The one where they voted to secede and the multiple elections over the past decade where they voted for political parties that were then banned by the Ukrainian government which is now also refusing to hold constitutionally mandated elections for fear of how they’d vote again.
You didn’t answer my question:
Are you of the opinion that the people in the east want to be part of Ukraine?
I’d say the issue is split between those who want to join and those who want to stay. Your problem is with international law which respects the territorial sovereignty of nations and does not recognize a right of sucession by a group unless their right of internal self determination is compromised. In this case the Ukrainian constitution requires a referendum of all Ukrainian people. Keeping that one mind Here’s a question for you:
Are you of the opinion that the people of chechnia wanted to be a part of Russia? Those guys full on declared independence & had elections in 1991 LMFAO
Since you want to quote laws you should be aware that since parts of the Donbass are occupied by Russia (namely Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts), Ukrainian law does not apply there. The territories, until the referendum was held, fell under UN Occupation Law because it was “actually placed under the authority of the adverse foreign armed forces”(source: https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation).
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. A State’s territory may therefore be partially occupied, in which case the laws and obligations of occupation apply only in the territory that is actually occupied. When a State consents to the presence of foreign troops there is no occupation.
Ukrainian law does not apply to territories under Russian authority.
Lol is that the Kremlin crackpot loop hole?
Step 1 invade a country
Step 2 have a totally legit election
Step 3 annex after a totally not sham referendum
Step 4 borders? What borders? Partial occupation is fine
Step 5 blame Western powers
Rosemary DiCarlo said it best, “Unilateral actions aimed to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the attempted acquisition by force by one State of another State’s territory while claiming to represent the will of the people, cannot be regarded as legal under international law”
Doesn’t matter what you think, I’m using the UN definition which you should lap up like the good liberal dog you are. It’s not even what I think, it’s literally what UN countries have agreed to.
No you’re not, u found 2 paragraphs that kinda say what you want and went from there. Do I need to repeat the steps to the crackpot Kremlin loop hole until you see how silly they sound?
Rosemary Anne DiCarlo (born 1947) is an American diplomat who has served as United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs since May 2018. She previously served as acting United States Ambassador to the United Nations[1] following the resignation of Susan Rice to become the National Security Advisor.
I wonder if the ambassador to the United nations or a tankie on an Internet forum is more educated about UN occupations…
unless their right of internal self determination is compromised
Oh wait what’s that?
Lmao that’s what happened after the Ukrainian nationalists starting arming Nazi militias and banned their political parties you clown.
Banning their political parties and denying them the right to use their own language or practice their own religion or have their own political representation is called denying them their right to internal self determination.
Yeah banning pro Russian parties after Russia invaded them? Kinda a no brainer. + Russia was arming separatists first you chung mungus. I noticed you didn’t answer my question
Are you of the opinion that the people of chechnia wanted to be a part of Russia? Those guys full on declared independence & the independence leader got 90% of the vote
I’m a realist because even though it’s not morally right I understand that on the international stage might makes right. I don’t agree with it but authoritarian countries with strong armies can coerce weaker countries & entities into capitulating (check out findlandization). If you were knowledgeable you’d know that no other countries recognized chechen independence either, perhaps because the ruskies declared the elections illegal the day before they happened… Reminds of another recent situation huh?
It’s okay to feel conflicted those contradictions can allow you to analyze why you held certain beliefs to begin with and is the beginning to a more complex understanding of events.
Im glad you acknowledge that Ukraine and the west does not have a moral leg to stand on but I hope you eventually take the next step and recognize that means the hundreds of thousands of dead and permanently injured Ukrainians and Russians makes this a moral travesty and a crime against humanity.
Recognizing the moral right lies with the separatists but choosing to support the use of military force against them because “fuck Russia” makes you the bad guy.
Lol @ Russia apologists trying to defend Russias invasion and genocide of the Ukrainian people + spouting easily debunkable talking points. Can’t wait until I get you hear to spill the same watered down trash when the ruskies invade Poland for the 8th time this century.
You Redditors just love using this term, but invasion and genocide are not actually synonymous. You can call Putin apathetic to civilian casualties, but that’s not the same as genocide. Of course Ukrainian jingoists love this kind of language because accusing Russia of genocide has been in the playbook for quite a while now
Your problem is with international law which respects the territorial sovereignty of nations and does not recognize a right of sucession by a group unless their right of internal self determination is compromised. In this case the Ukrainian constitution requires a referendum of all Ukrainian people
So when rightists oppose secession because, while they hate the ethnic Russians who want to leave, they don’t want those ethnic Russians taking the land, etc. with them, we should be moved by this motivation and not consider the right of self-determination compromised?
The one where they voted to secede and the multiple elections over the past decade where they voted for political parties that were then banned by the Ukrainian government which is now also refusing to hold constitutionally mandated elections for fear of how they’d vote again.
You didn’t answer my question:
Are you of the opinion that the people in the east want to be part of Ukraine?
I’d say the issue is split between those who want to join and those who want to stay. Your problem is with international law which respects the territorial sovereignty of nations and does not recognize a right of sucession by a group unless their right of internal self determination is compromised. In this case the Ukrainian constitution requires a referendum of all Ukrainian people. Keeping that one mind Here’s a question for you:
Are you of the opinion that the people of chechnia wanted to be a part of Russia? Those guys full on declared independence & had elections in 1991 LMFAO
Since you want to quote laws you should be aware that since parts of the Donbass are occupied by Russia (namely Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts), Ukrainian law does not apply there. The territories, until the referendum was held, fell under UN Occupation Law because it was “actually placed under the authority of the adverse foreign armed forces”(source: https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation).
Ukrainian law does not apply to territories under Russian authority.
Lol is that the Kremlin crackpot loop hole? Step 1 invade a country Step 2 have a totally legit election Step 3 annex after a totally not sham referendum Step 4 borders? What borders? Partial occupation is fine Step 5 blame Western powers
Rosemary DiCarlo said it best, “Unilateral actions aimed to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the attempted acquisition by force by one State of another State’s territory while claiming to represent the will of the people, cannot be regarded as legal under international law”
Doesn’t matter what you think, I’m using the UN definition which you should lap up like the good liberal dog you are. It’s not even what I think, it’s literally what UN countries have agreed to.
No you’re not, u found 2 paragraphs that kinda say what you want and went from there. Do I need to repeat the steps to the crackpot Kremlin loop hole until you see how silly they sound?
Rosemary Anne DiCarlo (born 1947) is an American diplomat who has served as United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs since May 2018. She previously served as acting United States Ambassador to the United Nations[1] following the resignation of Susan Rice to become the National Security Advisor.
I wonder if the ambassador to the United nations or a tankie on an Internet forum is more educated about UN occupations…
Surely a US politician wouldn’t lie to us!
Oh wait what’s that?
Lmao that’s what happened after the Ukrainian nationalists starting arming Nazi militias and banned their political parties you clown.
Banning their political parties and denying them the right to use their own language or practice their own religion or have their own political representation is called denying them their right to internal self determination.
Yeah banning pro Russian parties after Russia invaded them? Kinda a no brainer. + Russia was arming separatists first you chung mungus. I noticed you didn’t answer my question
Are you of the opinion that the people of chechnia wanted to be a part of Russia? Those guys full on declared independence & the independence leader got 90% of the vote
I don’t recognize the result of this referendum 🤓
I hope you meant that ironically lol Neither did the Russian government, they declared it illegal the day before the vote.
You: let’s talk about something else because I’m feeling really fucking stupid right now
I guess you’re saying you fully support Putin’s crackdown on Grozny then right?
Get your deflecting moronic ass out of here and have a think about what you are actually supporting right now and today in Ukraine.
Because you’re not supporting democracy and freedom. Not at all.
I’m a realist because even though it’s not morally right I understand that on the international stage might makes right. I don’t agree with it but authoritarian countries with strong armies can coerce weaker countries & entities into capitulating (check out findlandization). If you were knowledgeable you’d know that no other countries recognized chechen independence either, perhaps because the ruskies declared the elections illegal the day before they happened… Reminds of another recent situation huh? It’s okay to feel conflicted those contradictions can allow you to analyze why you held certain beliefs to begin with and is the beginning to a more complex understanding of events.
Im glad you acknowledge that Ukraine and the west does not have a moral leg to stand on but I hope you eventually take the next step and recognize that means the hundreds of thousands of dead and permanently injured Ukrainians and Russians makes this a moral travesty and a crime against humanity.
Recognizing the moral right lies with the separatists but choosing to support the use of military force against them because “fuck Russia” makes you the bad guy.
Lol @ Russia apologists trying to defend Russias invasion and genocide of the Ukrainian people + spouting easily debunkable talking points. Can’t wait until I get you hear to spill the same watered down trash when the ruskies invade Poland for the 8th time this century.
You Redditors just love using this term, but invasion and genocide are not actually synonymous. You can call Putin apathetic to civilian casualties, but that’s not the same as genocide. Of course Ukrainian jingoists love this kind of language because accusing Russia of genocide has been in the playbook for quite a while now
And an extra
for saying “ruskies”
You mean when the USSR pushed the Nazis out of Poland and liberated Auswitch is that the event you’re talking about?
I wish they’d invade your house. Not your country, just your house specifically.
So when rightists oppose secession because, while they hate the ethnic Russians who want to leave, they don’t want those ethnic Russians taking the land, etc. with them, we should be moved by this motivation and not consider the right of self-determination compromised?