Why Russia has no reason or right to complain about NATOs expansion.

[A.P. Richelieu]

@LeGenD You do not want a list of Nato and Allied invasions posted here.

You can start by trying to argue against the legality of the Afghanistan War here:

Why Afghanistan lost its neutrality in the War on Terror September 19, 1998

You are sick slave lota who was born in embarrassment, lives in humiliation and leaves the world Again be original...just mirroring what I say. You are the refection nawaz shreef, zardari and evrry gandoo general general out there. You will serve America at the expense of Pakistan. I called...

defence.pk

And the 2003 Iraq invasion here:

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[107th Congress Public Law 243] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [DOCID: f:publ243.107] AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution To authorize the use of...

defence.pk

As everyone knows, the Libyan action in 2011 was based on a UNSC resolution after which Your list of invasions grows rather thin.

Also ussr hasn't run genocides unlike Anglosaxons and Turks (Nato) and Israels attempt today.

Syria's action was against an illegal invasion. Shilling for west isn't necessary on this site. The rest of the internet is already full of western propaganda.

The Syrian insurgency started as part of the Arab Spring in 2011 when the illegal regime of Assad (which grabbed power in a coup) responded to the demonstrators for democracy with murder.

The primary insurgent organisation was the al-Nusra which got their funding and weapons from KSA and the Gulf States.

The United States ignored this for three years until defectors from the Syrian Army, disgusted with slaughter, formed the Free Syrian Army which appeared to be the first sign of organized democratic opposition. They begged for weapons against the Syrian tanks, and then - after three years, the US finally got involved supplying weapons and later training. The training was a failure, producing few troops and many defected or traded their weapons, causing the United States to abandon this activity.

With the emergence of the Daesh, sometimes attacking the West, the UNSC issued a resolution calling for all members to destroy ISIS wherever they are. That is how the United States legally entered Syria. Since Turkey did very little against the Daesh, and had undercover deals buying oil, the United States allied with the Kurds.

That is how the United States/NATO legally ended up fighting a legal war of self-defense in Syria.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

DeNazification needs no justification and that is sufficient Suo Motto for action.

You are welcome to show proof that the Nazi parties have any significant influence with 1% or less votes in any election in Ukraine,

You are also welcome to show the legal basis of your opinion.

 

[Haldorss]

I can't take you seriously Indian Swede. You have to cease nominating Nato enemies as illegal and allies as legal. It's immature and pathetic. You make Sweden and Nato lose credibility

The syrian protesters were armed and shot Syrian officials. Again you lie.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I can't take you seriously Indian Swede. You have to cease nominating Nato enemies as illegal and allies as legal. It's immature and pathetic. You make Sweden and Nato lose credibility

Yes, you want everyone to ignore the crimes of those You support.
The West is well aware of what is legal and what is not legal, and use lawyers to develop a legal approach to intervention.
Russia and people in their service just burst out that things are legal or illegal without coherent arguments and are usually wrong - like You.

The syrian protesters were armed and shot Syrian officials. Again you lie.

Which is twisting history. The Assad regime started the violence, and that prepared the ground for the insurgency,

You then avoid trying to defend Your claim of illegal Western invasions with arguments.

 

[Haldorss]

Yes, you want everyone to ignore the crimes of those You support.
The West is well aware of what is legal and what is not legal, and use lawyers to develop a legal approach to intervention.

Nato Lawyers are as biased as you. It's absurd to suggest they are objective.

Russia and people in their service just burst out that things are legal or illegal without coherent arguments and are usually wrong - like You.

I've proven otherwise several times that it's the opposite. For example, on the use of the term revolution with a considerable article going into the intricacies of why it was one in Ukraine, and on the UN law from 1974 about interstate compensation for nationalization. Whereas all you comment about are a couple of lines that are also inconsistent. In one case you referred to the Cuban attack as a "legal war" in another you say it's not a war.

The Assad regime started the violence, and that prepared the ground for the insurgency,

No as I said the protesters shot at syrian officials and killed several before they were dealt with.

You then avoid trying to defend Your claim of illegal Western invasions with arguments.

The lists of western actions are available elsewhere. Iraq Libya Syria and Afghanistan are all recent illegal ones. The latter because Afghanistan wanted evidence and a legal process which was ignored. To destroy a country because of one individual who authorities wanted a proper extradition process is obscene war crime


You know you are projecting. It is you who "burst out" about Nato enemies being legal or illegal arbitrarily. You also do not accept overwhelming information you are told. It can't be unintentional.

Another example is your op. I found a passage to contradict the idea there was no promise of security by Nato (go back and check). You said it was not the actual agreement. So why did you post it in the op? Because you wanted other parts of the text to persuade anyone reading it. Also, the goal of the agreement is context for interpretation, so it does matter.

All these and your dishonest lack of memory make it annoying to deal with you. It's a higher burden to be technical in destroying you than you blurting out random lines such as Cuba being legal war then saying later it wasn't a war etc. Easy to do. You can't dismiss when you are caught either and move on and pretend there was no loss. I'm not a janitor to clean your posts everywhere.

 

[khansaheeb]

You are welcome to show proof that the Nazi parties have any significant influence with 1% or less votes in any election in Ukraine,

You are also welcome to show the legal basis of your opinion.

I am just an innocent spectator , I have no interest in war or the atrocities committed by man on man , my posts are without prejudice and meant to stir thought and counter arguments. Here is one "allegation":-

WAR PROPAGANDA: Zelensky is tied to the Nazi

An investigation of the German media proves that Volodymyr Zelensky is tied to Ukrainian Nazi, with the West’s tacit blessing, Russian government media writes, quoting a false narrative published by a German far-left publication closely tied to the Russian media.

www.veridica.ro

 

[Viet]

There is nothing in international law that gives Russia such rights.

Russians still have the mindset of old age. They want to have own sphere of influence. They want to be seen as great power. The problem is nobody wants to join Russia accept some sorts of Cuba, North Korea, rough states in Africa, Latin America. And China. The countries joining the NATO have bad memories on Russia. They want western security and prosperity not Russia’s poverty and gulags.

Putin can build a military alliance with those rough states. Why complain.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Nato Lawyers are as biased as you. It's absurd to suggest they are objective.

They know their stuff

I've proven otherwise several times that it's the opposite. For example, on the use of the term revolution with a considerable article going into the intricacies of why it was one in Ukraine,

The article says that the use is controversial.
You have not shown that the ”revolution” resulted in anything more than Yanukovich being out of play for more than three months.
Everything else happened as a result of votes in the parliament.

Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Russia is worse, but any things happening there must be seen in that light. The EU has a program to improve Ukraine here, and Russia wants to block that.

and on the UN law from 1974 about interstate compensation for nationalization. Whereas all you comment about are a couple of lines that are also inconsistent.

I have shown that compensation has been both paid and expected before that law. If you want, treat it as

Customary law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In one case you referred to the Cuban attack as a "legal war" in another you say it's not a war.

Cubans have a legal right to go to war against Castro and they went to war.
The United States have a Casus Belli, but did not go to war.

No as I said the protesters shot at syrian officials and killed several before they were dealt with.

Yes, and that is not how historians would describe it.
It started with demonstrations, security forces arresting demonstrators, who later turned up dead. That is when armed resistance started.

The lists of western actions are available elsewhere. Iraq Libya Syria and Afghanistan are all recent illegal ones. The latter because Afghanistan wanted evidence and a legal process which was ignored. To destroy a country because of one individual who authorities wanted a proper extradition process is obscene war crime

You are wrong, and the threads contains enough information to prove it.
Afghanistan could legally be attacked from 1998 and onwards.
Those threads are where the discussion belongs.

You know you are projecting. It is you who "burst out" about Nato enemies being legal or illegal arbitrarily. You also do not accept overwhelming information you are told. It can't be unintentional.

You have not produced overwhelming information.
You do try better than many charlatans in this thread, I’ll give you that.

Another example is your op. I found a passage to contradict the idea there was no promise of security by Nato (go back and check). You said it was not the actual agreement. So why did you post it in the op? Because you wanted other parts of the text to persuade anyone reading it. Also, the goal of the agreement is context for interpretation, so it does matter.

The passage says that there was a goal to negotiate things in another agreement.

All these and your dishonest lack of memory make it annoying to deal with you. It's a higher burden to be technical in destroying you than you blurting out random lines such as Cuba being legal war then saying later it wasn't a war etc. Easy to do. You can't dismiss when you are caught either and move on and pretend there was no loss. I'm not a janitor to clean your posts everywhere.

You utterly fail to convince.

 

[Haldorss]

The article says that the use is controversial.
You have not shown that the ”revolution” resulted in anything more than Yanukovich being out of play for more than three months.

You need to read the article not scan it for a single word and pretend it supports your point. Resorting to such methods discredits you again (for the dozenth time)

I have shown that compensation has been both paid and expected before that law. If you want, treat it as

That's voluntary arrangements or under threat, not law as you originally asserted. I already said this to you.

Cubans have a legal right to go to war against Castro and they went to war.
The United States have a Casus Belli, but did not go to war.

No according to you, the constitution of Cuba is ratified and is now legal. I shouldn't have to inform you of your own argument.

How does it matter if you say usa went to war or not? Soldiers were deployed illegally at one point and the action is a war action. Funding terrorists inside a country to depose it's government is a war action. It is militant.

You are wrong, and the threads contains enough information to prove it.
Those threads are where the discussion belongs.

No I'm not wrong. Your ignorance of facts about protesters shooting to kill syrian officials does not make you right.

You have not produced overwhelming information.
You do try better than many charlatans in this thread, I’ll give you that.

Yes it is overwhelming. All mainstream mass media called it a revlution including essays discussing it at length is overwhelming. You know that you are the charlatan.

The passage says that there was a goal to negotiate things in another agreement.

No the passage says the security of both sides must be considered and ensured.

The member States of NATO and Russia proceed on the basis that adaptation of the CFE Treaty should help to ensure equal security for all States Parties irrespective of their membership of a politico-military alliance, both to preserve and strengthen stability and continue to prevent any destabilizing increase of forces in various regions of Europe and in Europe as a whole.

You utterly fail to convince.

You are a troll.

 

[jhungary]

First of all, every country should have their independent diplomacy toward any country, that's a given, that's what Sovereignty means. If you disagree with that, then you have a crooked way to look at countries and international boundary.

Russia have had its chances to pull Ukraine closer to them, NATO or no NATO, Ukraine themselves is walking away from Russia. That is the issue Russia had, not whether or not Ukraine want to join NATO, and if you believe NATO encroaching Russia order is the issue Russia had, then attacking Ukraine and gain another NATO border and maybe 2 more (even be 3) member somewhere would either be the stupidest diplomacy work I have EVER, like, EVER seen, because the Russian failed to see this act would pull other countries into NATO or it's not a matter for Russia at all from the beginning

And finally, it's going to be a moot point anyway, beside Russia economy is in ruin and losing all national prestige and have to resort to seeking help from Iran and North Korea the like, I mean if everything is okay in Russia, Putin wouldn't be cosying up with Iran and North Korea. If Russia had won the war, then yes, we can talk about whether or not Russia have any right to complain about NATO expansion, because they could still do something, in this case, Russia got stuck in this war and frankly it ceased to be a matter at international stage, even if Russia have a point of view, the world could largely ignore that because Russia ceased to become a creditable force when they got blogged down in Ukraine, I mean what can Russia do if another splinter nation in Central Asia or Eastern European want to split from Russia and join the west, judging from this war, other than using those nuke the Russian had plenty of, they can do absolutely nothing......

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You need to read the article not scan it for a single word and pretend it supports your point. Resorting to such methods discredits you again (for the dozenth time)

An article is simply an opinion. An opinion that do not share.

That's voluntary arrangements or under threat, not law as you originally asserted. I already said this to you.

”Customary Law” is still law. There may be other laws.

No according to you, the constitution of Cuba is ratified and is now legal. I shouldn't have to inform you of your own argument.

There was a constitution on Cuba which Castro (and Batista) violated.
That made it legal to resist Castro.
A country becomes legal when all concerned parties accept the legality.
The US became legal when all states and the UK accepted its legality.

Cuba may have created a new constitution, but it has never been accepted by the US, until perhaps when Obama tried to normalize relations.

How does it matter if you say usa went to war or not? Soldiers were deployed illegally at one point and the action is a war action. Funding terrorists inside a country to depose it's government is a war action. It is militant.

Cubans have the right to oppose an illegal takeover by Castro through war.
Soldiers act within the laws of war, and are by definition not terrorists as long as they meet the requirement of being in uniform, carrying weapons openly and acting within a chain of command.
The US are not neutral, they are acting as allies, but they are non-belligerent.
That is OK, since the Cubans are fighting a legal war.
The Bay of Pigs action happened when the 1940 constitution was in force.
Cuba updated their constitution in 1976, long after the Bay of Pigs.

No I'm not wrong. Your ignorance of facts about protesters shooting to kill syrian officials does not make you right.

The threads are about Afghanistan and Iraq. You obviously did not read them.

Yes it is overwhelming. All mainstream mass media called it a revlution including essays discussing it at length is overwhelming. You know that you are the charlatan.

And yet, the ”revolution” had none of the characteristics of a revolution except that Yanukovich did not fulfil his role as President for three months.

No the passage says the security of both sides must be considered and ensured.

And NATO membership does not threaten the security of anyone,

Not being a member of NATO significantly jeopardizes the security of all neighbours of Russia. Neighbouring countries being a member of NATO does not jeopardize the security of NATO.
The Founding Act explicitly allows all countries to decide on their security measures.
If NATO moved an invasion force close to the border of Russia they could rightly perceive that as a threat.
NATO did not do that, and only kept token forces in Eastern countries. Only when Russia invaded Ukraine dud NATO somewhat increase their forces.

You are a troll.

 

[Haldorss]

An article is simply an opinion. An opinion that do not share.

No it is not. You have vacuous statements that have nothing behind them to justify, just a couple of lazy sentences. 10 year olds can do the same as that. The article however has research and arguments behind it which you have not cleared. Dismissing it only shows you're not genuine about it and have contempt. The threat itself caused the elected leader to flee. That is a success.

”Customary Law” is still law. There may be other laws.

It wasn't a custom it was a decision.

There was a constitution on Cuba which Castro (and Batista) violated.
That made it legal to resist Castro.

So the prior government was illegal, which makes Castro's revolution legal by your argument

A country becomes legal when all concerned parties accept the legality.
The US became legal when all states and the UK accepted its legality.

Your comment about ratifying the US constitution in all states applies to your comment about Cubans having the right to revolt. Cubans do not according to your own statements about usa states.

Cubans have the right to oppose an illegal takeover by Castro through war.

No they don't. As you stated Batista's regime was illegal.

Soldiers act within the laws of war, and are by definition not terrorists as long as they meet the requirement of being in uniform, carrying weapons openly and acting within a chain of command.

No they don't act within the rules of law. Most conficts Nato has engaged in prove this, especially usa. They are terrorists as state terrorism is a valid concept. Western legal novelties don't apply to the real world.

The US are not neutral, they are acting as allies, but they are non-belligerent.

obviously wrong.

The Bay of Pigs action happened when the 1940 constitution was in force.

No the war was not legal. Batistas regime was illegal as you said yourself when he violated the constitution.

Cuba updated their constitution in 1976, long after the Bay of Pigs.

Castro was ruling by decree. Do you want an explanation of what that is and it's legal history?

And yet, the ”revolution” had none of the characteristics of a revolution except that Yanukovich did not fulfil his role as President for three months.

Read the article linked.

And NATO membership does not threaten the security of anyone,

Of course it does.

Not being a member of NATO significantly jeopardizes the security of all neighbours of Russia.

You can't have a double standard. It's cringeworthy to watch you try.

Neighbouring countries being a member of NATO does not jeopardize the security of NATO.

Yes it does.

The Founding Act explicitly allows all countries to decide on their security measures.
If NATO moved an invasion force close to the border of Russia they could rightly perceive that as a threat.

This isn't a computer game lol. Is that where you get this? Attacks can be launched and initiated without an invasion force.

NATO did not do that, and only kept token forces in Eastern countries.

It had military exercises on the borders. Also dangerous biolabs that are threats.

 

[Haldorss]

If you want to attack Russia, lying or being obnoxious is the wrong way to do it.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

No it is not. You have vacuous statements that have nothing behind them to justify, just a couple of lazy sentences. 10 year olds can do the same as that. The article however has research and arguments behind it which you have not cleared. Dismissing it only shows you're not genuine about it and have contempt. The threat itself caused the elected leader to flee. That is a success.

The result of the flight only affected Yanukovich status until the next election, which happened three months after the flight. The impeachment procedure could have removed him in a much shorter time.

That is all the effect of the ”revolution”.

It wasn't a custom it was a decision.

You obviously do not understand Customary Law.

So the prior government was illegal, which makes Castro's revolution legal by your argument

It is legal for Castro to overthrow Batista.
It is illegal for Castro to grab power afterwards.
That make the Bay of Pigs legal.

Your comment about ratifying the US constitution in all states applies to your comment about Cubans having the right to revolt. Cubans do not according to your own statements about usa states.

A state is legal when all concerned parties accept the state.
if a concerned party does not accept the state, it is not legal.
You simply fail to understand.

No they don't. As you stated Batista's regime was illegal.

And Castro had the right to overthrow Batista and announce new elections. Not to grab power.

No they don't act within the rules of law. Most conficts Nato has engaged in prove this, especially usa. They are terrorists as state terrorism is a valid concept. Western legal novelties don't apply to the real world.

You can try to debunk it in the threads. So far everyone failed to,prove them illegal.
The Customary Law, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions are not ”Western legal novelties”

obviously wrong.

No the war was not legal. Batistas regime was illegal as you said yourself when he violated the constitution.

Castro was ruling by decree. Do you want an explanation of what that is and it's legal history?

Read the article linked.

Of course it does.

Not according to the Founding Act which Russia signed.

You can't have a double standard. It's cringeworthy to watch you try.

Russia has a history which makes neighbours run for protection.
Noone denies Russia to create their own alliance.
Noone should deny Eastern Europe to join NATO.

Yes it does.

Your opinion has no prescedence.
Joining an alliance is not a valid reason for war according to the UN charter.

This isn't a computer game lol. Is that where you get this? Attacks can be launched and initiated without an invasion force.

An invasion cannot happen without an invasion force.

It had military exercises on the borders. Also dangerous biolabs that are threats.

Military exercises on batallion or even brigade level is no threat.
The ”biolabs” story is just Russian propaganda.

 

[LeGenD]

@LeGenD You do not want a list of Nato and Allied invasions posted here.

Also ussr hasn't run genocides unlike Anglosaxons and Turks (Nato) and Israels attempt today.

Syria's action was against an illegal invasion. Shilling for west isn't necessary on this site. The rest of the internet is already full of western propaganda.

The assumption that Russians have a moral high ground in comparison to Western colonial powers is misplaced. Russians were in the same boat.

American history has its dark aspects - never denied this. US have done much good as well. US has transformed human lives around the world with its revolutionary scientific contributions. US is willing to support its allies and have also fought to liberate countries that were colonized by other powers. US has disposed a number of oppressive regimes around the world. US have fought and eliminated many terrorists around the world.

I do not assert that Russian conflicts were lacking in thought - some make sense from Russian standpoint. I pointed out that Russian intervention in Chechnya was understandable even though scores of Muslims had a different take on this matter.

But Russia has created a powerful propaganda apparatus. Russia uses this system to justify its controversial acts and wants to keep client states such as Belarus. Russians do not care about public sentiments in other countries - they will fight to keep a dictator in power in a client state if it suits them. Russians have wiped out entire cities in other countries - Israel has less to show in comparison.

50 shades of grey, dear.
50 shades of grey.