Polson
22 May 2014 #961
That's the accepted version and given Russia's proven use of stooges, plus the troops on the border, it's accepted for a reason. Who would benefit? Russia.
That's the common accepted version in Western major medias.
I'm not sure Russia benefited a lot of all the troubles. Their diplomatic (and maybe soon economic) relations suffered a lot from that mess. The EU showed how weak and ununited it is. Ukraine, well, disaster, on every aspect. The only country who's fine is the US. And soon we will have a pro-US/EU government in Kiev (I mean after the elections) and i'm afraid Ukraine will turn into another Greece. But much worse.
The 'referendum' was a complete farce and, as even Russian officials now admit, was rigged to point of worthlessness. Oh, and it was also illegal. So no, officially the people did not decide.
A complete farce to you. Opinions differ, again. As I said, there's propaganda on both sides, how can YOU know who is right and who is wrong? Let's be honest.
The coup in Kiev was also illegal, for many people, but you seem to be fine with it.
Yawn. That territory was annexed 38 years ago. [...] If your lie was true, you'd be able to produce many more recent examples than a single example from two generations ago.
38 years ago, so it doesn't count? You asked for annexations since 1946.
During that same Six-Day War, Israel also annexed East-Jerusalem.
I was also thinking of Israeli settlements. Frowned upon by the UN, but generally supported by the US.
And talking about the US, do you want a list of American interactions in foreign countries? I would spend the night making that list. No annexation here, but it makes no difference, since those countries (there are many in Central and South America) were forced to become Uncle Sam's puppets.
Mayotte voted twice in legitimate and lawful referendums to remain under French rule.
Comoros and the UN would disagree with that statement.
Your ignorance of the memorandum in no way lessens the commitments which Russia gave in it and now completely ignores.
I'm just not sure about the legal value of such a document.
Anyway, most world powers don't really care about laws. Again, not excusing, just observing.
Feel free to attack those sources too, given that you were, are and will be unable to attack the accuracy of the reporting.
It's the same news, same source, in three different medias. The AlJazeera article was written by...a Ukrainian journalist obviously. Hmm. The Washington Post's article is refering directly to the Forbes' article you first gave me. The Bloomberg's article was written by a journalist who obviously holds the same political views ('free-market perspective') as Mr Paul Roderick Gregory from Forbes.
I'm not sure you understand my point. I'm not pro-Putin. I just don't wanna buy any propaganda.
As Crow said, we (Western world) started playing that geopolitical game. How can we dare give others' lessons now for doing what we do?
Obama criticized Russia (well, Putin) for violating international law. Seriously?