Topic: The international court of justice at the suit of Ukraine to Russia (Read 892 times)

Yes. Ukraine was an artificial country created by the Soviets to split the majority Slavic population. And the Muslim rule of Crimea lasted only 300 years (from 15th cen. to 1783). Before that, it was inhabited by ethnic Slavs for thousands of years.

Good point, Sithara.

Ukrainians have this national legend, that it was communists who destroyed the country, yet it was precisely evil Soviets, which formed country in its pre-2013 borders. Crimea was never part of any local state, sans slavetrading Tatar muslim Khanate.

It is possible to argue long. Considering that Kievan Rus was born earlier than Muscovy can be assumed that this is the different dialects of the same language. Both languages evolved in parallel.

Not just that. The so called "Ukrainian language" actually evolved as a fringe dialect of the Russian language, heavily influenced by Polish and other West Slavic languages. In short, it is an artificial language.

We need to study history well, and not trust people. If Ukraine is a separate state, then why do most of the population speak Russian? Where is the deception?

There is no war raging between Ukraine and Russia. There is a civil war going on in Eastern Ukraine between two groups of ethnic Ukrainians, and Russia is not involved (at least not officially).

The guy here is attempting to say that the two countries are still going to be friendly based on the pure fact that the people within the countries are the Slavic "little brothers" of the Russians and even though a war was raged between the two nations it's going to be fine.

Personally, I don't think the Ukraine has many other countries that would support them if they were to be attacked by anyone else besides the Russians and they are like little brothers to the Russians along the lines of borrowing stuff from them.


I would have to say he's right based on the fact that the Russians are never ones to care in the least about what all these decisions and courts say on the international level, it's never something they're going to end up following nor caring about.

It's a difficult subject. Before you take any side ask yourself which borders are valid. The newest ones set up after WWII? Maybe the ones that existed for the longest time in history?
Why is this question so important?
Because what if the citizens, who live close to the border, decide their city should belong to a neighboring country? Maybe the people have the right to decide for themselves under which rule they want to live, we have democracy after all.
1700 - no Ukraine, what a surprise...

200 years later, still no Ukraine!


Who says we are to defend borders from WWII? I think Russia and Germany would love to come back to the way things were in 19th century, Poland and Lithuania would prefer the 18th century, while Turkey and Hungary would be happy either way.  

Since when did Crimea became Ukrainian territory? In 1954, right? Two hundred years before that, the territory was under the rule of Crimean Muslims, who used the ports of Crimea to ship Russian and Ukrainian slaves to the Ottoman Empire. The slave trade came to an end when the Russian Empire annexed Crimea in 1783.

You are not right. International courts even necessary to counter Putin's propaganda. Indeed, many in the West believe it.

Friendly? They are in war!

Have you checked the latest events in the east Ukraine? There is a war going on there.

Long story short; EU is trying to bait Ukrainian people by giving them hopes to join EU one day. (which  is most likely not going to happen btw) In return; they want Ukraine to cut off their relations with Russia.

Russia don't like that. Not just that, some Ukrainian people also sees how they are being cheated by  EU, so they don't like that neither.

That's why the country is divided.

Uhmm, at the risk of offsiding myself for asking this but: what is the ultimate question?

Are you talking about war?

Both claims are useless and I believe both countries will not follow the rules. But even if they will not comply to such rules and will both violate or breach the agreement in the convention they will not declare war. These countries are just funny and are like small children but they have good leaders such as placing their complains on a court without resorting to conflict.

Who needs these courts and other international institutions. Russia does not observe any decisions, and the world community is silent, because it does not want to quarrel with Russia. Therefore, all actions are nothing but ponty.

Good job. Youve opened can of worms.

To answer you question straight up, however. You could then take to court any major power in existence. Ie. any armed attack started by any country without UN approval. Which would mean that court would be too occupied by accusations from all over the world against United States and Britain to deal effectively with real politik of Russia.

So, no Russia is not going to get even more roasted, because it would undermine the international court.

A typical example of Russian trolls! You're a historian? I have been reading Putin's propaganda, but most likely you are a representative of Putin's propaganda troops. Ukraine is a state recognized by the UN and the denial of this fact betrays you as a Troll. With such posts you place in Holguin and not on the forum.

The territory, now called Ukraine, has never been a state and will never be. It has always been part of another, real, power or, more often, an area divided between other genuine states, such as Poland, Austria, Hungary, Turkey and, most importantly, Russia. Of course, according to the Kiev Nazi junta, the Trojan War was waged between "Ukrainian tribes". Alexander the Great was secretly a "proto-Ukrainian", and Byzantium was a "Ukrainian colony". But for the rest of the world, the fact remains that there is not a single historical document or evidence that deals with Ukraine as a state or an independent province.

As if the dill-nationalists would like, they can not change the "old" history, so they try to do this with modern history, for example, "wiping out" the biography of the war criminal, the Nazi henchman and the mass murderer Bandera. True, the Kiev-based Nazi junta attempts to falsify even the "old" story, but ancient and medieval authors are too well-studied, and sources are too well documented to easily distort the past.

Proved and well-known fact that the first Russian state was Kievan Rus - pay attention to "Rus", not Ukraine! It is also known that the very word "Ukraine" refers to the ancient Russian world and never meant the country - it meant the border region between the countries and the states mentioned. Later, the word "Ukraine" was used to refer to the most western parts of the Russian Empire. When the Russian Empire expanded to the south, new territories liberated from the Turkish occupation were called Novorossia or New Russia. Again, not a single mention of "Ukraine"! All this is well-studied and proven historical facts.

Open your eyes and look. Russia only pretends to be a friendly state. In fact, this aggressive Imperial state which considers a neighboring state as a target for expansion of their territories. In the Donbass now there is a real war of Russia against Ukraine. Crimea is Ukrainian territory occupied by Russian.

Ukraine and Russia are two Slavic friendly people, they can not fight each other. All claims are simply meaningless.

In the International court of justice decision on the claim of Ukraine against Russia will apply to breaches of the two conventions, but will not affect the most important question of the armed aggression. Why not consider the ultimate question? In your opinion.