Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Russia's Lawsuit Against Ukraine Explained: Battle of the Former Soviets - TLDR News" video.

@christopherg2347 VICE literally has a piece out on the Azov Battalion and the surprising amount of Neo Nazis from the US that it's been attracting for the last 7 years-- and the Ukrainian Armed Forces turning a blind eye to the issue, and admitting many into official service. It's not always Kool Aid. Sometimes a spade is a spade. Not to mention, whatever you morally think of the coup, it was illegal. No provisions exist in Ukraine's Constitution for such an action. And he was legally voted in-- the fact that the Western Ukrainians changed their minds halfway through, doesn't mean they can destabilize their own country because they don't agree over economic issue.
6
@xway2 Russia really didn't have any room to negotiate in the 1990s. Are you forgetting the political and economic situation at the time?
6
@CedarHunt I don't think that a state-to-state conflict in necessary (or the only acceptable precedent) to establish a no-fly zone, though. Though the argument doesn't matter, since the missile was clearly supplied by Russia. Personally I think their 3rd argument is strongest- they want Crimea to return to Ukraine, win over the hearts and minds of the citizens occupied by Russia... by starving their water supply? That seems oddly similar to the American mindset used to justify the embargo of other countries. Punish the citizens' lives so much that they revolt against the government. It's never worked before, so I think its just pretty retaliation onto an innocent party on Ukraine's part.
5
@jakehandley3366 That's... most large countries. I don't see anyone advocating for splitting up China (except maybe hardline Americans), or the US, or Canada. What's your point? Either you apply the standard to all countries that fit the criteria (since your gripe with Russia is that it's a colonial empire), or you apply it to none, and stop singling out Russia specifically. This is the issue many Russians have with Western commentators. They'll go soft on the history of Northern Ireland and Basque, but scream that Chechnya NEEDS to be independent. Lying by omission.
4
@aline_04 Nice job moving the goalposts. I said, invaded. The answer I was looking for is "no, they haven't, I'm sorry for lying." The Syrian group you're referring to was in direct opposition to the government of Syria. And (if legality doesn't concern you) its stability- though I'm sure a Westerner would love nothing more than to create yet another Iraq or Libya. Speaking of, what the fuck is wrong with you? The "internationally recognized" (code for Anglosphere and Europe) government is heavily Islamist and has very problematic anti-human-rights views-- something a group so opposed to Russia should be more consistent on. Though it's obvious why they support them. Keep Russia and China from having any influence, only we're allowed to do that Naftar, on the other hand, (supported by Russia, France, and the UAE among others) is secularist. I'll take his government to the one controlling only Tripoli any day. It's a better ideological foundation than the African Saudi Arabia you're all so excited to invest in.
4
@aline_04 When the fuck has Russia invaded Syria or Libya? Are you sure you're not referring to France or the US?
3
@michaeldunham3385 That sounds like you don't know how to prove that I'm wrong. Because you know that I'm correct. Yeltsin wasnt even elected, he was made President of Russia under USSR, and they're not democratic right? So why should we accept the treaty signed by someone that Russia didn't even elect?
3
@Myrut The fault here is in "I". Someone loosely affiliated with me, robs your house, yet you blame me directly. Should Ukraine be held responsible for what the Azov battalion has done? If not, then Russia can't be, either. If so, then there is another court case.
3
@EliEli-vf4yy Yes, and? 1) They're returning now 2) There was a risk of them defecting, as some Ukrainians (notably Bandera) and Finland's fucking President at the time (Pres. Ryti) had done. They might've thought the Nazis would help collapse Russia but weren't aware of the Generalplan Ost that would wipe them out, too. It was for the best at the time, cruel as it was.
2
@olegperkopskiy2282 Sorry, overthrow. Not much better.
1
@michaeldunham3385 What exactly was I distracting from? I answered his question directly. Crimea has, since 1783, been a crucial part of Russia's naval defense. It was only given to Ukraine in 1954, and then confirmed in 1994... by a President (Yeltsin) who wasn't elected to his 1st term. Russian people did not choose him or want him to affirm Crimea to be a part of Ukraine. What's so hard to understand here?
1
@xway2 Reaffirmed in 1994... by a President who was appointed Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of Russia during the USSR. Whose re-election campaign was illegally helped by President Clinton. Right. The Russians, had Yeltsin campaigned on permanently losing access to Crimea, wouldn't have voted him in.
1
@xway2 No, you're not understanding the point here. The presumed terms of the agreement- the Budapest Memorandum- were that 1) Russia and Ukraine are separate countries that respect not only territorial sovereignty, but democracy in general. 2) That all issues arising from their common, un-democratic past have been resolved and both, diplomatically, are operating on blank slates. Neither was true. Crimea was un-democratically transferred to Ukraine by Soviet decree, it was never democratically rectified. Nor were they given a chance to self-determine under the new system. So, when the right of Crimea to self-determine is denied (2014- no int'l recognition), on the grounds that they had already self-determined beforehand (1994), we have an issue. Unless, the argument is "it belongs to Ukraine now, get over it", in which we would, as you mentioned, throw all precepts of democracy out the window. I think 230+ years of political and cultural connection to a place, in spite of its undemocratic origin, is enough to warrant allowing the people to return to the country in question, if they wish.
1
@michaeldunham3385 Ffs. His comment said "Crimea isn't a part of Russia's core, since they lost it" I replied with "Russia would have kept it, but the 90s were very chaotic and Russia couldn't easily negotiate" Where exactly is the whataboutism? After that, you started commenting. So point out exactly where I went off topic. Please. And yes, I'm aware. Yeltsin was elected. From Supreme Soviet of Russia to President of Russia. What a massive change. Russia's political culture wasn't developed enough for anyone else to win. It wasn't even close. And Clinton interfered in his re-election. So you're right, he didn't have Russians' best interests at heart. And that's what my problem is. Sorry, that is how it works. America supports Israel's 2,000 year claim. Next to that, Russia's is solid. If they're doing it, why should we abide by a law that nobody else does? Why the double standard?
1
@michaeldunham3385 "They couldn't force Ukraine to relinquish Crimea" No, that's not what I said. Negotiate. Both parties, did, in fact, do that, but Russia's terms were certainly tempered given their recent economics and political collapse. That was also true of Ukraine, but one had simply lost more than the other. I suppose that's true, but I don't do it to distract. I bring up other examples because I want to judge acceptable precedence-- are we really willing to stick by principles which, if actually enforced, would bring enormous shifts to the global political order? Disadvantage some parties and enrich others? In most cases I think not, because almost everyone has vested interests. And working on a case-by-case basis generally brings better results. If you were talking about other threads, you need to specify. I can't read your mind and can't address things unless you express them. To the Basque and N. Ireland point, I have the same (above) reasoning. As for Yeltsin, I wasn't lying, but I did miscommunicate. And that's my mistake, I'm sorry. When I say "he wasn't elected", I'm referring to the fact that he had all the hard work (of name recognition, policy) done for him, as a former leader of the RSFSR. I didn't mention that it was Yeltsin who advocated for the creation of the office of the Presidency, and the 1st election happened within the USSR. His candidacy was built on the fact that he was appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation. So, while he legitimately campaigned, it's a lot like saying JFK got elected because of his hard work from the bottom-up. And I made the distinction-- the Russian (but not Soviet) media certainly helped him along in the 1st election, though I wouldn't consider it rigged. Clinton did, however, interfere in Yeltsin's 2nd election. He said, "I want this guy to win so bad." He sent in political staffers from DC every week to boost his then-abysmal approval numbers. ~$16M in total spent on his campaign-- advisors, marketers, ads, posters, groundwork, etc. So, in sum: 1st election, technically legitimate; 2nd, not. Got it?
1
@MrOnion-js1ls I'm pretty sure Russia offered Kaliningrad back in the 1990s, but West Gernany declined. And has reaffirmed the position to this day. And the vast majority of Finns don't want Karelia back-- it's a region that's been thoroughly Russified, and the inhabitants of Karelia were evacuated and re-settled into Finland after the Soviet annexation. More trouble than it's worth, at this point.
1
Well, part of the issue is that the legitimacy of secession has been recognized by Western countries, in spite of illegality (for instance Spain's Barcelona and Basque region) so a treaty or memorandum isn't legally the end of the question of national borders. At least, not by most countries' definition.
1