Putin OVERwhelmingly WINS ....

And what do you say about Kosovo?

Is there evidence of this?

Evidence?

Russia invaded Georgia only a few days after Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers. After eliminating the threat, Russia left Georgia.

Give examples of such threats.

So far, it seems more like the same unproven anti-Russian propaganda.

 

Again, nothing is proved. Fantasies, lies and propaganda.

 

I don't know about Trump's corruption, but it is a fact that in international relations the tolerance of conduct by a sovereign establishes a precedent. If other sovereigns recognize Crimea and Russian, accept Russia's export of banned chemical weapons, the manner of it's involvement in the Syrian conflict, fostering secessionists in Georgia and threats to Baltic states, such conduct gradually becomes the norm for all sovereigns. This is not an advance, the world is made more dangerous if foreign policy practices like Putin's become the norm.

 

Great point, and it reminds me that Russia likes to cite alleged US actions as justification for their own.

 

What specific alleged actions does the US refer to in its actions? NATO expansion? Exit the ABM Treaty? These are facts, not supposed actions What else?

 

Exactly.. Obviously your crooked leaders would not cite something that could be dismissed easily. Nevermind that "NATO expansion" is in response to Russian aggression, eh.

 

Kosovo is a region of the former federation of Yugoslavia, it features a distinct community with shared cultural features and a history which is closely related to the land where they live and quite different from the rest of Yugoslavia. Moreover, Kosovans were not adequately represented in the government of Yugoslavia and their representation in the successive governments deteriorated after Yugoslavia began to fracture. At the time of Kosovo's independence it was recognized as a previously non-self governing people. The situation in Crimea is not at all analogous.

There is forensic evidence that unquestionably establishes the Russian provenance of the toxic material used in the assassination attempts, the material used exists in only one place, nobody else has this material, it is absolutely certain to be Russian, very securely held and not sold or disseminated to any others.

I have seen photographs of the Russian chemical weapon bombs in Assad's arsenal with Cyrillic characters marking them. These photographs were taken when Obama made the dumb deal with Putin to remove Syria's chemical weapons. Evidently they kept some.

There are no "Russian peacekeepers", it is contrary to international law for a sovereign to deploy military forces in the territory of another sovereign. Georgia is an internationally recognized sovereign nation and never authorized Russian military deployments there. Russia maintains military deployments in specific Georgian regions which it claims have seceded.

Seven NATO members rotate air force deployments through the Baltic states to intercept continuous Russian air force incursions into their airspace, Putin has deployed tactical nuclear weapons to neighboring Kalinigrad.

No, actually I base my assertions on well-established facts, remember I am a professor of international relations, I know about this stuff, I follow developments, apply international law, consider the precedents. If you want to toss some baloney try it with someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

 

To whom did Russia threaten in 1991?

 

Why would Russians take this as a threat? Those countries wanted to join NATO and eventually did. What efforts did the Russians make to stand down from their silly anti-NATO posturing and cooperate politically and economically? Seems efforts were rather opposite to this, especially once anti-western strong man Putin came in and started blaming the west for every problem and complaining about how terrible it was that the USSR had collapsed.

 

I'm going to give the Russian troll some time to consider whether he still wants to "toss baloney" before addressing "NATO expansion" and the "ABM treaty", both are weighty issues of international relations and involve complicated considerations and context. I doubt 'balancer' is skilled at either, but it will be fun finding out.

 

Crimea was an autonomous republic of Ukraine with its own history and culture. He remained part of Ukraine on the agreement to preserve the autonomy, but this agreement was violated and Ukraine constantly infringed on the autonomy of the Crimea. But even in 2014 the Crimea still had its own government and parliament.

Russia experienced the collapse of the USSR. When entire chemical plants collapsed and passed into private hands, military warehouses were plundered, qualified scientists went into criminal business. And in some cases chemical weapons were used in criminal disassembly. But blaming the government of Russia on the basis of this in malice is nonsense. The same as saying, "Merkel gave the order to Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction." Because the equipment for its production was supplied by Germany.

Show these photos. I suspect that you saw containers for small loads that Syria supplied to the USSR. And they were actively shown after the American strike against the Syrian airbase. But, alas, this is not a chemical weapon.

You mean these containers?



See what they are dangerous

Good. In this case it is a question of terms and beliefs and an objective dispute is impossible. Although I can then ask a counter question, why then are the United States in sovereign Syria and are fighting against the legitimate ruler of this state?

I'm sorry that we arranged our Russia so close to the American military bases. But why did you decide that there are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad? By the way, I myself am from Kaliningrad

Unfortunately, these "generally known facts" usually turn out to be banal unproven anti-Russian propaganda. Which serves mainly to justify the aggressive actions of the West. On the contrary, they are objective facts.

Yes. I already understood your level. You did not even know about the special status of Crimea in Ukraine

 

Because this is a violation of the agreements. And because NATO is an aggressive organization that constantly organizes wars all over the world.

 

Retreat to their hole? Good.

 

Showing propaganda works on stupid Russians? (Yes, they have to be stupid to vote for the Russian kleptocracy.)

 

So, are you gullible or trolling?

 

On the Crimean population, please see:

1. O. Kurs, Krimmitatarlased. -- Akadeemia 2, 1991
2. А. Н. Кононов, История тюркских языков в России. Дооктябрский период, Ленинград 1982
3. А. Н. Самойлович, Опыт краткой крымскотатарской грамматики, Петроград 1916
4. Языки народов СССР. Т. 2, Москва 1966

(these are not ethnic Russians or Russophiles)

 

I know... Overwhelmingly...

 

There you go with that silly Russian propaganda. How can you expect good relations with the US or Europe as long as you maintain such silly fantasies about NATO? Face it - it's been blown up into a false external enemy by Putin in order to benefit himself at your expense.

 

Baloney!

Crimean Tatars have largely aligned themselves to Ukraine, whose government they see as a more reliable guarantor of their rights.

The Mejlis (the Crimean Tatar representative body) was reformed in 1991 and has played an active part in Ukrainian national politics since. In March 2014, after the Russian annexation, the Ukrainian state formally recognised the Mejlis and the Qurultay, the elected body that appoints the Mejlis, as official representative and executive bodies of the Crimean Tatars.

In April 2016, the Mejlis was outlawed as an extremist organisation by the Russian authorities.

 

Clear. You are even more troll than I thought. What does the events of 1944 have to the official status of Crimea in Ukraine in 2014? Let me still remember how the US used atomic bombs against the civilian population of Japan, and before that, they destroyed the Indians.

Study, liquidate your ignorance, professor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

 

Crimea (and the rest of Ukraine) was granted independence by the Soviet Union as it collapsed. Ukraine maintained good relations with Russia despite independence, they were the source of much of the Soviet and then Russian military engineering, especially in aviation and they hosted extensive Soviet (and then Russian) military installations. Ukraine is actually the "source" of Russia itself, it is known as "little Russia". Putin's puppet Yanukovych tried to bargain for more money by making overtures towards the EU and Putin felt terribly threatened as this implied NATO. He talked Yanukovych out of it, but by then the Ukranians knew of the chance they could join the EU and were thrilled, they much preferred the prospects of western integration to the corrupt schemes of Yanukovych and the Russians. When Yanulovych reneged on his overtures towards the EU masses of Ukrainians protested, the occupied Maidan square and sieged the government. Yanukovych got help from Putin who sent the Spetnaz to sniper protesters, that was the straw that broke the camel's back, Yanukovych had to flee the country. His successor promised to renew efforts to integrate with the EU and Putin intervened to protect the Russian military bases and prevent Ukraine from westernizing.

I think Putin overreacted, that there was no chance Ukraine would ever join NATO since it already had it's defence needs well covered with all those Russian bases in Crimea, and that Ukraine's EU integration would have actually benefited Russia.

 

So tell me, just by looking at that picture, how do you know that Russia did it? Don't back away because I'll be really interested to know? If your explanation is convincing I'll immediately admit to being gullible and a troll, that's a promise. But I won't be sitting here patiently awaiting your explanation because I know damn well that it won't be forthcoming.

 

It's mindless nationalism like that which will destroy mankind, and it's just around the corner.

 

You're the one claiming they didn't. I haven't taken a position.

Why would I back away from challenging your claim Russia didn't poison the guy?