only was Yanukovych's presidency officially set to be dissolved by an election in May. (As a result of protesters being shot by snipers and beaten up.) Yanukovych signed an EU sponsored agreement that set everything out. He then did a moonlight flit with lots of Ukraine's money.

Just for one it would be nice if you bothered to educate yourself about what was going on before you started spouting gibberish.

Better minds than mine consider the "history" you talk about reflecting missteps by others, ignoring the fact that historically Crimea belonged to Russia. That is really the short version.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Tatar leader: referendum's results 'predetermined'
Crimean Tatar leader Refat Chubarov tells DW why he has called for a boycott of the referendum in Crimea and why he thinks the international community must act.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

... ignoring the fact that historically Crimea belonged to Russia.

In your opinion, Foofie, when does a country/region "historically belong" to some state? What would be the time period, both, when this period started and how long it lasted? Does this apply to other regions/countries as well?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
... ignoring the fact that historically Crimea belonged to Russia.

In your opinion, Foofie, when does a country/region "historically belong" to some state? What would be the time period, both, when this period started and how long it lasted? Does this apply to other regions/countries as well?

You are ignoring my posting, where I said that "better minds than mine" consider Crimea belonging to Russia. I cannot answer your questions. You need to ask better minds that are tv, and have had positions in the U.S. government.

Also, stop bellyaching about what Europe cannot deal with. Europe might not be as powerful as Russia, or at least willing to fight. I enjoy this immensely, since now Europeans understand how it is to be a civilized, law abiding citizen, (aka, "timid Jew"), in a world of belligerant bullies. Enjoy the metamorphosis.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Also, stop bellyaching about what Europe cannot deal with.

Who are you to tell me what I have to do or not to do? Especially on this thread, where you didn't add anything substantially.
Besides that: where have I've bellyaching here?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Wasn't Crimea Turkish before the Russians came along?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
... ignoring the fact that historically Crimea belonged to Russia.

In your opinion, Foofie, when does a country/region "historically belong" to some state?
What would be the time period, both, when this period started and how long it lasted?
Does this apply to other regions/countries as well?

Foofie wrote:

You are ignoring my posting,
where I said that "better minds than mine" consider Crimea belonging to Russia.

I wonder if Russia looks upon the Crimean Peninsula
the same as Argentina saw the Falklands in 1982.

Foofie wrote:

I enjoy this immensely,
since now Europeans understand how it is to be a civilized,
law abiding citizen, (aka, "timid Jew"), in a world of belligerant bullies.

When I was in NY,
I was in the company of many Jews, especially in Mensa,
who were ROBUST in the exercise of their freedom of speech.
Thay were not shy about letting u know their opinions.
I never deemed any of them to be "timid" (except my Jewish girlfriend, Marilyn,
who was shy until she got to know u. Then, she was VOCAL).

I once asked u whether u consider yourself to be timid,
but u did not choose to tell me.

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Better minds than Foofie know such.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I wonder if Russia looks upon the Crimean Peninsula
the same as Argentina saw the Falklands in 1982.

Why? It is and has been a totally different situation. And the history can't be compared either.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Better minds than Foofie know such.

That's not saying much.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

By now, several media have really good collections of maps online, like the BBC (Ukraine maps chart Crimea's troubled past) or National Geographic (300 Years of Embattled Crimea History in 6 Maps).

0 Replies

@Foofie,

How many times have you childishly threatened to use IGNORE. So many of you are such cowards and liars.

There's an easy way for you get what you desire, Foofus; stop posting.

But as long as you keep posting foofies you can expect to be corrected for your appalling ignorance. Your dear mother must be rolling in her grave.

0 Replies

Expectedly , about 93% pro-Russia votes.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Expectedly , about 93% pro-Russia votes.

how is that to be expected when over 40% of the population are Tatars, who have some reason based upon past experience to be leery of Moscow?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Treaties are usually called treaties. There's a reason this little jewel is called a memorandum.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/03/1281753/-The-Budapest-Memorandum-is-not-a-treaty-for-crissake#

And your comment is really uncharacteristically sloppy. A bunch of guys make an agreement. One guy follows through. This is proof of nothing legally.

1 Reply

Budapest Memorandum = promises.
http://www.voanews.com/content/the-budapest-memorandum-and-crimea/1862439.html

1 Reply

@Lash,

I've a different understanding of "memorandum" in international law.
But I certainly might be wrong - it's decades ago that I've studied international law.

1 Reply

It looks like the biggest question now - for observers and the West in particular: Was this vote under undue duress and therefore illegitimate, or

did the Russian Crimeans call on their connection in Russia to save them from irrelevance under an anti-Russian regime, and have the right to vote to secede?

Meanwhile, CNN shows gays leaving Crimea in fear of Putinesque anti-gay policies.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I understand, Walter. None of us can be right all the time.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Well, this memorandum is binding in international law, but that doesn't have any means of enforcement.
However, the Budapest Memorandum follows the Helsinki Final Act and essentially reiterates its provisions. And although this is more a set of principles than a formal treaty, it governs the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which both Russia and Ukraine are members. And that requires signatories to respect the sovereignty of other members; the inviolability of their frontiers; and refrain from "the threat or the use of force" ...

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know