Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Vienna, Austria, court has ruled that Victoria Nuland (right), the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, attempted to pressure the President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich (left), into accepting Ukrainian association with the European Union (EU) by threatening Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash with arrest, extradition to the US, and imprisonment on allegations of bribery several years ago in India.
The details were exposed for the first time in public in a proceeding in the Landesgerichtsstrasse Regional Court last Thursday (April 30). Austrian judge Christoph Bauer was presiding on the application by the US Government for the extradition of Firtash. The transcript of the proceeding has not yet been issued publicly, nor the official text of the judge’s ruling from the bench.
Judge Bauer rejected extradition, ruling there had been improper political interference by the US Government in the Firtash case. This is a violation, according to Bauer’s judgement, of Article 4, section 3 of the US-Austria Extradition Treaty of 1998. “Extradition shall not be granted,” the proviso declares, “if the executive authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.”
1. For you - illegal, for us - legal, based on a referendum.
it's only Russia who considers it legal, almost all the experts in the world disagree.
And there is no Court decision in Russia, afaik, no real legal discussion.
Are there independent, unbiased Russian legal experts, who can speak and discuss freely ?
> Russia does not interfere in politics neighbors the United States,
Cuba 1962, KGB
> the United States intervenes in the policy of Russia's neighbors.
suppose it's true ("intervenes"). What would Russia have to do with it ?
> The [Serbia] problem had to be solved through negotiations.
yes, but it failed, the refugees were attacked, dying
> NATO has created a precedent that's Russians used in Georgia in a similar situation.
if you think it was wrong, you shouldn't consider it a "precedent".
With that logic others may easily find precedents for almost any action.
>> No colonialism or military bases or control of holy graves or historical places or such.
> Because Serbs defended their country. US not decided on a full-scale war.
give a reasonable.reliable source that says this was ever planned
> Times ideological confrontation have passed. Russia and Germany must quickly forget
> the old grievances and establish normal economic and military alliance.
Russia to join EU and NATO
> But for this you need to stop being a vassal of the United States.
"you" = Germany, Ukraine, EU ? No vassal. Just cooperation, where it makes sense.
it's only Russia who considers it legal, almost all the experts in the world disagree.
And there is no Court decision in Russia, afaik, no real legal discussion.
Are there independent, unbiased Russian legal experts, who can speak and discuss freely ?
Russians understand the position of the West on the issue of joining the Crimea. But they believe that this is not a legal but a political decision.
Residents of Crimea held a referendum. After the referendum, Supreme Council of Crimea has signed a decree on withdrawal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (full name of the Crimea) from Ukraine. As a substantiation the declaration of independence specified provisions of the Charter of the United Nations (and several other international instruments), recognizing the right of peoples to self-determination, as well as the decision of the International Court of Justice that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law. Then the Supreme Council of Crimea has signed an agreement to join the Republic of Crimea in the Russian Federation. Legally, it is the right documents.
Press Freedom Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
maybe try Finnish, Dutch newspapers
Finland,Netherlands,Norway=6,USA=23,Iceland,NZ=9,C anada,Ireland=11,UK=20,
Russia=43,Germany=10,Australia=17
best bigger English country seems to be Canada
legally, there was no Crimean Court which was not Ukrainian.
And the United Nations did not recognize Crimea independence.
And Putin incorrectly claimed that Russian actions were in accordance with
international law.
Now you say it was "poilitical", so why not just admit that it was illegal
but --maybe-- nevertheless politically reasonable or justified
and --maybe-- leading to a better future and the action executed
without violence (only threat thereof) and even white aid trucks ?
Why the lying ?
suppose it's true ("intervenes"). What would Russia have to do with it ?
Russia will take action. It may be economic or military measures. But Russia is not first attack, it is not necessary. Russia is able to influence its neighbors through economic methods.
In 2008, Georgia was the first start of the military operation (it was a continuation of the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1993-1994).
Ukraine has also made a military coup that dubious from a legal point of view. To select a new president is necessary to conduct impeachment proceedings. But impeachment is possible only by the decision of the Verkhovna Rada (Council deputy). But the Verkhovna Rada did not impeached, because half of the deputies supported Yanukovych (he was selected for fair democratic elections)!
And what does the new government? They dismiss the Verkhovna Rada and collects new the Verkhovna Rada, which is loyal to the new government. This is not legal. But the West has closed eyes to this. Because it is not a law, but it is a policy. What should Russia do in this situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs
yes, but it failed, the refugees were attacked, dying
Yes, and the question arises: they could not agree or do not want to do. Why did not connect Russia, which has close ties with Serbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs
if you think it was wrong, you shouldn't consider it a "precedent".
I think this is wrong. Military changes of postwar borders without a decision of the Council of United Nations - is playing with fire. You can say, "people were killed there." But in 1993-1994 in Abkhazia people were killed. In 2014-2015 in Ukraine people are dying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs
With that logic others may easily find precedents for almost any action.
But you must agree that it was the first military change of the post-war borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs
give a reasonable.reliable source that says this was ever planned
Ok, I do not know about these plans. It was just a guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs
Russia to join EU and NATO
I think that this is impossible. US does not need a union with Russia. Russia - is a good enemy to the United States. US military will shout: "Russia wants revenge, look at the terrible Russian missiles and tanks!" and US Congress to allocate mountains of money. At the same time Russia will not blow up the towers in New York, despite the mountain of crap that Western media is poured over the Russians. Lovely, safe enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs
"you" = Germany, Ukraine, EU ? No vassal. Just cooperation, where it makes sense.
And the United Nations did not recognize Crimea independence.
As well as the independence of Kosovo.It is the policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs
Now you say it was "poilitical", so why not just admit that it was illegal
It was legal! All the necessary paperwork was completed. Even Russian troops have the right to be on a peninsula to the respective lease agreement the naval base.
suppose it qualifies as a coup, illegal, revolution. It's still not Russia's business.
(once there was a coup in Russia ...but of course NATO didn't intervene)
Meanwhile a new government was elected and Russia said they would respect it.
And legally, what happens in Ukraine cannot depend on what happened in Georgia
or Serbia
With USA - you never know. Governments change. There are hardliners and those
who would appreciate a closer cooperation with and integration of Russia.
Maybe Russia just makes some changes ?! ... the right changes at the right time ... it's psychology.
We were so close , with Gorbachev or Obama's Global Zero campaign.
I do not so much fundamental or ideological difference/conflict between Russia and USA these days.
It's just historical.
I think we need a world government. To control modern terrorism, rogue states,
the future widespread availability of cheap nukes and bioengineered viruses and bacteria.
> It was legal!
give a source. Some independent legal expert who says it was legal.
You must agree that the overwhelming majority of experts -including UNO-
say that it was illegal (see e.g. wikipedia). And a clear violation of the 1994 Budapest treaty.
Where is the official scientific Russian paper to argue and discuss the claimed legality and
to address the counterarguments and criticism ? (not just the usual rhetorik/propaganda)
Hellevig,Grushko,Gorbachev,
Marc Weller, Stefan Talmon, Otto Luchtenhandt, Sumantra Maitra were quoted at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ru...ine#Commentary
the Russian response, including Gorbachev, is somehow lacking (IMO) 2014 2014
hmm, in recent Russian statements (Grushko,Lavrov) I can no longer find the claim that the Russian
Crimea actions were legal by international law.
But instead they only always point to (perceived) violations of USA, NATO in other places
and times. So, do they no longer claim that it was legal and do they say they it was illegal
but others were illegal as well before ?
well, Putin repeated it on 2015/04/16: http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-putin-says-no-regrets-over-crimea-annexation-2015-4?r=US
> I think we did the right thing and I don't regret a thing
> He insisted that Russia is not breaching international law in its actions in Ukraine,
> despite Western sanctions, as Moscow denies international accusations that it is
> backing pro-Russian separatists with arms and troops in east Ukraine.
> "I'm deeply convinced we're not breaking any rules of the game. That concerns
> our relations with Ukraine (and) the situation in Crimea," Putin said, citing international law
> and the United Nations charter.
how can he be deeply convinced when the experts oppose ?
Not only "western" but also independent.
Putin is not a lawyer.
Well, it could be a language trick, mistranslation, or Putin refers to some other special
events, not the intervention ("annexion") in Crimea.
I'd like to see, what exactly Putin said. Can one of the Russian speakers provide
the quote ? Ria Novosti , interview Mikhail Klimentyev
> "I'm deeply convinced we're not breaking any rules of the game. That concerns our relations
> with Ukraine (and) the situation in Crimea," Putin said, citing international law and the
> United Nations charter.
"we're" , was that "we are" or "we were" in Russian ?
Last edited by gsgsgs; 05-04-2015 at 08:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
