And next, Syria?

[Casually Red]

There is something grimly hilarious about the most lobotomised "anti-imperialists" running with the exact arguments liberal imperialists use to justify Western imperial interventions in order to justify Russian imperial intervention. So far I've heard fighting terrorism, justifiable under international law, stability, least bad option and what are you, a supporter of ISIS? What we really need now is someone to argue that bombing civilians is the best way to save civilians and we'll have the full set.

Bullshit . Neo liberal imperialists have ignored international law completely...as in Iraq and Serbia, denouncing it as a hindrance ..or sought permission for a no fly zone ...as in Libya..and made a mockery of it . Much the same as they intended for syria, more than once . But have been routinely blocked by russia this time . Wereupon again they seemed set on simply ignoring it again . The entire discourse about exceptionalism , unilateralism , legitimacy and the rest seems to have whooshed over your head like a sukhoi chasing a terrorist .

 

[Doctor Carrot]

No it's legally legitimate , international laws pretty clear on it . You not liking someone has no effect whatsoever on its legitimacy .

Is it? Can you provide a link please? My suspicion is it's not quite as clear cut as you make out. Whether I like it or not is, as you say, irrelevant regarding its legitimacy.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Bullshit .

The argument "legal under international law" is used by liberal imperialists when they are able to get their way at the Security Council, and ignored when they can't. Of course, anyone who actually thinks that international law is meaningful in the first place is too stupid to be allowed unsupervised possession of anything sharper than a spoon. That liberal imperialists use and ignore it as it suits shows that they aren't as stupid as some anti-war people.

 

[Casually Red]

All those words would also apply to the USA in El Salvador, for instance - & a dozen other countries where US military advisers were 'invited in' by a dictator's son.

I don't support western air/drone strikes against IS because of the risk to civilians - it's not a risk, it's the inevitable death of civilians. And there's no reason to believe that Russia will be less reckless with civilian lives.

I don't support them because they're a violation of Syrias sovereignty. As is sponsoring an al Qaeda led armed destabilisation campaign . A comparison with Nicaraguas contras would be more apt .

 

[laptop]

And the former Soviet republics in Central Asia?

Affect R/T relations...

 

[Casually Red]

The argument "legal under international law" is used by liberal imperialists when they are able to get there way at the Security Council, and ignored when they can't. Of course, anyone who actually thinks that international law is meaningful in the first place is too stupid to be allowed unsupervised possession of anything sharper than a spoon. That liberal imperialists use and ignore it as it suits shows that they aren't as stupid as some anti-war people.

Bullshit

At the United Nations

 

[seventh bullet]

Affect R/T relations...

How.

 

[Casually Red]

Is it? Can you provide a link please? My suspicion is it's not quite as clear cut as you make out. Whether I like it or not is, as you say, irrelevant regarding its legitimacy.

Can I provide a link which states a sovereign nations internationally recognised government is entitled to ask another nation ...and in particular a close military ally for the past 40 odd years...to assist its own armed forces , on it's own sovereign territory , in its military defence of its own territory ? Are you fucking serious ?

Your suspicion that is not in accordance with international law is utterly ridiculous . How on earth is it not ?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Bullshit

At the United Nations

I occasionally forget that you are thick as pigshit and start arguing with you.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Can I provide a link which states a sovereign nations internationally recognised government is entitled to ask another nation ...and in particular a close military ally for the past 40 odd years...to assist its own armed forces , on it's own sovereign territory , in its military defence of its own territory ? Are you fucking serious ?

Your suspicion that is not in accordance with international law is utterly ridiculous . How on earth is it not ?

No, I'm asking you if it's legal for a war criminal to ask another country to assist said war criminal in carrying out further war crimes and crimes against humanity. Like I said, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you make out and, as others have pointed out, you're running the exact same arguments used by liberal imperialists.

 

[laptop]

How.

That is what I was asking!

 

[seventh bullet]

That is what I was asking!

The post didn't hint that, off the top of your head, you know why and how the 'Turkic' ex-Soviet Central Asian republics (with the exception of Persian Tajikistan), are a significant factor in Russian-Turkish relations with regard to Syria.

 

[camouflage]

There is something grimly hilarious about the most lobotomised "anti-imperialists" running with the exact arguments liberal imperialists use to justify Western imperial interventions in order to justify Russian imperial intervention. So far I've heard fighting terrorism, justifiable under international law, stability, least bad option and what are you, a supporter of ISIS? What we really need now is someone to argue that bombing civilians is the best way to save civilians and we'll have the full set.

My take is that the Russians in this case didn't start this shit, by any means. But they certainly seem interested in ending it. The amount of verifiable information available pertaining to how the US worked pretty diligently to make this mess is certainly not hard to come by, articles, documents, leaks and diplomatic cables abound.

Not to mention the 2003 initial kick-off (pretending for the moment that history began September 11, 2001- which is just about as much as yer average amnesiac can fit in their murdoch-addled brain).

Furthermore I haven't seen the evil fearsome forces of RusChinIran running around in the last few years shooting up the place with slogans of terrifying kindness on the one hand while gold-toileted petromonarchs starve and bomb some of the poorest populations in the world in deafening silence. War is serious and grim, innocents are killed in their thousands, perhaps it would be better if the anti-anti-imperialists weren't so casual about it all (an intervention here, a regime change there, back a jihadi, white-wash a fascist, we came, we saw, they died, have a cookie, spin spin spin the electric megadeath bugaloo).

Act normal, we didn't do nuthin, it wuz like this when we got here *wink*

 

[Nigel Irritable]

My take is that the Russians in this case didn't start this shit, by any means. But they certainly seem interested in ending it. The amount of verifiable information available pertaining to how the US worked pretty diligently to make this mess is certainly not hard to come by, articles, documents, leaks and diplomatic cables abound.

Not to mention the 2003 initial kick-off (pretending for the moment that history began September 11, 2001- which is just about as much as yer average amnesiac can fit in their murdoch-addled brain).

Furthermore I haven't seen the evil fearsome forces of RusChinIran running around in the last few years shooting up the place with slogans of terrifying kindness on the one hand while gold-toileted petromonarchs starve and bomb some of the poorest populations in the world in deafening silence. War is serious and grim, innocents are killed in their thousands, perhaps it would be better if the anti-anti-imperialists weren't so blaze about it (an intervention here, a regime change there, back a jihadi, white-wash a fascist, spin spin spin the megadeath bugaloo).

In other words, you are in favour of imperialist intervention in Syria.

 

[camouflage]

In other words, you are in favour of imperialist intervention in Syria.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You bury it in long winded semi-coherent whining about Western imperial interventions, but your attitude is to justify Russian imperial intervention.

 

[Casually Red]

No, I'm asking you if it's legal for a war criminal to ask another country to assist said war criminal in carrying out further war crimes and crimes against humanity. Like I said, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you make out and, as others have pointed out, you're running the exact same arguments used by liberal imperialists.

The president of Syria hasn't even been indicted, much less convicted . Nor will he ever be . The refusal of Britain , France and the USA to support a Russian UNSC motion on a coalition to confront al Qaeda in Syria , unless Russia and china accept the precondition that the west can predetermine the outcome of future Syrian elections by deciding who stands in them ...ffs..does not even remotely affect the legal legitimacy of one sovereign head of state asking another sovereign state for military assistance in repelling an invader . Or series of invaders in this case . So yes , the decision is perfectly legal .

And again the use of the term " international law " is not some high fallutin phrase reserved solely for the use of western neo liberal imperialists . Your analogy is shit . Saddam Hussein as sovereign head of state did not invite these people to bomb Iraq . Nor did gadaffi invite them to bomb Libya . Nor did milosevic invite them to bomb Yugoslavia . The arguments aren't even remotely similar .

 

[Casually Red]

You bury it in long winded semi-coherent whining about Western imperial interventions, but your attitude is to justify Russian imperial intervention.

Again this is bullshit . You'll be calling Hezbollah imperialists next

 

[Casually Red]

I occasionally forget that you are thick as pigshit and start arguing with you.

No it's you that's as thick as pigshit . Cuban intervention in the Congo, Angola etc was in full accordance with international law...as explained by Mr Guevara in his address to the UN explaining why that sovereign state assisted its allies when they asked for their assistance overseas .
I await your assertion Mr Guevara and Mr Castro were therefore liberal neo imperialists on the basis they used international law to justify their activities outside of Cuba . Because that's all you've been bloody advancing as an argument .

 

[Doctor Carrot]

The president of Syria hasn't even been indicted, much less convicted . Nor will he ever be . The refusal of Britain , France and the USA to support a Russian UNSC motion on a coalition to confront al Qaeda in Syria , unless Russia and china accept the precondition that the west can predetermine the outcome of future Syrian elections by deciding who stands in them ...ffs..does not even remotely affect the legal legitimacy of one sovereign head of state asking another sovereign state for military assistance in repelling an invader . Or series of invaders in this case . So yes , the decision is perfectly legal .

And again the use of the term " international law " is not some high fallutin phrase reserved solely for the use of western neo liberal imperialists . Your analogy is shit . Saddam Hussein as sovereign head of state did not invite these people to bomb Iraq . Nor did gadaffi invite them to bomb Libya . Nor did milosevic invite them to bomb Yugoslavia . The arguments aren't even remotely similar .

Pathetic. So he's not yet been convicted therefore it's all above board. What a load of hypocritical toss you're spouting. If Syria was America's client state and Assad had asked them to bomb you'd be spitting with rage and cheering on jihadists but Russia does it? No problem eh?

You're entitled to cheer on imperialism if you like of course just as long as you know that's exactly what you're doing.

 

[Idris2002]

Now the Merk is saying that the Syrian war can only be ended with Russian support:

Merkel says can only end Syrian war with Russia's help

Whoop it up for anti-imperialism! Oh, wait. . .

 

[Diamond]

My god, this a complete mess now, isn't it?

If the coalition and Russia now restore Assad, what does that imply for the rest of the Middle East?

Iran will have effectively won, Saudi will have lost and the Russians will have been vindicated as their man prevailed while distracting from their revanchism in Crimea.

I could easily see a scenario in which the resulting big picture allowed Russia to pick off the Baltics one by one.

 

[Idris2002]

I could easily see a scenario in which the resulting big picture allowed Russia to pick off the Baltics one by one.

"Pick off", meaning what? There's no way they're going to be invited back in there, and going in uninvited would trigger the NATO treaty and the Third World War.

Possibly, the Baltics might come back under Russian hegemony via economic means, but I think the EU would have to collapse (denying them their access to the West, at least partly) before that would happen. And the Russian economy would also have to be somewhat healthier for that to happen as well.

 

[Diamond]

"Pick off", meaning what? There's no way they're going to be invited back in there, and going in uninvited would trigger the NATO treaty and the Third World War.

Possibly, the Baltics might come back under Russian hegemony via economic means, but I think the EU would have to collapse (denying them their access to the West, at least partly) before that would happen. And the Russian economy would also have to be somewhat healthier for that to happen as well.

Who knows how they would do it but it's no secret that the Russians have been undermining and intimidating the Baltics for years now and have designs on them.

They also can come up with a quasi-realistic justification - there are large numbers of Russian-speaking residents of the Baltics who have been denied citizenship until they submit to the local language. It's not difficult to see how the Russians would play it - it's almost an identical situation to Crimea and perhaps they wouldn't have to claim the whole of a Baltic state, merely the most Russian speaking part of it.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Some huge leaps of logic in there I think

 

[frogwoman]

I dont think Russia could/would do that. They dont have the resources to send troops in and I don't think its in their interests to have several wars/failed states on their borders in countries where Russian involvement would have little popular support and where they would almost certainly be drawn into direct conflict with NATO. Those countries are members of NATO. I dislike Russian imperialism as much as anyone but the fear of renewed Russian occupation in used by those states and the far right to justify repressive and reactionary politics there.

 

[frogwoman]

Who knows how they would do it but it's no secret that the Russians have been undermining and intimidating the Baltics for years now and have designs on them.

They also can come up with a quasi-realistic justification - there are large numbers of Russian-speaking residents of the Baltics who have been denied citizenship until they submit to the local language. It's not difficult to see how the Russians would play it - it's almost an identical situation to Crimea and perhaps they wouldn't have to claim the whole of a Baltic state, merely the most Russian speaking part of it.

Thats not actually true, I went to Latvia and Lithuania earlier this year and was able to get around in Russian quite well, more people seemed to speak it than English. Lithuania actually gave everyone living in its territory citizenship when it became independent, Estonia and Latvia did not.

Many younger people born in the country since independence have Latvian citizenship but the requirement is to speak the language to a certain standard (which most Russian speakers can) and do an exam in a politically charged state-approved version of history (which many are, understandably, not willing to do).

 

[Diamond]

Thats not actually true, I went to Latvia and Lithuania earlier this year and was able to get around in Russian quite well, more people seemed to speak it than English. Lithuania actually gave everyone living in its territory citizenship when it became independent, Estonia and Latvia did not.

Many younger people born in the country since independence have Latvian citizenship but the requirement is to speak the language to a certain standard (which most Russian speakers can) and do an exam in a politically charged state-approved version of history (which many are, understandably, not willing to do).

Quelle surprise!

You were able to get around an ex-Soviet territory in Russian - I wonder why on earth that might have been the case...

No, there are still very large populations of ethnic Russians who are non-citizens in the Baltic states.

It is very easy to see how Russia could contrive a reason to protect these populations by disrupting the Baltics, as they have already done on a number of occasions. See below:

Eston Kohver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 cyberattacks on Estonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frogwoman]

Quelle surprise!

You were able to get around an ex-Soviet territory in Russian - I wonder why on earth that might have been the case...

No, there are still very large populations of ethnic Russians who are non-citizens in the Baltic states.

It is very easy to see how Russia could contrive a reason to protect these populations by disrupting the Baltics, as they have already done on a number of occasions. See below:

Eston Kohver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 cyberattacks on Estonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What i mean is that there's no requirement (yet) for russian speakers to 'submit' to the language.

 

[Diamond]

What i mean is that there's no requirement (yet) for russian speakers to 'submit' to the language.

If you want to be a citizen, you have to speak the language.

It's as simple as that.

Quite similar to a lot of UKIP style stuff here. The difference being that the "immigrants" or "interlopers" were also the final rulers for many decades and exist side by side with their enormously powerful neighbouring homeland.

It's not a very stable situtation...