Crimea human rights 'deteriorated radically' since Russia seizure

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

NATO is a voluntary association of sovereign states - no-one forces anyone to join and even Russia toyed with joining in the 1990's!!

Voluntary, huh? Tell that to the Eastern Ukrainians.

Sure - no-one has forced them into NATO, Ukraine is not in NATO…….....do try to make some sense some time.

BS, take Afghanistan for instance…

NATO

NATO took command of the United Nations-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in August 2003.

---

In agreement with the Afghan authorities, they gradually took responsibility for security across the country, and ISAF’s mission was completed at the end of 2014. However, support for the continued development of the Afghan security forces and institutions, and wider cooperation with Afghanistan continue.

Read that (in agreement) NATO forces occupy their country.

But go ahead and pretend it ain't so. Double standard much?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Probably the same people clashing and throwing grenades now .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

no - those are Ukrainian idiots. There are many more Russian idiots.

I knew there was a technical term for all these apologists trying to deflect criticism from Russia - it is "whataboutism" - characterized by ignoring the problem and trying to change the topic with lots of "what about......??" questions.....and oddly enough it seems to be native to Russia and the USSR:

It was first described by Edward Lucas, as diarist at the The Economist in 2007, as a tactic he had observed in student debates at the London School of Economics in the early 1980s. He recalled it was an "approach by the Kremlin's useful idiots [...] to match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one. It was called 'whataboutism'".[1] [2]

Lucas subsequently claimed, in 2008, that "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'". He said it was a common rhetorical tactic used by the Soviet Union in dealing with criticism originating within the Western world, so that the common response to a specific criticism would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world.[3][4].

Lucas observed that the use of whataboutism had declined at the end of the Cold War but it was seeing a revival in the politics of contemporary Russia. He suggested this was evidence of a resurgence of Cold War and Soviet-era mentality within Russia's leadership. To avoid Whataboutism turning discussion into sterile argument, he suggested two solutions: To "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to a Western nation, and for Western critics to apply more self-criticism to their own media and government.[3]

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I knew there was a technical term for all these apologists trying to deflect criticism from Russia - it is "whataboutism" - characterized by ignoring the problem and trying to change the topic with lots of "what about…...??"

Russia isn't the one expanding into central and eastern europe. NATO is.

Now say, But what about…?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If Russia did invade Crimea as you say then why is there no war there ? ....Why is Kiev fighting a war in the East with Ukrainians and not fighting a war with Russia to recapture their former territory ? Could it be argued that Crimea did hold a referendum and decide to leave Ukraine and join Russia ? If they did use their democratic right to do so ,can we in the west say they had no right to do that ? Crimea , like Quebec in Canada held a referendum .Unlike Quebec they decided to leave and join Russia .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If Russia did invade Crimea as you say then why is there no war there ? ....Why is Kiev fighting a war in the East with Ukrainians and not fighting a war with Russia to recapture their former territory ?

Because they know they are militarily outmatched.

Could it be argued that Crimea did hold a referendum and decide to leave Ukraine and join Russia ?

Yes it could be argued, and often is.

If they did use their democratic right to do so ,can we in the west say they had no right to do that ?

The Ukrainian constitution had (and AFAIK still has) a procedure for that to happen, and it was not followed.

also a vote held under armed occupation is not valid.

Crimea , like Quebec in Canada held a referendum .Unlike Quebec they decided to leave and join Russia .

Unlike quebec they were under hostile armed occupation, unlike Quebec they did not follow the existing constitutional provisions.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I knew there was a technical term for all these apologists trying to deflect criticism from Russia - it is "whataboutism" - characterized by ignoring the problem and trying to change the topic with lots of "what about…...??"

Russia isn't the one expanding into central and eastern europe. NATO is.

Countries have applied to join NATO voluntarily, and been admitted.....so what?

Russia is certainly trying to expand in Eastern Europe - it has annexed Crimea - what is that if not expansion? It seeks to destabilize Ukraine and it appears that the Donbas is gearing up to join Russia too...again...expansion (or the appearance of intent to do so)

There is nothing particularly wrong with any country or organisation "expanding" - it is invasion by armed force that is objectionable!

Now say, But what about…?

And you did......

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Most human rights deteriorate when there is a perceived war going on. Look no further than 9/11 and the USA.. Just food for thought, No?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

If they know that they would be out matched as you say and they have said that Russia invaded the east and are there fighting the Ukrainian army then something does not make sense . They either invaded or didn't . Kiev is either fighting their own people in the east or they are fighting the Russians . If the Russians then it would make sense to help them .If it's their own people then NATO and other countries should consider what they are getting into . I think that is why Germany ,France ,Russia and Ukraine created the Minsk2 agreement and Kiev needs to pull their troops back and start following the Minsk2 to resolve the situation .

Right now there are men women and children dying and the only aid they have is coming from Russia . Kiev stopped the banking , cut them off from normal society . time to do the right thing me thinks ...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Russia had many troops in the Crimea and they had the right to be there .

Wrong as they weren't allowed outside the base except for maintenance and training, and they were not allowed to be off base with weapons.

Under various agreements between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is allowed to keep up to 25,000 troops on the Crimean Peninsula. Those troops are allowed outside of their bases for operations considered normal to maintaining the facilities. But there are limitations on deployments -- even for training operations.

Under any interpretation, surrounding Ukrainian military bases in the Crimea is seen as an overt offensive activity, regardless of whether shots are fired, and appears to violate the terms of their basing agreements.

www.rferl.org...

You can read more about that agreement here...

ericposner.com...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

If they know that they would be out matched as you say and they have said that Russia invaded the east and are there fighting the Ukrainian army then something does not make sense . They either invaded or didn't . Kiev is either fighting their own people in the east or they are fighting the Russians .

they can be fighting both - it is not an either/or situation.

If the Russians then it would make sense to help them .If it's their own people then NATO and other countries should consider what they are getting into .

they are not getting into anything.

I think that is why Germany ,France ,Russia and Ukraine created the Minsk2 agreement and Kiev needs to pull their troops back and start following the Minsk2 to resolve the situation .

it was separatists that advanced after the Minsk and Minsk2 agreements and took over areas that had been agreed were controlled by Ukraine - eg Donetsk Airport after Minsk, Debaltseve after Minsk 2 - the Ukrainian Governmen has made no similar massive breaches of the agreements - although it is obvious that both sides continue to shoot at each other.

Why should only the Ukrainian Govt follow the terms - shouldn't the separatists follow them too??

Right now there are men women and children dying and the only aid they have is coming from Russia . Kiev stopped the banking , cut them off from normal society .

Of course they did - why would you run government services in an area that claims to be independent and that shoots at government workers??

When you make that choice there are consequences that come with it - the idea that somehow the Ukrainian Government can run normal services in the separatist areas is just silly!!

time to do the right thing me thinks ...

,

Absolutely - Russia get out of Ukraine and let them sort their problems out!

a reply to: the2ofusr1

If Russia did invade Crimea as you say then why is there no war there ?

Does the word overwhelmed sound familiar?

Also you should know this...From one Igor Strelkov/Girkin.

In an interview on 22 January 2015 Igor Girkin, one of the major "Russian self-defence" commanders in 2014 Crimean crisis, explained that the "overwhelming national support for the self-defence" as portrayed by the Russian media was fiction, and they actually had to "forcibly drive the deputies to vote [to join Russia]". Under his command, the rebels "collected" the deputies into the chambers to vote. A majority of the law enforcement, administration and army did not support the "self-defence" (one notable exception being Berkut) and only the presence of regular Russian army in Crimea "made the whole thing work".[86][87] According to the Nemtsov Report Girkin also acknowledged that he resigned from his official position in the DNR due to pressure from the Kremlin.[88] He also stated that Vladislav Surkov plays a decisive role in Donbass.[88]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is another reason they didn't fight...

Some experts are convinced that beyond a policy to “avoid spilling first blood and give Russia an excuse for further action” when Russian forces fanned out across Crimea in March, the military didn’t react because the military couldn’t react. The country’s tanks, trucks, jets and ships were in such bad repair that many weren’t operational. When the equipment was working, the troops didn’t have enough training to operate it or couldn’t find the necessary fuel to start the engines.

www.miamiherald.com...

Could it be argued that Crimea did hold a referendum and decide to leave Ukraine and join Russia ?

No, it can't as it has been shown Putin decided the fate of Crimea weeks before the referendum, and as I just showed you the one's in charged were forced to vote for Russia, The vote was just a way for Putin to justify his taking of Crimea.

And it seems Russia had plans for more than just Crimea when it comes to Ukraine...

Report: Kremlin Was Eying Ukraine Prior to Yanukovych Ouster

www.voanews.com...

If they did use their democratic right to do so ,can we in the west say they had no right to do that ?

Stop they never wanted to go, and I showed you that with admission from Igor Strelkov about the way that referendum vote was made.

And exactly what was it the west supposedly did?

Crimea , like Quebec in Canada held a referendum .Unlike Quebec they decided to leave and join Russia .

Unlike Quebec the Crimean vote was a sham.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Right now there are men women and children dying and the only aid they have is coming from Russia .

Well Russia decided they had to have Crimea...so they are their responsibility, and not Ukraine's.

Kiev stopped the banking , cut them off from normal society . time to do the right thing me thinks ...

Again because they are now part of Russia, so Ukraine has no responsibility to keep their banks open in a territory that is now another countries.

I guess being part of Russia isn't all they thought it would be. If they were still Ukrainian they would have those banks to use.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

the idea that somehow the Ukrainian Government can run normal services in the separatist areas is just silly!!

Nor should they have to...it's a consequence of wanting to leave Ukraine.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

the idea that somehow the Ukrainian Government can run normal services in the separatist areas is just silly!!

Nor should they have to...it's a consequence of wanting to leave Ukraine.

Not to mention under international law / UN Charter the occupying power is responsible for what occurs in their control zone.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia had many troops in the Crimea and they had the right to be there . The same thugs that were operating in Kiev were not going to be allowed to pull the same stuff off in the Crimea and Putin made sure of that . Kiev has a peace agreement with the east and if and when they decide to get down to the finer details of that agreement the civil war will continue . Its a no win situation for Kiev but that is the way the cookie crumbles sometimes .

OH? if thats the case then the US can claim Okinawa in japan then right? Both forces had bases and both were in other countries. The troops there had th eright to b e on that military base and thats it according to the agreements they had.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

Moscow (AFP) - Human rights on the Crimea peninsula seized by Russia from Ukraine in March 2014 have "deteriorated radically" since Moscow's takeover, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said Thursday.

"Fundamental freedoms of assembly, association, expression and movement have all been restricted by the de facto authorities in Crimea," Michael Georg Link, director of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, said in a statement.

Well it seems Crimea is in some pretty interesting times as they are losing human rights from the new regime there.

Since then the authorities installed by Moscow have clamped down on pro-Kiev activists, local journalists and the area's Crimean Tatar community, the OSCE said in a 100-page report released Thursday.

"We found in Crimea that those Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars who openly supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine, refused Russian citizenship or did not support the de facto authorities were in a particularly vulnerable position,” said the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Astrid Thors.

news.yahoo.com...

Crimea probably wishes now they didn't vote, as they are just falling back into the RUssian way of life...something they wanted to get away from.

Well, I can't say we did'nt see that coming!

a reply to: yuppa

How many military bases does the US have in how many countries ? The US seems to work by hook or by crook and will even create proxy wars with other countries .Afghanistan and giving Russia their Vietnam using Osama Bin Laden .How did that work for Washington when the Taliban stopped the Opium production ? I guess the flow of drugs is a very important economic issue for the west . The US did not have to bomb Japan ,at least the civilian population ,but they did . Now the US controls Japan and can use them in any proxy war they need . They sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia who drops them on the Yemen people . They claim that Assad must but when given the chance to see new elections there seems to be no opposition willing to talk and enter the elections . Like Iraq ,Afghanistan , Libya and now Syria they would sooner blow the place up ,create a failed state , and cause a refugee crisis for Europe . Like Nuland said in the earlier coup in Ukraine F the EU . That is quite the policy they have there ......No wonder they don't like Putin getting in their way . NATO or the US could have a nice base in the Crimea and they would F the people and the Govt ..... US interests eh ....

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well Russia decided they had to have Crimea...so they are their responsibility, and not Ukraine's.

So you are saying that Ukraine should be killing people who are sympathetic to Russia ? The eastern part did not get annexed but Crimea did . Why not go kill the Crimians seeing they seem to be more sympathetic to Russia then the east does . I do think that the east by now sees the Kiev coup US puppet Govt as someone they will be harbouring bad bad feelings for for a very long time . It's a good thing that the Russians are sending them aid though . IMO

Again because they are now part of Russia, so Ukraine has no responsibility to keep their banks open in a territory that is now another countries.

OH ! So what is the Minsk 2 agreement about . It was signed by Russia ,Germany,France and Ukraine ...What is that all about if the east is a part of Russia . If that is the case then Ukraine is fighting against the Russians but someone said that the reason they are not fighting in the Crimea is because they don't have the ability to take on the Russians .....Make up your minds people ...Pick a truth and go with it ....
Not only that but earlier on Kiev said that nobody would be speaking Russia as well ....I wonder ho that would go in Quebec if the Federal Govt. one day said nobody in Canada was allowed to speak French ....divide and conquer or by hook or by crook ....

I guess being part of Russia isn't all they thought it would be. If they were still Ukrainian they would have those banks to use.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Your argument is based on the Premise that what occurred in Crimea was actually lawful, which is was not and that the vote was valid, which is was not.

You are correct that Ukraine is fighting the Russians as adequate evidence has been brought forth showing the Russians are sending military equipment / manpower / Russian military leaders and Russian units into Ukraine (Crimea as well as East Ukraine).

Kiev never stated Russia would not be spoken and the Russians used that lie as a justification for their invasion. Whats even better is how the Russians did EXACTLY what they accused Ukraine of doing in Crimea. Suppressing minorities, requiring Russian as the official language while using propaganda in schools to force the Russian indoctrination on their new slaves in Crimea.


You intentionally / willingly ignore that though and I am curious why. You claim to have issues with Ukraine doing those things (which they never did) yet you seem perfectly ok when Russia does the very thing you have issues with.

Care to explain the hypocrisy?