• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nearly half of Russians ignorant of 1968's Czechoslovakia invasion – poll

It's not Russia which engages in WW2 revisionism such that communism is equated with Nazism.

It's not Russia which has virtually expunged the memory of WW2 from history and collective remembrance.

It's not Russia which has engaged in xenophobic Russia hatred whilst simultaneously co-opting Germany into the club of so called 'civilised nations'.
Click to expand...
Why not go the whole hog?

Like:

It's not Russia who effectively turned the whole of Eastern Europe into a prison.

It's not Russia which has kept the memory of WWII alive by showing the extent by which the victor's spoils could be cemented in dictatorial government.

It's not Russia that has caused herself to be seen with disdain by attempting any ruse to prevent Germany from entering the club of civilized nations (and in the case of GDR succeeding for 40 years).

Sure, all of that will be seen as pretty daft but WTH, no dafter than what is being offered here in the halls of trollery today.
 
Westphalian said:
Interesting photos Rogue ...... thanks for posting.


Some exaggeration is obvious in the narrative - photo 15 for example does not show 'thousands' of protestors.

As the US knows from its egregious errors in Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign invaders are rarely welcomed for long. Which of course explains why Crimea was not an invasion but a liberation - the approval of the Russian 'invasion' by the overwhelmingly Russian population tells a story all of its own.

I'm no apologist for the Soviet Union or Russia. Both made / make mistakes. The Soviets were too slow and inflexible to recognise that some political reform was to be welcomed. Prague 1968 should have been handled better.
Click to expand...

Time to Whataboutism mentioning America?

Third paragraph.
 
Westphalian said:
Which of course explains why Crimea was not an invasion but a liberation.....
Click to expand...

When the USSR was dissolved, the Russian Federation (RF) and Ukraine began consultations on the Black Sea Fleet (BSF) partition and basing. This resulted in the 'Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet' (Соглашение между Российской Федерацией и Украиной о статусе и условиях пребывания Черноморского флота Российской Федерации на территории Украины). The RF agrees to strict limits on Russian troops/sailors stationed in Crimea and movement restrictions. The RF agrees to pay Ukraine $526 million as compensation because the RF desired 82% of the BSF. The RF also agrees to pay Ukraine $97 million per year to lease the BSF base at Sevastopol. This treaty was valid for a period of 20 years. In 2010 the 'Kharkiv Pact' (Угода між Україною і Російською Федерацією про статус та умови перебування Чорноморського флоту Російської Федерації на території України) was signed, and the lease for the RF BSF base at Sevastopol was extended to 2042 and in addition to the leasing payment ($97 million per annum), Russia agrees to provide Ukraine with steep natural gas discounts until 2042.

If one rightfully owns something, then it would be irrational and senseless to forward someone else lease payments.

Ergo, to lease the BSF base at Sevastopol, Crimea; the RF paid $97 million per year, and steep natural gas discounts, to the rightful owner of both Sevastopol and Crimea, Ukraine.

Соглашение между Российской Федерацией и Украиной о статусе и условиях пребывания Черноморского флота Российской Федерации на территории Украины

Угода між Україною і Російською Федерацією про статус та умови перебування Чорноморського флоту Російської Федерації на території України
 
Thanks Rogue, but I don't think we need a history lesson about the sanctity of treaties from an American, although clearly you're so imbued with a sense of 'exceptionalism' that you are shocked and appalled that more than one state in the world can do this sort of thing ;)


Russia repealed the Partition Treaty in March 2014 following the coup against the democratic government.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I'm struggling with comparison between USSR >> Czech and USA >> Grenada, particularly when our main concern was a few hundred medical students being turned into a copycat of the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Click to expand...

Since you raise Iran, most of the US probably thinks our history with Iran started the day they took hostages.

Certainly, that's more relevant today than Grenada.
 
WillyPete said:
Since you raise Iran, most of the US probably thinks our history with Iran started the day they took hostages.

Certainly, that's more relevant today than Grenada.
Click to expand...

Our history with Iran goes way further back than 1979, and so do our troubles.
 
Where one can debate whether history lessons by some Americans are really needed, that one needs nothing of the sort from any Kremlin propagandists is beyond dispute.

In the first case one could put down the invalidity to ignorance, where it prevails. In the latter, however, any such attempt of educating on history generally consists of a bunch of lies.
 
Westphalian said:
Thanks Rogue, but I don't think we need a history lesson....
Click to expand...

Quite obviously, YOU do need history lessons.

Especially concerning documents the USSR, and the Russian Federation have signed.

Simply because Moscow chooses to violate and breach its contractual responsibilities does not mean those responsibilities are any less viable and legal.
 
Westphalian said:
Russia repealed the Partition Treaty in March 2014 following the coup against the democratic government.
Click to expand...

What you actually mean is Russia unilaterally abrogated the treaties it signed with Ukraine in 1997 and 2010 concerning the Black Sea Fleet.

Unilateral abrogation is an illegal nullification. Gazprom is discovering - via arbitration courts - what happens when a legal obligation is unilaterally abrogated.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Quite obviously, YOU do need history lessons.....~
Click to expand...
I actually don't think THAT.

What is needed is tuition on how to falsify history more intelligently than we get to see so far. So that at least the desired double-take of the reader sets in, however briefly.

While in this case that doesn't have a chance on account of the peals of laughter that drown everything else out. :lol:
 
Rogue Valley said:
What you actually mean is Russia unilaterally abrogated the treaties it signed with Ukraine in 1997 and 2010 concerning the Black Sea Fleet.

Unilateral abrogation is an illegal nullification. Gazprom is discovering - via arbitration courts - what happens when a legal obligation is unilaterally abrogated.
Click to expand...
But----------but==============but

Whataboutism alert

The Iran nuclear deal.

Mossadegh

Eve having offered that damn pomegranate

;)
 
Rogue Valley said:
Quite obviously, YOU do need history lessons.

Especially concerning documents the USSR, and the Russian Federation have signed.

Simply because Moscow chooses to violate and breach its contractual responsibilities does not mean those responsibilities are any less viable and legal.
Click to expand...



:shock:

Total nonsense Rogue, and you know it.

Is the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty still in operation? If so, the US is acting illegally.

Of course, if a state withdraws from a bi-lateral agreement, as the US regularly does, then that agreement is both practically and legally dead.

And here's the shocking news for you ..... that applies not just when the US does it but also when other states do it too ;)
 
I said that Russia repealed the BSF Agreements - that is factually correct.

It's not me who is trying to pretend that this is in fact impossible and that the agreement is therefore 'legally viable'. Clearly it's neither viable nor enforceable - that is the absolute blinding truth which the propagandists on here would do well to acknowledge.
 
Westphalian said:
Total nonsense Rogue, and you know it. Is the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty still in operation? If so, the US is acting illegally.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism. This is the Europe Forum. Try again.
 
Westphalian said:
I said that Russia repealed the BSF Agreements - that is factually correct.
Click to expand...

Unilaterally repealing a treaty does not nullify a treaty. If that were so, all treaties would be meaningless scraps of paper from their inception.

It's obvious you've never been in a courtroom in which one party abrogated a contract.

The treaties Russia abrogated regarding Crimea are in the courts now as are the punitive damages.

The Gazprom compensation award is nothing compared to what is looming on the horizon.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Nearly half of Russians ignorant of 1968's Czechoslovakia invasion – poll

KIT518816_1968tankfo00126043.jpg




No wonder a certain Russian here is terrible at History.

Related: Prague Spring
Click to expand...

hmmmm lets see the Invasion of Czechoslovakia was by the Soviet Union and not Russia the then leader of the soviet Union was Ukrainian born Leonid Brezhnev in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast
 
Westphalian said:
I said that Russia repealed the BSF Agreements - that is factually correct.

It's not me who is trying to pretend that this is in fact impossible and that the agreement is therefore 'legally viable'. Clearly it's neither viable nor enforceable - that is the absolute blinding truth which the propagandists on here would do well to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

How does one side legally unilaterally "repeal" an agreement between two entities?
 
Fledermaus said:
How does one side legally unilaterally "repeal" an agreement between two entities?
Click to expand...

Well, since you ask, and as I mentioned yesterday, there is a direct precedent set by the US withdrawal from the bi-lateral ABM Treaty.

Funnily enough, the California Law Journal published a long and detailed justification for this in the context of whether the President could unilaterally execute the withsdrawal. I quote an extract from the Conclusion.

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=californialawreview


It is a mistake to think of these disputes as governed by law in the same way that federal statutes govern disputes between private parties. Instead, a large number of treaties, especially arms control and politico-military agreements, do not create any legally-enforceable rights for individuals, but rather regulate the international relations between two or more nation states.
As such, they represent political arrangements, not domestic law
 
Godric1970 said:
hmmmm lets see the Invasion of Czechoslovakia was by the Soviet Union and not Russia the then leader of the soviet Union was Ukrainian born Leonid Brezhnev in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast
Click to expand...
.........and that makes the invasion of Czechoslovakia a Ukrainian rather than a Russian affair?

Give over seannachie, by that logic Nazi Germany made a pact with Georgia.
 
Westphalian said:
Well, since you ask, and as I mentioned yesterday, there is a direct precedent set by the US withdrawal from the bi-lateral ABM Treaty.

Funnily enough, the California Law Journal published a long and detailed justification for this in the context of whether the President could unilaterally execute the withsdrawal. I quote an extract from the Conclusion.

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=californialawreview


It is a mistake to think of these disputes as governed by law in the same way that federal statutes govern disputes between private parties. Instead, a large number of treaties, especially arms control and politico-military agreements, do not create any legally-enforceable rights for individuals, but rather regulate the international relations between two or more nation states.
As such, they represent political arrangements, not domestic law
Click to expand...

Tu Quoque...

Got it.
 
Regarding the ABM Treaty mentioned in the usual attempt of obfuscation from our Kremlin propagandist, one needs to know that it held a withdrawal clause from the getgo, allowing withdrawal of either side if 6 months notice was given.

If the BSF Treaty contained any such withdrawal clause, I'd appreciate somebody pointing to it.

Of course it doesn't matter much. Like with the Hitler-Stalin (Molotov-Ribbentrop) non aggression pact, the paper becomes worthless when one of the thugs resorts to violence, absence of any clause defining terms of abrogation be damned.
 
No international agreement is binding forever. Sovereign states can never be bound in perpetuity.

So I'm at a loss to explain the faux angst about Russia's withdrawal from the BSF agreement, particularly when it comes from a continent whose leading state is unilaterally tearing up agreements like confetti.

Rank hypocrisy.
 
deflection to whataboutsim noted, non-address of withdrawal clauses also noted.

Good to know though that any international treaty should henceforth be considered as arse-wipe. We can keep that in mind if Russia ever wants one in the future.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Unilaterally repealing a treaty does not nullify a treaty. If that were so, all treaties would be meaningless scraps of paper from their inception.

It's obvious you've never been in a courtroom in which one party abrogated a contract.

The treaties Russia abrogated regarding Crimea are in the courts now as are the punitive damages.

The Gazprom compensation award is nothing compared to what is looming on the horizon.
Click to expand...
Can't even tell the truth when summoning up his whataboutism.

As outlined in post #46
Chagos said:
Regarding the ABM Treaty mentioned in the usual attempt of obfuscation from our Kremlin propagandist, one needs to know that it held a withdrawal clause from the getgo, allowing withdrawal of either side if 6 months notice was given.

If the BSF Treaty contained any such withdrawal clause, I'd appreciate somebody pointing to it.

Of course it doesn't matter much. Like with the Hitler-Stalin (Molotov-Ribbentrop) non aggression pact, the paper becomes worthless when one of the thugs resorts to violence, absence of any clause defining terms of abrogation be damned.
Click to expand...
 
Rogue - you're conflating commercial treaties and inter-state treaties. They're totally different.


But, not content with that mindless conflation, you then completely ignore the fact that the US is currently withdrawing from international agreements and treaties at a record rate.


The Russophobic agenda here is so obvious that I feel embarrassed for you and Chagos - the chief advocates of this preposterous line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom