Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.
Signed in 1992. C'mon now, Russia is even complaining about NATO members refusing flights under it as recently as 2016. The USSR agreed to it before its dissolution and Russia re-signed in 2002.
> The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.
> The 34 State Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Hell Russia is complaining about Turkey not following it as recently as last year:
> Russian Defence Ministry spokesman stated on 4 February 2016 that Turkey had refused a Russian Open Skies mission, planned to take place in 1–5 February 2016, to fly over areas adjacent to Syria, as well as over NATO airbases. According to Russia, Turkey gave no explanation regarding the limitations, and claimed them to indicate illegal military activity in Syrian territory.[8] The OSCC haven't commented on the alleged violation of the Treaty by Turkey.[9]
Do you know about Open Skies treaty? Russia actually wanted surveillance flights as they are the best way of assuring people "yes, my troops are not massing on the frontier"
Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.
And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?
> And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?
They've also repeatedly voted to remain within the UK by an overwhelming margin. One has to wonder what your agenda is that you'd claim the Falklands is in the same category as Iraq or Afghanistan.
1. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so.
2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.
Are you suggesting that "Krym is Russian teritory" in a same way "Falklands are a British territory" ?
Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond?
I think that is flat out wrong.
I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two incidents are not comparable.
A) Most Crimeans are ethnically Russians, B) The vote was ~94% to join Russia and was done in the presence of international observers (Ukraine didn't challenge the results of the election they challenged it on the basis that it was unconstitutional) and C) the invasion was a reaction to an elected president who represented their interests being deposed.
Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.
> Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.
You mean the referendum, not election? Yeah, "kinda", just enough for some people to be able to say something like this (and even that not with a straight face).
To say there was any "respect for democracy" is a joke. Girkin (leader of the Russian military squad that seized the Crimean Parliament building) later went on record saying that his soldiers basically had to force the parliament members into the building in the middle of the night and make them "vote" for the referendum (you can imagine what would've happened to those who'd refused)[1]
The referendum date itself had been changed several times (if I remember correctly, from 2 months to 1 month to 2 weeks). You can't force an issue like that in 2 weeks and claim "respect for democracy". In fact, both of the questions asked at the referendum meant secession from Ukraine; i.e. it wasn't a simple "yes" or "no", it was essentially "secede immediately" or "do it a bit later". And, even if that hadn't been the case, for anybody to vote against it, they'd have to risk being abducted and killed by the pro-Russian militia[2][3][4]
I'm suggesting that the Ilhas Malvinas (not Falkland Island) is an argentinian territory occupied by force. Put a lot of british people there is not difficult, neither ask the argentinians there to pretend they are europeans.
Whilst a hypothetical (and impossible in practise) fair referendum in Crimea prior to the Russian takeover might have shown some support, I doubt it would have been a landslide if it was even a victory. The Falklands however - would have voted 100% to remain part of Britain. It's a silly comparison in many ways but you can't get away with the statement you just made.
If you ask to a lot of cities, states and islands at the times if they wanted to be part of Bitrain, most would. This is not how sovereign limits should be deal.
B) Russia President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.
C) Falklands was a UK territory, not invaded, and had free & fair elections with 90% in favor because they were scared of Argentina trying to annex them. Pretty much the opposite situation on all points. But please, go ahead and show evidence I am wrong ;)
Look, I don't mind agreeing with you that Russia invaded and annexed a part of Ukraine. But what in this situation makes it inherently different from the malvine islands war and annexation? Just the links? Someone could think that your reasoning is unrealiably biased, and get back to the question of Ukraine and Russia and get some doubts if it is really a good reasoning (Russia annexed a past part of itself) or just common sense prejudice against some causes. I could almost say beforehand what is your opinion about Israel and the Palestina state.
The Falkland Islands were British territories in 1982 when Argentina invaded. The Crimea was Ukrainian territory in 2014 when it was Annexed by Russia.
That can be more complicated, based on what I heard about i.e. Guantanamo Bay, where technically the Cuban goverment would really like the USA army to leave, and USA pretends they have a lease and that everything is fine.
I am not sure if there are other examples, though.
Well, the previous Cuban government gave the US permission for the base at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Cuban Revolution happened. The US does not have permission from the current Cuban government, but is holding it to the agreements made by its predecessor.
With all due respect you're confusing diplomacy with morality. The question isn't if Socrates would find the behavior pleasingly moral, but if pragmatically at least one country has been invading random 3rd world countries on the other side of the planet for decades without the world collapsing into WW3 then what is the likely outcome of a much more minor ... international misbehavior. Therefore a country "invading" direct neighbors who historically have always been part of the empire is extremely unlikely in a pragmatic analysis to cause geopolitical instability or WW3 or whatever warhark ridiculousness.
Don't get me wrong, it can still be morally and ethically "wrong" in an abstract sense. But most people are concerned with the fearmongering "Oh no, Russian tanks will be rolling down the boulevard in Paris next year unless we ..." is all completely ridiculous. Russia already fought and lost a COIN "Vietnam" against a majority Islamic nation of Afghanistan, once demographic replacement takes hold Russia isn't going to want a piece of France or Germany even if handed to them on a plate, oh no last thing they want is the suburbs of Paris in revolt as usual.
The Russian Bear has been content to be contained in its den, as long as its not poked, for centuries. The odds of the Russians regime changing Mexico and fighting a failing counter insurgency in Mexico on our border for decades is approximately zero, like space aliens landing on the white house lawn is a more realistic concern. There are world wide geopolitical problems, none of which involve the Russians.
As a land empire on the other side of the planet, with people more or less like us, following a religion more or less like ours, and a economic system vaguely similar enough, a space alien would assume the Russians should be our closest ally... and if it were not for unfortunate temporary historical anomalies they almost certainly would be. In an unperturbed system (LOL as if international diplomacy has ever been that) they would be great allies.
Good for you. However some of us live in the countries that are quite close to it, and it hasn't been that long when we had Russian soldiers stationed here.
So either "contained in its den" means eating up half of Europe (which just isn't good enough) or there's plenty to be wary about.
The only recent proxy invasion that I know about was Russia's invasion of eastern Ukraine where the invasion was Russian but none of the combatants bore Russian insignia. What are you referring to when you say US proxy invasions? Iraq and Afghanistan were direct invasions.
I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.