Why Russia has no reason or right to complain about NATOs expansion.

[Haldorss]

The result of the flight only affected Yanukovich status until the next election, which happened three months after the flight. The impeachment procedure could have removed him in a much shorter time.

That is all the effect of the ”revolution”.

The threat caused him to flee, an illegal act and the protesters were criminals by that point. Impeachment was impossible with him not present you are legally wrong. What happened was a procedural point issue of him abandoning his role, that included an election date. They voted only to continue without him, and he was forced to flee by criminals. So they enacted the results of the lethal threat from days earlier. The election results are distorted because of the above events. The revolution was successful. It doesn't have to require bloodshed.

You obviously do not understand Customary Law.

I understand it, and Nasser simply chose to give compensation, but not from a legal point. Customary law is voluntary and few standards were around at the time for what it was. Nasser was being politically expedient.

It is legal for Castro to overthrow Batista.
It is illegal for Castro to grab power afterwards.
That make the Bay of Pigs legal.

No it isn't illegal for him to "grab power" afterward.

A state is legal when all concerned parties accept the state.
if a concerned party does not accept the state, it is not legal.
You simply fail to understand.

Wrong. A state can be legal and not accepted.

And Castro had the right to overthrow Batista and announce new elections. Not to grab power.

Your arbitrariness isn't helping you have a consistent point. It's called ruling by decree.

You can try to debunk it in the threads. So far everyone failed to,prove them illegal.
The Customary Law, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions are not ”Western legal novelties”

Debunk what? They are legal novelties because foreigners came up with them and "taught" them to others, and retroactively said they're the source of law.

Not according to the Founding Act which Russia signed.

I've referred you to the context that you posted yourself in op and pretended didn't exist. Stop ignoring it. This is the third time you have ignored something.

Russia has a history which makes neighbours run for protection.

Your wrong opinion. You are now delusional because West has been attacking Russia for centuries. And Mongolia has done the same to Russia.

Your opinion has no prescedence.

Stop making shit up.

Joining an alliance is not a valid reason for war according to the UN charter.

That's not why Russia went to war.

An invasion cannot happen without an invasion force.

You can destroy a country without an invasion.

Military exercises on batallion or even brigade level is no threat.

Yes it is a threat.

The ”biolabs” story is just Russian propaganda.

No it isn't. They are fact.

The assumption that Russians have a moral high ground in comparison to Western colonial powers is misplaced. Russians were in the same boat.

Russia has not committed genocide. The magnitude of wrongdoing between Nato and Russia is favorable only to Russia. Objectively analyzed wrongdoing being the source of immorality in such a discussion.

American history has its dark aspects - never denied this.

I guess you would consider them darker if Pakistan was invaded? There's a whole discussion about the legitimacy of the Pakistani state and how they would naturally seek favor from the British for granting them a state much like Israel.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The threat caused him to flee, an illegal act and the protesters were criminals by that point.

The person making the threat could be prosecuted, that’s all.

Impeachment was impossible with him not present you are legally wrong. What happened was a procedural point issue of him abandoning his role, that included an election date.

There was an agreement to hold new elections, and then he escaped.

They voted only to continue without him, and he was forced to flee by criminals.

He had many reasons to flee, including theft of millions and risk of lifetime imprisonment for treason.

So they enacted the results of the lethal threat from days earlier. The election results are distorted because of the above events. The revolution was successful. It doesn't have to require bloodshed.

What distorted the election was the Russian coups in Crimea and Donbass.

I understand it, and Nasser simply chose to give compensation, but not from a legal point. Customary law is voluntary and few standards were around at the time for what it was. Nasser was being politically expedient.

Customary Law is not voluntary. When something is Customary Law you can be prosecuted and convicted.

No it isn't illegal for him to "grab power" afterward.

Any action outside the Cuban Constitution is illegal.

Wrong. A state can be legal and not accepted.

Your arbitrariness isn't helping you have a consistent point. It's called ruling by decree.

Show where

Debunk what? They are legal novelties because foreigners came up with them and "taught" them to others, and retroactively said they're the source of law.

All members of the United Nations have voluntarily accepted the UN Charter.
Likewise, all nations that have ratified the Geneva Convemtions accept them as law. You obviously do not understand how treaties work.

I've referred you to the context that you posted yourself in op and pretended didn't exist. Stop ignoring it. This is the third time you have ignored something.

It shows an ambition, not a hard rule.

Your wrong opinion. You are now delusional because West has been attacking Russia for centuries. And Mongolia has done the same to Russia.

Russia expanded to be the largest country on earth by being attacked by all its neighbours…. - not a credible story.

Stop making shit up.

That's not why Russia went to war.


You can destroy a country without an invasion.


Yes it is a threat.

Apparently the only way Russia is not threatened is if the rest of the world surrenders.
You have entered the domain of flat-earthers and moon travel deniers.

No it isn't. They are fact.

Fantasy…

ignored from now on.

 

[Haldorss]

The person making the threat could be prosecuted, that’s all.

It was an armed mob with a leader who made the threat. They had many of them who agreed. Your comment changes nothing about the illegal effects.

There was an agreement to hold new elections, and then he escaped.

No, the elections were proposed after he was removed for absence.

He had many reasons to flee, including theft of millions and risk of lifetime imprisonment for treason.

The armed illegal protesters were the treasonous ones. I haven't seen anything that constitutes treason, or proposed it. You made this up.

What distorted the election was the Russian coups in Crimea and Donbass.

Plebiscite is not a coup according to democracy.

Customary Law is not voluntary. When something is Customary Law you can be prosecuted and convicted.

The results of international judgements are voluntarily acceded to, so it's voluntary. But there was no trial of Nasser and no court process forcing payment. He did it because he felt like it.

Any action outside the Cuban Constitution is illegal.

What you claim applies to the US revolution, the Ukrainian Euromaiden revolution and many others you accept. As long as you're consistent you can propose such a thing. If you are duplicitous, you may not (and you've been duplicitous since the start so it invalidates your point by hypocrisy).

Show where

"Rule by decree is a style of governance allowing quick, unchallenged promulgation of law by a single person or group of people, usually without legislative approval. "

All members of the United Nations have voluntarily accepted the UN Charter.
Likewise, all nations that have ratified the Geneva Convemtions accept them as law. You obviously do not understand how treaties work.

And you do not either... A country can suspend a treaty at any point. You also do not understand the source of law, as pointed out prior to this.

It shows an ambition, not a hard rule.

No it says any agreement "must ensure" the mutual security of all sides etc. It is contextual information for interpreting the agreement. If it meant nothing, why did you include it in op?

Russia expanded to be the largest country on earth by being attacked by all its neighbours…. - not a credible story.

It is credible. Russia started small and defeated invaders. Mongols are one, west is another. Russia freed Finland from Swedish cultural genocide, for example, by invading Sweden. People you are looking for are Anglosaxons who invaded native countries and currently occupy places like Hawaii, who are pleading for their lives while people like you ignore it. Also stealing Mexican land.

Apparently the only way Russia is not threatened is if the rest of the workd surrenders.
You have entered the domain of flat-earthers and moon travel deniers.

That's not what I said. The world is subject to Anglosaxons, not Russians.

Fantasy…
ignored from now on.

Why do you think the biolabs are along Russias border, rather than in central USA? Why make it so USA personnel have to travel to the Russian border to study deadly pathogens, rather than in a high security area in the middle of USA? You're not credible.

 

[Dalit]

That opinion does not matter

By the same token, neither does your opinion matter. The war is a reality and Russia can do whatever it likes to counter NATO expansion. In fact it is already happening as we speak.

 

[Oldman1]

By the same token, neither does your opinion matter. The war is a reality and Russia can do whatever it likes to counter NATO expansion. In fact it is already happening as we speak.

Exactly! Russia has said they have plans to expand and take those counties hence why they joined NATO in the first place.

 

[Oldman1]