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

[Trango Towers]

View attachment 956510


The United States leased Guantanamo Bay from the Republic of Cuba after the Spanish-American war caused by Spain blowing up a US Navy ship. This happened around 60 years before the Cuba missile crisis. The US did not invade Cuba during the missile crisis. Cubans did.

And this is not about Cuba. It is about NATO expansion, so You are on ignore.

So where was the operation launched from. Who trained Financed and armed the proxy.

Wake up

 

[Sineva]

View attachment 956510


The United States leased Guantanamo Bay from the Republic of Cuba after the Spanish-American war caused by Spain blowing up a US Navy ship. This happened around 60 years before the Cuba missile crisis. The US did not invade Cuba during the missile crisis. Cubans did.

Yeah,cubans who were supported,trained and equipped by the us.....as I have no doubt that you very well know.

Whats next,perhaps a zionist history lesson....?.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Yeah,cubans who were supported,trained and equipped by the us.....as I have no doubt that you very well know.

Whats next,perhaps a zionist history lesson....?.

Batista and Castro both grabbed power in coups.
International law does not give the United States the right to invade, due to those coups. International law does not concern itself with Cubans trying to counter Castros coup.

It is therefore legally important to differentiate between the US invading and Cubans (albeit US funded,trained and armed) invading.

The nationalization of US assets in Cuba can certainly be considered a valid reason for war. They certainly can support Cubans.

When I mind my own business,you appear out of nowhere to mock me,slander me and tag me on dumb and ridiculous threads.

I told @A.P. Richelieu what I thought. Ukraine should have stayed neutral. NATO shouldn't have tried to take Ukraine under its influence. An agreement shouldn't be an obstable to world peace. They can't keep saying "Russia didn't have the right to complain about NATO expansion",when they knew that going into Russia's turf would make Russia angry.

You can be angry about Your neighbour painting his house in a normal colour which you happen to hate, but you have no right to be taken seriously or to vandalize his house.

Likewise, nothing is stopping Russia from whining about Ukraine but it has no right sending troops to occupy or annex parts or the whole of Ukraine.

 

[Muhammed45]

You will find out when USA successfully provokes Russia in European continent through its European barking lapdogs and then Russia drops a couple of nuclear warheads at Swedish capital.

That is when you are gonna understand the reason behind it. For now you just need to continue to barking at Russians till the exact moment.

 

[Haldorss]

Am I to understand this Swede is an Indian who is still trying to talk down to people after being shown to be wrong? It seems strange.

The nationalization of US assets in Cuba can certainly be considered a valid reason for war. They certainly can support Cubans.

Stop making shit up. It's annoying. In that case, privatization of state companies legalizes a revolution to destroy the government doing it. No-one accepts that, so you're wrong.

 

[Haldorss]

legally important to differentiate between the US invading and Cubans (albeit US funded,trained and armed) invading.

That's terrorism and aggression against a foreign state. You're wrong, like usual.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Am I to understand this Swede is an Indian who is still trying to talk down to people after being shown to be wrong? It seems strange.

That is simply some Pakistani madhats that cannot prove their claims which resorts to calling everyone smarter than them ”Indians”.

Stop making shit up. It's annoying. In that case, privatization of state companies legalizes a revolution to destroy the government doing it. No-one accepts that, so you're wrong.

A state can make a decision to sell its assets.
It can do so in a corrupt way and in a non-corrupt way.

Revolution is inherently illegal, but if the revolutionaries win they will prevail.

The normal procedure to handle corruption is not to throw a revolution, but to seek justice in courts.
In thoroughly corrupt state where justice is nowhere to be found, it is unlikely that revolution is legal, but it still may happen.

When a state nationalizes assets, it needs to compensate the owners. War is not the first choice. The matter should be brought up in places like the ICJ. Only if matters are not resolved, was becomes a possibility.
To support Cubans wanting to overtrow an illegal Cuban government is not against international law.

 

[Haldorss]

A state can make a decision to sell its assets.
It can do so in a corrupt way and in a non-corrupt way.

Stop equivocating for the sake of an argument. You said it was justified to invade on nationalization of assets. Well the reverse is true under the same circumstances of selling them off by defrauding the people.

Revolution is inherently illegal, but if the revolutionaries win they will prevail.

No it isn't. Revolution can be legal for many reasons, even explicitly made to be legal. However under the current system it's seen as illegal, so you agree the Ukrainian revolution is now illegal.

The normal procedure to handle corruption is not to throw a revolution, but to seek justice in courts.

Wrong. Courts are aligned with protecting the state and controlled by the state. They are not independent and judges are rewarded by the state.

In thoroughly corrupt state where justice is nowhere to be found, it is unlikely that revolution is legal, but it still may happen.

Self defense against the state could be said to be legal. However you're agreeing that the ukrainian revolution is illegal now.

When a state nationalizes assets, it needs to compensate the owners.

No. States are sovereign they can take them at any time and make it legal.

To support Cubans wanting to overtrow an illegal Cuban government is not against international law.

States are sovereign and their actions can't be illegal. If you're talking about international law, then the west has violated it including run a genocide against native americans. I'm going to end this discussion.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

That's terrorism and aggression against a foreign state. You're wrong, like usual.

It is not illegal to support a legal war.
The UK supported the French resistance during WWII.
Noone would call that support illegal except Germany which called it terrorism and aggression.

 

[Haldorss]

It is not illegal to support a legal war.
The UK supported the French resistance during WWII.
Noone would call that support illegal except Germany which called it terrorism and aggression.

There was no legal war declared on Cuba

 

[nahtanbob]

A popular argument from Russian trolls is that NATO promised not to expand, and then expanded anyway, and therefore Russia has the right to invade Ukraine.

It is claimed that Gorbachev was promised this verbally in a meeting.
Since Gorbachev only had an international role until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 such a promise must have been made up until 1991.

The arguments against are:

• Gorbachev has stated that he received no such promise https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
• NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act in May 1997 which states that all sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions on such issues.

In short, Russia accepted in writing the expansion of NATO here: https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

with the critical part being:

”respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security”

Former Warsaw Pact countries wanted to join NATO to avoid being invaded by Russia applied and the first invitation came in July 1997, that is after the Founding Act was signed.

The only deal on enlargement is the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. where NATO troops are not to be based in former East Germany - until a new German government decides otherwise.

Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Before signing the Founding Act, Yeltsin wanted to have a promise of no-expansion from Bill Clinton, but this was denied. This is shown in the notes taken from the meeting, available in the Clinton Library.

The Clinton-Yeltsin Relationship in Their Own Words | National Security Archive

Washington, D.C., October 2, 2018 – President Bill Clinton saw Russian leader Boris Yeltsin as indispensable for promoting American interests following the collapse of the Soviet Union, often prompting him to take controversial steps to ensure Yeltsin’s political survival, according to top-level...

nsarchive.gwu.edu

Instead it was agreed to postpone discussions until after critical elections.

Putin and Russian Trolls are lying their teeth out, when they claim that NATO promised - no expansion.

I do not know what was promised or not promised. It is a sign of bad faith to be admitting East European states and Baltic Republics into NATO when Soviets made a decision to pullout peacefully. They could have given EU membership. I am not a fan of Russia or Putin. But the Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright of the world are determined to create mischief.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Stop equivocating for the sake of an argument. You said it was justified to invade on nationalization of assets. Well the reverse is true under the same circumstances of selling them off by defrauding the people.

The Swedish government sold of its public telecommunication company by issuing shares available to anyone interested. Nothing illegal with that.
A much smaller government organisation (I don’t remember the details) was sold to one of the employees for a very low amount. A private enterprise would have been interested in buying but did not get a chance to bid.
That is corruption, and it ended up in court.

No it isn't. Revolution can be legal for many reasons, even explicitly made to be legal. However under the current system it's seen as illegal, so you agree the Ukrainian revolution is now illegal.

An open society allows protests, and the Yanukovich government responded with snipers.
There was no revolution as all the important step were taken in the parliament.

Wrong. Courts are aligned with protecting the state and controlled by the state. They are not independent and judges are rewarded by the state.

That may be so in your country. In a country with low corruption you have separation of powers and the courts can override the givernment when they do so ething illegal.

Self defense against the state could be said to be legal. However you're agreeing that the ukrainian revolution is illegal now.

There was no revolution as the state was not overthrown. The parliament selected an acting President for the two months between Yanukovich escaping and the next Presidential election which Yanukovich already had agreed on.

No. States are sovereign they can take them at any time and make it legal.

And if no compensation is issued, it is a cause for war.

States are sovereign and their actions can't be illegal. If you're talking about international law, then the west has violated it including run a genocide against native americans. I'm going to end this discussion.

You cannot apply laws retroactively according to quite old principles.

There was no legal war declared on Cuba

And the United States did not go to war with Cuba.

I do not know what was promised or not promised. It is a sign of bad faith to be admitting East European states and Baltic Republics into NATO when Soviets made a decision to pullout peacefully. They could have given EU membership. I am not a fan of Russia or Putin. But the Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright of the world are determined to create mischief.

The Soviets had no inherent right to occupy Poland or Estonia so noone owed them to be thankful for them leaving.

That is because you do not respect the rights of those countries that sought membership in NATO.
If the Baltic states had not joined NATO, it is likely that they had been invaded before Ukraine.

 

[Darth Vader]

A popular argument from Russian trolls is that NATO promised not to expand, and then expanded anyway, and therefore Russia has the right to invade Ukraine.

It is claimed that Gorbachev was promised this verbally in a meeting.
Since Gorbachev only had an international role until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 such a promise must have been made up until 1991.

The arguments against are:

• Gorbachev has stated that he received no such promise https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
• NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act in May 1997 which states that all sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions on such issues.

In short, Russia accepted in writing the expansion of NATO here: https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

with the critical part being:

”respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security”

Former Warsaw Pact countries wanted to join NATO to avoid being invaded by Russia applied and the first invitation came in July 1997, that is after the Founding Act was signed.

The only deal on enlargement is the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. where NATO troops are not to be based in former East Germany - until a new German government decides otherwise.

Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Before signing the Founding Act, Yeltsin wanted to have a promise of no-expansion from Bill Clinton, but this was denied. This is shown in the notes taken from the meeting, available in the Clinton Library.

The Clinton-Yeltsin Relationship in Their Own Words | National Security Archive

Washington, D.C., October 2, 2018 – President Bill Clinton saw Russian leader Boris Yeltsin as indispensable for promoting American interests following the collapse of the Soviet Union, often prompting him to take controversial steps to ensure Yeltsin’s political survival, according to top-level...

nsarchive.gwu.edu

Instead it was agreed to postpone discussions until after critical elections.

Putin and Russian Trolls are lying their teeth out, when they claim that NATO promised - no expansion.

Well all remember cuba crisis ?
Why US made fuss when they were same in Turkey
This goes both ways, issue is uncle sam only has problems when its not getting its way than everything is wrong, and BS of democracy and Sovereignty comes into play.
Right in last 20 years how many democratic govs were overthrown by uncle sams support
Heck right now how they supporting Pakistan generals over a elected leader who is stuck in jail

 

[Haldorss]

The Swedish government sold of its public telecommunication company by issuing shares available to anyone interested. Nothing illegal with that.
A much smaller government organisation (I don’t remember the details) was sold to one of the employees for a very low amount. A private enterprise would have been interested in buying but did not get a chance to bid.
That is corruption, and it ended up in court.

And? That doesn't forward your non-argument. I'm the one who told you it could be corrupt fraud. I don't need you to mirror what I told you back to me.

An open society allows protests, and the Yanukovich government responded with snipers.
There was no revolution as all the important step were taken in the parliament.

They were armed like the Syrian protesters, who shot Syrian authorities. Also, snipers could have been agents on the side of the protestors, or a branch of the government disloyal to the yanukovich..

There was a revolution and I posted evidence that it was widely reported. as such. You've already been proven wrong on this. If you don't start adjusting to facts presented to you then you are not worth talking to.

That may be so in your country. In a country with low corruption you have separation of powers and the courts can override the givernment when they do so ething illegal.

That's only theoretical.... They are paid by the state and highly. A guaranteed wage paid by the state is essentially bribery to be loyal to it. You're way behind on psychological effects "unconscious bias", but it's hard to believe you genuienly think they don't know they're position and their relationship to the state. You should look up the concept as you pretend there are no favors or loyalties involved in their behavior.

There was no revolution as the state was not overthrown.

There was a revolution and I posted evidence that it was widely reported. as such. You've already been proven wrong on this.

And if no compensation is issued, it is a cause for war.

And it is a cause for war to fund Cuban terrorists etc.

You cannot apply laws retroactively according to quite old principles.

This old principle is current. But you're lying and dishonest while saying this, because as you know it applies to your argument about Cuban nationalisation. It was legal to do without compensation before 1974 as the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States INDICATES.

"Appropriate compensation for the nationalization of existing private businesses is mandated by the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, as well as by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
You will not apply this 1974 law retroactively to Cuba. So ****. OFF. Creep.

And the United States did not go to war with Cuba.

You said in reply to the aggression and funding of terrorists against Cuba was "not illegal to support a legal war."
You implied it was a legal war when you said that.

 

[Haldorss]

This Indian "swede" knows about the 1974 law about compensation for nationalisation and retroactively applies it to Cuban nationalisation, while telling me you can't apply laws retroactively.......and also tries to use it against an old principle I mentioned which is still current. He sounds like a sociopath.