War in Ukraine

[volinbham]

so just to play Devils Advocate on land control:

Crimea has had many changes in control.

Russia took Crimea most recently from Ukraine.

So does Ukraine justify retaking it because it was historically part of Ukraine?

What about Turkey? Can they also make that claim?

If Russia is barred from arguing Crimea was historically controlled by them isn't Ukraine barred from arguing that as well?

Which takings are considered permanent that can then be argued it's ours so if anyone takes it it's our right to take it back and which are not?

 

[volinbham]

Really, your view is just might is right?

not sure where you got that.

just pointing out what human history has been and continues to be. if you notice I included the "if someone else stops you from holding it" as in how other countries intervene for various reasons (eg. us in Kuwait).

 

[hog88]

Really, your view is just might is right?

Hasn’t that been the way the world has always worked?

 

[volinbham]

Yes, over a century ago. Oddly, Mexico and Canada aren’t begging anyone for protection from us.

just saying it happened - as has happened throughout history

 

[NorthDallas40]

so just to play Devils Advocate on land control:

Crimea has had many changes in control.

Russia took Crimea most recently from Ukraine.

So does Ukraine justify retaking it because it was historically part of Ukraine?

What about Turkey? Can they also make that claim?

If Russia is barred from arguing Crimea was historically controlled by them isn't Ukraine barred from arguing that as well?

Which takings are considered permanent that can then be argued it's ours so if anyone takes it it's our right to take it back and which are not?

I’m standing pat

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum

How Russia's Nuclear Double Cross of Ukraine Teaches Dangerous Lessons

And finally I’ll link this one again. And highlight a couple of paragraphs

Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement

Third, the English version mentions “security assurances,” while Ukrainian and Russian texts provide for “security guarantees.” This different wording is often explained by the fact that in Ukrainian and Russian, the words “assurances” and “guarantees” are allegedly considered to be synonyms. However, there are much better, more accurate substitutes for “assurances” in Ukrainian and Russian, namely “запевнення” and “заверения.” The parties likely put different terms in different languages to create ambiguity. In retrospect, the Ukrainian Parliament probably would not have agreed to the term “assurances,” because “guarantees” represent something definitely more substantial.

Fourth, the Budapest Memorandum’s Ukrainian version provides that it “enters into force upon signature.” The International Court of Justice found this specific wording to be an “indicator” of a legally binding memorandum without the need for ratification. However, English and Russian versions provide an iterated softer language that the memorandum “will become applicable upon signature,” which contributes to its ambiguity.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Can we do the USA in 1776 and now?

I'm wondering why they arbitrarily use the year 1471.

The USA didn't even exist in 1471, so that does mean that it shouldn't exist today?

 

[NorthDallas40]

not sure where you got that.

just pointing out what human history has been and continues to be. if you notice I included the "if someone else stops you from holding it" as in how other countries intervene for various reasons (eg. us in Kuwait).

He got it from your post. Honestly I inferred that also.

 

[AM64]

it's relevant because the map I responded to showed Russia over 500 years ago and now as an example of how land control changes. just pointed out that it is human history.

hell, the entire ME conflict centers around "it was ours once". just pointing out that Native Americans would goof on us for any number of historic claims to land. all land has historic ties to some other entity.

as I see it - the land is yours as long as you can hold it. if someone else stops you from holding it, then it isn't yours anymore.

Does that mean our right to bear arms is so that we can defend our property lines against a neighbor who would like his own property to include some of ours - that recorded deeds with property lines mean nothing? At some point to be civilized, we have to accept and respect boundaries or the world is no better than it was 200 or 2000 years ago.

 

[volinbham]

I’m standing pat

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum

How Russia's Nuclear Double Cross of Ukraine Teaches Dangerous Lessons

And finally I’ll link this one again. And highlight a couple of paragraphs

Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement

Third, the English version mentions “security assurances,” while Ukrainian and Russian texts provide for “security guarantees.” This different wording is often explained by the fact that in Ukrainian and Russian, the words “assurances” and “guarantees” are allegedly considered to be synonyms. However, there are much better, more accurate substitutes for “assurances” in Ukrainian and Russian, namely “запевнення” and “заверения.” The parties likely put different terms in different languages to create ambiguity. In retrospect, the Ukrainian Parliament probably would not have agreed to the term “assurances,” because “guarantees” represent something definitely more substantial.

Fourth, the Budapest Memorandum’s Ukrainian version provides that it “enters into force upon signature.” The International Court of Justice found this specific wording to be an “indicator” of a legally binding memorandum without the need for ratification. However, English and Russian versions provide an iterated softer language that the memorandum “will become applicable upon signature,” which contributes to its ambiguity.

I'm not referring to why we are involved.

I'm asking in general how we determine which claims of "it used to be ours so it should be ours again" are justified and which are not? Is it a period of time?

 

[volinbham]

So which portion of the United States did we gain after invading another country to "restore our historic borders"?

worse - it said it was God's destiny for us to take territory.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Does that mean our right to bear arms is so that we can defend our property lines against a neighbor who would like his own property to include some of ours - that recorded deeds with property lines mean nothing? At some point to be civilized, we have to accept and respect boundaries or the world is no better than it was 200 or 2000 years ago.

If might makes right we should be able to own the entire Americas in about two months tops. Just invade Canada on a Friday as they’ll all be curling.

 

[BeardedVol]

I'm wondering why they arbitrarily use the year 1471.

The USA didn't even exist in 1471, so that does mean that it shouldn't exist today?

What map should be used when referring to "historical Russian Borders" for the sake of justifying an invasion of Ukraine?

 

[tvolsfan]

just saying it happened - as has happened throughout history

History being the most important word here. The civilized world agreed we should stop doing that. Civilized obviously not including Putin’s Russia.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm not referring to why we are involved.

I'm asking in general how we determine which claims of "it used to be ours so it should be ours again" are justified and which are not? Is it a period of time?

Actually it reads like you’re saying the Russian claim is just as valid as any other. That’s definitely got an appeasement air to it.

Why I’m standing pat is that is in direct conflict to the 1994 agreement that both the US and Russia signed. So really as far as I’m concerned your argument doesn’t have any teeth unless you just devolve it to might makes right and ignore prior commitments

 

[DC_Vol]

I'm not referring to why we are involved.

I'm asking in general how we determine which claims of "it used to be ours so it should be ours again" are justified and which are not? Is it a period of time?

The cutoff point is a function of how much money they launder for out politicians.

 

[volinbham]

Does that mean our right to bear arms is so that we can defend our property lines against a neighbor who would like his own property to include some of ours - that recorded deeds with property lines mean nothing? At some point to be civilized, we have to accept and respect boundaries or the world is no better than it was 200 or 2000 years ago.

clearly my post came off wrong.

I'm saying human history has been if you can hold it; it is yours. Various mechanisms (laws, treaties, allies, etc.) have arisen to mitigate some of the abuses but still the rule applies right or wrong.

This all arouse in merely pointing out that we ourselves have taken land and those we took it from were unable to stop us, laws couldn't stop us and no other actors came to the aid of those we took it from.

It is not an endorsement.

It is not an excuse for Russian aggression.

It is an observation.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

What map should be used when referring to "historical Russian Borders" for the sake of justifying an invasion of Ukraine?

That's the point. A map from any year over the last 5 centuries could be used to justify restoring Russia's historical borders.

Why not a map from 1800? 1870? 1920?

 

[DC_Vol]

There are a number of people here who get bent out shape pretty easily if you’re not ready to kiss Zelensky’s ass.

 

[tvolsfan]

That's the point. A map from any year over the last 5 centuries could be used to justify restoring Russia's historical borders.

Why not a map from 1800? 1870? 1920?

How about the map from when the Soviet Union dissolved?

 

[volinbham]

Actually it reads like you’re saying the Russian claim is just as valid as any other. That’s definitely got an appeasement air to it.

Why I’m standing pat is that is in direct conflict to the 1994 agreement that both the US and Russia signed. So really as far as I’m concerned your argument doesn’t have any teeth unless you just devolve it to might makes right and ignore prior commitments

I'm asking a larger principal.

It's hard to discuss in this forum because as you've done here I'm accused of appeasement.

Is it impossible to contemplate the larger issue of which historic claims are valid and which are not?

 

[NorthDallas40]

clearly my post came off wrong.

I'm saying human history has been if you can hold it; it is yours. Various mechanisms (laws, treaties, allies, etc.) have arisen to mitigate some of the abuses but still the rule applies right or wrong.

This all arouse in merely pointing out that we ourselves have taken land and those we took it from were unable to stop us, laws couldn't stop us and no other actors came to the aid of those we took it from.

It is not an endorsement.

It is not an excuse for Russian aggression.

It is an observation.

Ok that isn’t what I inferred. I think I’ve already said that exact point back to our chief propagandist. It’s Russia’s if they can hold it. That pretty much applies to any territorial boundary be it a legal or might challenge.

I’m still just struggling to understand why it matters.

 

[BeardedVol]

That's the point. A map from any year over the last 5 centuries could be used to justify restoring Russia's historical borders.

Why not a map from 1800? 1870? 1920?

So again, Russia claims Crimea is Russian based on "historical borders" so which map gets to be used to determine which "historical borders" are valid?

 

[volinbham]

History being the most important word here. The civilized world agreed we should stop doing that. Civilized obviously not including Putin’s Russia.

I'll have to do some digging but I bet the civilized world is largely ignoring it elsewhere in the world.

IOW - it's not all purity of motive. It's strategic interest.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm asking a larger principal.

It's hard to discuss in this forum because as you've done here I'm accused of appeasement.

Is it impossible to contemplate the larger issue of which historic claims are valid and which are not?

Well honestly that’s how it read! I e since made another reply after your clarification and pointed out I made that same point.

 

[tvolsfan]

I'm asking a larger principal.

It's hard to discuss in this forum because as you've done here I'm accused of appeasement.

Is it impossible to contemplate the larger issue of which historic claims are valid and which are not?

That’s actually what we are all saying. Trying to determine borders based on historic claims is impossible. The tweet was making fun of Russia using “historic” claims to the land as a pretext for invasion.