EU gives Russia 48-hour deadline to return troops to barracks in Crimea. Otherwise, economic sanctions. Come to think of it, if anything can scare Putin, it’s that.
The “Autonomous Republic of Crimea” is not a sovereign country, thus cannot grant citizenships.
The bolded is a mischaracterization of the article. It is not “otherwise, economic sanctions”. It is “otherwise, maybe economic sanctions, if Germany, Italy, etc. agree”. And no, it won’t scare Putin. Putin regards the West as soft, degenerate and greedy. He is sure that they will not inconvenience themselves for the sake of Ukraine. I am pretty sure he is correct.
Perhaps the current regime in Kiev should have thought about that when they illegally carried out an armed coup against the democratically elected government. Ukraine is pretty much a legal vacuum at the moment. It’s highly hypocritical of the new regime to suddenly expect the rest of the country to respect their authoritah, considering how they came to power themselves.
Instead, they could have waited until next year and deposed the president in the election, and none of this would have happened.
I’ve never heard of such a country. My country recognizes no such place. Do they have an embassy here?
So you have nothing, then?
And at this point you are down to a pure tu quoque? Duly noted.
A few iReporters proves only that a non-zero amount of Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity stand opposed to succession/annexation. You claimed that “there is little genuine appetite for succession.” This is a very different thing, and you have yet to back it up.
Show me the post where I have claimed to “know they don’t.”
Please, I’ll wait.
So… Included in the criteria for a “genuine groundswell” is the capacity to independently mass-produce giant flags and posters? Is it impossible that the “groundswell” of pro-Russian sentiment remains “genuine,” even if those giant flags and posters might have been provided by Russia? How is the mob’s pro-Russian fury any less real just because it has friends in high places, or across the border?
“No doubt there is genuine support for a Russian invasion” - yes, finally, thank you.
And of course Putin is encouraging it, in every way that he can. Did I, or anyone else, ever claim otherwise?
I’m afraid Terr is more correct on this than you, BG. From your own cite:
Further, guess which of those two blocks wields more power in the EU?
I was making a hypothetical point. Go back and read it. I even said ‘in that context’. …
That’s a new one. Not very clever, but new.
Try to suppose one just formed to answer the question. The news will reach your country some day I guess.
I’m certainly not calling upon Ukraine to be awarded Best Governed Country Of The Year 2014 (but… “Authoritah?” Really?) and they’re not covering themselves in glory here.
However, whether this guy or that guy should be President of Ukraine isn’t a debate that gives its neighbors license to start carving the place up, just as England would not have been justified in seizing part of the USA during the Civil War, and China would not have been justifying in taking the Far East part of Russia when the USSR broke up. The sovereignty of nations and their territorial integrity is, for better or worse, a fundamental principle of international law and it’s one of the things that helps to keep the peace. “We’ll just take what we want if anyone has some instability” is a way to run the world that guarantees more war.
You’re right, they could have. But they didn’t. It’s Ukraine’s problem.
And you know what? That guy who had his car stolen could have locked his car. Doesn’t excuse the thief.
You still do not know what ‘IF’ does when used to start a sentence. I cannot help you until that meaning becomes clear to you somehow.
There’s a lot more than “some” justification. One part of the country started rioting, elected leader flees, what’s left of the Parliament votes for his removal and arrest then they put a new guy in charge. That’s a truckload of justification for not accepting the sovereignty of the government.
Face it, countries like the US and UK are bankrupt of moral authority here. You don’t invade Iraq on a trumped-up pretext and then lecture other countries about respecting the rights of sovereign nations. It’s rank hypocrisy and the whole world knows it. And perhaps if the West hadn’t been so busy stirring the pot for years in the ex-Soviet satellites things might not have come to this. The West may think of NATO as a defensive alliance but that’s certainly not how it appears to the Russians.
Yeah, right. Let’s see if even one other person read your post that way…
But at least now we know that you’re talking about a Crimea that doesn’t actually exist while the rest of us are talking about the actual place. In that case, we can save ourselves the bother of reading your further posts on the subject.
Fair enough. What if they act as a soverign country and then become one because they are able to defend against their former soveriegn state. How does the original soveign state deny the new state its declared soveriegnty? That is if it cannot do so by force against the will of the new state’s people.
In this case it’s Ukraine carving itself up from within. What’s going on in Crimea is no different than what happened in Kiev before that, just on a smaller scale. It’s not Russia coming in all by itself and stealing Ukraines peninsula. People in Kiev were unhappy with their government, and now it’s Crimeas turn, the difference is that Crimeans can’t take over Kiev. I don’t see why they are supposed to accept the situation any more than the Kievans did, just because of some sovereignty principle?
Doesn’t matter. Russia shouldn’t be “coming in” at all. That’s the point we’re trying to make. Let the Ukrainians work this out among themselves.
Talk amongst yourselves: The Crimean Autonomous Repulbic is neither Crimean, Autonomous, nor a Republic. 
So far, it is you who haven’t produced anything. So far, you are down to complainng about what I’ve produced.
Perhaps you could provide some sources of your own?
I’ve said that there is little genuine appetite, which appears to be true. There is lots of Russia trumped-up support.
:rolleyes:
Oh please. Surely you aren’t going to make the conversation descend to that level of triviality, are you? I have no interest in such rhetorical games.
Because it is (or should be) obvious to anyone examining the situation that what is happening in Eastern Ukraine is as ochestrated by the Russians as the closing ceremonies of the Sochi Olympics? Just a thought.
Again, it is certain possible that there is some genuine anger, just as it is possible that there isn’t. It is hard to tell, given the volume of propaganda and interference put out by Russia. Hence, the use of evidence that goes beyond the photographs of marching crowds.
What you are not seeing, is that in a situation where a major power is actively interfering and stiring up trouble for its own benefit, it is effectively impossible to determine whether or not that trouble reflects the actual popularity of their cause - and the smart money would look to actual boots-on-the-ground, of the sort you have preemptorily dismissed as unworthy of consideration, to find out what is actually happening.
A huge pro-invasion demonstration in Moscow? Actual boots on the ground tells us that they are bussed in. Russian flag-wielding rioters in Eastern Ukraine? Again, boots on the ground tells us that they may not actually reflect the popular mood.
Sure there is gonna be some genuine support for a Russian invasion - but that isn’t the question: the question is whether that support is a tiny minority, supported and magnified by Russian interference, or genuinely reflective of the popular mood.
It helps to look beyond appearances to see what the reality may be.
Inded, the world does know it.
The point, however, is actually that the US SOS relied on it to occupy some kind of moral highground. It’s a comment too stupid for words and reflects really quite significantly on the individual, and the quality of people making judgement in this administration.
It’s like Obama’s Syria debacle but with a bit more Dan Quayle.