Russia Discussion

Russians fired warning shots at unarmed OSCE observers trying to enter Crimea. I'm curious what they would do if the warning shots didn't work. Are they under orders to actually shoot the unarmed observers, media, or others who try to entire?

Serbs are apparently volunteering to help the Russian paramilitary's occupation of Crimea.
 
Last edited:
Sir Matt said:
Russians fired warning shots at unarmed OCSE observers trying to enter Crimea. I'm curious what they would do if the warning shots didn't work. Are they under orders to actually shoot the unarmed observers, media, or others who try to entire?

Serbs are apparently volunteering to help the Russian paramilitary's occupation of Crimea.
Click to expand...
The OCSE didn't specify that it was the "Russians" who fired the warning shots, till now at least.

 
Danny1982 said:
The OCSE didn't specify that it was the "Russians" who fired the warning shots, till now at least.

Click to expand...


The OSCE were invited by the Ukrainian government to serve as observers. The "unmarked" soldiers blocking roads into Crimea are just as unidentified as the convoys driving around the peninsula surrounding Ukrainian bases. We all know who they are, unless you think they're part of Cobra Command.

From the AP:

The Russians have denied their armed forces are active in Crimea, but an Associated Press reporter trailed one military convoy Saturday afternoon from 25 miles west of Feodosia to a military airfield at Gvardeiskoe north of Simferopol, over which a Russian flag flew.
Some of the army green vehicles had Russian license plates and numbers indicating that they were from the Moscow region. Some towed mobile kitchens and what appeared to be mobile medical equipment.
Vladislav Seleznyov, a Crimean-based spokesman for the Ukrainian armed forces, told AP that witnesses had reported seeing amphibious military ships unloading around 200 military vehicles in eastern Crimea on Friday night after apparently having crossed the Straits of Kerch, which separates Crimea from Russian territory.
“Neither the equipment, nor the paratroopers have insignia that identify them as Russian, but we have no doubt as to their allegiance,” Seleznyov said.
The amphibious operation appeared to be one of the largest movements of Russian military forces since they appeared in Crimea a week ago.
Seleznyov also said a convoy of more than 60 military trucks was spotted Saturday heading from Feodosia toward Simferopol, the regional capital. An AP reporter caught up with the convoy and trailed it to Russian-controlled airfield. In the rear of the vehicles, heavily armed soldiers could be seen, though none appeared to have identifying badges or insignia. Soldiers spat at the reporters following them.
Click to expand...
 
Sir Matt said:
Serbs are apparently volunteering to help the Russian paramilitary's occupation of Crimea.
Click to expand...

Apparently there are a few paramilitary forces who have gone already in Ukraine to help Russia occupy Crimea (I'll bet that Putin now is convinced to attack, after all, he has the power now) lead by a guy who was in jail for an attempt to assasinate Milosevic. The majority of them being veterans from the wars of Bosna and Kosovo.

 
Sir Matt said:
The OSCE were invited by the Ukrainian government to serve as observers. The "unmarked" soldiers blocking roads into Crimea are just as unidentified as the convoys driving around the peninsula surrounding Ukrainian bases. We all know who they are, unless you think they're part of Cobra Command.
Click to expand...
And we all know who were the snipers that shot both the protestors and the police in Kiev, don't we?
 
Danny1982 said:
And we all know who were the snipers that shot both the protestors and the police in Kiev, don't we?
Click to expand...

Do we? The Estonian/British phone call talking about what they had heard from Kiev is hardly damning evidence (hearsay) when the woman the Estonian rejects ever telling him that.

Olga Bogomolets said she had not told Mr Paet that policemen and protesters had been killed in the same manner.

"Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people."

But she said she had asked for a full forensic criminal investigation into the deaths that occurred in the Maidan. "No one who just sees the wounds when treating the victims can make a determination about the type of weapons. I hope international experts and Ukrainian investigators will make a determination of what type of weapons, who was involved in the killings and how it was done. I have no data to prove anything.

"I was a doctor helping to save people on the square. There were 15 people killed on the first day by snipers. They were shot directly to the heart, brain and arteries. There were more than 40 the next day, 12 of them died in my arms.

"Our nation has to ask the question who were the killers, who asked them to come to Ukraine. We need good answers on the basis of expertise."

Mr Paet's assertion that an opposition figure was behind the Maidan massacre was not one she could share.

"I think you can only say something like this on the basis of fact," she said. "Its not correct and its not good to do this. It should be based on fact."

She said the new government in Kiev had assured her a criminal investigation had begun but that she had not direct contact with it so far.

"They told me they have begun a criminal process and if they say that I believe them. The police have not given me any information on it."
Click to expand...
 
Sir Matt said:
Do we? The Estonian/British phone call talking about what they had heard from Kiev is hardly damning evidence (hearsay) when the woman the Estonian rejects ever telling him that.
Click to expand...
Then you don't have damning evidence that those troops are Russian troops either. ;)

I think we all know what's going on. Yeah the snipers who belong to the police would shoot the police as well... Hmmmm. Very logical. But I agree with Mrs. Olga, it's not a "fact". Pretty much nothing in this conflict is a "fact" really.

I can understand why she might resort to that kind of retraction (if this is indeed what she said, because with the Telegraph's laughable coverage of the conflict, I wouldn't rule out anything), it's not the first time it has happened. Remember del Ponte? The leading member of the UN? Remember when she said that evidences suggest that it was the rebels and not the Syrian regime who has used the chemical weapons? A few days later, that statement was retracted, although unfortunately for her she couldn't say she didn't say that, because she said it on tv.

And remember, those statements weren't meant to be public. They were meant to be private. So it wouldn't surprise me that a few things change when it accidentally goes public.

As for the criminal investigation that is going to be run by the same people who are accused in the case, I can only laugh.
 
Danny1982 said:
Then you don't have damning evidence that those troops are Russian troops either. ;)

I think we all know what's going on. Yeah the snipers who belong to the police would shoot the police as well... Hmmmm. Very logical. But I agree with Mrs. Olga, it's not a "fact". Pretty much nothing in this conflict is a "fact" really.

I can understand why she might resort to that kind of retraction (if this is indeed what she said, because with the Telegraph's laughable coverage of the conflict, I wouldn't rule out anything), it's not the first time it has happened. Remember del Ponte? The leading member of the UN? Remember when she said that evidences suggest that it was the rebels and not the Syrian regime who has used the chemical weapons? A few days later, that statement was retracted, although unfortunately for her she couldn't say she didn't say that, because she said it on tv.

And remember, those statements weren't meant to be public. They were meant to be private. So it wouldn't surprise me that a few things change when it accidentally goes public.

As for the criminal investigation that is going to be run by the same people who are accused in the case, I can only laugh.
Click to expand...

Except the soldiers get around in trucks with Russian license plates on them. Or did until they started taking them off in the last few days after someone asked the Russian Defense Minister about them. I don't imagine APCs have license places on them though. That's actual evidence.

05lede_plate-blog480.jpg


That's on a GAZ-Tigr. A military vehicle produced by Russia, used by its military, and only sold to: Armenia, China, Congo, Uruguay, Guinea, Mongolia, and Nicaragua.
 
Last edited:
Sir Matt said:
Except the soldiers get around in trucks with Russian license plates on them. Or did until they started taking them off in the last few days. I don't imagine APCs have license places on them though. That's actual evidence.

05lede_plate-blog480.jpg
Click to expand...

1- The pictures are hardly evidence and can not be independently verified. (Time, Location, Real identity, ...etc.)
2- A few vehicles carrying Russian license plates don't mean that all the troops on the streets are Russian, including those who sent the observers back.

Or let me put it in a way similar to how the Telegraph put it (quoting Mrs Olga):

"It is not possible by looking at a picture showing a vehicle with Russian license plate to determine that some/all the troops on the grounds are Russian, including those who sent the observers back. It is not correct and not good to do this. It should be based on fact. The Crimean authorities have told us that they are doing an investigation about it, and if they say that then I believe them. They have not given any information about it."
 
A few? They've been videoed and photographed throughout Crimea in a variety of vehicles with Russian military plates on them. There are even pictures of the same vehicle with the same places from a military parade in Rostov last year. Who drives Russian military vehicles? The Russian military.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...f-troop-presence-in-crimea-complete-nonsense/

But you're right, it's an elaborate, widespread Western media conspiracy to besmirch the Putin regime. They sit around and doctor photos and videos while coming up with wild stories drunk on vodka. Only Putin's word (RT) can be trusted.
 
Sir Matt said:
A few? They've been videoed and photographed throughout Crimea in a variety of vehicles with Russian military plates on them. There are even pictures of the same vehicle with the same places from a military parade in Rostov last year. Who drives Russian military vehicles? The Russian military.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...f-troop-presence-in-crimea-complete-nonsense/

But you're right, it's an elaborate, widespread Western media conspiracy to besmirch the Putin regime. They sit around and doctor photos and videos while coming up with wild stories drunk on vodka. Only Putin's word (RT) can be trusted.
Click to expand...
Some Western media has been far worse than RT imo. And yes, they're running bullsh*t stories by the hour now to undermine Putin's regime. Pretty much everybody knows that.

They didn't even need this conflict. Everybody saw how they covered the Winter Olympics (which is just sports really, and supposed to bring people together). Don't lie to yourself. There are no neutral media in this conflict. All of them are biased, and the best you can do is read both sides of the story to formulate your own opinion.
 
Danny1982 said:
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-ukraine-feud-over-sniper-carnage-203319580.html
Click to expand...

:lol: Unsurprisingly, you left out the other part of his conclusion from the article.

Forensic evidence, in particular the similarity of the bullet wounds, led him and others to conclude that snipers were targeting both sides of the standoff at Maidan — and that the shootings were intended to generate a wave of revulsion so strong that it would topple Yanukovych and also justify a Russian invasion.
Click to expand...
 
Sir Matt said:
:lol: Unsurprisingly, you left out the other part of his conclusion from the article.
Click to expand...
Red Dreams said:
noooo. no agenda by Danny boy ;)
Click to expand...
:lol: I knew you'd say that.. That's called: extracting the facts from the (biased) Western media/personnel.

I hope you understand the difference between a fact, and an opinion.

The fact is that all the sniper shots were fired form the same source. The interpretation, well, it's up to the person. Don't tell me that a medical person would know that the wounds showed signs that it was meant to justify a Russian invasion. lol

The fact that he was forced to spill out is that the wounds were all from the same source.

Of course an official in the new Ukrainian government wouldn't blame the new Ukrainian government. You do realize that I'm not quoting an even remotely neutral source here. I'm quoting basically the new Ukrainian government. And this brings us to the second important point.

When somebody admits something which can be used against him, then that's considered by itself as evidence. If Russia says that it has troops on the ground then I won't need any further evidence to prove it. However when Russia says something that's benefiting itself, then I will be very skeptical and wouldn't even need to quote it, because it would be pointless.

In our case of course the combination of: 1- the fact being only that the sniper shots were from the same source. 2- the person talking is the new Ukrainian government (which is a side in the conflict) makes the part you bolded completely pointless.

And by the way, I didn't cut any part of the relevant paragraph. I posted it fully so it would be in the full context. What you posted is something that came late in the article, as some sort of agenda-driven summary. The part you should have quoted was actually this:
"I think it wasn't just a part of the old regime that (plotted the provocation), but it was also the work of Russian special forces who served and maintained the ideology of the (old) regime," Health Minister Oleh Musiy said.
Click to expand...
Which is pretty pointless, considering his position, and considering that he's merely talking about his own "thoughts" and "analysis" that is based on no facts really. It's like me quoting Putin saying: "I think the new Ukrainian government did it". Pointless.

Now let's just take the facts from what he said, and then think about it for a minute.

We know now (as a fact) that the snipers incident was indeed a false flag operation. Now who is to blame?

The Russians, topple "their puppet" who was ruling all of Ukraine, so they can justify a risky "Russian invasion" of Crimea, which is not even clear how it is going to turn out?

Logical eh?
 
Bizarre. Still no admission that Russian troops are in Crimea. He probably knows admitting such thing would have legal implications.
 
Raoul said:
Bizarre. Still no admission that Russian troops are in Crimea. He probably knows admitting such thing would have legal implications.
Click to expand...

It seems to me there is no confirmation that additional troops have been deployed beyond those numbers which are anyway permitted to stay in Crimea according to the agreement. Also, there was a report on BBC a couple of days ago about a Russian unit packing their stuff and simply leaving a base to the Ukrainians. This could be what Putin meant with the ending of the exercise.

It's entirely possible that the checkpoints are indeed currently held by local Crimeans.

The rest of his talk was pretty much spot on.
 
Mihajlovic said:
It seems to me there is no confirmation that additional troops have been deployed beyond those numbers which are anyway permitted to stay in Crimea according to the agreement. Also, there was a report on BBC a couple of days ago about a Russian unit packing their stuff and simply leaving a base to the Ukrainians. This could be what Putin meant with the ending of the exercise.

It's entirely possible that the checkpoints are indeed currently held by local Crimeans.

The rest of his talk was pretty much spot on.
Click to expand...

That will probably be Putin's "out" in all of this. Simply saying the "exercise" is over.
 
Crimean parliament passes independence declaration.

Only remaining step now is the getting 50% of votes in the upcoming referendum before Crimea becomes legally and officially independent from Ukraine.
 
Danny1982 said:
Crimean parliament passes independence declaration.

Only remaining step now is the getting 50% of votes in the upcoming referendum before Crimea becomes legally and officially independent from Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Maybe according to internal law, but international law doesn't quite work that way. As long as Crimea remains publicly unrecognized, it will not be considered a state.

China won't recognize it if they're consistent (Taiwan, Tibet, Uighurs etc). Neither will the OECD. Even Russia sets a dangerous precedent for Chechnya.
 
Nedved said:
Maybe according to internal law, but international law doesn't quite work that way. As long as Crimea remains publicly unrecognized, it will not be considered a state.

China won't recognize it if they're consistent (Taiwan, Tibet, Uighurs etc). Neither will the OECD. Even Russia sets a dangerous precedent for Chechnya.
Click to expand...

It's unconstitutional under Ukrainian law. They can't be separated without a national vote. Article 73 for clarity.

http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter03.html
 
Last edited:
International law sometimes matters and sometimes it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Mihajlovic said:
International law sometimes matters and sometimes it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The political hypocrisy when it comes to international law undermines it all.

However, cases like these are legally pretty clear. Kosovo announced its independence and set up a government, just like Crimea is doing, but it has also been recognized by 110 states. Crimea will likely only be recognized by a certain few, most likely countries with little influence.

If you're only recognized by Russia, Venezuela and Cuba, you're not going to be able to form much of a state. The inability to conduct diplomatic relations and treaties with other countries will result in Crimea being, at best, an independent puppet state to Russia.
 
Nedved said:
Absolutely. The political hypocrisy when it comes to international law undermines it all.

However, cases like these are legally pretty clear. Kosovo announced its independence and set up a government, just like Crimea is doing, but it has also been recognized by 110 states. Crimea will likely only be recognized by a certain few, most likely countries with little influence.

If you're only recognized by Russia, Venezuela and Cuba, you're not going to be able to form much of a state. The inability to conduct diplomatic relations and treaties with other countries will result in Crimea being, at best, an independent puppet state to Russia.
Click to expand...

It all depends. Kosovo is still a divided, de-facto failed state, despite their recognition by 100+ countries. South Sudan's independence is also a disaster due to the internal ethnic clashes. Crimea, if it gains it's independence, should be able to have a decent economy if manage properly, regardless of how many countries recognise it. It's alltogether a complex matter as borders just keep on changing through history depending on a number of factors.
 
Top 5 Myths About Russia's Invasion of Crimea

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/top-5-myths-about-russias-invasion-of-crimea/495918.html

Although it is well-known that the first victim of nearly every military intervention is the truth, Russia seems to have broken all records in this category. Here are the top five Kremlin myths about Russia’s invasion of Crimea:

1. There was no invasion.

Media from all over the world have reported testimonials from soldiers in Crimean cities who are dressed and armed exactly like those in the Russian Army — minus the insignia. They have seized airports, border crossings and administrative buildings, and are pressuring Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea to surrender. Yet, President Vladimir Putin insists that the estimated 15,000 soldiers who have seized Crimea are local Crimean "self-defense forces."

Putin has also said that the Federation Council’s authorization on March 1 of military intervention in Crimea has not been executed yet. What’s more, Putin said last week during a meeting with journalists that the similarity between the uniforms of the Crimean “self-defense forces” and the Russian Army can be explained by the fact that it is easy to buy those uniforms in any clothing store. Putin didn’t clarify, however, if these self-defense forces also bought the armored personnel carriers fitted with Russian military license plates, which were spotted in several Crimean cities, at these clothing stores as well.

Putin’s explanations have the same credibility of a 5-year-old boy who left the top of the cookie jar open and has crumbs all over his face — and then tells his mother, “I didn’t eat any cookies!”

2. Russians are in danger in Crimea.

There is no evidence that Ukrainians in Crimea — and certainly not Crimean Tatars — support Right Sector, Svoboda or other far-right, anti-Russian groups whose base of support is limited largely to the Western regions of Ukraine. Nor is there any evidence, despite Russia’s claims, of “Ukrainian fascists” coming to Crimea to carry out attacks against Russians there. Even a group of Ukrainian Jewish leaders wrote an open letter to Putin on Thursday, admonishing the Kremlin not to exaggerate the fascist threat in Ukraine.

This is a repeat of Russia’s provocation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia weeks before the 2008 Russia-Georgia war broke out. Then, Russia’s provocation — also centered on the false pretext of “protecting Russian citizens in danger” — worked: Georgia fired the first shots in the war. Although Ukrainians have not yet reacted to Russia’s provocation in Crimea, it is inevitable that at some point Ukrainians will be forced to react to Russia’s aggression, particularly if Russia decides to use its weapons on Ukrainian troops in the peninsula. Once the first shots are fired, it is a slippery slope to a protracted and bloody military conflict between Russia and Ukraine that would likely drag in outside powers.

The Kremlin points to Kiev’s first post-revolution legislation that would have deprived the Russian language of its status as a second official language as evidence of Ukraine’s attempt to discriminate against Russians. But a potential language law is no justification for military intervention in Crimea; otherwise, Russia would have sent troops to Latvia long ago. Second, interim President Oleksandr Turchynov vetoed the bill anyway, making it a moot point.

In reality, far from defending Crimean Russians against a fictional threat from the new government in Kiev, Russia is stoking a volatile inter-ethnic conflict by seizing Ukrainian military facilities and political institutions. It is precisely Russia’s military aggression that is now pitting Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars against Russians living in Crimea.

On Sunday in Sevastopol, pro-Russian nationalists, some armed with whips, attacked dozens who had gathered in a pro-Ukrainian rally. In Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, there have been numerous violent clashes between Russians and Ukrainians since Moscow sent its troops into Crimea proper and announced plans to hold a referendum on annexation.

The real question is whether this inter-ethnic conflict will escalate into civil war if Russia decides to annex Crimea when such a large percentage of Crimean residents, as well as millions of Ukrainians outside of Crimea, oppose annexation.

3. Ukrainian revolutionary armed groups invaded Crimea.

This was the other justification for the Federation Council’s decision to approve military intervention. The Foreign Ministry claimed that on Feb. 28, forces loyal to the new government in Kiev attempted to seize Crimea’s Interior Ministry building in Simferopol. This attempt to fabricate a casus belli was a complete failure. There was no evidence whatsoever of an attempt to seize the Interior Ministry building – not one broken window or broken-down door, much less casualties, which the Foreign Ministry claimed had occurred. At least with the 1933 Reichstag fire, the Nazis actually set the building on fire.

4. The revolution in Kiev was unconstitutional.

By shifting the focus to the “unconstitutional” nature of the revolution and trying to paint it as a “fascist coup,” Putin is trying to conceal the fact that the Maidan protests were, in fact, a widespread, moderate and grassroots movement that rose up against ousted President Viktor Yanukovych’s rampant corruption, lawlessness and autocracy.

It is odd that Putin is choosing a legal argument to oppose the ousting of Yanukovych. What, then, is the legal foundation for Russia’s military intervention in Crimea? After all, Putin, in opposing U.S. intervention in other countries, has said repeatedly that foreign intervention can be justified only with the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Perhaps this is the real reason Putin is pretending that there is no military intervention in Crimea. But who is he fooling? Even his strongest supporters understand that thousands of Russian troops have left their naval base in Sevastopol and have seized Crimean installations.

The other problem is if Putin wants to rely on legal arguments, he will have trouble explaining why Russia should not abide by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guarantees Ukraine’s territorial integrity,

5. Crimea wants to be a part of Russia.

Crimeans, including ethnic Russians, joined the overwhelming majority of Russians in supporting independence from Moscow after the failed coup in August 1991. Little has changed since then. Independence from Russia is still highly valued by most Ukrainian citizens, including those in Crimea and the eastern regions of the country.

There was never any serious separatist movement to speak of in Ukraine – until Russia stoked the issue of annexing Crimea after Yanukovych was ousted. Still, only the nationalist Russian Unity party in Crimea, which holds just three of the 100 seats in the Crimean parliament, and pensioners, whose only criteria for supporting annexation is that their meager pensions might increase, support the idea of joining Russia. Notably, Sergei Aksyonov — who was installed as prime minister of Crimea on Feb. 27 after a group of armed men seized the parliamentary building in Simferopol — is a leader of Russian Unity.

The majority of Crimeans – particularly ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, who together make up 40 percent of the peninsula’s population — do not want to be a vassal of Moscow again; 70 years living in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was enough. This is precisely why so many Crimeans, including ethnic Russians, supported Yanukovych’s program, before he abandoned it in November, to integrate closer with the European Union rather than with Russia. While many Crimeans may not like Kiev, they dislike and distrust Moscow much more.

It is precisely because of these myths and lies that RT television anchor Liz Wahl quit on the air last Wednesday, saying, “I can no longer be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin.” In addition, another RT anchor, Abby Martin, said during her show: “I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs. What Russia did is wrong.”

When anchors of one of Russia’s top propaganda outlets start risking their careers by protesting the Kremlin’s crude manipulation of the truth on air, this shows that the Kremlin has taken its distortions, myths and lies about the Crimean invasion way too far.
 
Sir Matt said:
It's unconstitutional under Ukrainian law. They can't be separated without a national vote. Article 73 for clarity.

http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter03.html
Click to expand...
Nedved said:
Even more clear that there's nothing "official" or "legal" about the vote results.
Click to expand...
The Ukrainian constitution was actually breached by the way Yanukovich was toppled. Anybody thinking that Crimea's independence is illegal because it breaches the Ukrainian constitution must by the same reasoning consider Yanukovich the current legitimate president of Ukraine, with the new government being unconstitutional and illegitimate.

According to the international laws though it is possible for Crimea to become a legal independent state. Whether the world would recognize it or not, or how they are going to deal with it does not depend on legality, but on political stances.
 
Nedved said:
Absolutely. The political hypocrisy when it comes to international law undermines it all.

However, cases like these are legally pretty clear. Kosovo announced its independence and set up a government, just like Crimea is doing, but it has also been recognized by 110 states. Crimea will likely only be recognized by a certain few, most likely countries with little influence.

If you're only recognized by Russia, Venezuela and Cuba, you're not going to be able to form much of a state. The inability to conduct diplomatic relations and treaties with other countries will result in Crimea being, at best, an independent puppet state to Russia.
Click to expand...
Actually, the situation are very different. First of all, in Crimea there wasn't a war. Secondly, in Kosovo case, many Serbian leaders were sent to Hague for war crimes. In Crimea no-one has been killed, and no Ukrainian leader is on International Court for crimes against humanity. Thirdly, Kosovo was for 9 years into UN administration, before UN chose Ahtisari to start negotiations with both Serbian and Kosovan leaders and to make a final recommendation for Kosovo's status. After two years of negotiations, he recommended indipendence for Kosovo (with some very absurd rights for Serbian minority). Russia like in everything played their part by blocking it in UN (the abusion of veto power). Again, nothing similar has happened in Crimea.

In those conditions, the only solution for Kosovo was to declare indipendence which was recognized by the majority of Western Civilizarion within days (US, UK and France recognized it only a few hours after the declaration). After that, the process went again in International Court Justice who ruled that the declaration of indipendence wasn't contradicting the International Law (not that it meant anything for Russia though). Again, Crimea here is different.

I can't know if they can find a way which would make ICJ to rule in their favour. However, they won't get more than 5 recognitions (compared to 108 Kosovo has). I made the comparison because I read today that apparently Crimea has used Kosovo analogy in their declaration (and ironically Putin mentioned it too) but situations are completely different and Crimea won't get more recognitions than Abkhazia/South Ossetia. I don't think that it will be a big problem though, as long as Putin gives them Russian citizenships (and he has shown in past to be very generous when it comes to giving passports to people who live in other countrirs). If he doesn't do that, they'll be fecked (completely isolated) but we all know that it won't happen.

Anyway, in the end of the day Ukraine won't keep Crimea, regardless of their constitution. How the process will go we don't exactly know, but I guess it will be similar to Abkhazia/South Ossetia.
 
Danny1982 said:
The Ukrainian constitution was actually breached by the way Yanukovich was toppled. Anybody thinking that Crimea's independence is illegal because it breaches the Ukrainian constitution must by the same reasoning consider Yanukovich the current legitimate president of Ukraine, with the new government being unconstitutional and illegitimate.

According to the international laws though it is possible for Crimea to become a legal independent state. Whether the world would recognize it or not, or how they are going to deal with it does not depend on legality, but on political stances.
Click to expand...

Revolutions are necessarily unconstitutional. It's quite difficult to throw out the kleptocrat when you need his signature to do it even when his own party is voting him out.

Ultimately, Yanukovych broke the social contract through his numerous abuses of the people of Ukraine, including his filching billions for himself (to build that ghastly mansion), his son, and their cronies; imprisoning his main opposition; criminalizing protest, censorship, etc; and ultimately using violence against the people. By doing that, he invited revolution.
 
Sir Matt said:
Revolutions are necessarily unconstitutional. It's quite difficult to throw out the kleptocrat when you need his signature to do it even when his own party is voting him out.

Ultimately, Yanukovych broke the social contract through his numerous abuses of the people of Ukraine, including his filching billions for himself (to build that ghastly mansion), his son, and their cronies; imprisoning his main opposition; criminalizing protest, censorship, etc; and ultimately using violence against the people. By doing that, he invited revolution.
Click to expand...
He was elected. They should wait till the end of his reign to topple him through elections, like Erdugan. Remember what happened in Turkey? Wasn't even close to what happened in Ukraine. Besides, we know now that most of the deaths was caused by snipers who didn't belong to either side (police or protesters).

The number of protestors wasn't more thousands of people, if you think that toppling an elected president through invading the presidential buildings by thousands of people by force is legitimate then we just disagree about this point.

If we're talking constitution, then Yanukovich is the current Ukrainian president, end of. If we're talking "revolution" and "will of people", then Crimeans are also people, and are going to decide their future in a much more peaceful and democratic way.

And by the way, what triggered the protests wasn't mainly what you said, but a deal the EU hoped they can sign with Ukraine so they can have more influence in it, and lessen Russia's influence. He didn't sign it, and protests broke out. No wonder the EU (and the US) are backing this "revolution" now.
 
Danny1982 said:
He was elected. They should wait till the end of his reign to topple him through elections, like Erdugan. Remember what happened in Turkey? Wasn't even close to what happened in Ukraine. Besides, we know now that most of the deaths was caused by snipers who didn't belong to either side (police or protesters).

The number of protestors wasn't more thousands of people, if you think that toppling an elected president through invading the presidential buildings by thousands of people by force is legitimate then we just disagree about this point.

If we're talking constitution, then Yanukovich is the current Ukrainian president, end of. If we're talking "revolution" and "will of people", then Crimeans are also people, and are going to decide their future in a much more peaceful and democratic way.

And by the way, what triggered the protests wasn't mainly what you said, but a deal the EU hoped they can sign with Ukraine so they can have more influence in it, and lessen Russia's influence. He didn't sign it, and protests broke out. No wonder the EU (and the US) are backing this "revolution" now.
Click to expand...

He was also extremely corrupt and stole billions of dollars from the Ukrainian people, so you may excuse the protesters for not falling for his ploy of holding elections in a few months. Too much damage had been done by that point to restore his credibility.
 
Raoul said:
He was also extremely corrupt and stole billions of dollars from the Ukrainian people, so you may excuse the protesters for not falling for his ploy of holding elections in a few months. Too much damage had been done by that point to restore his credibility.
Click to expand...
But the main thing that triggered the protests was the EU deal. The first decision the new government took after toppling him was banning the Russian language. I think corruption is being used here as an excuse, rather than being the real reason. It's also not the real reason why the EU and the US are supporting the new government, needless to say.

Besides, you don't really get to talk about the Ukrainian people in a situation of a coup/revolution that was led by only thousands of people and tens of hired snipers, when the man being toppled was indeed elected by the Ukrainian people in a proper and democratic way.

And by the way, it's not like Erdugan's government (and he himself) isn't corrupt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.