Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: What's Going on in the Americas? (Read 261687 times)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #625 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
Quote from: ersi on
Occupation would be a way (like India did in Goa)
No, it isn't. The invasion and occupation of Goa, Damão and Diu by the Indian Union was immediately presented  by Portugal to the ONU and an unanimous resolution for the illegality was made as well as a deliberation for the immediate return of those possessions to our domination.
I didn't say it was a legal way. It's a way that gets the job done, if one is scum.

You will never get Goa back. Just like Ukraine won't get Crimea back, no matter how many times the occupation and annexation is declared illegal. And Estonia won't get Ivangorod and Pechory back.

Quote from: Belfrager on
Anyway, you heard something about Goa. Estonians are getting very erudite these days.
Thanks, if this was a compliment. I keep looking if there's anything more to know.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #626 –
Treaties are enforced only by war… There is no such thing as "The Law of Nations" beyond the goodwill of those nations.

Most nations have -mostly- goodwill towards others; but there's no way to make them, except war.

Of course, Europeans have "evolved" beyond this… :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #627 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
The invasion and occupation of Goa, Damão and Diu by the Indian Union ...
And your protector simply let it happen? How comes that it wasn't a case for the NATO?

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #628 –
Quote from: ersi on
You will never get Goa back. Just like Ukraine won't get Crimea back, no matter how many times the occupation and annexation is declared illegal. And Estonia won't get Ivangorod and Pechory back.
The above list could be expanded endlessly depending on what nationalistic glasses one is wearing and depending on what century one picks up. E.g. - how about Lviv? Will the Ukraine hand it over to Poland?
As for Ivangorod and Pechory - how about Sweden claiming ownership?
The question is - would you really like to open Pandora's box?
In that case, your grandchildren (in case you have some) might never experience the age you are at now (~50+?)...
Keep in mind please that in case of a war with modern weapons smaller nations are at risk to get extinguished totally, no matter which alliances they'd embrace.
Namely, they will be sacrificed as cannon fodder first...

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #629 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Of course, Europeans have "evolved" beyond this… :)
Nope, we didn't but common sense tells us (or at least I hope so) that we neither can afford wars nor can we afford to be dragged into wars by our friends and foes...

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #630 –
They were not NATO signatories… Plus, European colonial powers had ever and always thought they could do whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted…
Two World Wars wasn't enough to convince them, that they couldn't!
 I'd like to think you're right, Krake; but I know you're wrong: Europe is about to explode, again…
I hope my country (sorry, that we can't do otherwise…) stays out of it, this time.
We have our own problems.

I, myself, might do something… I'm old and tired! So, there's be no great loss; but perhaps a little gain, if I joined the fray…
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #631 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
They were not NATO signatories…
Are you sure?
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
I hope my country (sorry, that we can't do otherwise…) stays out of it, this time.
Don't you think that it's too late for your country to stay out? It's the main actor pouring gasoline into the fire...
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
I'm old and tired!
Despite of our different views - wish you all the best :cheers:  and have a nice time with your grandchildren  :)
 

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #632 –
Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
You will never get Goa back. Just like Ukraine won't get Crimea back, no matter how many times the occupation and annexation is declared illegal. And Estonia won't get Ivangorod and Pechory back.
The above list could be expanded endlessly depending on what nationalistic glasses one is wearing and depending on what century one picks up. E.g. - how about Lviv? Will the Ukraine hand it over to Poland?
As for Ivangorod and Pechory - how about Sweden claiming ownership?
The question is - would you really like to open Pandora's box?
Yes, the list could be extended, but it matters on what grounds one is doing it. If there are no criteria, then yes, it's a Pandora's box, but not if there are criteria.

Interrelationships of countries are determined by treaties and (geo)political facts. The independence of Estonia vis-a-vis Russia is determined by Treaty of Tartu (1920). It so happens that the treaty also determines the countries' borders, where Ivangorod and Pechory are assigned to Estonia. Inasmuch as Estonian politicians remain silent about this, they remain silent about Treaty of Tartu, and silent about Estonia's independence from Russia. Consequently they demonstrate themselves ignorant of how diplomacy works.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #633 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Treaties are enforced only by war… There is no such thing as "The Law of Nations" beyond the goodwill of those nations.

Most nations have -mostly- goodwill towards others; but there's no way to make them, except war.

Of course, Europeans have "evolved" beyond this… :)
Treaties were typically a consequence of war, and violence or the threat thereof is a central element of power, but treaties definitely weren't enforced by war, quite the opposite. 

A succession of treaties and congresses, the Peace of Westphalia onward, has led to both international law and the modern nation state in concert. 

Not only Europe has evolved, no party stay stationary. 

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #634 –
Quote from: ersi on
Yes, the list could be extended, but it matters on what grounds one is doing it.
For sure it matters - which comes down to what nationalistic glasses one is wearing and depending on what century one picks up.
Quote from: ersi on
If there are no criteria, then yes, it's a Pandora's box, but not if there are criteria.
And who defines the criteria? Each one claims his own criteria as the right one.
Quote from: ersi on
The independence of Estonia vis-a-vis Russia is determined by Treaty of Tartu (1920).
May I remind you that since 1920 there was a world war...
By making revisionist claims, you are just trying to open Pandora's box. Good luck!
BTW, AFAIK your country doesn't have (until now at least) territoriale claims towards Russia.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #635 –
Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
If there are no criteria, then yes, it's a Pandora's box, but not if there are criteria.
And who defines the criteria? Each one claims his own criteria as the right one.
Hence you deny there are criteria.

Quote from: krake on
By making revisionist claims, you are just trying to open Pandora's box. Good luck!
Since you have no criteria, you have also no ground for saying what/who is revisionist.

As for Treaty of Tartu, yes, there was war, but there's also the treaty. From Estonia's point of view, Estonia either is independent from Russia as per the treaty - or not at all, because there's no other signed agreement granting Estonia independence from Russia, i.e. it's a matter of life and death for Estonia. From Russia's point of view, it's not a matter of life and death whether Estonia is inside Russia's borders or outside, so their whining about the treaty is bully's whining.

Otherwise, I'd gladly favour going under Swedish empire again, but unfortunately Sweden and Russia have their own treaties, which they follow...

Quote from: krake on
BTW, AFAIK your country doesn't have (until now at leas) territoriale claims towards Russia.
You know wrong. Estonia and Latvia had territorial claims against Russia until Merkel forced us to renounce the claims. Meaning, "friendly fire" from within EU forced us to formally renounce claims to independence. Thank you very much!

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #636 –
Ersi, trying to twist someone's words isn't exactly what we would call analytical skills. ;)
In most of our conversations you are desperately trying to do the first. :)

Quote from: ersi on
Hence you deny there are criteria.
I haven't denied criteria as such. What I'm pointing out is that you have your own criteria, Russians have their criteria, whereas third parties may consider their own criteria.
And your 'analytical' masturbation continues like this:
Quote from: ersi on
Since you have no criteria, you have also no ground for saying what/who is revisionist.
Quote from: ersi on
As for Treaty of Tartu, yes, there was war, but there's also the treaty.
May I refresh your memory a bit?
After WWII the Treaty of Tartu became spoilage and Estonia part of the Soviet Union (sealed up in Yalta).
1991 Estonia became independent and the Soviets recognized its independence (within Estonia's borders at that time).
Quote from: ersi on
You know wrong. Estonia and Latvia had territorial claims against Russia until Merkel forced us to renounce the claims.
Neither Merkel nor anybody else can 'force' you to do something. It's up to you to listen or not to an advise. All you have to do is to bear the respective consequences.
If they agree you can start instantly a war against Russia with US help. Saakashvili did it, why souldn't you.
Besides, normalizing relations with your eastern neighbor would primarily be to your own benefit.
However, your 'analytical' judgement would probably disagree. :)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #637 –
Portugal is a founding member of NATO.
NATO means North Atlantic... not Indian Ocean...
Besides, the Indian Union was too much of a problem for Americans, English and others. The URSS vetoed any measures against India at the Security Council.

We know very well, since ever, the mentality of our "allies".

Thanks to the Portuguese presence, Goa was classified by Unesco as World Heritage.
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #638 –
Quote from: krake on
Ersi, trying to twist someone's words isn't exactly what we would call analytical skills. ;)
Nobody is twisting your words. You are merely getting appropriate responses to your words when you twist reality.

Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
Hence you deny there are criteria.
I haven't denied criteria as such. What I'm pointing out is that you have your own criteria, Russians have their criteria, whereas third parties may consider their own criteria.
I used the word first, so let me tell you what I meant, if it was not clear enough. Either the criteria are common or they don't exist. In any relationship it takes at least two to have it. You cannot have your own relationship, separate from your married partner. You have to have a common relationship in order to be married.

If you think everybody can have their own criteria, i.e. everybody can define and re-define by themselves what e.g. occupation, force, annexation, sovereignty, peace, etc. are, then you are twisting the word 'criteria' and clearly demonstrating you don't give a damn how diplomacy works or whether it works.

Quote from: krake on
May I refresh your memory a bit?

After WWII the Treaty of Tartu became spoilage and Estonia part of the Soviet Union (sealed up in Yalta).

1991 Estonia became independent and the Soviets recognized its independence (within Estonia's borders at that time).
False on both accounts. But let's try to be charitable first and assume you are right.

If "sealed up in Yalta" is right, then this means certain nations have a right to obliterate other nations' sovereignty and independence without regard to the will of those other nations. And when this is so, then it follows that when these certain nations sign a paper to another nation saying "we recognise your sovereignty and independence", they cannot be taken seriously, inasmuch as they are nations who reserve for themselves a right to obliterate other nations' sovereignty and independence.

"Soviets recognized its independence..." Now, there are two kinds of recognition of independence. One is by treaty among neighbours including (or with reference to) a border agreement. Another is like sending a note "we recognise your declaration of independence", which can be sent as a friendly gesture to a newly-independent country half a globe away. Soviet Union did the latter to Estonia, not the former.

But "within Estonia's borders at that time" is false. There's no reference to border agreement. Moreover, Soviet Union does not exist anymore, so even this token gesture to Estonia may not be valid, given that Russia is highly selective in keeping to its commitments as the successor of Soviet Union.

To this day, there is no mutually ratified border agreement between Estonia and Russia. The best candidate is the formerly mutually ratified Treaty of Tartu. If this became "spoilage" as you say, then in terms of mutual relationships, certain things follow:

- Current mutual relations can be judged as bad, because Estonia and Russia are neighbours with no defined border between them. As such, recognition of independence does not matter much, even if it existed. But as said, there is no appropriate and solid recognition of independence.

- As such, from Russia's point of view, Estonia did not gain independence from Russia in 1920. The current Estonia is not a successor state of the earlier Republic of Estonia. Accordingly, Soviet Union never occupied Estonia, because the current Estonia is a different country, no formal relation to the earlier. Thus Russia owes nothing to Estonia for the decades of occupation and annexation.

- From Russia's point of view, Estonia (somewhat) gained independence from Soviet Union in 1991, but as there is no mutually ratified border agreement, Russia must be considering this a temporary state of affairs, to become "spoilage" when a favourable opportunity presents itself. Which is why, from Estonia's point of view, relationships cannot improve and all talk of peaceful best intentions from Russia's side is empty rhetoric.

Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
You know wrong. Estonia and Latvia had territorial claims against Russia until Merkel forced us to renounce the claims.
Neither Merkel nor anybody else can 'force' you to do something. It's up to you to listen or not to an advise.
You mean just like United States could not force Cuba to give them Guantanamo? Like Soviet Union and Germany could not force Poland in 1939, as agreed in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? And EU could not force Jörg Haider to resign his premiership?

Then Germany was not forced to surrender unconditionally at the end of WWII. It was up to them to listen or not to an advice.

Thanks for making it abundantly clear on whose side you are and in what way.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #639 –
Quote from: ersi on
Either the criteria are common or they don't exist.
Bunkum.
Criteria = a standard of judgment or criticism
There is no universal valid applied standard of judjgment or criticism. As a result even federal states within a country can have different laws, let alone diffrent political parties pursuing their own agenda based on different judgment.
Quote from: ersi on
If "sealed up in Yalta" is right, then this means ...
What it means is that major powers of the winning-side sealed it up. Not less and not more.
Quote from: ersi on
The current Estonia is not a successor state of the earlier Republic of Estonia.
Correct.
According to Russia, Estonia is the successor state of the former constituent republic of the Soviet Union and not the one from 1920.
Quote from: ersi on
Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
You know wrong. Estonia and Latvia had territorial claims against Russia until Merkel forced us to renounce the claims.
Neither Merkel nor anybody else can 'force' you to do something. It's up to you to listen or not to an advise.
You mean just like United States could not force Cuba to give them Guantanamo? Like Soviet Union and Germany could not force Poland in 1939, as agreed in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? And EU could not force Jörg Haider to resign his premiership?

1. Actually they did. Otherwise Guantanamo wouldn't be under US jurisdiction. BTW, aside of Guantanamo there was also a Mexican Cession.
2. Another limping comparison of yours.
    I can't recall neither Merkel's 'Wehrmacht' nor Putin's 'Red Army' threatening Estonia in 2005 in order to drop territoriale claims.
3. I can't recall of any premiership of Jörg Haider. Could you elaborate please?
Quote from: ersi on
Then Germany was not forced to surrender unconditionally at the end of WWII. It was up to them to listen or not to an advice.
Another 'appropriate' comparison of yours - Estonia in 2005 and Germany in 1945.
I assume that for your perception Estonia was in a similar situation in 2005 as Germany was in 1945 (decimated and surrounded by Merkel's Wehrmacht + Putin's Red Army).
BTW, Germany is still bound by classified agreements (like Japan b.t.w.) which even German parliamentarians are not allowed to access.
Quote from: ersi on
Thanks for making it abundantly clear on whose side you are and in what way.
Whatever "abundantly clear" translates to your perception - you're welcome.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #640 –
Addendum:
Ersi, your statement that there was no reference to border agreement is false to say the least.
Besides, in May 2005 Angela Merkel wasn't in office so she had nothing to do with that treaty.

Quote
The agreement on the border between the two countries, recognizing that some territories are now in Russia, in the Pechory area of the Pskov Oblast and in the Leningrad Oblast, was signed in May 2005 and ratified by the Estonian parliament, but then Russia withdrew its signature from the treaty.
source

Wikipedia is omitting (because of its bias?) to mention the reasons for which Russia withdrew its signature from the treaty. At least it kindly provides a link to a Russian site instead.
Russia had good reasons to withdraw its signature since a month later, during ratification of the border treaty, the Estonian Parliament included additional provisions in the documents that were not provided in the original text signed in Moscow by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs Urmas Paet and Sergey Lavrov.
source

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #641 –
Meanwhile, in order to avoid border problems, the US bought Alaska to Russia. It was some time ago but I forgot to post.
There are rumours they haven't paid yet.
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #642 –
Quote from: krake on
Addendum:

Ersi, your statement that there was no reference to border agreement is false to say the least.

Besides, in May 2005 Angela Merkel wasn't in office so she had nothing to do with that treaty.
Quote
The agreement on the border between the two countries, recognizing that some territories are now in Russia, in the Pechory area of the Pskov Oblast and in the Leningrad Oblast, was signed in May 2005 and ratified by the Estonian parliament, but then Russia withdrew its signature from the treaty.
source
If you understand what the quote says, then you understand that I am right and you are wrong.

I said: Russia's recognition of Estonia's independence has no reference to border agreement.
Wikipedia says, to put it briefly, that there is a border agreement between Estonia and Russia. There certainly is, but as you rightly point out, it's unratified by Russia. If you read everything I wrote, you'd notice I said the same thing:

Quote from: ersi on
To this day, there is no mutually ratified border agreement between Estonia and Russia.
Notice "no mutually ratified". So, I'm not denying there have been long border negotiations and even an actual agreement achieved. It's just that Russia has not ratified it, which is what matters in the end. And, all along, the border agreement is not tied to the recognition of independence. From Russia's point of view, the border agreement may be treated like a fixation of borders of one of its own oblasts, except that as long as it's not ratified, it doesn't rise even to that meagre level.

Now, you are right that Merkel was not in office when the agreement was first signed, but the pressure on Estonia and Latvia was specifically from Germany, and turned particularly vicious after Merkel took office. In Merkel's point of view, Russia was not to be blamed for failing to ratify the signed agreement. Rather, a new agreement with further concessions to Russia had to be negotiated. By further concessions I mean absolutely no reference to Treaty of Tartu in any context (this coming from a fellow EU member is particularly harsh) and extensive cooperation at border checkpoints to allow for future visa freedom that Merkel was dreaming about. Putin was, in words, positive about visa freedom and this got Merkel all excited, even though Baltic countries always knew this was another ploy to disrupt the EU internally. Throwing bones to evoke intra-EU quarrels is a game that Russia, US, and UK do regularly, and EU reacts perfectly predictably every time.

Quote from: krake on
Russia had good reasons to withdraw its signature since a month later, during ratification of the border treaty, the Estonian Parliament included additional provisions in the documents that were not provided in the original text signed in Moscow by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs Urmas Paet and Sergey Lavrov.
source
"...additional provisions..." is false. It was a preamble that mentioned Treaty of Tartu, no additional provisions in the text whatsoever. Now, the funny thing is this. When agreements like this are ratified, preambles are routinely added. Preambles have no effect on the contents of the treaty. Preambles only declare how the ratifying country contextualises the agreement, i.e. it's some routine rhetorical bla-bla that everybody always does.

Estonia mentioned Treaty of Tartu in the preamble because, from Estonia's point of view, Estonia is the successor state of the earlier Republic of Estonia. Russia does not want this. But if a country does not let another country decide how the other country sees its historical succession, then that's a decision over the other country's sovereignty. Because this is what sovereignty means - SELF-determination. Russia whines about the preamble - not additional provisions, because there are no additional provisions between the end of the preamble and the signatures at the end of the agreement. To call the preamble "additional provisions" is false.

Russia whines about the preamble as it whines about any hint at Estonia's and Latvia's right to self-determination. In other words, Russia has major psychological problems with Estonia's and Latvia's sovereignty. As said, Treaty of Tartu is a matter of life or death, existence or non-existence for Estonia. Whereas from Russia's point of view, the question in which borders Estonia exists or whether Estonia exists at all, it's all a matter of border adjustment for Russia, not of existence of Russia. So, Russia is a bully, because it has the behaviour of a bully. Merkel's hopes turned out badly betrayed, while the predictions of Estonian politologists were correct. 

Meanwhile, this border game with Russia has involved major concessions on Estonia's part both to Russia and to EU, while we got nothing in return. Except blame and international disrespect. Well, I think our diplomats can be quite objectively blamed for lack of foresight and lack of backbone. They have been either naive, easily intimidated, or corrupt. Or all that.

Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
Either the criteria are common or they don't exist.
Bunkum.
Criteria = a standard of judgment or criticism
There is no universal valid applied standard of judjgment or criticism. As a result even federal states within a country can have different laws, let alone diffrent political parties pursuing their own agenda based on different judgment.
"...no universal valid applied standard..." Therefore whenever you contradict me, there is no basis for anyone to determine if you are saying something worth listening or just emitting hot air. Which looks like a win-win situation. Rejoice!

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #643 –
You know ersi, there is a saying: Lies soon catch up with one.

To put it mildly, once more your assertion is false.
It's not only the Tartu agreement as you falsely claim that was added in the preamble.
Estonians also added Soviet-era sensitivities to affront the Russians. Those passages were definitively not part of the Tartu treaty.
You don't affront someone you want to reach an agreement with, except you don't care about that agreement or you are an idiot.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #644 –
Look, dear Freund. You are not a tough case. You are a ridiculous case.

The entire preamble plus the entire ratification bill is here https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/915915

Let Google waffle it and find the affronts you refer to, such as Soviet-era sensitivities or the "additional provisions" your other source thought are there.

The simple fact is that having to negotiate borders with Estonia is an emotionally sensitive insult to Russians, because Estonia must not exist in Russia's view. Whereas to Estonia, Treaty of Tartu is a matter of the constitution that we readopted at referendum when re-gaining independence. You like referendums, don't you? But Russia likes them selectively. For Russians, it must not be re-gained independence, because that would mean we were occupied meanwhile, and that cannot be. Instead, they say, we were liberated, but now independent. Either they are implying that historical memory must be wiped out or that MRP was all for the best. Knowing Russians, both of these things mean the same thing.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #645 –
Quote from: ersi on
Let Google waffle it and find the affronts you refer to, such as Soviet-era sensitivities or the "additional provisions" your other source thought are there.
It took less than 5 minutes.
The word "annexation" appears twice on that paper. In diplomatic language this is an non-ambiguous affront.

BTW, even partisan BBC is noticing that Indirect references to the Soviet occupation were added
Quote
A newer Estonian-Russian Border Treaty was signed by Estonia on May 18, 2005, reflecting the later border changes, but was rejected and cancelled by Russia on June 27, 2005, because references to Soviet occupation were added.
source

Quote
Moscow says it rejects clauses added by the Estonian parliament when it ratified the agreement on 20 June.
"Estonia did exactly what it promised not to do - insert political statements in the accord," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Indirect references to the Soviet occupation were added, but Tallinn says the key treaty details were unchanged.
source






Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #646 –
Quote from: krake on
The word "annexation" appears twice on that paper.
What paper? I gave you a page. Everything that Estonia ADDED is on that page up front. There's no annexation there. 

If you click further in the text of the document, you get stuff that Russia SIGNED, but didn't ratify.

Since you clicked further in the page I gave, you can just as well google up the Russian text too and compare them, if anything's really added. Do your research properly. The title is Договор о границе между Россией и Эстонией от 18.05.2005 г. и условия территориальных обменов

And you don't know how to read newstext. The reasons for Russia's rejection are reported as per Russia's view. In the paragraph (very brief paragraph, so you quoted it in its entirety), Russia is doing the talking. You are unable to distinguish between fact and talk.

But here's another source for you, if you are happy enough with mere reporting. In 2014, Estonia and Russia SIGNED the same thing again.[1] "As compared to 2005, the wording of the border agreements has remained unchanged but the text has been supplemented with two sentences. With the first sentence, the sides confirm that the agreement regulates only issues concerning the state border and the second sentence confirms reciprocally the lack of territorial claims. The rest of the text is as it was signed in 2005, reports LETA." http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/34439/
1 Ratification pending. Why? Crimea.↵

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #647 –
Quote from: krake on
The word "annexation" appears twice on that paper. In diplomatic language this is an non-ambiguous affront.
Oops, I see now. The webpage I gave, after googlewaffling, indeed includes "annex" as follows:

"...ratification of the annexed Estonia and the Russian Federation on the Estonian-Russian border treaty..."

"...ratification of the annexed Estonia and the Russian Federation, on the Narva and the Gulf of maritime delimitation treaty..."

Yep, since the texts of the agreement are annexed (i.e. attached) to the ratification bill, right there we have proof that Estonia is insulting Russia for Soviet-era annexation etc. In diplomatic language this is indeed a non-ambiguous affront.

I was so wrong. Namely, wrong about you, krake. As to the point itself, I always was spot-on and I remain so.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #648 –
You are right about the term "anexation". It doesn't appear in the text you did provide. I've misinterpreted the text (annexed instead of attached documents) since I don't speak Estonian. Mea culpa.

Bear in mind that it makes no changes to the matter because my statement is still valid whereas yours are false to put it mildly...

Quote
That preamble has drawn vituperations from Lavrov, his ministry's chief spokesman Alexander Yakovenko, the Duma's and Federation Council's foreign affairs committee chairmen Konstantin Kosachev and Mikhail Margelov, and other Moscow officials. Politically, they object to the Estonian parliament's references to the 1991 and 1992 documents that mention the "Soviet aggression against Estonia in 1940," "illegal annexation," and "decades of occupation." Those formulations are not included or cited in the Estonian parliament's June 20, 2005, document. But its mere reference to the earlier documents that include those formulations seems beyond official Moscow's capacity to come to terms with its history.

source

How many evidences like the above (written in English) do you still need? 1?, 5?, 10?, ...?
Or do you think all those articles have been written and published (that of the BBC included) by KGB agents?

And since we are at it let me quote you:
Quote from: ersi on
You know wrong. Estonia and Latvia had territorial claims against Russia until Merkel forced us to renounce the claims. Meaning, "friendly fire" from within EU forced us to formally renounce claims to independence. Thank you very much!
Let's compare your statement with what BalticTimes has to say:
Quote
As compared to 2005, the wording of the border agreements has remained unchanged
source

In 2005 Merkel wasn't in office and the border agreements have remained unchanged in 2014 compared to 2005.

So, who tells the true and who makes false allegations? BalticTimes? Ersi?

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #649 –
Nice discussion in the wrong thread. Somebody looking for this subject will hardly find it here.
(Edit: now I see it has moved properly.)