No, you are wrong. You used “if” with regards to the word “intent”, not to the figures you made up. There can be no other reading. I may not speak Russian but I clearly speak better English than you so just accept this point.
Suppose Richard Nixon had not resigned, and instead impeachment had gone ahead. People are so darned angry about it, they demonstrate outside the White House. Nixon orders Army troops to quell the demonstrations and people get shot, which only makes him look worse and new articles of impeachment are added. At some point in 1975 it’s apparent he might go to jail and he flees the country, and Gerald Ford is duly appointed President.
All very awful, I am sure. Now, is California justified in seceding? Would the Soviet Union have been justified in sending troops into California to help its secession?
[QUOTE=Henrichek]
In this case it’s Ukraine carving itself up from within.
[/QUOTE]
But that is simply not true; Russia is doing some, if not most, of the carving.
If Ukraine wants to pull apart, that’s up to them. Let them. But it should be up to them, not Russia. Thanks to Russian intervention it’s quite impossible to actually know if Crimeans want to split up from Ukraine or not. Had Russia kept out of this and an independence movement had arisen in Crimea, well, there would be a case for peaceful negotiation and careful planning of possible secession. This Russian-orchestrated nonsense is a power play and an invasion, quite obviously.
Can I just say that before other countries start imposing sanctions on the Russians that we should start by getting the Paralympic athletes the hell out of Sochi.
Government officials from the US and Great Britian are boycotting the games but the athletes are still there, in a secure compound surrounded by Russian troops. If we’re going to be standing on the brink of war puffing up chests and poking at each other it would be nice if we first removed the hundreds of athletes from the enemies control. I suspect the Ukrainian’s have not sent a team and I would hope that before any other country takes action they first act to secure their citizens.
You made a claim, and I asked for a cite.
You provided nothing that backed up your claim.
So there’s that.
Sure, would love to.
For what, exactly…?
How would you know?
So why did you ask “how do you know they don’t?” If you knew I had never claimed any such thing, why did you ask?
I agree with you.
But so far, it seems as if you don’t know, just like I don’t know, if it is indeed a tiny minority, or about 50%-50%, or a huge majority. We just don’t have enough hard data and reliable statistics to know - really, absolutely, and for sure - if a minority or a majority of the Crimeans want succession or annexation, as opposed to continued union with Ukraine. We don’t know, and so it bothers me when people claim to know, with no real, hard data to back up their claims.
I laughed when I heard UK was boycotting the Paralympics. Then I found out it was just the official delegation that was boycotting. We should let the athletes have their day without too much politics. But let Russians threaten or intimidate a bunch of handicapped athletes. If Russia isn’t a total global pariah yet, it would be.
Yanukovych was not under any formal impeachment of any kind and was replaced by an opponent. Nixon won across the entire country, Ford was the Constitutional successor and was in the same party as Nixon. It’s really not remotely comparable. It also blithely ignores how many in Crimea see it - as a blatant coup.
Except Russia has already violated the terms of the “Olympic Truce” or UN resolution 48/11. The Paralympics were included in the definition of the truce in 1998.
Of course there is no actual penalty to violating this but Russia is clearly demonstrating that they don’t believe the world treating them as a pariah is worth worrying about.
You can “act” like one all you want, but if it is not recognized by anyone (except probably Russia) then you’re not.
Hurrah. We have context and perspective.
Cite? soveriegnty is soveriegnty. Recognition of soveriegnty by some of the ‘those’ who don’t always recognize the soveriegn integrity of borders themselves is not that much of a standard to be opposed to a non-violent split from an entity that just had its president removed by violence instead of a constitutional election. Think about it.
Woahhhh! another good one.
Here’s some more. The very first thing Putin did was sleazily claim Crimea can illegitimately overthrow their local parliament just like Kiev did. It’s hardly a gotcha. Thing is, the Kiev protesters trotted out their new appointees in front of the crowds and more or less got their yay or nay. Crimea was overthrown by a secret closed door “vote” when it isn’t even clear that many voting parliamentarians were even present. It’s childish (which Russian leaders are) to claim it’s all actually the same thing, when it obviously isn’t when context is applied.
By context I presume you mean it’s fine when people the West approve of overthrow a democratically elected leader but an outrage when anybody else does it?
I think the context intended was that one (Crimea) was under military duress when it did it’s overthrowing and it did it in secret.
Yup.
According to NPR just now, the new Prime Minister of Crimea, ran in the last set of elections in a coalition of pro Russian parties. They won a grand total of 4% of Russian speakers, in Crimea.
This is the guy who called on Russia to protect ethnic Russians by invading Crimea.
:dubious:
Capt
UK seeking to ensure Russia sanctions do not harm City of London
Bwahahaha! I love the smell of hypocrisy in the evening.
Yes, as a matter of fact, but you probably know it as the Cocky Cossack Gentlemen’s Club on Yonge Street. Tell the manager you want to speak to Ambassador Natasha. (No, he won’t waive the cover charge.)
I recall reading Parliament had impeached him.