this post was submitted on 31 May 2023
-6 points (42.9% liked)

Europe

3904 readers
30 users here now

Europa

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are again diverting and misleading.

I wrote:

Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.

In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.

Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.

You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.

Did Russia honour the Budapest Memorandum?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are again diverting and misleading.

I'm doing no such thing.

You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.

Russia honoured the Budapest Memorandum right up to the point when NATO ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which caused a civil war. I wonder why you would ignore this important context...

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So an invasion and annexation of parts of another country is justified, when there is a coup? (There wasn't, btw. )

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There was and it's a well documented fact. Meanwhile, the invasion was modelled on the precedent set by NATO invading Yugoslavia. NATO recognized independence of the breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for assistance. Russia did exactly the same thing in Donbas.

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could not find a more reputable source? Greyzone author, really?

And it is news to me, that NATO troops were in Yugoslavia. Got a source for that? Or again a lie by you as the background of western politicians?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could not come up with a better counter argument than ad hominem I see. And just how ignorant are you? https://shape.nato.int/ongoingoperations/nato-mission-in-kosovo-kfor-

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ad hominem? Not really. I contest his neutrality. It’s a partisan publication.

You wrote about the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO invasion. What has KFOR to do with that?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're using ad hominem to dismiss the content of the article. KFOR is the NATO force that is currently occupying Serbia that is left over from the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. Are you seriously so ignorant that you do not know about the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia?

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There was no NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. There was a very controversial aerial intervention by NATO after ethnic cleansing by Serbian troops in Kosovo. But that is not an invasion. After that there was a UN peace keeping campaign and administration.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your source is about a judgement about the involvement of Milosevic in the war crimes in Bosnia. In case you don’t know, there is a difference between Bosnia and Kosovo.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The original judgment was the justification for the NATO invasion.

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The one you keep denying happened.

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Give me one source about a NATO invasion, it must have been all over the news. In case you don’t know, an invasion is defined by troops on the ground. When were NATO troops in Yugoslavia before KFOR?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's pretty hilarious how you keep digging yourself in here. NATO attacked Yugoslavia, including civilian infrastructure, for 78 days. That's an invasion, and the fact that it was done from the air doesn't change this fact. One has to be completely intellectually bankrupt to try to pretend otherwise.

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Invasion : an act of invading especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

Newspeak on your side?

You are grasping for straws. I mentioned the bombing and I was on the streets against it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People reading this thread will know who's grasping at straws here.

[–] rstein@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you already asked Merriam-Webster to change the definition?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

I love how you just cherry picked a definition and now pretend it's the sole one. Here's one from Britanica for you: the act of entering a place in an attempt to take control of it. You keep on digging though.