In much the same way Bush saw a threat to the US in Iraq.
Does he have that authority, or must such a thing pass Ukraine’s parliament?
You have a cite for this, I presume?
Of course you don’t. It’s yet another instance of you twisting the facts to fit your pre-conceived ideas. Been there, done that.
I’m saying that the unique legal and constitutional relationship between Crimea as part Ukraine, Russia and The Ukraine mainland establishes criteria that dissolves the general broad principle that you wish to apply to the situation in Crimea.
Russia has some legitimate points that would not apply to a land or resource grabbing invasion that has been the norm over the course of human history.
Refusal to even consider Russia’s argument on any grounds is not productive.
The illegitimacy of the take-over in Kiev is a major issue to the Russian side.
We should not deny the importance of it is what Im saying
Russia signed a treaty to respect the integrity of the Ukraine. They took over a section and immediately ordered a referendum to break up the Ukraine. They should have used economic and political pressure if they wanted Yanukovich back in power. You really think going for the military option immediately is justified/ethical?
And we’re saying you’re utterly wrong about this.
That is highly debatable at best.
And yet you resolutely refuse to consider any other argument. How productive is that?
So they say. But that does not impart legitimacy to their own actions.
I think we all understand the importance of what you’re saying.
Russia signed multiple treaties with Ukraine promising to respect its territorial integrity. Yes, refusal to consider Russia’s breaking of these treaties as in any way legitimate or understandable is productive.
To my mind, it is sort of a given that a would-be leader of a country has lost all legitimacy if he asks for a foreign invasion to put him back into power - or supports a foreign nation’s biting off a chunk of his country for their own use.
This, irrespective of the constitutional niceties of his ouster.
I think the issue you are not grappling with is that all constitutional provisions concerning election and disposition, and democratic forms, do is act as ways to indicate the will of the population as to their government, and so confer legitimacy on that government. Ultimately, they are for the good of the governed, and for the good of the country as a whole.
They are not intended as providing a winner-take-all prize on the leader who is elected. The interests protected by democratic forms and constitutions are those of the population, not those of the leader. A leader who is acting as the puppet for a foreign power, let alone inviting it to invade his homeland, has no legitimacy - he is acting directly contrary to the interests of the people he is supposed to be governing.
Which, in this case, is more or less why he was ousted in the first place. By running to Russia and supporting a Russian invasion, he has by his acts indicated that his ouster was very probably justified.
Whatever treaty you are referring to is, in Putin’s eyes, trumped by the invitation to defend ethnic Russians in Crimea by the only legitimate President of Ukraine who requested it.
So you think if he was never ousted, it would have been totally fine if Yanukovich as elected leader just gave Crimea to Russia? Or do you think he has different powers now that he is in exile?
What part of not making any further deprecating comments was so hard to understand?
Warning issued.
You mean like I have in several earlier posts? You want me to do it again?
I don’t give a flying fuck about how Putin sees it. But no, I don’t believe he really sees it that way at all. What he spouts as propaganda for his own populations consumption (and the consumption of the gullible and folks like you) is vastly different from what he really thinks, IMHO.
So, to put this back in terms of what you said, and what I’ve already responded to on this subject but what you again chose to either ignore, misread or use to rant off in a new direction, your assertion that Putin thinks that the west is engaged in a land grab and that he’s really just trying to protect the Russian speakers in the Crimea and allow them to live free as a new Russian state is as ludicrous and silly as if you had said the same thing…which, really, you did, since you no more know what Putin REALLY thinks than I do.
This is just you trying to spin the discussion basically. I don’t know if you think this tactic works, but I suspect that I’m not the only one rolling my eyes at such a transparent load of horseshit. In short, neither of these have anything to do with the point under discussion, and is the equivalent of some truther saying ‘Well, the sky was blue on 9/11, and President Bush was reading about the goats while his trusted minions were perpetrating the biggest false flag operations in human history!’ ‘Well, are you denying the sky was blue? Do you deny that Bush was reading the goat story to a bunch of kids???’. 
The presumption that A, you know anything about it’s potential as a new Russian state, and B, the presumption that they will BE an 'Indeoedent Nation ’ at all, and C the situation in Kiev/Ukraine is as your continued hyperbolic assertions suggest (i.e. your use of ‘undemocratic turmoil’ and repeated use of ‘thugs’, etc). Pretty ridiculous, yes.
This is what’s commonly refered to as a ‘strawman argument’, and, well, it’s both transparent AND ridiculous.
Ok, anything else I can clear up for you while I’m here?
XT has just told me that my statement below is “what’s commonly refered to as a ‘strawman argument’”.
I wrote. “If it is done without bloodshed more power to them. That should be the standard for the world to recognize. Not the shit that happened in Kiev.”
I made that very statement regarding what I think and then asked XT to tell me why he thinks it is ridiculous. Apparently he thinks it is ridiculous because it is a ‘strawman argument’ is all he could come up with. But I don’t see a straw man set up nor do I see one being knocked down. Perhaps it can be pointed out or withdrawn?
.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
(Really are you in favor of the bloodshed in Kiev that led to this crisis and do you want more? What is ridiculous about seeking peaceful ways to resolve things?)
[/QUOTE]
Where did I say this? Where did I imply this? Where was this in collision with anything remotely like what I was talking about, what point I was talking too or even in this universe where I live? Do you have a cite of me saying anything like this?
No? THEN IT’S A FUCKING STRAWMAN. See how that works? Of course, if you DO have an example of me saying I’m in favor of bloodshed or even discussing bloodshed in Kiev, feel free to post it.
You stated he was in favor of the bloodshed in Kiev, though in fact he has never said anything of the sort. You attributed that position to him even though he never held such a position. That is, by definition, a strawman argument.
I had written that “… I think Putin sees the utter lawlessness in the West’s land grab of The Ukraine as time to concede the politics of Kiev to the West.” And then after XT called my viewpoint ridiculous I asked if XT disagreed “… that Putin sees it that way.”
And we learn XT’s thoughts on the matter as XT replies that he does not, “give a flying fuck about how Putin sees it.”
But then XT goes on to clarify:
So we could assume that XT is convinced that Putin actually sees that… the utter lawfulness in the West’s support of true democracy in The Ukraine means that it is time to concede the politics of Kiev to the West".
And it must be then that XT has acquired verifiable knowledge that Putin has converted his innermost convictions into propaganda in order to fool the gullible that he really believes that “the utter lawlessness in the West’s land grab of The Ukraine means it is time to concede the politics of Kiev to the West.”
To think anyone should have the audacity to challenge XT’s most gullible-proof insight.
And we’re saying you just made that up in order to justify the end you want to achieve. It’s complete bullshit.
Mr. Moderator, permission to treat the, um, poster as a hostile…er, something.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
And it must be then that XT has acquired verifiable knowledge that Putin has converted his innermost convictions into propaganda in order to fool the gullible that he really believes that “the utter lawlessness in the West’s land grab of The Ukraine means it is time to concede the politics of Kiev to the West.”
[/QUOTE]
Probably because Putin is neither stupid nor naive, and pretty much knows it’s NOT a western land grab (since, you know, the west hasn’t grabbed a gods damned thing and it’s ridiculous propaganda-esque horseshit to even imply that, especially considering how hinky the Euros are about anything that remotely smacks of that…well, unless it’s the Russians doing it and then only some of the more oddball Euros can convince themselves it’s a good idea).
Oh, I don’t know…maybe someone will at some point. But hopefully whoever does decide to do that will actually be able to read and comprehend what I wrote.
Are you sure I attributed that position to him?
I asked a valid question because he has claimed that my original statements were ridiculous. So, If XT thinks my statements are ridiculous it must mean by reason and logic that he thinks the opposite of what I stated is true. So it was fair of me to ask XT if he believed … That is IF … He believes the opposite of my statements is true.
Here are my questions: (Really are you in favor of the bloodshed in Kiev that led to this crisis and do you want more? What is ridiculous about seeking peaceful ways to resolve things?)
XT is answering no, And I accept that answer because it means XT was wrong in stating that my original statement is ridiculous.