On 03-05-2014 at 10:37 AM Malthus, wrote, "The difference, of course, between the euromaidan protestors and the gunmen in control of Crimea is that the one is an indigenous protest movement and the other is a foreign invasion.”
I wonder if Malthus can reliably guarantee that there was no ‘foreign money’ involved in the protest movement to bring down the elected Yanukovich government.
Buzzword fear-mongering journalism is not working so well any more. As time goes by it gets worse for fear mongers:
Just wait until Americans figure out that the new government in Ukraine violated the Constitution when the replaced the elected President with a new one. This government is illegal…
Here’s some key excerpts but all should read the entire report:
Why must Crimea follow Ukraine’s Constitution if Ukraine is in violation of Ukraine’s Constitution?
For the umpteenth time in this thread: because two wrongs don’t make a bloody right.
Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow in 2011 was probably illegal according to Egyptian law. So was Ben-Ali’s in Tunisia. That doesn’t allow a free-for-all in terms of illegal behaviour
And even so, that’s a red herring to distract from the fact that the people pushing hardest for the Crimean referendum are the Russians. I have no objection to a free and fair independence referendum in Crimea. One conducted at gunpoint, with the pro-Ukraine protesters being suppressed and beaten by Russian troops, is not free and fair by any means.
I think the takeover of Crimea using the Russian majority there is an excuse for the eventual takeover of the whole Ukraine as part of rebuilding the Russian Empire. All countries have regions with ethnic minorities but rarely are they allowed to separate; national sovereignty means something.
I’m going to go out and say that taking over the whole of Ukraine is a near impossibility. It’s a humongous country with a large population and very close to the EU border. Plus the western half of the country wants nothing to do with Russia. If Putin decides to go for it, that will be proof that he is indeed out of his mind.
And this is a bit off-topic, but it will be interesting to follow the situation of Russian minorities in the Baltic states. Countries like Estonia have seen the potential de-stabilising effect that a Russian minority can have, and will likely move to prevent future troubles.
Your red herrings are beginning to smell and your two cokes have lost their fizzle. Let me ask you some important questions. Is it your considerate opinion that it is written into Ukraine’s Constitution or allowable that The Ukraine can constitutionally have two sitting presidents and therefore two Commanders in Chief simultaneously?
Is it possible that Ukraine’s Armed Forces personnel could be in a state of confusion as to which acting President has command and control of the military or neither?
Did the militants that appointed the non-elected President without proper, legal, constitutional impeachment proceedings appoint a known nationalist with connections to fascism to replace the Secretary of Defense?
I don’t disagree with you; Putin is just being opportunistic at the moment. What worries me is when they have the Russian army back and the US has no effective army at all.
If Putin were to take over Ukraine, his main problem would not be the USA’s army. His problem would be controlling a country larger than Germany, dealing with its large - if underequipped - army, and 40 million angry people. It’s simply unfeasible in the long term, regardless of how the USA responds
You wrote, “And even so, that’s a red herring to distract from the fact that the people pushing hardest for the Crimean referendum are the Russians. I have no objection to a free and fair independence referendum in Crimea. One conducted at gunpoint, with the pro-Ukraine protesters being suppressed and beaten by Russian troops, is not free and fair by any means.”
There is no red herring distraction from the fact you have presented since you have no way of knowing who is ‘pushing hard’ for independence. The salient fact is that without Russian Federation troop presence in Crimea there is no referendum on independence taking place. And that gets to my questions that you don’t appear to wish to answer.
I asked you why must Crimea follow Ukraine’s Constitution if Ukraine is in violation of Ukraine’s Constitution? You have avoided answering that question. Your reply attempts to establish that Crimea has done something wrong. What has Crimea done wrong They are working with the only constitutionally elected President of The Ukraine. Their President has not been impeached in accordance with the Ukraine’s Constitution. The legitimate President of The Ukraine asked for Russian protection and assistance until this constitutional crisis is resolved.
Wouldn’t you consider what happened in Kiev to be “more of a constitutional act”? It was an act of parliament.
In all seriousness, though, whether or not that was constitutional is debatable. I don’t think you can just declare it to be unconstitutional without making your case.
What makes it a farce? The Crimeans where not protected by The Ukraine’s Constitution. The farce is your insistence that Crimea must now get permission, under Ukrainian security, to vote for separation from an illegal government that exists only by its violence against the elected government and its violations of constitutional law.