Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?
I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.
Signed in 1992. C'mon now, Russia is even complaining about NATO members refusing flights under it as recently as 2016. The USSR agreed to it before its dissolution and Russia re-signed in 2002.
> The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.
> The 34 State Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Hell Russia is complaining about Turkey not following it as recently as last year:
> Russian Defence Ministry spokesman stated on 4 February 2016 that Turkey had refused a Russian Open Skies mission, planned to take place in 1–5 February 2016, to fly over areas adjacent to Syria, as well as over NATO airbases. According to Russia, Turkey gave no explanation regarding the limitations, and claimed them to indicate illegal military activity in Syrian territory.[8] The OSCC haven't commented on the alleged violation of the Treaty by Turkey.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Argentine_invasi...
Argentina literally invaded the Falkland Islands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_status_refere...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r...
They've also repeatedly voted to remain within the UK by an overwhelming margin. One has to wonder what your agenda is that you'd claim the Falklands is in the same category as Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.
Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond?
I think that is flat out wrong.
I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two incidents are not comparable.
Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.
You mean the referendum, not election? Yeah, "kinda", just enough for some people to be able to say something like this (and even that not with a straight face).
To say there was any "respect for democracy" is a joke. Girkin (leader of the Russian military squad that seized the Crimean Parliament building) later went on record saying that his soldiers basically had to force the parliament members into the building in the middle of the night and make them "vote" for the referendum (you can imagine what would've happened to those who'd refused)[1]
The referendum date itself had been changed several times (if I remember correctly, from 2 months to 1 month to 2 weeks). You can't force an issue like that in 2 weeks and claim "respect for democracy". In fact, both of the questions asked at the referendum meant secession from Ukraine; i.e. it wasn't a simple "yes" or "no", it was essentially "secede immediately" or "do it a bit later". And, even if that hadn't been the case, for anybody to vote against it, they'd have to risk being abducted and killed by the pro-Russian militia[2][3][4]
http://empr.media/news/russian-fsb-colonel-admits-crimean-mp...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/disappeari...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11S2Vhkr-bc
http://en.sobytiya.info/crimean-tatar-activist-kidnapped-in-...
A) No international observers were allowed.
B) Russia President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.
C) Falklands was a UK territory, not invaded, and had free & fair elections with 90% in favor because they were scared of Argentina trying to annex them. Pretty much the opposite situation on all points. But please, go ahead and show evidence I am wrong ;)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p...
So you don't have any evidence and Russia was caught red handed that they lied about the results...and that is your response? LOL. K.
Look, when you get caught lying about the election...yeah, people tend to believe the fact you are lying when it benefits you.
Look, I don't mind agreeing with you that Russia invaded and annexed a part of Ukraine. But what in this situation makes it inherently different from the malvine islands war and annexation? Just the links? Someone could think that your reasoning is unrealiably biased, and get back to the question of Ukraine and Russia and get some doubts if it is really a good reasoning (Russia annexed a past part of itself) or just common sense prejudice against some causes. I could almost say beforehand what is your opinion about Israel and the Palestina state.
The Falkland Islands were British territories in 1982 when Argentina invaded. The Crimea was Ukrainian territory in 2014 when it was Annexed by Russia.
The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries.
> the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands
Most countries would fight a war if their territory was invaded.
Do military bases count?
I am not sure if there are other examples, though.
Because the US is a hero for liberating the Iraqi people.
American here.
Don't get me wrong, it can still be morally and ethically "wrong" in an abstract sense. But most people are concerned with the fearmongering "Oh no, Russian tanks will be rolling down the boulevard in Paris next year unless we ..." is all completely ridiculous. Russia already fought and lost a COIN "Vietnam" against a majority Islamic nation of Afghanistan, once demographic replacement takes hold Russia isn't going to want a piece of France or Germany even if handed to them on a plate, oh no last thing they want is the suburbs of Paris in revolt as usual.
The Russian Bear has been content to be contained in its den, as long as its not poked, for centuries. The odds of the Russians regime changing Mexico and fighting a failing counter insurgency in Mexico on our border for decades is approximately zero, like space aliens landing on the white house lawn is a more realistic concern. There are world wide geopolitical problems, none of which involve the Russians.
As a land empire on the other side of the planet, with people more or less like us, following a religion more or less like ours, and a economic system vaguely similar enough, a space alien would assume the Russians should be our closest ally... and if it were not for unfortunate temporary historical anomalies they almost certainly would be. In an unperturbed system (LOL as if international diplomacy has ever been that) they would be great allies.
So either "contained in its den" means eating up half of Europe (which just isn't good enough) or there's plenty to be wary about.
One occupies and annexes land, the other plays war games and regime change. If you are arguing that there is no difference between the two, do so.
But think about it for just one second. Crimea contains Russia's _only_ warm water port. For the whole country. A country that spans two continents.
Look back on how America treated 'Panama'. America has dozens of warm water ports on both oceans, and it overthrew countries a thousand miles away to secure shipping convenience.
It's inconceivable how long Russia has allowed itself to go without a warm water port. And in the scale of international lawlessness, the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally justifiable 'bad behavior'.
And this isn't even going into the peninsula's tumultuous past. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-y...
Bad, but not relevant. Our misdeeds do not make Russia's misdeeds any better.
> It's inconceivable how long Russia has allowed itself to go without a warm water port
Allowed? You sound like countries have a divine right to warm-water ports, which Russia graciously waived for an extended period.
And what did Russia get? A warm-water port to which they do not have land access. Well, you know what's next. They're going to decide they have a divine right to land access to that port.
> And in the scale of international lawlessness, the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally justifiable 'bad behavior'.
It's bad (immoral/illegal) behavior. It's also behavior that, yes, large nations (including our own) have "justified" in the past. That doesn't make it right; it only makes it somewhat unsurprising.
Stop repeating Russian propaganda.
Before Crimea Russia already had warm water port - Novorossiysk.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-ex...
First of all, if anything the conflict was primarily between Geogria and South Ossetia, Russia only intervened on behalf of South Ossetia. And before the war started, both South Ossetian seperatists and Geogian backed militiamen were accused of ethnic clensing. Georgian villages in South Ossetia were shelled by artillery, while in the northern central parts of Geogria, South Ossetian families were eveicted from their homes and driven out of the country.
It is notable that both war crimes were not comitted by regular forces but by militiamen, where it is not always clear under wich control they stood, or if the state/army has actually given orders.
"EU investigation says Tbilisi launched indiscriminate assault on South Ossetia..with a massive artillery attack"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
The Russian point of view is that they were stopping an ethnic cleansing right on their border, before it could get too far. It's not a crazy point of view, the Georgians were shelling a mostly non-Georgian city. The US is also not a super neutral observer, we were selling them tons of weapons, and the Georgians were pandering pretty hard to us.
It looks like the full EU report is mirrored by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_09_09_iiffmgc_...
No, it's not crazy, it's just pure propaganda. 25% of Georgian Ossetians lived (and continue to live) outside of South Ossetia[1]. Not to mention that the Russians were happy to allow the _real_ ethnic cleansing of Georgians to happen after their invasion[2]. And the Ossetian militia had been shelling Georgian villages before it all happened[3] (most probably, with weapons provided by Russia).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_...
http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_...
This is the Russian argument, if a sovereign country has a majority of ethnic Russians, it's ok to invade that country on their behalf.
As a neutral, do you actually agree with this? It seems crazy.
It's also worth noting that Russia has been playing the long game here- the South Ossetians and Abkhazians aren't ethnically Russian, and no one is claiming they are- but Russia has issued more than 90% of them passports.
I sort of think people are mostly too eager for good guys and bad guys. I really don't think that what happened in Georgia is a straight line towards Russian World Domination.
But it's also used as an excuse for expansionism. The build up to WW2 was Germany doing this exact thing.
But post WWII European history also has a lot of ethnic regrouping. All Germans were put back inside Germany. Borders are drawn to group people. Mixed ethnic nations broke apart into single ethnic countries.
This question is at the heart of the blood bath in twenty century Europe.
[1]- Americans treat ethnicity very differently than most cultures since we have such diverse ethnicities with no little to no cultural heritage leftover. America entirely decouples ethnicity and nationality. So it seems strange that it's such an important force in other countries.
http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War#K...
A poor argument, we can agree.