Is Russia an Invader ??

[RussiaPrussia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjwQr0iBtF4

[Anglojew]

Although Russia has had a long presence there

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Kyiv_Rus_T.png

It's occupied Jewish land

http://cdn.darkmoon.me/uploads/khazaria1.gif

[blogen]

Yes. Russia is an invader legally and this expression does not have an other narrative.

[RussiaPrussia]

Yes. Russia is an invader legally and this expression does not have an other narrative.

how is no one died yet? how is it that not a single shot was fired?

[Seraph of the End]

"Perhaps that is what Kerry meant when he said : "You don't behave like this in 21st century". He meant that Russia hasn't lived up to the 21st century US standard practices of obliterating nations and bringing them back to the stone age. Perhaps if Russia had decimated Crimean cities, poisoned generations of people with depleted uranium and raped and tortured the children in front of their parents .... they would be more up to Kerry's standards."
This is the best part of the video.

[blogen]

how is no one died yet? how is it that not a single shot was fired?

These questions are not attached to the original question. The invasion is a military act and a legal situation: an entity's military force goes onto an other entity's territory. This happen in the Crimea, the Russian forces entered into Ukraine.

[RussiaPrussia]

These questions are not attached to the original question. The invasion is a military act and a legal situation: a military force an entity goes onto an other entity's territory. This happen in the Crimea, the Russian forces entered into Ukraine.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmJqJ7KfIQY

[blogen]

youtube

And? The relation of the population of the occupied area to the occupiers does not make changes in the situation. For example an othe situation after an only partially acknowledged internationally decision. The Hungarian liberation of Kárpátalja in 1938 (present Zakarpatie in Ukraine):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohjPe467P0

And the reality, the Hungarian armistice in 1945:

1. (a) Hungary has withdrawn from the war against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other United Nations, including Czechoslovakia, has severed all relations with Germany and has declared war on Germany.
...
2. Hungary has accepted the obligation to evacuate all Hungarian troops and officials from the territory of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Rumania occupied by her within the limits of the frontiers of Hungary existing on December 31, 1937, and also to repeal all legislative and administrative provisions relating to the annexation or incorporation into Hungary of Czechoslovak, Yugoslav and Rumanian territory.
...
Done in Moscow in three copies, each in the Russian and English languages, the Russian and English texts being authentic.
January 20, 1945.

By authority of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
V. DEKANOZOV
For the Government of the United States of America.
W. A. HARRIMAN
For the Government of the United Kingdom.
JOHN BALFOUR

The facts before the armistice: there was not a state of war between Hungary and Czechoslovakia and Hungary marched onto Kárpátalja based an partially acknowledged international decision (Vienna Awards). The winners of the war did not acknowledge the diplomatic decision, so we are invaders legally as Russia now in the Crimea.

[Methmatician]

"Perhaps that is what Kerry meant when he said : "You don't behave like this in 21st century". He meant that Russia hasn't lived up to the 21st century US standard practices of obliterating nations and bringing them back to the stone age. Perhaps if Russia had decimated Crimean cities, poisoned generations of people with depleted uranium and raped and tortured the children in front of their parents .... they would be more up to Kerry's standards."
This is the best part of the video.
*cough* Grozy *cough*
*cough* Georgia *cough*

Bullshit must be near 'cause I'm getting hives.

[Cail]

*cough* Grozy *cough*
*cough* Georgia *cough*

Bullshit must be near 'cause I'm getting hives.

Georgia what? Russians did not invade Georgia until Georgia itself had invaded Russia's allies. All this "inviolability of sovereign borders" bullshit is worth rat's ass. Peoples' self-determination is what's important. Crimea is not Ukraine. Ossetia is not Georgia.

Russia should "invade" Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov as well.

[Methmatician]

Georgia what? Russians did not invade Georgia until Georgia itself had invaded Russia's allies.
It's debatable who 'began' the war but my comment was referring to the idea that only the West obliterates foreign countries.

All this "inviolability of sovereign borders" bullshit is worth rat's ass. Peoples' self-determination is what's important. Crimea is not Ukraine. Ossetia is not Georgia.
Sure, but there's still the law they have to follow. And according to Ukrainian constitution a referendum concerning Ukraine's borders needs to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada.

[glass]

It's debatable who 'began' the war but my comment was referring to the idea that only the West obliterates foreign countries.

You can compare russian invasion to Georgia and american invasion to Iraq.
Americans attacked because of lame excuse, russians because georgians attacked peacekeepers in South Ossetia.
Georgian casualties were very light. Russian forced did not bomb fleeing georgian forces nor any civilian infrastructure. Russian forces destroyed only military bases, garrisons and equipment just to criple military power of insane crook Saakashvili. Russian forces did everything possible to minimize casualties on both sides. There were occasions of looting and bullying civilians done by 2 chechen regiments. Russia tried to find use for those chechen militants, but they showed really poor perfomance and discipline. Russia admitted this mistake and those 2 batallions were disolved later. Everyday life in Georgia is still peaceful and normal. Ordinary people are no affected today by those military actions.
Meanwhile in Iraq. Country economy is ruined, hundreds die every single day because of nonending violence. Life or ordinary people is much worse than during Saddam time. Americans leave countries ruined since invasion in Somalia. Russians do not.
There is not russian army in Georgia, there is american army in Iraq
Nuff said i think.

[glass]

Russia is not invader. Russian presence in Crimea is result of request of crimean authorities.
Russia do not consider nowadays kiev authorities legitimate, therefore words of Yatsenyuk and Turchinov have no weight. Current Kiev ogvernment formed from members of Timoshenko party and Svoboda party. According to latest survey, Timoshenko rating is 9.7%, Svoboda rating is 2.3%. Most popular politicians in Ukraine, Poroshenko and Klitchko are out of this temporal government. While authorities in Crimea have full support of large part of crimean population.
West is just being hypocrite once again.

[blogen]

Russia is not invader. Russian presence in Crimea is result of request of crimean authorities.

They do not have the right to a request like this as Alexander Khudilaynen, the Republic of Karelia's president may not ask Finnish troops' entry onto the Karelia.

[Acquisitor]

Russia is not invader. Russian presence in Crimea is result of request of crimean authorities.
Russia do not consider nowadays kiev authorities legitimate, therefore words of Yatsenyuk and Turchinov have no weight. Current Kiev ogvernment formed from members of Timoshenko party and Svoboda party. According to latest survey, Timoshenko rating is 9.7%, Svoboda rating is 2.3%. Most popular politicians in Ukraine, Poroshenko and Klitchko are out of this temporal government. While authorities in Crimea have full support of large part of crimean population.
West is just being hypocrite once again.

Comon glasses. I dont necessarily disapprove Putin's invasion of Crimea, but to say that its a result of a request ;)
Putin wanted to control Crimea and found an excellent opportunity..

[Trun]

He meant that Russia hasn't lived up to the 21st century US standard practices of obliterating nations and bringing them back to the stone age.

Did you hear that on the Serbian news? :laugh:


Russians do not.

Russians left over 10 countries in Eastern Europe ruined, it's quite enough.

[Seraph of the End]

Did you hear that on the Serbian news? :laugh:

Noup, unfortunately we don't hear that on our news. It's from the video in the first post :wink

[glass]

They do not have the right to a request like this as Alexander Khudilaynen, the Republic of Karelia's president may not ask Finnish troops' entry onto the Karelia.
Wrong analogy, Khudilaynen is subject of Putin, Putin is elected legitimate president!
explain how current kiev authorities are more legitimate than crimean authorities?

Comon glasses. I dont necessarily disapprove Putin's invasion of Crimea, but to say that its a result of a request
Putin wanted to control Crimea and found an excellent opportunity..
this thread is not about my personal stance, but about justification of russian presence in Crimea. Thus i do not consider Russia invader, i explained why

If you want to know my personal opinion of this crisis, you can always ask directly, instead of attempting to interpret some words in a way you like.
My personal stance Russia should stay away from annexing any territories of Ukraine. Russia should not allow neo nazi come to power, but that is all. I fail to find any economical reason to annex Crimea. I think this incoming referendum is wrong. Russian forces should stay in Crimea untill presidental elections then leave ukrainian territory if acceptable candidat win (surveys say neo nazi militants have no chance to win).

[blogen]

Wrong analogy, Khudilaynen is subject of Putin, Putin is elected legitimate president!
explain how current kiev authorities are more legitimate than crimean authorities?

No, not. Putin is not sovereign as a king and Karelia is not Putin's or the legitim Russian president's personal property. The Russian state is the sovereign and the Karelian Republic is subject of the Russian Federation. Totally irrelevant the Russian president's legitimacy. And this is the situation in Ukraine too. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was not the personal domain of the all time Ukrainian president, but was part of the all time Ukrainian state. So the Ukrainian government's legitimacy irrelevant here too. The local government does not have the right to bring sovereign decisions and may not expropriate the sovereign rights, since the arbitrary self-determination does not exist than right today, not in Crimea or not in Chechnya or not in Kosovo.

Sorry, but Crimea is legally part of the sovereign Ukraine, as Kosovo is part of the sovereign Serbia or Abkhazia is part of the sovereign Gruzia. And if the central government is not legitimate then they may resist, but only with inner opportunities (own resistance, own militia, etc.), foreign country troops' entry and his call is illegitimate in the international right.

The Russians claim that the troops in Crimea are local militias because of this and russian authorities denies the Russian intervention because of this. (http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140304/188087074/Putin-Denies-Sending-Russian-Troops-to-Crimea.html)

[glass]

No, not. Putin is not sovereign as a king and Karelia is not Putin's or the legitim Russian president's personal property. The Russian state is the sovereign and the Karelian Republic is subject of the Russian Federation. Totally irrelevant the Russian president's legitimacy.
You know governors are not elected in Russia, local parliaments offer candidad(s) to president of Russia and president assign person to do governor job. President has right to depose governor any moment he/she wants. Therefore legicimacy of Khudilaynen comes from presidental decision.


The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was not the personal domain of the all time Ukrainian president, but was part of the all time Ukrainian state. So the Ukrainian government's legitimacy irrelevant here too. The local government does not have the right to bring sovereign decisions and may not expropriate the sovereign rights, since the arbitrary self-determination does not exist than right today, not in Crimea or not in Chechnya or not in Kosovo.
Terms domain and state are irrelevent here. Local government in Crimea is subject of central government in Kiev. Then coup happend, central government was deposed therefore local government in Crimea lost legitimate authorities. Ukrainian rada made Turchinov president, crimean rada made Aksyenov president of Crimea. Both radas are elected and legitimate. If Turchinov is legitimate acting president then Aksyenov is legitimate as well.

Sorry, but Crimea is legally part of the sovereign Ukraine, as Kosovo is part of the sovereign Serbia or Abkhazia is part of the sovereign Gruzia. And if the central government is not legitimate then they may resist, but only with inner opportunities (own resistance, own militia, etc.), foreign country troops' entry and his call is illegitimate in the international right.
Crimea is indeed part of Ukraine, but legitimate local president asked for help, Russia decided to answear this call.

Russia claims...
Possible russian forces in Crimea represents local crimean authorities, not Russia herself. Russia denies direct russian involvment because russians do not act on their own. Russia formally is not a side. It is confclit between local crimean authorities and new government in Kiev. Both not 100% legitimate i would say.

[Sisak]

Yes.

I've always had the opinion that territory is a battle field between the East and the West, Russia and Western Europe.

[zhaoyun]

On a legal basis yes. But not based on the popular sentiment of the local population.

[blogen]

You know governors are not elected in Russia, local parliaments offer candidad(s) to president of Russia and president assign person to do governor job. President has right to depose governor any moment he/she wants. Therefore legicimacy of Khudilaynen comes from presidental decision.

Yes. And? This is irrevelant, he is the state's employee and the governorship is the state's area. The governor may not do a sovereign policy.


Terms domain and state are irrelevent here. Local government in Crimea is subject of central government in Kiev.

No. The Crimean government is autonom, so not subject, but Crimea is subject, since Crimea is an autonomous territory of Ukraine.


Then coup happend, central government was deposed therefore local government in Crimea lost legitimate authorities. Ukrainian rada made Turchinov president, crimean rada made Aksyenov president of Crimea. Both radas are elected and legitimate. If Turchinov is legitimate acting president then Aksyenov is legitimate as well.
Crimea is indeed part of Ukraine, but legitimate local president asked for help, Russia decided to answear this call.

The coup is fact, but irrevelant. The local government cannot legitimate foreign troops' presence. They have the right to direct the province, but the foreign and the internal security policy is the right of the government of Ukraine. And if there is not a legitimate government, then nobody has the right to this.


Possible russian forces in Crimea represents local crimean authorities, not Russia herself. Russia denies direct russian involvment because russians do not act on their own. Russia formally is not a side. It is confclit between local crimean authorities and new government in Kiev. Both not 100% legitimate i would say.

The Russian forces represent only one thing: state of Russia. :D

[glass]

The coup is fact, but irrevelant. The local government cannot legitimate foreign troops' presence.
how ukrainian power vertical works
first tier - President
second tier - Central government in Kiev
third tier - Local governments
Coup deposed first and second tier, so third can assume some functions of superior tiers. Crimean local authorities do not accept legitimacy of neither maidan government nor maidan acting president. Since there is no anybody who can decide "foreign affairs" for them, crimean local government does it on its own.

The Russian forces represent only one thing: state of Russia.
There are still no firm proofs that "unidentified" soldiers are russian military from Russia proper (not from naval base). Also there are no guys in Crimea who are saying they are going to handle crimen local officials like a dogs:rolleyes:

[Ouistreham]

The population of Ukraine is roughly 50% Russian.
The richest regions of the country are in the East (Donestsk, Kharkov) and the South (Crimea), and are ethnically Russian.
Even Kiev is largely Russian (at least 45%).
Did Mikhail Bulgakov contribute to Russian or Ukrainian (if any) litterature?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Behemot.JPG/450px-Behemot.JPG

[blogen]

how ukrainian power vertical works
first tier - President
second tier - Central government in Kiev
third tier - Local governments
Coup deposed first and second tier, so third can assume some functions of superior tiers. Crimean local authorities do not accept legitimacy of neither maidan government nor maidan acting president. Since there is no anybody who can decide "foreign affairs" for them, crimean local government does it on its own.

Who care this? The Kievan coup is irrevelant. A simply example:

starting-point: Your chief a swindler. You direct a part of his company.
question: Do you have the right to expropriate a part of his company?

Yes, the right answer is no, since if you do this then you are a criminal. A thief or a scrounger.


There are still no firm proofs that "unidentified" soldiers are russian military from Russia proper (not from naval base). Also there are no guys in Crimea who are saying they are going to handle crimen local officials like a dogs:rolleyes:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/FTr3txQF8q2gPpmoysAg9P6Rg1xuvDdv3m1PLj53Q4lNxlahLQ QD2BUFeZ7omnFuSnvGCiVjMRjeLWaaaDfV-qGpqLaYGgTm-AWp84sERgFUb7w8wZZD2Fn7w1OcvA

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Russia started off as muscovy which had a few hundred miles radius it controlled around moscow. The rest it got through invading people, yes.

I think anglojew should sue for return of his land and reform khazaria.

[glass]

Who care this? The Kievan coup is irrevelant. A simply example:

starting-point: Your chief a swindler. You direct a part of his company.
question: Do you have the right to expropriate a part of his company?

wrong analogy, chief is not top tier, owner(s) or shareholders are..
imagine you are 5 years old kid, so your mom decides what you eat and when you sleep. Now imagine your mom is gone, it would trasnfer rights to decide it to you or any other person. Same with crimean authorities. Their mom and dad gone, now they decide for themselves on their own

ps: where photo was taken? it can be naval base property.

[YeshAtid]

Putin is using this as a way of indulging his massive ego. Invading Crimea illegally prolongs the image of him of being Russia's "strongman" but anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that Russia is merely a papertiger- one that lacks any clout but is willing to depict itself otherwise. Putin doesn't care about ethnic Russians at all, in fact he loathes them.

[Borna]

Of course it is, US legalized occupation as legitimate way of accomplishing political goals - Iraq,Kosovo,Afghanistan, Libya.

[YeshAtid]

On a legal basis yes. But not based on the popular sentiment of the local population.
Putin doesn't actually care about ethnic Russians outside of Russia. All he wants is to goad NATO.

[blogen]

wrong analogy, chief is not top tier, owner(s) or shareholders are..

It is a perfect analogy, but your country is in a bad situation legally.


imagine you are 5 years old kid, so your mom decides what you eat and when you sleep. Now imagine your mom is gone, it would trasnfer rights to decide it to you or any other person. Same with crimean authorities. Their mom and dad gone, now they decide for themselves on their own

Ukraine is not gone. Ukraine is exist on their place. The real estate is the essence and not the putschists in the bedroom.


ps: where photo was taken? it can be naval base property.

No. This vehicle is property of the 58th Army from the North Caucasus military district:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/03/05/world/europe/05lede_plate/05lede_plate-blog480.jpg

The military plate numbers:


01-08 - others
09 - Federal Agency for Special Construction
10 - Federal Security Service
11 - Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
12 - formerly Federal Border Guard Service of the Russian Federation
14 - Railway Troops
15 - Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
16 - formerly Federal Agency of Government Communications and Information
17 - Defence Sports-Technical Organization
18 - Emergency Control Ministry
19 - Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
20 - Federal Road Construction Department of the Ministry of Defence
21 - North Caucasian Military District
23 - Strategic Rocket Forces
25 - Far East Military District
27 - Air Defence Forces
29 - 9th Central Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
32 - Transbaikalian Military District
34 - Air Forces
39 - 12th Chief Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
43 - Leningrad Military District
45 - Navy Fleet
50 - Moscow Military District
56 - Space Forces
65 - Volga Military District
67 - Airborne Troops
76 - formerly Ural Military District, nowadays Volga-Ural Military District
77 - Motor depots of the Ministry of Defence and the General Staff
81 - Central Military Construction Directorate of the Ministry of Defence
82 - Central Directorate of Construction of the Ministry of Defence
83 - Central Directorate of Construction Industry of the Ministry of Defence
84 - Central apartment-operational Directorate of the Ministry of Defence
87 - Siberian Military District
90 - the Black Sea Fleet (Sevastopol)
91 - 11th Detached Army
92 - 201st Motorized-rifle Division (Tajik)
93 - Operative Group of the Russian Troops in Transnistria
94 - Group of the Russian Troops in Transcaucasia
97 - Moscow Military District, including the General Staff
99 - Military car inspection

[blogen]

Of course it is, US legalized occupation as legitimate way of accomplishing political goals - Iraq,Kosovo,Afghanistan, Libya.

If Russia occupied whole Ukraine, creates a puppet government in Kiev and legalise own presence in Ukraine with this government, then maybe. But Russia did a halfway job.

[lady]

Putin doesn't actually care about ethnic Russians outside of Russia. All he wants is to goad NATO.
The us dont care about anyone, the follow their geo-political plan of bringing instability in a whole region. Putin invested in ukraine, he is not interested in weak ukraine. Putin is the only politician who are not licking ass to the US, and deserves respect for this. But unfortunately, he gets only hate. I and many i know would rather be under his regime than under the new ukrainian power, which are controlled by the ultra nazi by the way. Forget all the bullshit about human rights. If you tell me about anti gay politics, i would say it is better to prohibit gay propaganda among children than to prohibit a majority language in the most russian-speaking and by the way, more donating regions of Ukraine.

[Borna]

If Russia occupied whole Ukraine, creates a puppet government in Kiev and legalise own presence in Ukraine with this government, then maybe. But Russia did a halfway job.

Well i said that because it seems many of them butthurt now. They really thought that Russia will keep stepping back from USA every time? Seems to me they have just waited their opportunity. EU and USA are just being hypocritical now, they have been doing this for more then 20 years.

[Graham]

Crimea has more Russians, than Iraq has Brits or Americans. That is my only say.

[glass]

It is a perfect analogy, but your country is in a bad situation legally.



Ukraine is not gone. Ukraine is exist on their place. The real estate is the essence and not the putschists in the bedroom.

I offered you better analogy, kid and mother. In company case some decisions only chief can make, if company does not have chief, decisions can not be made. It is not so in state case. For example, if president dies second highest rank takes his/her responsibility untill new president is assigned/elected, if second highest rank dies then third comes to power etc. Aksyenov is highest ranked from all available officials so he assumes some "presidental responsibility". Mom decides what kid is going to eat, but if she had not decided kid can decide for him/herlself


The military plate numbers:
ever heard about rotation? it is very common and actually encouraged in Russia, soldiers should not be bound to just one place

[blogen]

I offered you better analogy

Sorry, but nobody cares this. The Crimean government's acts are illegal and not only that act, but the referendum too:

"Sie sind sich ferner darin einig, dass das Risiko einer Auseinandersetzung auf der Krim beseitigt werden muss und dass in diesem Zusammenhang das für den 16. März geplante Referendum sowohl äußerst bedenklich wie auch unrechtmäßig ist."
Angela Merkel (http://www.kiew.diplo.de/Vertretung/kiew/de/08/03__Politik/Merkel__1003-1.html)

"Als Vorsitzende der Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa (OSZE) hat die Schweiz im Konflikt zwischen der Ukraine und Russland eine besondere Rolle. Entsprechend vorsichtig äussert man sich im Aussendepartement (EDA) auf die Frage, ob der Urnengang auf der Krim legal ist. «Eine Volksbefragung über den Grad der Autonomie der Krim wäre grundsätzlich denkbar», schreibt das EDA auf Anfrage. Diese müsse aber auf der Grundlage der ukrainischen Verfassung und in Übereinstimmung mit internationalen Verträgen stattfinden. «Ob diese Voraussetzungen erfüllt sind, ist zurzeit Gegenstand von Abklärungen», so das EDA.
Der frühere Diplomat und jetzige ZHAW-Dozent Max Schweizer sieht die Sachlage eindeutiger: «Das ist ein Pseudo-Referendum ohne völkerrechtliche Legitimation.» Die internationale Gemeinschaft müsse dies der russischen Regierung mit einschneidenden Sanktionen auch zu verstehen geben.

Keine Aufsicht durch OSZE

Klar ist schon jetzt: Die OSZE, die als Wahlbeobachterin eine lange Tradition geniesst, wird die Abstimmung nicht beaufsichtigen. «Dies ist ausgeschlossen. Es liegt keine Einladung der ukrainischen Regierung vor», schreibt das EDA.
Abgesehen von der zu knappen Zeitspanne - das Referendum wurde in weniger als zwei Wochen organisiert -, birgt die Frage auch politischen Sprengstoff: Würde sie die Abstimmung beobachten, sähe sich die OSZE dem Vorwurf ausgesetzt, diese zu legitimieren. Generalsekretär Lamberto Zannier sagte gegenüber der italienischen Tageszeitung «Corriere della Sera» denn auch, er glaube nicht, dass das Referendum von der internationalen Gemeinschaft anerkannt wird.
OSCE (http://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/ausland/krim-abstimmung-legal-oder-nicht-schweiz-ist-sich-ihrer-position-nicht-sicher-127764942)

[glass]

Sorry, but nobody cares this. The Crimean government's acts are illegal and not only that act, but the referendum too:

crimean government illegal because west thinks Turchinov is legitimate. If this correct then Aksyenov just crook, but Russia does not consider Turchinov legitimate and does not give a fart for what he says. Whole point is who is legitimate. Russia and west have different points of view.

btw i do not speak german

[blogen]

crimean government illegal because west thinks Turchinov is legitimate. If this correct then Aksyenov just crook, but Russia does not consider Turchinov legitimate and does not give a fart for what he says. Whole point is who is legitimate. Russia and west have different points of view.
btw i do not speak german

No, there are not viewpoints here. There is a clear legal situation (illegal as the situation in Kosovo, Abkhazia, Ossetia, North Cyprus, Transnistria, Karabakh, etc.) and the power's oponion based on their actual interests.

Putyin did a mistake, he did a shitstorm for a little area. Minimally the half of Ukraine should have been invaded by Russia for this discomfort what comes now.

[Cail]

Sure, but there's still the law they have to follow. And according to Ukrainian constitution a referendum concerning Ukraine's borders needs to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada.

Ukrainian law does not apply to them anymore once they declare independence (which they did). Otherwise secession is impossible if the entity you are seceding from disagrees? That's bullshit and completely beats the entire point.

The ultimate and the only source of law is the will of the people. Crimean people's will is no less important than Kievan or whatever people's will. Nobody should be able to force a self-determined group into submission by some imaginary laws - imaginary in a sense that they have no source of authority among this group, thus are inapplicable to them.

[lady]

Putyin did a mistake, he did a shitstorm for a little area. Minimally the half of Ukraine should have been invaded by Russia for this discomfort what comes now.

Putin is alone, without any support abroad, under continous press and humiliations, and this last for years. I got your point, but critics must be constructive. What would you do if you are involved in an information war, and definitely weaker than your enemies? I should be glad and thankful for all the victories he had, including Syria and now (hopefully) Crimea.
And of course, the area is less important, the strategic value of it is even greater than its value as a great resourt.

[Methmatician]

Ukrainian law does not apply to them anymore once they declare independence (which they did).
To gain independence they need approval of the Verkhovna Rada :rolleyes:

Otherwise secession is impossible if the entity you are seceding from disagrees? That's bullshit and completely beats the entire point.
The entire point of what? International law?

The ultimate and the only source of law is the will of the people. Crimean people's will is no less important than Kievan or whatever people's will.
If that were really the case then we would be seeing many new countries popping up in Europe and around the world. However, these provinces need approval from the national government, that's why the Basque people aren't independent even though they use violence to achieve independence.

Nobody should be able to force a self-determined group into submission by some imaginary laws - imaginary in a sense that they have no source of authority among this group, thus are inapplicable to them.
You're right, we should all just live on the honour system and trust others to do the right thing :picard1: All laws are imaginary and the citizens of a country have given consent to the government to enforce those laws and those citizens are to abide by those laws. A nation can be destroyed if every little secessionist movement was recognised internationally.

[denz]

Putin is alone, without any support abroad, under continous press and humiliations, and this last for years. I got your point, but critics must be constructive. What would you do if you are involved in an information war, and definitely weaker than your enemies? I should be glad and thankful for all the victories he had, including Syria and now (hopefully) Crimea.
And of course, the area is less important, the strategic value of it is even greater than its value as a great resourt.

The most positive and constructive foreign diplomacy for syria came from Russia,I agree. It minimised mass destruction. Besides protection of their citizen doesn't mean invade another country like Ukraine, so guy who tough doesn't need to be right.

[Cail]

To gain independence they need approval of the Verkhovna Rada :rolleyes:
No, because they refuse to acknowledge its authority. This is the point of the secession - you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the government you are seceding from, and you refuse to obey their laws.


The entire point of what? International law?
International law is not the supreme authority, it does not beat the will of the people. International law should only be concerned with the relations between individual nations/states, it can't force one nation (in this case, Crimea) to submit to the other (Ukraine). And yes, Crimea has become a nation once it declared independence.


If that were really the case then we would be seeing many new countries popping up in Europe and around the world. However, these provinces need approval from the national government, that's why the Basque people aren't independent even though they use violence to achieve independence.
Yes, and they should. Basques, Catalans, Scotsmen, everybody who wants it should get their independence.


You're right, we should all just live on the honour system and trust others to do the right thing :picard1: All laws are imaginary and the citizens of a country have given consent to the government to enforce those laws and those citizens are to abide by those laws.
Your sarcasm is wasted here. The fact that the current system has deviated from the perfect scenario (social contract) and the states/governments have become self-important does not make them more important from the moral/philosophical standpoint. Laws are not set in stone, and should always be questioned. An unjust law should be disobeyed and eventually discarded. Hopefully, Crimea will become a valuable precedent for this cause.


A nation can be destroyed if every little secessionist movement was recognised internationally.
Yes, if there is such a nation that most parts of it want to secede and claim independence, this nation should be destroyed (partitioned).

[LightHouse89]

no great liberators! they should take over al of Ukraine.

[LightHouse89]

Putin is alone, without any support abroad, under continous press and humiliations, and this last for years. I got your point, but critics must be constructive. What would you do if you are involved in an information war, and definitely weaker than your enemies? I should be glad and thankful for all the victories he had, including Syria and now (hopefully) Crimea.
And of course, the area is less important, the strategic value of it is even greater than its value as a great resourt.

he has the support of China...you better believe America will back out all they have to do is say they wont lend us anymore money and we will be screwed.

[LightHouse89]

The us dont care about anyone, the follow their geo-political plan of bringing instability in a whole region. Putin invested in ukraine, he is not interested in weak ukraine. Putin is the only politician who are not licking ass to the US, and deserves respect for this. But unfortunately, he gets only hate. I and many i know would rather be under his regime than under the new ukrainian power, which are controlled by the ultra nazi by the way. Forget all the bullshit about human rights. If you tell me about anti gay politics, i would say it is better to prohibit gay propaganda among children than to prohibit a majority language in the most russian-speaking and by the way, more donating regions of Ukraine.

not really the people themselves do not want another war. Our wars cost a lot of money....one platoon of American soldiers is 12 million dollars. No bullshit. We cannot afford another war so sorry Ukraine let the EU be bothered with their backyard.

[Methmatician]

No, because they refuse to acknowledge its authority. This is the point of the secession - you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the government you are seceding from, and you refuse to obey their laws.
They still need permission by the Verkhovna Rada. The former government doesn't have one so they can't approve it. New government has one and hasn't approved the referendum. Either way it's illegal.


International law is not the supreme authority, it does not beat the will of the people. International law should only be concerned with the relations between individual nations/states, it can't force one nation (in this case, Crimea) to submit to the other (Ukraine). And yes, Crimea has become a nation once it declared independence.
The Crimean government was taken over by armed gunmen and new leaders were installed. Now which Crimean government legitimate? And no, Crimea did not declare independence, they just scheduled a referendum. And if no country has to follow international law then the US invasion of Iraq was 'legal' (for example) :rolleyes2:


Yes, and they should. Basques, Catalans, Scotsmen, everybody who wants it should get their independence.
And what about micronations? What if I declare my property as an independent nation? We live in a civilised society where people follow the law. Unless certain groups are being persecuted then they need approval by their national government to secede.


Your sarcasm is wasted here. The fact that the current system has deviated from the perfect scenario (social contract) and the states/governments have become self-important does not make them more important from the moral/philosophical standpoint. Laws are not set in stone, and should always be questioned. An unjust law should be disobeyed and eventually discarded. Hopefully, Crimea will become a valuable precedent for this cause.
So what about the law in Ukraine that was passed illegally that made public displays criticising the government illegal? the protesters obviously ignored such a law. The former Ukrainian government made unjust laws and they were disobeyed by the Euromaidan protesters. Crimea on the other hand experienced a coup by pro-Russian demonstrators and passed an illegal approval for a referendum. Which laws do you follow?

Yes, if there is such a nation that most parts of it want to secede and claim independence, this nation should be destroyed (partitioned).
So why haven't Spain and the UK dissolved yet? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Active_separatist_movements_in_the_European_Union. svg/692px-Active_separatist_movements_in_the_European_Union. svg.png)

[Cail]

They still need permission by the Verkhovna Rada. The former government doesn't have one so they can't approve it. New government has one and hasn't approved the referendum. Either way it's illegal.
Secession is always legal by definition. You don't need anyone's permission to secede. The act of secession is at the same time the act of denunciation of your former government's authority over you and rejection of their laws. The former government/state can have as much laws against secession as they want, but they are not legally binding for you once you secede, "tear up the social contract" figuratively speaking.


The Crimean government was taken over by armed gunmen and new leaders were installed. Now which Crimean government legitimate?
Lol, funny that you say that, because that's exactly what has happened in Kiev.


And no, Crimea did not declare independence, they just scheduled a referendum.
Oh yes they did, check your facts first (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578160/Ukraines-fugitive-president-blasts-bandit-regime-says-country-heading-civil-war.htm).


And if no country has to follow international law then the US invasion of Iraq was 'legal' (for example) :rolleyes2:
The multiple US invasions of various countries in the last two decades had caused countless civilian deaths, created instability and impoverishment in entire regions, radicalized the people and caused guerilla and terrorist organizations to grow like mushrooms after a rain. Russia's "invasion" of Crimea has not seen a single shot fired and the people are welcoming them. Russians are only making sure that the free expression of the will of the Crimean people is not sabotaged by the people currently in power in Kiev and their US/EU sponsors.


Unless certain groups are being persecuted then they need approval by their national government to secede.
I couldn't disagree more. Any group's participation in the social contract with the government/state is purely voluntary and can be canceled at will.


So what about the law in Ukraine that was passed illegally that made public displays criticising the government illegal? the protesters obviously ignored such a law. The former Ukrainian government made unjust laws and they were disobeyed by the Euromaidan protesters. Crimea on the other hand experienced a coup by pro-Russian demonstrators and passed an illegal approval for a referendum. Which laws do you follow?
Euromaidan was a coup too. But the thing is, coup is not necessarily a bad thing. The right to overthrow an unjust government is a fundamental and a very important one. Unjust laws should not be followed, unjust rulers should be ousted (and shot).

Ukrainian people had torn their social contract with the Yanukovich's government, exercised their right to overthrow him. I fully support this development.

Now Crimea has decided to tear their contract with the rest of Ukraine, they declare their independence and secede. I fully support this development as well.


So why haven't Spain and the UK dissolved yet? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Active_separatist_movements_in_the_European_Union. svg/692px-Active_separatist_movements_in_the_European_Union. svg.png)
They should have. The problem is, the Basques are lacking a Putin of their own. And I'm not sure about how many of them actually support(-ed) the secession. Not very knowledgeable about the Basque affair in general. But the Catalonia should definitely be independent.

[Zmey Gorynych]

Under international law Russia is an invader, there's no question about that.

[Methmatician]

Secession is always legal by definition. You don't need anyone's permission to secede. The act of secession is at the same time the act of denunciation of your former government's authority over you and rejection of their laws. The former government/state can have as much laws against secession as they want, but they are not legally binding for you once you secede, "tear up the social contract" figuratively speaking.
Secession can be legal and illegal. Macedonia legally seceded from Yugoslavia for example.

Lol, funny that you say that, because that's exactly what has happened in Kiev.
Actually it was the Verkhovna Rada who found Yanukovych to be unfit to rule so they put Turchynov and Yatsenyuk in charge for now. Elections are in May. Protesters simply influenced their politicians to make a decision.


Oh yes they did, check your facts first (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578160/Ukraines-fugitive-president-blasts-bandit-regime-says-country-heading-civil-war.htm).
It isn't independent :picard1: The Crimean government will declare independence if the Crimean people vote for it in the referendum. And then it will join Russia according to Crimean leaders.


The multiple US invasions of various countries in the last two decades had caused countless civilian deaths, created instability and impoverishment in entire regions, radicalized the people and caused guerilla and terrorist organizations to grow like mushrooms after a rain. Russia's "invasion" of Crimea has not seen a single shot fired and the people are welcoming them. Russians are only making sure that the free expression of the will of the Crimean people is not sabotaged by the people currently in power in Kiev and their US/EU sponsors.
Rightio, so how does this make it legal again? Whether anyone's been killed or not is not the factor that determines its legality.


I couldn't disagree more. Any group's participation in the social contract with the government/state is purely voluntary and can be canceled at will.
You can't just decide one day to not obey the law :rolleyes: You're going into some deep anarchic territory. If I'm understanding you right it's okay to disobey laws that you don't like because you think laws are voluntary.

Euromaidan was a coup too. But the thing is, coup is not necessarily a bad thing. The right to overthrow an unjust government is a fundamental and a very important one. Unjust laws should not be followed, unjust rulers should be ousted (and shot).
Members of Parliament ousted the President. Not armed civilians. There's a difference here. The government didn't change, just the leader.


Ukrainian people had torn their social contract with the Yanukovich's government, exercised their right to overthrow him. I fully support this development.
There was no social contract. Yanukovych chose Russia over the EU when the general Ukrainian choice was for the EU. That's why the whole thing started. They didn't actually overthrow him, they just pressured the government to oust him.

Now Crimea has decided to tear their contract with the rest of Ukraine, they declare their independence and secede. I fully support this development as well.
Okay, but I hope you understand that unlawful separatism can be legally suppressed. I'm not saying it should. I think Crimea should do what it wants, but this is how things are.

They should have. The problem is, the Basques are lacking a Putin of their own. And I'm not sure about how many of them actually support(-ed) the secession. Not very knowledgeable about the Basque affair in general. But the Catalonia should definitely be independent.
So what these movements are lacking are external nations enforcing separatism through a military presence? The only reason Crimea has gotten this far is because it's being protected by foreign soldiers.

[glass]

Actually it was the Verkhovna Rada who found Yanukovych to be unfit to rule so they put Turchynov and Yatsenyuk in charge for now. Elections are in May. Protesters simply influenced their politicians to make a decision.
true, but with Right Sector guns pointed at rada members heads. Did you forget 100% vote for, or may be did you forget a guy with unsheathed knifes talking to new ministers

It isn't independent
Crimean parliament elected new authorities and proclaimed Crimea independence.

Members of Parliament ousted the President. Not armed civilians. There's a difference here. The government didn't change, just the leader.
Crimean parliament ousted Ukrainian authorities, not armed "russian" soldiers.

There was no social contract. Yanukovych chose Russia over the EU when the general Ukrainian choice was for the EU. That's why the whole thing started. They didn't actually overthrow him, they just pressured the government to oust him.
pro Eu and pro Rus parts of Ukraine were pretty equal. Government did not oust Yanukovych, he and goverment fleed country, when right sector armed thugs broke feb 21 agreement and started to capture centre of Kiev.

Dude, you should use various sources of info not just US propaganda...

[Pentagram]

American and Soviet-Russian imperialism are not that different from eachother. Both bully smaller nations and create their own reasons to intervene. After Georgia in 2007, now Crimea became the new political battlefield between America and Russia. Russians have been making the propaganda of "look how people greet us, does it look like we are invading" but thats because there was basically no resistance by Ukrainian military Lol. Still, it doesnt change the fact that Russia violated the sovereignty of an independent country. No Russian was ever harmed in Ukraine so far either. Putin uses similar excuses as Hitler used before he annexed Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia Lol.

[Äijä]

The point is about borders in Europe, I was personally against Kosovo and so was Russia, now they broke that themselves.
If Russia falls everyone has the right to take back what ever Russia has taken in the past.

[Pentagram]

Kosovo exists only because America wanted so. Thats why there is a statue of Bill Clinton in Prishtina. Result of "divide and conquer" strategy of Western imperialism.

[Moonbird]

Yes, Russia is an invader.

In the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.