I dislike Putin’s actions. I hate Russian interference in her neighbours. But Putin’s response is a response. Why was the previous government deposed? Why couldn’t things have been done, slowly, legally, democratically and reasonably?Of course Putin is now the protector of Russians everywhere, no matter in what country borders do not exist under Russia’s new pan-Slavic expansionist nationalism.
But Kiev destroyed the constitution it had. There is no legitimate government there strictly speaking. Right?Also how they weren’t given a chance to stay loyal to Kiev. If I were put in that situation I would not vote because there really isn’t any grey area, no lesser of 2 evils.
The governement in Kiev was democratically elected.But Kiev destroyed the constitution it had. There is no legitimate government there strictly speaking. Right?
That’s why such insurrections are dangerous. Who knows where they will stop?
The president was deposed. Was he not?The governement in Kiev was democratically elected.
Donetsk has fewer ethnic Russians. So a referendum there is unlikely to be favourable to Russia regardless.Are they going to repeat this again with Donetsk? I sure hope not.
The removal of the previous Ukrainian government was ousted by 73% of that government(after Yanukovych signed an agreement that reinstituted the 2004 constitution that gave parliament back its powers which he had removed), i.e., albeit they needed a vote of 75%, the fact that some parliamentarians did not show up for the vote while others fled does not invalidate said vote, i.e., 328-0 voted to oust Yanukovych. Also, the ousting of Yanukovyh was supported by the majority of Ukrainians.True. But then that extra-constitutional and illegal deposition of the previous Ukrainian government should not have occurred. And same for Kosovo. Once you set that Kosovo precedent which was enthusiastically embraced by the West, why shouldn’t Russia do the same? Where are the Kosovar Serbs now? Why does NYT not write litanies about that and demand sanctions against Kosovo?
It’s plain to see there is a double standard. And innocent people get caught in the middle because of these power plays among the powerful.
Will that stop them from having one, and it will stop Russia from possibly fixing the results if that part of the region becomes occupied by Russian forces?Donetsk has fewer ethnic Russians. So a referendum there is unlikely to be favourable to Russia regardless.
The local Crimean government believes the same. The majority of Crimeans also said the same thing.The removal of the previous Ukrainian government was ousted by 73% of that government(after Yanukovych signed an agreement that reinstituted the 2004 constitution that gave parliament back its powers which he had removed), i.e., albeit they needed a vote of 75%, the fact that some parliamentarians did not show up for the vote while others fled does not invalidate said vote, i.e., 328-0 voted to oust Yanukovych. Also, the ousting of Yanukovyh was supported by the majority of Ukrainians.
Iraq and Afghanistan were occupied by foreign troops yet the results of those elections are considered just. The presence of foreign soldiers does not discount such. In Poland, the Soviets had bases, the army was still under control of Commies and run by a cadre of Commie officers, as was the militia, yet those elections were considered free and fair.Will that stop them from having one, and it will stop Russia from possibly fixing the results if that part of the region becomes occupied by Russian forces?
There is no double standard. Crimea is a semi-autonomous region of the Ukranian Republic, recognised internationally with its borders. Under the constitution of Ukraine it does not have the right to secede without negotiating a referendum with Kiev, its capital, just as the Scottish government (and yes we too have our own government and parliament) does not have the right to hold a referendum without the Westminster Parliament in London recognising it, because we are part of the United Kingdom.The local Crimean government believes the same. The majority of Crimeans also said the same thing.
So why the double standard?
It sucks when the local population opposes you.
The deposition of the former Ukrainian president was also extra-constitutional. Likewise the Constitution of Serbia did not stop NATO dropping bombs on civilians. Right?There is no double standard. Crimea is a semi-autonomous region of the Ukranian Republic, recognised internationally with its borders. Under the constitution of Ukraine it does not have the right to secede without negotiating a referendum with Kiev, its capital, just as the Scottish government (and yes we too have our own government and parliament) does not have the right to hold a referendum without the Westminster Parliament in London recognising it, because we are part of the United Kingdom.
Because Yanukovych would have used that time to gain momentum, and remain in power. I also believe that the new government realizing that Yanukovych was Putin’s puppet, time was of the essence, i.e., get him out and out quickly before Russia finds a way to keep Yanukovych in place. Moreover, I think there was no way it was going to play out differently, i.e., either way Russia was not going to be happy even if they had waited to oust Yanukovych, and as such would still have invaded the Ukraine.I dislike Putin’s actions. I hate Russian interference in her neighbours. But Putin’s response is a response. Why was the previous government deposed? Why couldn’t things have been done, slowly, legally, democratically and reasonably?
One more thing, so the US had no right to secede from the British Empire? Or did they have a right?its capital, just as the Scottish government (and yes we too have our own government and parliament) does not have the right to hold a referendum without the Westminster Parliament in London recognising it, because we are part of the United Kingdom.
The Crimean Russian referendum may actually be problematic for Russia. Which republic will go next and break away from Moscow? But to be fair it goes way back to Kosovo, never mind the overthrow of the legitimate government in Egypt.Because Yanukovych would have used that time to gain momentum, and remain in power. I also believe that the new government realizing that Yanukovych was Putin’s puppet, time was of the essence, i.e., get him out and out quickly before Russia finds a way to keep Yanukovych in place. Moreover, I think there was no way it was going to play out differently, i.e., either way Russia was not going to be happy even if they had waited to oust Yanukovych, and as such would still have invaded the Ukraine.
You want to compare the current Ukrainian government to that of Iraq and Afghanistan, and you want to compare the reasons for their occupation as equivalent??Iraq and Afghanistan were occupied by foreign troops yet the results of those elections are considered just. The presence of foreign soldiers does not discount such. In Poland, the Soviets had bases, the army was still under control of Commies and run by a cadre of Commie officers, as was the militia, yet those elections were considered free and fair.
josie, foreign soldiers are foreign soldiers, especially ones who have orders to shoot to kill.You want to compare the current Ukrainian government to that of Iraq and Afghanistan, and you want to compare the reasons for their occupation as equivalent??
The US was not part of the UK, the thirteen colonies were under its imperial. There is a huge difference there. Scotland is part of the sovereign state of the UK, just as Crimea is part of the sovereign state of Ukraine. This means that Russia does not have the right to take over Crimea and send its troops into what is part of Ukraine. If the Crimean people wanted independence, they have a legitimate right to it, but by holding a referendum after negotiation with the parliament of the sovereign state to which they belong - Ukraine, not under Russian occupation.One more thing, so the US had no right to secede from the British Empire? Or did they have a right?
These things are hardly clear. A constitution gets its power from the people.
Can you explain in what way it was extra-constitutional??The deposition of the former Ukrainian president was also extra-constitutional. Likewise the Constitution of Serbia did not stop NATO dropping bombs on civilians. Right?
Come on… let’s be consistent here.
It was still “illegal” and a treasonous act. If the Americans failed their leaders would have faced execution by the British.The US was not part of the UK, the thirteen colonies were under its imperial. There is a huge difference there. Scotland is part of the sovereign state of the UK, just as Crimea is part of the sovereign state of Ukraine. This means that Russia does not have the right to take over Crimea and send its troops into what is part of Ukraine. If the Crimean people wanted independence, they have a legitimate right to it, but by holding a referendum after negotiation with the parliament of the sovereign state to which they belong - Ukraine, not under Russian occupation.
There are a lot of things going against this referendum (Russian occupation, ballot papers not giving the option of remaining with Kiev, boycotts, no opposition campaigns allowed, no opposition TV stations) etc. I was outlining to you the legal dimension because you asked.
Things are not often done to Western European standards over there. However the position of Crimea can probably still be renegotiated.The holding of referendums is an internal affair of nation-states. Ukraine is a sovereign nation-state which means that it deserves the same respect as any other.