Russia has invaded Ukraine. How will the West respond?

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Sure I do. The Tatars don’t, even some Russian speakers don’t. So do you accept that some do?

Of course. I’d bet you could find some who would want to flip a coin, or use Tarot Cards to decide. So what?

BTW, I have never praised the whole escape that took place in Kiev. It seemed like the sitting president was a disaster, and it doesn’t surprise me there were protests or that the parliament voted to kick him out. Whether that was all legal or not, I’ll let the experts decide. But this was not a case where the military came in and dragged the guy out of his office. In fact, he fled to Russia, and so I suppose one could make the argument that he abandoned his office. But I don’t really know all the legal details.

Still, no matter what you say about the events in Kiev, there is no justification for a foreign invasion of Crimea and a referendum to break off that part of the country independent of what the rest of the country says. Why you insist on defending that is beyond me.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

We all think you are speaking in English, and you think we are speaking in…well, whatever language it is that you speak and…er, well I was going to say ‘understand’ but that might be a bit presumptuous.

… I can tell when you realize you have nothing of substance or value to add. Congrats… you broke the ‘blame the bad English’ barrier. Good Job. Pay attention XT, this is how you point out the flaws in someone’s argument without the need for personally attacking their ability in English.
On 03-03-2014 at 04:41 RickJay wrote,

Crimea’s the sovereign territory of Ukraine; NotfooledbyW’s ramblings about referenda are irrelevant. Russia is committing multiple acts of war, for which they should rightfully be condemned and punished. While it is interesting that many Crimeans are ethnically Russian, it’s an irrelevance in terms of this issue. If some of them want to be Russian that’s just too damned bad; they can move towards constitutional change and peaceful secession if they want to, as in fact many places have, successfully and unsuccessfuly, in the past. I don’t see how Crimeans are justified in refusing the legiitmate govermnet’s soverignty, but maybe there is some justification there. However, that’s not relevant; what is relevant is they certainly have no legal right to be independent of Ukraine. Crimea belongs to Ukraine, even if some of its citizens don’t like who’s running the government, and the rest of the world should support Ukraine in unifying itself.

From RJ’s full statement:

“I don’t see how Crimeans are justified in refusing the legiitmate govermnet’s soverignty, but maybe there is some justification there.”

… We now know that the Government in Kiev did not adhere to the Constitution to seize control of power from the duly elected government of The Ukraine. That makes the government in power now very much and plainly illegitimate. I wonder if RickJay can see ‘some justification’ in light of the facts as they come forward.
From RJ’s full statement:

“…what is relevant is they certainly have no legal right to be independent of Ukraine. Crimea belongs to Ukraine, even if some of its citizens don’t like who’s running the government,”

…RickJay determines from afar that if Crimeans “don’t like who’s running the government” after and illegal new government is formed it is just too damn bad. RickJay has standards for them that do not apply to the Thugs in Kiev.

[NotfooledbyW]

@CarnalK

So let’s say some do. You think that validates a foreign occupation so that group gets their referendum?

They do exist.

I see no need for Crimeans who want independence from the Ukraine and who are taking advantage of the present illegitimacy of the government in Kiev to validate what you subjectively have decided to call a foreign occupation. What you call a foreign occupation has the effect of ‘freeing’ up the possibility to have a vote on independence that would never happen if it were not there.

You are in effect defending the illegitimate government in Kiev to freely impose some kind of legitimate will on the people of Crimea by force if necessary to deny them an opportunity to vote for independence.

[Trinopus]

@NotfooledbyW

. . . I see no need for Crimeans who want independence from the Ukraine and who are taking advantage of the present illegitimacy of the government in Kiev to validate what you subjectively have decided to call a foreign occupation. What you call a foreign occupation has the effect of ‘freeing’ up the possibility to have a vote on independence that would never happen if it were not there. . . .

I somewhat agreed with you about the situation in Egypt, but here, I think you are exactly wrong. The government in Kiev now is legitimate, and the occupation of Crimea by Russian soldiers is an international crime.

You might as well argue that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait “freed up” the possibility to have a vote on unification with Iraq. (Or the U.S. invasion of Mexico, one of the most blatant and illegal land-grabs in history. But the fact that one such crime was successful doesn’t mean all crimes are legitimate.)

[RickJay]

@NotfooledbyW

…RickJay determines from afar that if Crimeans “don’t like who’s running the government” after and illegal new government is formed it is just too damn bad. RickJay has standards for them that do not apply to the Thugs in Kiev.

That doesn’t really make any sense at all, and I’ve said nothing whatsoever that supports this bizarre claim. Please do not put words in my mouth.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

They do exist.

I see no need for Crimeans who want independence from the Ukraine and who are taking advantage of the present illegitimacy of the government in Kiev to validate what you subjectively have decided to call a foreign occupation. What you call a foreign occupation has the effect of ‘freeing’ up the possibility to have a vote on independence that would never happen if it were not there.

You are in effect defending the illegitimate government in Kiev to freely impose some kind of legitimate will on the people of Crimea by force if necessary to deny them an opportunity to vote for independence.

First, your statement that the government in Kiev is illegitimate is questionable, at best. It certainly is no less legitimate than the Egyptian government, which you claim is legitimate. You’re just making up rules to obtain the outcome you want.

Of course, you are free to point to the part of the Ukrainian constitution that says Crimea gets to vote on leaving Ukraine if ever they think the government in Kiev is “illegitimate”.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

We now know that the Government in Kiev did not adhere to the Constitution to seize control of power from the duly elected government of The Ukraine. That makes the government in power now very much and plainly illegitimate.

Obama clearly doesn’t “know” this. Is he wrong?

President Obama Meets with Prime Minister Yatsenyuk of Ukraine

He also says that the proposed referendum held in Crimea is not legitimate. Is he wrong?

The most pressing challenge that Ukraine faces at the moment, however, is the threat to its territorial integrity and its sovereignty. We have been very clear that we consider the Russian incursion into Crimea outside of its bases to be a violation of international law, of international agreements of which Russia is a signatory, and a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. And we have been very firm in saying that we will stand with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in ensuring that that territorial integrity and sovereignty is maintained.

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
… I can tell when you realize you have nothing of substance or value to add. Congrats… you broke the ‘blame the bad English’ barrier. Good Job. Pay attention XT, this is how you point out the flaws in someone’s argument without the need for personally attacking their ability in English.

[/QUOTE]

You merely underscore the point with this stuff. As to adding something of substance or value, well, far be it from me to point this out, but you wouldn’t know substance or value if it bit you on the ass.

… We now know that the Government in Kiev did not adhere to the Constitution to seize control of power from the duly elected government of The Ukraine. That makes the government in power now very much and plainly illegitimate. I wonder if RickJay can see ‘some justification’ in light of the facts as they come forward.

Horseshit. Are you saying that the US government is illegitimate? No? Well, a brief history lesson here might be in order. Perhaps you weren’t aware of this, but the US was founded in a revolution that seized power from the supposed legitimate government of the British Empire.

The government in Kiev IS the legitimate government in that they are the ones governing the nation at this time, having deposed a truly odorous president who pushed his people to protest his actions and then unleashed naked force against them. All of that is irrelevant, however, to the central question, which is regardless of whether or not the government in Kiev is legitimate or not, and whether or not Crimea can or can’t secede, THE RUSSIANS HAVE NO BUSINESS INTERFERING AT THIS TIME IN WHAT IS CLEARLY THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A SOVEREIGN STATE. They are obviously (well, to everyone but perhaps you and Red, and maybe one or two others) using this entire affair as a pretext to snag the Crimea from the Ukraine. Why? Because, again equally obviously (same caveat) they aren’t very confident that the Crimea actually would LEGITIMATELY use the instruments in place to do so all on their own. You can spout a load of horseshit about the Russians protecting Russian speakers, but the facts don’t back up that fantasy. Nor your other fantasy that somehow, under the eyes of the world, the Ukraine, once a new government is elected in May, would prevent a truly internal desire by the people of the Crimea to use the instruments available to them to secede and do whatever they want (be independent, join the Russian Empire…er, I mean Federation…or go bugger themselves if that’s what they want to do).

…RickJay determines from afar that if Crimeans “don’t like who’s running the government” after and illegal new government is formed it is just too damn bad. RickJay has standards for them that do not apply to the Thugs in Kiev.

What the fuck does RickJay’s or your (obviously uninformed and frankly bizarre in the extreme) opinion got to do with anything? The fucking UKRAINIAN’S have decided what is or isn’t legitimate. Their freaking parliament is calling the shots. They have an interim prime minister and are setting up new elections. No matter how you twist and turn, no matter how you try and spin this, that’s the reality. Unless you want to state that a large percentage of nations in existence today are illegitimate, your bizarre claims are just so much horseshit, and really only accomplish making you look even more foolish by tenaciously clinging to them.

[XT]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Obama clearly doesn’t “know” this. Is he wrong?
[/QUOTE]

And Obama isn’t the only one. Hell, even the freaking Germans are starting to come around to the idea.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the measures would be imposed on Monday unless diplomatic progress was made.

And anyone following along knows how painful THAT will/would be for the Germans, and how far they have to have come to reach this conclusion and even contemplate this action.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Trinopus

I somewhat agreed with you about the situation in Egypt, but here, I think you are exactly wrong. The government in Kiev now is legitimate, and the occupation of Crimea by Russian soldiers is an international crime.

You might as well argue that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait “freed up” the possibility to have a vote on unification with Iraq. (Or the U.S. invasion of Mexico, one of the most blatant and illegal land-grabs in history. But the fact that one such crime was successful doesn’t mean all crimes are legitimate.)

You can see the government in Kiev as legitimate, but that takes an acceptance that Constitution of Ukraine is meaningless.

My point here is that is improper to demand that the people of Crimea must ignore forgive and forget the lawlessness in Kiev and accept the new government there as having legitimate final supreme authority over Crimea’s destiny and self-rule.

Likewise you can see the occupation of Russian soldiers to be an international crime as you see fit. It is a crime of sorts, more like a violation of international law in light of all that’s gone on and with the agreement with Ukraine to allow 25,000 Russian troops on Crimean soil in effect, as I see it.

An objective observation can accept that their is some validity to what Putin has done and he can make a case for it. The one I accept is that the people of Crimea should be able to determine their own fate since they ended up where they are only because Khrushchev gave them to Ukraine as a gift in 1954. No democracy about it.

And seeing that Kiev can’t handle democracy or constitutional law very well they do not deserve to keep power over that ‘gift’.

The Russian ‘crime’ is giving the Crimeans a chance to gain more independence from the changing sets of nutjobs taking over Kiev every time they hold an election.

From the excerpts below… this is a key point:

“In Sunday’s referendum, the public will be given two options: becoming part of Russia, or remaining in Ukraine with broader powers.”
Here’s a link to what the Sunday’s referendum this Sunday is all about

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine (AP) — As the campaign increased for tension-filled Crimea to split off from Ukraine in a weekend referendum and join Russia, the region’s parliament said Tuesday that if voters approve the move it would first declare itself an independent state, a maneuver that could de-escalate the standoff between Moscow and the West.

The move would give Moscow the option of saying there is no need for Crimea to become part of Russia while keeping it firmly within its sphere of influence.

Backers of voting to split off from Ukraine in Sunday’s referendum say becoming part of Russia would return the Black Sea peninsula to its rightful home. Billboards around the regional capital proclaimed “Together with Russia” and street vendors were selling Russian flags to passing motorists.

But Russia’s absorbing Crimea would only worsen tensions with the West, and** the parliament declaration could put the bid on hold**, depending on the outcome of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bargaining with the West.

In Sunday’s referendum, the public will be given two options: becoming part of Russia, or remaining in Ukraine with broader powers.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ukraine-seeks-national-guard-call-reserves

Crimea’s parliament pushes for independence

By MIKE ECKEL — Mar. 11, 2014 4:15 PM EDT

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

Well, a brief history lesson here might be in order. Perhaps you weren’t aware of this, but the US was founded in a revolution that seized power from the supposed legitimate government of the British Empire.

Wow!! Was that a Monarchy or was it a Constitutional Republic from which the Thirteen Colonies severed all legal ties? Was King George an elected monarch who was removed by a process that did not follow an existing Constitution?

Are you comparing our founders and our first president and those who fought in the American Revolution to the Molotov throwing mobs in Kiev this past winter?

I don’t know what else your point could be.

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I don’t know what else your point could be.
[/QUOTE]

Obviously. See, we found something we can agree on…you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.

Wow!! Was that a Monarchy or was it a Constitutional Republic from which the Thirteen Colonies severed all legal ties? Was King George an elected monarch who was removed by a process that did not follow an existing Constitution?

And that makes a difference, how, exactly? In point of fact, the British Empire was a parliamentary Monarchy, but it wouldn’t matter a fig if they were a totalitarian dictatorship, a socialist republican paradise or some guy named Og was in charge of the hunter gatherer band. The point was, governments can be overthrown by their own people, and in fact this happens quite often. When it does, the guy (who doesn’t live there and who obviously doesn’t have much of a clue as to it’s history or even the reasons why the old government WAS overthrown) who tries to cry ‘the government is illegitimate’ basically looks like an idiot, unless instead he looks like a propaganda spewing handwaver instead. Regardless of his or her opinion, however, reality is reality, no matter how they try and spin things.

I mean, seriously…the US is/was legitimate because the Brits were a monarchy? Seriously? Good grief that’s lame even for you.

Are you comparing our founders and our first president and those who fought in the American Revolution to the Molotov throwing mobs in Kiev this past winter?

You are too much. And the funny thing is…you really don’t see how foolish a statement like this makes you look, and how it shows your ‘arguments’ for what they really are. But thanks…I’ll treasure this example in the next Pit thread on you.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Obama clearly doesn’t “know” this. Is he wrong?

President Obama Meets with Prime Minister Yatsenyuk of Ukraine

He also says that the proposed referendum held in Crimea is not legitimate. Is he wrong?

He has chosen to disregard the Ukraine’s Constitution as not relevant to the USA in dealings with the new government in Ukraine. Most in the West will disregard the Constitution and recognize the new government of Ukraine as legitimate.

What I’ve said is that Putin does not recognize the new government as legitimate and Putin’s view is in line with the Constitution of Ukraine.

If you can argue away the language in the Constitution of Ukraine why not try.

Obama has not done that as far as I know.

I don’t believe the People of Crimea are bound to Obama and Merkel and necessarily must be required to ignore the Constitution of Ukraine and take orders from the illegitimate government in Kiev.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

The point was, governments can be overthrown by their own people, and in fact this happens quite often. really.

Wow! That is your point. Why didn’t you say so. It has nothing to do with what I’ve been writing.

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
He has chosen to disregard the Ukraine’s Constitution as not relevant to the USA in dealings with the new government in Ukraine. Most in the West will disregard the Constitution and recognize the new government of Ukraine as legitimate.
[/QUOTE]

And as for THIS lame ass argument, a constitution isn’t a suicide pact. One of the reasons for the original 2nd Amendment was so that the people would have the power to overthrow our OWN freaking government if things got out of hand. Anyone following along in what went down in the Ukraine knows that the people tried protest until they were pushed to the breaking point, at which time they took matters into their own hands and through out a truly corrupt and piece of shit ruler.

Which is probably why most of the West doesn’t see what happened in the same ridiculous light that you do. It’s ironic to me that on this lame ass point you break from your near worship of Obama…while most of the rest of the western world sees it differently. Hell, even China isn’t making this lame argument you are, and in fact they are very upset by what Russia is doing, and it makes them hesitate to come down on any one side. Because, see, they disagree with your assessment that a nation state like Russia should cross their borders and meddle in the affairs of another nation state wrt a break away portion. It has rather disturbing implications for, oh, say that Taiwan place, to them (not to mention Tibet).

What I’ve said is that Putin does not recognize the new government as legitimate and Putin’s view is in line with the Constitution of Ukraine.

Yeah, you’ve said that, and don’t you feel foolish in having swallowed Putin’s line of bullshit? Hell, I doubt even HE expects many people to really swallow the pretext he’s using to basically slice off the Crimea for Russia’s own territory grab.

If you can argue away the language in the Constitution of Ukraine why not try.

Probably because it’s a really lame and stupid point? That would be my guess. You seem to believe that because a country has a constitution that they have to follow every particle of it, regardless of what their government does or doesn’t do…which is simply ludicrous, especially in light of what the Ukrainian leader was actually doing.

Obama has not done that as far as I know.

Probably because Obama, as well as most other western leaders, has more than two brain cells to rub together would be my guess. He’s a smart guy, our president.

I don’t believe the People of Crimea are bound to Obama and Merkel and necessarily must be required to ignore the Constitution of Ukraine and take orders from the illegitimate government in Kiev.

But you believe it’s peachy keen for Russia to essentially blockade Ukrainian ports and military bases, and move in force into the Crimea to do what they are doing, right?

[RickJay]

@NotfooledbyW

He has chosen to disregard the Ukraine’s Constitution as not relevant to the USA in dealings with the new government in Ukraine. Most in the West will disregard the Constitution and recognize the new government of Ukraine as legitimate.

As damn well it should. Ukraine’s Constitution is an internal document that belongs to the sovereign state of Ukraine. It is not the USA’s business (or Russia’s) how the Ukrainians administer it.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

You seem to believe that because a country has a constitution that they have to follow every particle of it, regardless of what their government does or doesn’t do…

It’s not my point of view alone:
What I do know is it is the opposite of what Condi Rice and Dick Cheney recently said;
I’ll take their words and very easily believe the opposite.

Anyway, ridicule the voices of sanity all you want. We’ve been down that path before and we know where you stood.

Princeton Prof. Stephen Cohen: Putin ‘Didn’t Create’ Crisis, ‘Had No Choice but to React’

But let’s get back to Ukraine. Brzezinski and Albright said, for example, that the current government in Kiev is legitimate. Putin says it’s not legitimate. I would argue that if you had on your show a panel of constitutional international lawyers, they would be hard-put to explain how a government which a week ago overthrew the entire Ukrainian constitutional order, deposed the elected president and has been passing anti-Russian legislation in Kiev, and which is at least partially controlled by very extremist forces in the streets, is legitimate. That would be hard to explain.

We Americans force our leaders to act ‘tough’… Tough Talk is not looking at the details of Ukraine’s Constitution right now.

Maybe this is the start of ‘un-tough’ talk coming from Obama.

Obama acknowledged that even if the referendum can be stopped, Crimea is unlikely to go back to its old relationship with the rest of Ukraine.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-host-new-ukrainian-pm-white-house
He said it sitting there with Ukraine’s other President… since they have two.

[NotfooledbyW]

@RickJay

As damn well it should. Ukraine’s Constitution is an internal document that belongs to the sovereign state of Ukraine. It is not the USA’s business (or Russia’s) how the Ukrainians administer it.

My point is that the People of Crimea are not obligated to respect that new government in Kiev and they aren’t. Starting there, they have the right to ask the Russians for help.
And according to Obama today… it sounds as if they aren’t going to have to,

A possible option for easing the dispute emerged earlier this week. Crimea’s parliament announced that if voters there back splitting off from Ukraine, the region would first declare itself an independent state. The move would give Moscow the option of saying there is no need for Crimea to become part of Russia while keeping it firmly within its sphere of influence.

Obama acknowledged that even if the referendum can be stopped, Crimea is unlikely to go back to its old relationship with the rest of Ukraine.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-host-new-ukrainian-pm-white-house

I’m for an outcome that does not reward the rioters in Kiev for what they’ve done.
Its bad enough we are giving them money.

[CarnalK]

@NotfooledbyW

I see no need for Crimeans who want independence from the Ukraine and who are taking advantage of the present illegitimacy of the government in Kiev to validate what you subjectively have decided to call a foreign occupation. What you call a foreign occupation has the effect of ‘freeing’ up the possibility to have a vote on independence that would never happen if it were not there.

So the next time the U.S. funds some rebellion you’ll be right on board.

[CarnalK]

“I see no need for [people]s who want independence from the [wherever] who are taking advantage of the present illegitimacy of the government in [the capital] to validate what you subjectively have decided to call a [military solution]. What you call a [military solution] has the effect of ‘freeing’ up the possibility to have a vote on independence that would never happen if it were not there.”

Stamp that in the memo section of every check.