Comments by "D4RD1V" (@d4rd1v79) on "Hindustan Times"
channel.
-
123
-
70
-
62
-
41
-
27
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Russia is primarily engaging in conflict with Ukraine, which still relies largely on old Soviet-era military equipment, with only a few modern Western systems. A glance at SIPRI data on arms exports from the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy reveals that deliveries to Ukraine constitute only single-digit percentages or just over 10% of the overall arms exports of those countries for the fiscal year.
Furthermore, when examining the Russian public budget, nearly 40% of it is allocated to defense spending. This allocation, rather than showcasing strength, reflects severe weakness and fragility.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
ย @rrmackayย While individual NATO member states may have provided support to Ukraine in various forms, NATO as an organization has not violated the treaty.
Attributing violations of the Minsk accords solely to NATO oversimplifies the complexities of the situation. The conflict in eastern Ukraine primarily involves Ukraine, Russia, and separatist forces, with the Minsk accords focusing on finding a peaceful resolution between these parties. While NATO supports Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, its involvement in the conflict is limited to political and humanitarian support rather than direct military intervention.
Blaming NATO for violations of the Minsk accords detracts from addressing the root causes of the conflict and undermines efforts towards a peaceful resolution. Instead, constructive dialogue and cooperation among the relevant parties, including Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists, are essential for achieving lasting peace in eastern Ukraine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
ย @bingbongrafael5052ย Russia is primarily engaging in conflict with Ukraine, which still relies largely on old Soviet-era military equipment, with only a few modern Western systems. A glance at SIPRI data on arms exports from the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy reveals that deliveries to Ukraine constitute only single-digit percentages or just over 10% of the overall arms exports of those countries for the fiscal year.
Furthermore, when examining the Russian public budget, nearly 40% of it is allocated to defense spending. This allocation, rather than showcasing strength, reflects severe weakness and fragility.
At least you tried. ๐๐ฅฑ
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@user-nc2fn7xt5vย Hey, terrorist organizations typically do not adhere to recognized rules and regulations established by international law or governing bodies. However, they may have their own internal codes of conduct, ideologies, and strategies that guide their actions. These "rules" are often characterized by violence, coercion, and intimidation rather than adherence to legal or ethical standards.
What I meant by my text is that Russia's focus right now is solely, now I mean literally solely on the war. Which makes it easier to commit crimes. It's no secret that the special forces and the police arrived after an hour, even though they have over 200,000 surveillance cameras in Moscow alone. Considering that city has the most police officers per square meter, and a police station around the corner, I find the whole thing very funny.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is true that Crimea has a significant Russian population and historical ties to Russia, but it is important to provide a more nuanced perspective.
Crimea has a complex history involving various rulers and empires. It was indeed conquered by Catherine the Great in the late 18th century and became part of the Russian Empire. However, it also had periods of control by other powers, including the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union.
In 1954, Crimea was transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union by Nikita Khrushchev. This transfer was largely symbolic at the time, as both Russia and Ukraine were part of the larger Soviet state.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Crimea became part of an independent Ukraine. However, tensions between the Russian-speaking population in Crimea and the Ukrainian government have persisted, culminating in the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.
While Crimea is now under de facto Russian control, its status remains disputed internationally, with most countries not recognizing Russia's annexation. Therefore, while Crimea has historical and cultural ties to Russia, its political status is still subject to debate and negotiation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @yoshimitsu1260ย While it's true that Russia has historically prioritized military technologies and possesses self-sufficiency in certain resources, it's essential to consider the broader context. Military power is indeed a multifaceted concept that encompasses technological prowess, economic strength, and strategic capabilities. While Russia may excel in certain areas, it's important to recognize that modern warfare increasingly relies on a combination of conventional, cyber, and informational warfare, where economic strength and technological innovation play crucial roles. Additionally, while Russia may not seek global hegemony like the US, its actions in various regions demonstrate ambitions for influence and power projection. Therefore, dismissing the significance of economic indicators and overlooking the interconnectedness of military power with economic stability and technological advancement might oversimplify the assessment of a country's military capabilities.
2
-
ย @yoshimitsu1260ย While I appreciate your perspective, there are several points I'd like to address in your argument.
Firstly, while it's true that great powers historically seek influence and power projection, it's important to distinguish between legitimate security concerns and aggressive expansionism. While the United States certainly pursues its interests globally, it often does so through diplomatic channels, economic aid, and multilateral agreements rather than solely relying on military threats. Sanctions and military deployments are sometimes necessary tools in maintaining stability and deterring aggression, but they are not the only methods employed.
Secondly, characterizing Russia's actions as solely defensive is a simplification. While it's true that Russia prioritizes its security interests, its actions in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria have raised concerns about its willingness to challenge the international order and undermine the sovereignty of other nations. Cooperation in international relations requires respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, something that Russia's actions have sometimes undermined.
Additionally, while efficiency and cost-effectiveness are important factors in military capabilities, they are not the only ones. The technological sophistication, training, logistical capabilities, and strategic objectives of a military force also play crucial roles. While Russia may have strengths in certain areas, it's essential to consider the broader context of military power and the ability to project force effectively over long distances and in complex environments.
Lastly, it's important not to downplay the significance of economic strength in assessing a nation's overall power. Economic power underpins military capabilities, technological innovation, and diplomatic influence. While Russia may have made significant strides in modernizing its military, its economy still faces challenges and constraints that limit its ability to sustain long-term military engagements or compete globally in the same way as the United States or China.
In conclusion, while Russia certainly possesses formidable military capabilities and plays a significant role in international affairs, it's essential to approach assessments of power and influence with nuance and a consideration of multiple factors beyond just military hardware and historical narratives.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @Mangobite9689ย Classic, WHaT aBOUt AMeRaIcA? Focus instead on Russia.
Preventing and acting during the act are two different subjects.
When an attack has already occurred, it is indeed often easier to manage a situation where special forces can intervene on the ground, as in the case of the Moscow terrorist attack, compared to an attack involving hijacked airplanes, like the 9/11 attacks.
When an attack occurs on the ground, special forces, police, or military can react more directly and intervene to neutralize the threat. On the other hand, when it comes to hijacked airplanes, there are limited options for immediate response. The planes move quickly and can be difficult to stop before they reach their targets.
Then we can also ignore that FSB offices are nearby.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @JudgeBread.ย While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
ย @JudgeBread.ย While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
ย @JudgeBread.ย While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
ย @JudgeBread.ย While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
2
-
ย @JudgeBread.ย While it remains a topic of debate regarding the specifics of NATO's role and the extent of its direct involvement in the conflict, it is crucial to distinguish between NATO's actions and the agreements outlined in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, NATO's actions and policies, which may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, are separate from the agreements established between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other involved parties in the Minsk process. The primary focus of the Minsk agreements is to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing key issues such as ceasefire implementation, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and fostering political dialogue.
Secondly, when considering the characterization of the actors involved in the conflict, it is important to acknowledge the complexity of the situation. While some may argue for the term "rebels" over "separatists," understanding the motivations and goals of the various groups is crucial. While certain factions may aspire to achieve greater autonomy or economic independence within Ukraine, their actions, such as the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Moreover, while advocating for political and economic freedoms within Ukraine is a valid objective, the methods utilized by certain groups to pursue these goals, such as engaging in armed conflict and infringing upon Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to achieve these objectives does not justify the means employed, particularly when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
USA warns about possible ISIS-K attacks
RU-claims to be superpower, to have best intelligence, army, etc
RU - putin ignores warning, says bad amerika wants us to be afraid, there are no dangers
RU - has Moscow rigged with cameras and arrests civilians for any protest
also RU - fully armed terrorists arrive at mass gathering, kill everyone on sight, set fire, leave in 30-40 mins without ANYONE interrupting them except poor unarmed security of building, who are killed
ISIS - we did it, we hate christians.
RU - IT wAs UkRoNaziJeWBanDeraAnglOsAXsaTanisTs
ISIS - yes, it was us, here are pics
RU - AMERIKA IZ BAD. why did not they prevent attack on us?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @loumcastย While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
ย @loumcastย While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
The question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
The US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
While the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
ย @loumcastย While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
ย @loumcastย While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
ย @loumcastย While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @MohNaz-ly6yxย It is quite shocking that you are not telling the truth. ๐ฅฑ
According to past data, the largest oil producers in the world include the USA, China, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has contributed approximately 12-13%, the USA around 11-12%, and Russia about 11-12% of the total global oil production. However, it's important to note that these figures can vary over time due to factors such as production trends, political changes, and technological advancements.
Approximately 30-35% of the world's oil production comes from countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar.
It's about nurturing positive relationships, a skill that Putin lacks. This is evident from the country's low GDP per capita and the notably high corruption index (CPI). Additionally, it's no secret why Russia is involved in Ukraine: there's a fear of losing the EU market. If Ukraine were to join the EU, it could effortlessly supply the entire EU with gasโa prospect that instills fear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @NisarulHaque-j3mย Hey, terrorist organizations typically do not adhere to recognized rules and regulations established by international law or governing bodies. However, they may have their own internal codes of conduct, ideologies, and strategies that guide their actions. These "rules" are often characterized by violence, coercion, and intimidation rather than adherence to legal or ethical standards.
What I meant by my text is that Russia's focus right now is solely, now I mean literally solely on the war. Which makes it easier to commit crimes. It's no secret that the special forces and the police arrived after an hour, even though they have over 200,000 surveillance cameras in Moscow alone. Considering that city has the most police officers per square meter, and a police station around the corner, I find the whole thing very funny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @JudgeBread.ย While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @loumcastย While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1