Claim: NATO tried to "drag" Ukraine into the Alliance

Fact: When the administrations of President Kuchma and President Yushchenko made clear their aspiration to NATO membership, the Alliance worked with them to encourage the reforms which would be needed to make that aspiration a reality.

When the administration of President Yanukovych opted for a non-bloc status, NATO respected that decision and continued to work with Ukraine on reforms, at the government's request.

NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. In fact, Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave.

Over the past 65 years, 28 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic democratic processes, to join NATO. Not one has asked to leave. This is their sovereign choice.


Claim: Russia has the right to demand a "100% guarantee" that Ukraine will not join NATO

Fact: According to Article I of the Helsinki Final Act (here http://www.osce.org/mc/39501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) which established the

Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1975, every country has the right "to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance." All the OSCE member states, including Russia, have sworn to uphold those principles.

In line with those principles, Ukraine has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty of alliance, including NATO's founding treaty.

Moreover, when Russia signed the Founding Act, it pledged to uphold "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security".

Thus Ukraine has the right to choose its own alliances, and Russia has, by its own repeated agreement, no right to dictate that choice.

Claim: NATO provoked the "Maidan" protests in Ukraine

Fact: The demonstrations which began in Kiev in November 2013 were born out of Ukrainians' desire for a closer relationship with the European Union, and their frustration when former President Yanukovych halted progress toward that goal as a result of Russian pressure.

The protesters' demands included constitutional reform, see here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26289318" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and a stronger role for the parliament, the formation of a government of national unity, an end to the pervasive and endemic corruption, early presidential elections and an end to violence. There was no mention of NATO.

Ukraine began discussing the idea of abandoning its non-bloc status in September 2014, six months after the illegal and illegitimate Russian "annexation" of Crimea and the start of Russia's aggressive actions in Eastern Ukraine. The final decision by Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada to abandon the non bloc status was taken in December 2014, over a year after the pro-EU demonstrations began.



Claim: NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia

Fact: Every nation has the right to conduct exercises, as long as they do so within their international obligations, including notifying the actual numbers and providing observation opportunities when required.

In order to promote mutual trust and transparency, OSCE members are bound by the Vienna Document to inform one another in advance of exercises which include more than 9,000 troops, unless the exercises are snap tests of readiness.

NATO and Allies have consistently stood by the terms and the spirit of the Vienna Document. Those exercises which crossed the notification threshold were announced well in advance. This is why Russia could send observers to the UK-led Exercise Joint Warrior in April 2015.

Russia, on the other hand, has repeatedly called snap exercises including tens of thousands of troops, with some of them taking place close to NATO territory. This practice of calling massive exercises without warning is a breach of the spirit of the Vienna Document, raising tension and undermining trust. This is especially the case because Russia's military takeover of Crimea was masked by exactly such a snap exercise.

It is therefore Russia's exercises, not NATO's, which are a threat to stability.


Claim: Russia has the right to oppose NATO-supported infrastructure on the territory of member states in Central and Eastern Europe

Fact: The relationship between NATO and Russia is governed by the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed by NATO Allies and Russia in 1997 and reaffirmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002, and in Lisbon in 2010.

(The Founding Act can be read here http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _25468.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.)

In the Founding Act, the two sides agreed that: "in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe."

Therefore, both infrastructure and reinforcements are explicitly permitted by the Founding Act and therefore by Russia.

Yhden koneen alasampuminen Itä-Ukrainassa ja Venäjän yhteiskuntajärjestys, politiikka ja oikeuslaitos ovat eri asioita ja eri kokoisia asioita.

Älä sekoita samaan keskusteluun omia antipatioitasi Venäjää kohtaan - se on niin höpö-höpöä.

Venäjä on ehdottanut tätä tutkimusta.

Tuomioistuin on jo olemassa Haagissa ja sitä on käytetty mm USA:n ampuessa iranilaisen koneen alas vuonna 1988.

Minä kehtaan puhua oikeuden rapautumisesta.

Et ilmeisesti katsellut maanantai-iltana Legally Blonde elokuvaa? Tämä keskustelu on laintuntemuksesssaan aivan yhtä syvällinen kuin se elokuvakin.

Käy joskus istumassa jossain Venäjän oikeuskäytäntöä koskeva luentosarja tai seminaari läpi niin sitten tiedät enemmän. Mutta ei nyt sekoiteta surullista tapausta ja oikeusjärjestelmää toisiinsa.

Ai niin - jos tutkinta osoittaa, että Ukrainan armeijassa ilmatorjuntakoulutuksen saanut itä-ukrainalainen vapaustaistelija luuli ampuvansa Ukrainan armeijan hävittäjäkoneen alas ja ampui matkustajakoneen alas, niin mitä hyötyä Suomelle on tästä kaikesta Venäjän mollaamisesta?