Dedicated Russian thread

Part of the EU member Cyprus are under military occupation of two NATO member states. You know them pretty well.
Formulate me a rule according to which the occupation can be justified.
You said “Why parts of the EU member state is controlled using military force by two NATO members? According to what rules exactly?”

Cyprus has been part of the EU since 2004. Turkey isn’t a member of the EU.

Next
 
The idea of a rules based system that constrains everyone is a reaction by middle powers to untrammelled exercise of power by great powers. These middle powers believe they have enough influence to shape what those rules may be, but not enough to stand alone without them. You don't need to reach back to the counter-reformation or the Treaty of Westphalia to explain that.

The US and China both see themselves as great powers, and Russia are clinging on to that status by the tips of their fingernails. None see any benefit to themselves in maintaining an international order that may restrain them. Look at the recent threats by the US against members of the International Court in the Hague as a prime example of that.

The search for some sort of "cultural" factors is just beating about the bush rather than addressing the more relevant questions such as what stake does China have in an international order which was dictated by Western powers? What place to they have in defining this world order that is commensurate with their size and power? Why should they bow down to this international order if their closest rival, the US, do not?

My own country Canada places great store in preserving a rules based order and international institutions as a central pillar of its foreign policy. The objective of that policy is to restrain the actions of the great powers, particularly the US, who of the great powers affects us the most. What hope is there for that to succeed though in the face of a US whose current president operates on an explicit principle of being constrained by no one outside of the US?

There was some hope at one time of the EU becoming an independent balancing force in the world, but it's clear that they are for the foreseeable future destined to be as dysfunctional and internationally irrelevant as the Holy Roman Empire.

Unless the UK are planning on re-launching the British Empire in the post-Brexit era, I don't see anyone on the horizon who can act as a balancing force to convince the great powers that it is in their interests to operate within a new international system of rules.
I think we both envision the same thing, albeit from slightly differing perspectives and with slightly differing emphases.

As for the U.K. and the E.U., the international standing and influence of both has been and will be further diminished by the Brexit debacle, which is why Brexit was supported so much by Moscow, by certain elements in the U.S. and less obviously by the P.R.C.
 
You said “Why parts of the EU member state is controlled using military force by two NATO members? According to what rules exactly?”

Cyprus has been part of the EU since 2004. Turkey isn’t a member of the EU.

Next
So what rule allow 2 NATO member state to occupy a part of Cyprus EU member state from 2004? So parts of territory of EU member state is under military occupation of 2 not EU member states but both are NATO member states.
Is it a normal situation? Why NATO does keep silence?
 
Last edited:
So what rule allow 2 NATO member state to occupy a part of Cyprus EU member state from 2004.
Cyprus isn’t in NATO.
So pars of territory of EU member state is under military occupation of 2 not EU member states but both are NATO member states.
Cyprus isn’t in NATO
Is it a normal situation. Why NATO does keep silence?
The same way that CSTO members don’t do anything about Russian occupation of Transnystria, Crimea, E Ukraine and S Ossetia?

The members of NATO take these matters to the U.N. S/RES/550 : UN Documents : Security Council Report

E2A: I believe you’re coming from and continuing from a false premise ie that Greece and Turkey are both in control of Cyprus. It may be (but denied) the case for N Cyprus, but the Republic of Cyprus is not Greece, is a member of the EU and not in NATO
 
Last edited:
I think we both envision the same thing, albeit from slightly differing perspectives and with slightly differing emphases.

As for the U.K. and the E.U., the international standing and influence of both has been and will be further diminished by the Brexit debacle, which is why Brexit was supported so much by Moscow, by certain elements in the U.S. and less obviously by the P.R.C.
I think the EU's international standing in the eyes of the great powers is rather starkly illustrated by the US withdrawing from the EU supported Iran deal. It is even more starkly illustrated by the very successful threats the US has made against EU persons and companies and effectively exercising US sovereignty within EU territory with complete impunity.

An EU that had any pretence of being a factor in international affairs would have responded to this and made the US pay a significant price for it. Instead, they meekly accepted the humiliation. "The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must."

Regardless of whether Brexit was a good idea or a bad idea overall, the hoped for international order of rules and limitations was clearly not going to be rescued by the EU, nor is any rule of law going to be enforced by an international court (see my previous post on this latter).
 
Cyprus isn’t in NATO.

Cyprus isn’t in NATO

The same way that CSTO members don’t do anything about Russian occupation of Transnystria, Crimea, E Ukraine and S Ossetia?

The members of NATO take these matters to the U.N. S/RES/550 : UN Documents : Security Council Report

E2A: I believe you’re coming from and continuing from a false premise ie that Greece and Turkey are both in control of Cyprus. It may be (but denied) the case for N Cyprus, but the Republic of Cyprus is not Greece, is a member of the EU and not in NATO
Yes, Cyprus is not a member of NATO. You can also add that 2+2=4.
I asked you a question that you try to avoid. I repeat it in clear, easily understandable form and hope that it may help.
If you believe in the 'rules based world order' (that it really exist) then formulate please a rule according to that
- the UK has right to occupy a part of Cyprus
- Turkey has right to occupy a part of Cyprus
If NATO supports the concept of the rules based world order then why do you think Turkey remain member of NATO?
 
Resolution number five hundred and fifty, voted on by the United Nations



Voted against by Pakistan, abstained by the US
Voted for by the 13 other members of the security council —- including Russia
The UNSC resolution 550 is too well known to quote it. In fact according to it Turkey illegally occupy a part of Cyprus. So why do you think Turkey has not been excluded from NATO?
 
The UNSC resolution 550 is too well known to quote it. In fact according to it Turkey illegally occupy a part of Cyprus. So why do you think Turkey has not been excluded from NATO?
For the same reason that Russia has not been excluded from the UN for illegally occupying the Crimea, parts of Ukraine etc ?
 
The UNSC resolution 550 is too well known to quote it. In fact according to it Turkey illegally occupy a part of Cyprus. So why do you think Turkey has not been excluded from NATO?
What does NATO have to do with the UN resolution on Cyprus ?

NATO is an organisation formed for collective defence of a number of nations from Russia / former Soviet Union

Cyprus became independent in 1960 and an agreement was provided two bases to Britain.

Fighting between different Cypriot factions brought in the UN peacekeepers, of which the British provide a contingent (this is separate to the normal Cyprus posting)
Turkeys occupation of Cyprus is not recognised
 
Yes, Cyprus is not a member of NATO. You can also add that 2+2=4.
I asked you a question that you try to avoid. I repeat it in clear, easily understandable form and hope that it may help.
You’re like another poster who favours Russia, putting words where there were none.
If you believe in the 'rules based world order' (that it really exist) then formulate please a rule according to that
- the UK has right to occupy a part of Cyprus
- Turkey has right to occupy a part of Cyprus
You need better HOTO notes. UKSBAs were part of the independence agreement with Cyprus, Turkey and Greece. An agreement. A rule if you like.

Read the Resolutions on Cyprus which the USSR agreed with but Russia thinks it can do the same in Crimea and veto any Resolution.

The island may yet unify when Erdogan goes. Only Turkey recognises it.
If NATO supports the concept of the rules based world order then why do you think Turkey remain member of NATO?
NATO is a defensive military alliance. It’s not a political force per se, that’s from the countries which are in it which made their points at the U.N.

Anyway, what mechanism exists to remove a member from NATO? Name the Article.

While we’re here, by what ‘rule’ does Russia occupy Transnistria, S Ossetia, Crimea and E Ukraine? ‘Might is right’? Possession is 9/10th’s of the law?
 
What does NATO have to do with the UN resolution on Cyprus ?

NATO is an organisation formed for collective defence of a number of nations from Russia / former Soviet Union

Cyprus became independent in 1960 and an agreement was provided two bases to Britain.

Fighting between different Cypriot factions brought in the UN peacekeepers, of which the British provide a contingent (this is separate to the normal Cyprus posting)
Turkeys occupation of Cyprus is not recognised
UKSBAs were part of the independence agreement with Cyprus, Turkey and Greece. An agreement. A rule if you like.
The agreement that you refer to was not signed by 'Cyprus' but by some randomly picked private persons who lived on the Island. Lawfull Cypriot government never signed it. Greece and Turkey are merely third parties that were not allowed to decide any question related to territorial integrity of Cyprus.
Thus it is colonial era unjust forged document adopted without any participation of the people of Cyprus.
NATO is a defensive military alliance.
Really. And what NATO member country NATO tried to defend in Kosovo?
It’s not a political force...
Really? Do you really believe it? But anyway NATO should follow 'the rules' and should not allow that its members violated 'the rules'.
Btw, do you think that Turkey violated 'the rules' in Cyprus?
 
The agreement that you refer to was not signed by 'Cyprus' but by some randomly picked private persons who lived on the Island. Lawfull Cypriot government never signed it. Greece and Turkey are merely third parties that were not allowed to decide any question related to territorial integrity of Cyprus.
Thus it is colonial era unjust forged document adopted without any participation of the people of Cyprus.
As I said, you need better HOTO notes. This has been discussed numerous times. What’s the source of your opinion btw? As opinions don’t matter according to you
Really. And what NATO member country NATO tried to defend in Kosovo?
Carrying on from IFOR, SFOR then KFOR
Really? Do you really believe it? But anyway NATO should follow 'the rules' and should not allow that its members violated 'the rules'.
Yep. I do. As before, what Article allows a member to be expelled?
Btw, do you think that Turkey violated 'the rules' in Cyprus?
As per the UNSC Resolutions. Are you having comprehension problems?

Talking of ignoring questions...
“While we’re here, by what ‘rule’ does Russia occupy Transnistria, S Ossetia, Crimea and E Ukraine? ‘Might is right’? Possession is 9/10th’s of the law?”
 

offog

LE
The Scandinavians are starting to glow in he dark.


But it's ok Russia has said its not them.

Time will tell as they have a habit of saying it is not us and then when irrefutable proof is provided they still say no.
 
The recently completed temple to Muscovite militarism. A classic example of the subordination of Religion and the Church as a servant and tool of the State as required under the Muscovite Mindset:


The Cathedral itself is surrounded by a museum and monuments glorifying Russian warfare and presenting the State sanctioned (and historically inaccurate) view of Russian military history.

Reportedly, Putin modestly shelved intial plans to have included mosaics glorifying him together with Sergei Shoigu, the Defence Minister who proposed the building as well as another one extolling the martial prowess of Stalin. He is reported to have deemed the time to be early to have them included in the official pantheon. However Red Army soldiers and Communist symbology have been included.


A wonder that illustrations of Cossack pogroms, forced expropriations of peasantry and NKVD executions have not been included! Surely they could have found a corner to also celebrate the Katyn Massacre Katyn massacre - Wikipedia

 
Last edited:
The recently completed temple to Muscovite militarism. A classic example of the subordination of Religion and the Church as a servant and tool of the State as required under the Muscovite Mindset:


The Cathedral itself is surrounded by a museum and monuments glorifying Russian warfare and presenting the State sanctioned (and historically inaccurate) view of Russian military history.

Reportedly, Putin modestly shelved intial plans to have included mosaics glorifying him together with Sergei Shoigu, the Defence Minister who proposed the building as well as another one extolling the martial prowess of Stalin. He is reported to have deemed the time to be early to have them included in the official pantheon. However Red Army soldiers and Communist symbology have been included.

A wonder that illustrations of Cossack pogroms, forced expropriations of peasantry and NKVD executions have not been included! Surely they could have found a corner to also celebrate the Katyn Massacre Katyn massacre - Wikipedia

I watched the short video. It's very impressive, a modern cathedral in a classic style. The outer perimeter by the way is clearly intended to evoke the image of earthwork fortifications. Many classical Russian monasteries were surrounded by defensive walls of some sort.

It's hard to judge by just a short video which undoubtedly just shows the best bits, but overall it looks well done even if my own cultural tastes may differ. The artworks appear to have been done by a variety of artists with some being better than others.

It would be interesting to know how this has been received by the general public, whether they see it as a modern cultural and religious masterpiece, or whether they are outraged by the vast expense that seems to have been lavished on it. Perhaps @KGB_resident could enlighten us from his perspective.
 
The Scandinavians are starting to glow in he dark.


But it's ok Russia has said its not them.

Time will tell as they have a habit of saying it is not us and then when irrefutable proof is provided they still say no.
The isotopes detected have quite a short half life, so it is probably a new release and not old pollution.
At the same time, there is a lot of pollution being released by a series of forest fires in Siberia, and Norilsk Nickel, who dumped a load of fuel into a river a few weeks ago, has just been caught dumping thousands of gallons of waste water into the environment.
 
........................................ It would be interesting to know how this has been received by the general public, whether they see it as a modern cultural and religious masterpiece, or whether they are outraged by the vast expense that seems to have been lavished on it. ..............
The people must do as the Kremlin dictates. Any possible dissent will be rebuffed as unpatriotic and at the behest of foreign enemies. Dissenters will be quashed.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top