What are you trying to do here? Are you
- Explaining what Putin thinks even though you don’t agree with him
-or-
- Are you telling us this is both Putin’s position and your position.
If #1, then so what? Putin is wrong.
If #2, then… cite?
Made what up?
The correct way to reference my response to XT would be this way:
(You asked XT if he was in favor of the bloodshed in Kiev, though in fact he has never said anything of the sort.)
But then that does not make sense does it?
Person A: I think Obama’s a good president, because he hit .344 in the Majors.
Person B: Obama never played in the major leagues.
Person A: That must mean, by reason and logic, that you think Obama’s a terrible president.
Doesn’t sound right, does it? Disagreement doesn’t infer that the other person thinks the opposite of the statement in question is true. The world, and human discourse, are a bit more nuanced than that.
Uhm… the part I quoted? It was only one sentence. It’s not like I quoted a 6 paragraph wall of text where I was objecting to just one sentence, so I don’t see what’s so confusing about that.
–JM
That is a good question. But if Yanukovich were never unconstitutionally ousted then the Constitution would be intact and functioning as the law of the land and Crimea could only be given to Russia in accordance with the law and the Constitution. As it turns out it was not Yanukovich that violated the Constitution it was the legislature in cahoots with the rioters that broke it. When the Constitution broke down by not protecting the President from lawbreakers (perhaps intending to kill him) then the Crimean residents who helped elect the now deposed President took the opportunity to make moves to break away from their constitutional ties to the Ukraine disaster that it is.
If what Obama said turns out to be true the Crimeans have severed the ties with Kiev it is now a matter of negotiating to what degree.
Please explain what specifically you believe has been made up.
The whole thing. Every word of it.
If you think it’s valid, give us a cite.
Pull in more context and you will see your error.
If you wish not to do that I will point it out when time is available.
Context is important.
Here is a clue.
Person A in your diversion. Is false and ridiculous.
[QUOTE]
“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.”)
[QUOTE]
My statement A is not false or ridiculous. If you think it is lets hear your reasoning.
OK, I’m outta here. He’s pulled the “context card”. Anything else I have to say will be said in… another forum.
(Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW 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.)
Do you disagree that the situation between those three entities is unique? If you can cite another situation that makes it not unique the let me know.
The rest is my opinion therefore I am citing myself. I did not make anything up and it was improper of you to suggest I have.
I will remember your farewell forever in the full context of this discussion and your sensitivities to having context be part of the discussion.
Oh, God help us, not another red line!
John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine
Putin must be terrified.
Its about the same sanctions they’ve been talking about for days. No need for sarcasm.
In your link though:
Kerry said, Moscow is allowed to have a total of 25,000 troops in Crimea.
I wonder if this is the first time he said it.
Next question will be what can those troops do to protect Russia’s interest. It is getting difficult to call this an invasion or breaking a treaty.
Wait, why is it that way around?
I mean, I would have thought that if the leader of a country does something against treaties or law, then it’s the leader who is in the wrong, not those papers?
I mean, if Obama went out tomorrow and murdered someone, that doesn’t make murder ok because he was the constitutionally legitimate President of the US when he did it.
But the whole point is that Russia will not reverse its course in Ukraine. Kerry knows it, the Western leaders know it, the whole world knows it. By making such peremptory demands and issuing deadlines that cannot be enforced Kerry makes the US look weak.
It seems to me that if the world already knows that Russia isn’t going to reverse its course… then that’s the part that makes the US look weak, not the deadline-issuing.
Never will there be bloodless ‘invasion’ by a foreign military that is permitted by agreement between the invaded nation and the invading nation to keep 25,000 or x,xxx heavily armed troops in the territory being invaded.
There was blood on the ground in the 2008 conflict in Georgia and the invasion was a response to aggression initiated by Georgia. Russia was determined by the EU to be justified in protecting it assets and personnel from the Georgian aggression.
Russia did not have an agreement with Georgia to bring in the number of troops that went into S.Ossettia, Georgia, and Abkhazia.
You keep repeating this nonsense.
Here is the agreement: The 1997 Black Sea Fleet Agreement Between Russia and Ukraine | ERIC POSNER
Which part of “Military formations … respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, abide by its legislation and do not allow interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs” is not clear to you, exactly?
And how do you know this? Crystal ball? Secret writings of Nostradamus? You just have a gut feeling? What occult power gives you the knowledge of what will “never” happen in the future of human civilization?
Putin cannot see himself in the wrong because of two things. He is allowed by agreement to have 25,000 troops on the ground in Crimea to protect Russian interests. And secondly, the legal president of Ukraine invited, asked for the legal movement of troops into Crimea to begin. There is little if any breaking of whatever treaty Russia signed with Kiev.