The territory of countries is by no means that after the United Nations recognizes the sovereignty of the two countries, there will be no more border and territorial disputes. Especially after the collapse of the great empire, the various countries and countries that emerged from this are even more complicated, you have me, I have ... (This is a family)
You say Kashmir, near the Chinese border, is it Indian or Pakistani? Pakistan and India each have their own historical intentions and reasons, and it is difficult for outsiders to define right and wrong for a while, and even if the United Nations General Assembly makes a resolution, it will not be able to calm the disputes between the two countries.
The division of territory and the determination of territory are best resolved through consultation between the two countries, and under the intervention of external forces, it is like a strong melon.
If the territorial dispute between the two countries is determined by an agreement, then both parties must abide by the agreement.
If two countries have signed a territorial treaty, but once a country violates other contents of the treaty, the treaty cannot be said to be legal...
(If one party is in breach of contract, the other party still needs to perform the facts?) ）
For example, when Russia and Ukraine determined the border, a Russian-Ukrainian friendship treaty was signed, in which Ukraine guaranteed its neutral status,
As long as Ukraine is no longer neutral, the treaty loses its foundation, and the contract loses its legitimacy, which means that the treaty no longer needs to be complied with and is abrogated.
Can it be understood this way?
Ambassador Lew's speech [on Crimea] was premised on the premise that "it is from which point of view you look at ..."
In fact, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the allied countries did not completely solve the border and territorial problems of the two countries, such as Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in Central Asia, but they also had their own territorial claims and took action.
This is a real problem, in fact there are territorial differences.
Some time ago, the battle of Asia and Afghanistan shocked the world.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are also former allies of the Soviet Union, and both have separated their own countries, but the two countries still fight over their territory, and there are many opinions on who is right and who is wrong. (and the Georgian border)
The demarcation of territory and borders is a matter between the two countries, and most of the current disputes are due to historical hatred, and everyone used to be a family, you have me, I have you, the cloud and mist are confusing the story of the complicated history, and it is difficult to tell for a while.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and Kazakhstan negotiated with the mainland respectively, redefined their territory and border range, made concessions on their respective positions, and finally Russia and Kazakhstan returned the territory of the mainland. This also shows that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, independent countries still have territorial disputes that have not been resolved
The key to solving the problem lies in the goodwill and respect for history of both sides, and their respective security issues must also be considered, and the great powers need strategic space.
The collapse of the USSR was legal, but is it illegal to rejoin each other ??
The CIS is a substitute for the warmth of the countries after independence, and the countries are still highly united and dependent on each other.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the abolition of the Warsaw Pact were based on the end of the Cold War and conditioned on the acceptance of Russian culture by the West. All of Russia, immersed in the promises of the West, lost its vigilance against the rules of the jungle.
Russia is willing to pay the price of the collapse of the Soviet Union because it believes in peace with the West, treats each other as equals and integrates into Western society. (If the brothers live better and safer, who cares about mutual understanding and mutual accommodation)
The collapse of the Soviet Union is like the collapse of the great empire in history, and the "whale fall" was eaten. After the collapse of Rome, the Ottoman Empire in history, provoked territorial disputes among various ethnic groups, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the uneven sharing of the spoils among countries due to the interference of foreign forces, which triggered a world war.
At that time, the voice of the international community was also in Britain and the United States.
Qin lost his deer, and the world chased it.
Once the conditions of international peace and friendship dissipate, it is difficult to say whether Russia will be willing to pay these costs.
And the Soviet dividers also designed a CIS as an alternative. The CIS assumed part of the original responsibilities of the Soviet Union and safeguarded the security and economic interests of the Union Republics. It is precisely because of the existence of the CIS that the brotherhood remains, the territorial disputes of the union republics are easy to discuss, and they have been at peace with each other for more than 20 years. (all the way to NATO's eastward expansion to Russia's doorstep)
But once anyone breaks this situation and introduces a stronger foreign force NATO, the interdependent friendship and understanding of the countries in the CIS will collapse and be replaced by brothers turning their faces like enemies.
The geographical, economic, cultural and people-to-people mobility of Russia and its member countries are mutually dependent and interdependent, and due to the introduction of foreign enemies by brothers and compatriots, the situation has deteriorated to the point of endangering Russia's survival and development future, and all commitments after the collapse of the Soviet Union have lost their justice and rationality.
Ambassador Lu only talked about the terminology of some legal experts, when the Soviet Union collapsed and divided, it was in a hurry, and the respective agreements on the division of territories were flawed and inadequate. And the situation that the respective ethnic groups of Russia and the two countries live in two places, as well as the common Russian language, have not been reasonably resolved.
In particular, some geostrategic positions are particularly important, and those related to the security of the entire country are only bound by the temporary agreement of long-term lease. From a legal point of view, there are hidden dangers. During the Soviet period, the administrative division of the allies was not reasonable, and bombs were buried at any time.
The story of latitude and longitude is complex.
Why not refuse outsider intervention and the two brothers have a good talk?
In all disputes, Ukraine is not soft, only unilaterally talking about condemning Russia, I am afraid it is unfair?