Comments by "Markus Müller" (@markusmuller6173) on "Lavrov on 'Anglo-Saxon' US wanting 'beneficial' war, EU sanctions and Russia's military task" video.

@johnli6782 It is enough to reflect the statements of the foreign minister alone to recognize that Russia by its published logic is the dominant and sustained warmonger in all actions that go beyond the Donbass and Luhansk regions.
3
The sole existence of (long-range) weapons is by no means a legitimation under current international law for intervening militarily in another country. The invasion of the Donbass and Luhansk regions has publicly been justified by the fact that this was at their request, in order to support their desire for more independent self-determination, already documented in writing by a referendum. According to the information available to me so far, an equivalent referendum in the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and a number of other areas has so far neither been desired nor carried out by the majority of the population. This means that these newly attacked regions are undoubtedly and unrestrictedly part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Or has the information about corresponding referendums in Western propaganda so far only been suppressed? The sole declaration of independence by a few people from a region cannot replace a transparently conducted referendum. Summarizing, following Lavrov's "logic" for a moment, what other country should have the legitimacy to invade Russia just because feeling threatened by Russia and because Russia has long-range weapons ?!?
2
@johnli6782 I am happy for everyone who has recognized that in Ukraine for a long time disparate parties have been fighting each other not only verbaly. So I called for referendums to be held, to evaluate how much self-determined independence and how much affinity to previous main countries the different regions want to have.
2
The sole existence of (long-range) weapons is by no means a legitimation under current international law for intervening militarily in another country. The invasion of the Donbass and Luhansk regions has publicly been justified by the fact that this was at their request, in order to support their desire for more independent self-determination, already documented in writing by a referendum. According to the information available to me so far, an equivalent referendum in the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and a number of other areas has so far neither been desired nor carried out by the majority of the population. This means that these newly attacked regions are undoubtedly and unrestrictedly part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Or has the information about corresponding referendums in Western propaganda so far only been suppressed? The sole declaration of independence by a few people from a region cannot replace a transparently conducted referendum. Summarizing, following Lavrov's "logic" for a moment, what other country should have the legitimacy to invade Russia just because feeling threatened by Russia and because Russia has long-range weapons ?!?
2
The sole existence of (long-range) weapons is by no means a legitimation under current international law for intervening militarily in another country. The invasion of the Donbass and Luhansk regions has publicly been justified by the fact that this was at their request, in order to support their desire for more independent self-determination, already documented in writing by a referendum. According to the information available to me so far, an equivalent referendum in the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and a number of other areas has so far neither been desired nor carried out by the majority of the population. This means that these newly attacked regions are undoubtedly and unrestrictedly part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Or has the information about corresponding referendums in Western propaganda so far only been suppressed? The sole declaration of independence by a few people from a region cannot replace a transparently conducted referendum. Summarizing, following Lavrov's "logic" for a moment, what other country should have the legitimacy to invade Russia just because feeling threatened by Russia and because Russia has long-range weapons ?!?
2
The sole existence of (long-range) weapons is by no means a legitimation under current international law for intervening militarily in another country. The invasion of the Donbass and Luhansk regions has publicly been justified by the fact that this was at their request, in order to support their desire for more independent self-determination, already documented in writing by a referendum. According to the information available to me so far, an equivalent referendum in the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and a number of other areas has so far neither been desired nor carried out by the majority of the population. This means that these newly attacked regions are undoubtedly and unrestrictedly part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Or has the information about corresponding referendums in Western propaganda so far only been suppressed? The sole declaration of independence by a few people from a region cannot replace a transparently conducted referendum. Summarizing, following Lavrov's "logic" for a moment, what other country should have the legitimacy to invade Russia just because feeling threatened by Russia and because Russia has long-range weapons ?!?
2
@nebsta7446 That's another topic. This video clip is about military (and mercenaries) in Ukraine.
2
@Bishop46066 I am still interested in to content of the old referendum of 2014 and the official outcome. Would be great if someone could guide me to a government internet page, where the respective info has been published.
2
@GrandmasterFU666 Please name me a reference regarding the content of the referendum in Donbass and Luhansk region. Western media gave me the impression that the vast majority of people living there wanted more sovereign independence from Ukraine on their territory. And it was said that Russia had invaded Donbass and Luhansk to enforce and guarantee this demand for more self-determined independence from Ukraine. What important information hasn't reached me yet? Please keep in mind that we probably don't use the same word definition when we talk about regions, territories and countries... So a little more detailed explanation might be needed to avoid misunderstandings. Feel free to include your reference of your word definitions as well.
1
@johnli6782 Not at all. - It is currently "pacified" by Russia.
1
@johnli6782 I don't recognize too much benefit in replying to the content of your comment (addressed directly to me about 10 minutes ago) if it isn't visible to all panelists. This type of communication was already tested in the context of the somewhat old-fashioned GDR Stasi ... and ultimately led to rather disappointing results, right?
1
@johnli6782 Isn't it revealing who feels compelled to send out an appeal instead of asking politely and offering something interesting? Since we both have already communicated with "FokU!", you are welcome to provide information on the interest I have already mentioned ...
1
@johnli6782 Well, not exactly what I'm interested in... Of course, I am aware that the horizon of many people takes into account only what is happening within a small group of people, such as a family clan or the population of a village or former sisters in arms. But the self-determined independence that I have in mind and about which I have spoken concerns the entire society of a region with identical or very similar history, culture, language and basic value system, which must also be checked by a test in the context of the referendum according to (yet to be agreed) international law for intended separations. I have not yet begun to talk about the legislation of that society that defines then the self-determined limits and goals through (at least partially) independent (legal) sovereignty. Just think about EU and UK, or former USSR and Russia, or Germany and Bayern, or Morocco and Western Sahara ... you name it. PS: I still didn't receive any internet link regarding the content of the referendum in Donbass and Luhansk region, of which I am most interested in according to my previous comments.
1
@johnli6782 From the very beginning I speak of the independent (legal souvereign) self-determination of a regional society. This is neither identical to the majority principle nor directly comparable to the self-determination of an individual!
1
@johnli6782 Jiang Zemin said: "Young people, too simple, sometimes naive" For example, how is the degree of self-determination of Bavarian society to be described within the legal framework of the EU, German federal laws and Bavarian state laws?!? And what happens when the Franks insist on more legal independence? The same as in Western Sahara or Donbass? I have this in mind... Splitting a person so that they continue to function seems much more difficult to me than splitting up a former nation, as happened with India and Pakistan or the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
1
@johnli6782 Whoever has read (once more) my previous commts knows what I am interested in: - an internet link regarding the content of the referendum in Donbass and Luhansk region - individual word definitions to prevent misunderstandings ... and let me add Yugoslavia: Was it a Nation or not ?!? ... History is full of bloody examples because of the lack of a sensible way to handle such an issue so far.
1
@johnli6782 I fully understand that not everyone is willing or able to participate in the topic I am speaking about. So let's take your word definition: Was Serbia in Yugoslavia already a nation within a nation, or what made it a nation after the war?!? And what about the classification for Pakistan, Bangladesh and India before and after the split?
1
@johnli6782 I have stuck to the subjects that interest me most and pointed them out again and again. Feel free to recapitulate the conversation.
1
@AugustusOmega I don't recognize too much benefit in replying to the content of your comment (addressed directly to me about 15 minutes ago) if it isn't visible to all panelists. This type of communication was already tested in the context of the somewhat old-fashioned GDR Stasi ... and ultimately led to rather disappointing results, right?
1
@youame6739 I don't recognize too much benefit in replying to the content of your comment (addressed directly to me about one hour ago) if it isn't visible to all panelists. This type of communication was already tested in the context of the somewhat old-fashioned GDR Stasi ... and ultimately led to rather disappointing results, right?
1