Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Exactly which international law did Russia break, according to Merkel?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 05:27 AM

I'm fascinated by the Putin-Merkel standoff.  Personal experiences in my own life have shaped me into a consistent Nazi watcher, and this clash between European political titans is rife with Nazi significance.  The crisis in the Ukraine is what has introduced this bothersome Nazi spectre into the Putin-Merkel relationship.  It's like a crisis within a crisis.

 

Personally, I want to believe in the basic decency of Germany and its people, so I find it hard to believe that Angela Merkel seriously expects the Russian president, to accept a Ukraine where ethnic Russians are marginalised and even slaughtered by a reborn Nazi regime loosely allied with NATO.   This viewpoint leaves me exasperated when I read that Merkel insists that Russia broke international law in the Ukraine.  I'd like to know exactly which international law Russia is supposed to have broken.

 

Given Russia's decisive defeat of the German Nazi regime in World War Two, and the horrific stories of Nazi occupation of the Ukraine and other Russian border states at that time, Russia would seem to be entirely within its rights to defend its borders against any new Nazi aggressions, especially if those NAZIS are fronting for extremist elements within NATO.

 

Furthermore, the USA's thinly veiled attempt to establish NATO missile bases in the Ukraine and other nations bordering Russia, surely puts the USA and its NATO allies in violation of numerous defense treaties.  So once again, Russia must surely be within its rights to resist this obvious aggression from NATO.

 

As for the Crimean annexation, it is a tempest in a teapot.  With the exception of some wild eyed Ukrainian Nazi zealots, and some crackpot NATO generals, nobody gives a damn if Russia annexes its own navy base.  Russian ships have been mooring on the Crimean peninsula since the seventeenth century.  NATO is seriously out of step with reality.  We can only hope that both Putin and Merkel have more respect for their own shared history, than NATO is willing to recognize.


Edited by Colombo, 08 December 2014 - 05:34 AM.

  • 0

#2 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33256 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 06:38 AM

While the concept of "international law" is sold world-wide in law schools and media, no law is "international" in scope and the term is misleading.  

 

Treaties signed by individual nations are binding only on those nations.   To the extent that a legislative body declares a treaty to be "law", it may be called that by that nation but it remains merely a treaty and not a law.   

 

The US recognizes its treaties as "law" to the extent that they do not conflict with the constitution, but the US view of treaties is not binding on other nations, and the US government has ignored or broken its own treaties at times.   

 

Treaties are made to be broken, and are always broken if a country's national interest is harmed or if compliance is inconvenient for that government, so treaties can be rejected after acceptance by any nation signing them.  

 

"Laws" cannot be ignored or rejected by the persons bound by them.  Laws remain laws and are binding even if broken.

 

Treaties are broken and rejected by any nation if they find it inconvenient to comply with them.  Treaties broken are no longer binding.   Thus, treaties are not laws, and there is no such animal as "international law".   There are only treaties among nations.

 

Treaties are often broken eventually.    See the book titled,  "The Treaty Trap".


  • 0

#3 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 08:06 AM

Yes, Zharkov, it's easily agreed that international law consists of little more than a basket of solemn agreements called treaties, which are routinely broken by the signatories.  What I'm suggesting is that no treaty exists that would prevent any nation from conducting basic security operations along its borders.  And since NATO has established the first National Socialist (NAZI) nation since Hitler's Germany, right on Russia's border, and since that new Nazi regime is oppressing and even murdering ethnic Russians, fighting back against that NAZI regime and its NATO backers is a basic security operation so it isn't subject to any limitations by treaty.  If I'm wrong, and such a treaty does exist, then it's a treaty that needs to be ignored until it can be formally scrapped.


  • 0

#4 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33256 posts

Posted 24 December 2014 - 04:51 PM

When a government is violently overthrown, the world has a choice to make - either recognize that government as the legal government, or, not recognize that government at all.    There are only two options but they cannot be combined to recognize the government for some purposes but not for others.    It's all or nothing.   Putin appears to have recognized the Ukraine government as legitimate, despite disagreeing with what they have done to Russian speaking people.    Unless the Ukraine government quickly winds down its war against its Russian-speaking citizens, it will find itself violently overthrown once again.    As long as war continues, the longevity of the Ukraine government will remain in doubt.  


  • 0

#5 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 24 December 2014 - 09:45 PM

When a government is violently overthrown, the world has a choice to make - either recognize that government as the legal government, or, not recognize that government at all.    There are only two options but they cannot be combined to recognize the government for some purposes but not for others.    It's all or nothing.   Putin appears to have recognized the Ukraine government as legitimate, despite disagreeing with what they have done to Russian speaking people.    Unless the Ukraine government quickly winds down its war against its Russian-speaking citizens, it will find itself violently overthrown once again.    As long as war continues, the longevity of the Ukraine government will remain in doubt.  

Makes perfect sense, Zharkov, even through a haze of Christmas vodka fumes.


Edited by Colombo, 24 December 2014 - 09:46 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2018 Pravda.Ru