But they can be enforced through sanctions. Russia is a lot more vulnerable in a renewed Cold War than the West. Russia has oil, that’s about it.
Again, which part of "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?
Is that all that you have found written by me to contend? I’ll answer by asking how know it will happen again?
But if you wish to beat me into submission over this I will say its a zillion to one that it won’t happen like this again in a million years.
Russia troops were invited in by the President of all of Ukraine.
Here’s the letter being read at the UN.
http://rt.com/news/churkin-unsc-russia-ukraine-683/
And you know somehow there was no threats or provocations towards the Russian Navy?
The same media that buries the truth about Georgia 2008 can surely be burying the truth about events in Crimea today.
Please show me where Ukrainian law allows “President of all of Ukraine” to do so.
Again - it seems very hard for you to understand what “respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, abide by its legislation and do not allow interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs” means. I think you do understand it, but you really really don’t want to.
That isn’t logical at all. I mean, that it quite literally one of the most absurd and simple errors of logic I’ve ever read an adult write in my entire life.
“Ridiculous” does not mean “the opposite of.”
No. It just stood out as one of the most outrageous things you’ve said, and the most easily addressed.
Logic isn’t your strong suit, is it? I don’t have any idea if it will happen again. It might. It might not. You’re the one making the specific and definite claim. Can you back it up?
Show me the basis for this claim. Explain how you know this. Where do you get the specific parameters? There haven’t been a zillion civilizations, nations, small towns, or even human individuals. (What the fuck is a “zillion” anyway?)
I used to have a smidgeon of respect for you, but not any more.
If you really want to know, just read the pos/st you directed @ multiple sensible posts NFbD.
Perfect example – as are you posts in this thread guiltyof not just American bias, but totally off-topic. USA! Rah rah! is basically your only contribution.
Fact: The removal of the legitimate Gov is plainly illegal by all level/fair accounts. Just as Putin staded
Fact:The Crimean Gov and Ukrain’s illegit Gov asked to prevent Righ-wing factions to take over in Crimea. With Russia’s asked for aid – which has been there from the start.
Sorry if you feel American apologist aren’t enough – hard as you try – but Crimea is Eurasian one way or another and your precious US keyboard brigade can’t do sh*t about it – other than misplaced yap
So sorry. Not
PS --spare me any “respect.” Just fighting the humongous amount of ignorance in this thread. To no avail of course. America right or wrong – to the last ICBN.
If that’s your stand, keep posting anti-Putin MSM propaganda. Meanwhile, he’s been mostly correct in his legal approach thus far.
Western countries, of course, would never dream of forcibly removing part of a sovereign state. Kosovo? Where’s that?
Comparing the two cases is risky. The Crimean referendum is being organised just two weeks in advance, with Russian troops on the ground. Kosovo’s independence declaration took place after a longer, less chaotic process and - I would argue - with less foreign interference. In fact, if I remember correctly, the ICJ stated that Kosovo’s declaration was perfectly legal. I don’t think the ICJ would rule the same way on the Crimean case.
Added: another important factor in the Kosovo case was the ethnic conflict. There was a real ethnic division in the region, as had been proven in the wars of the previous decade. In Crimea, there might be some tension between different groups but nothing that would call for a forceful separation.
A question not being a statement is not a matter of logic. You were wrong to characterize my question as a statement. Your reasoning in this response is ridiculous.
Do you sincerely believe that when I write something like a peaceful outcome is preferred and XT calls that ridiculous that it means XT is in agreement with that statement or disagreement.
I was not performing a skate board stunt that no one has ever seen… I wrote in essence non-violence is preferred to violence. Do you think that is ‘ridiculous’ or do you agree. What is your favorite word for the opposite of ridiculous?
Do you think XT was flattering my statement of preference for a peaceful outcome when he pointed out that it was ridiculous?
Putin has not invaded Ukraine. His troops are in Crimea. Following the total collapse of law and the illegal overthrow the Executive Branch in Kiev Crimean Leaders seized control of all its own security and announced it was separating from Ukraine.
It is not hard to understand the whole story instead of just one side of it.
I wrote that XT must ‘think’ the opposite of what I wrote. That was because XT advised us all that what I wrote was ridiculous. So I asked him in essence if he meant to say it was not ridiculous because I refuse to accept that a sane person preferring a peaceful outcome over the status of Crimea would call my statement ridiculous.
Key words there are ‘I asked’ . You transformed that into ‘I stated’, That was wrong as well as ridiculous.
Lol. Doctor heal thyself.
At this point your argument has simply lost all coherence. You don’t even agree with yourself anymore. You’re literally saying Russia did not invade Ukraine even though you admit they sent troops into Ukraine, and you’re now saying that Crimea announced it intended to separate from Ukraine before holding a referendum you say is a legitimate one that will decide whether or not they will separate from Ukraine. On top of that, you are, over and over, attributing statements and arguments to other people that they aren’t actually saying.
In effect, you’re now arguing with yourself, so have fun with that.
I just read the article you linked. It doesn’t mention the Crimea in that letter. If Putin is reacting to this request, why is he restricting his peacekeepers to the Crimea, especially when the lawlessness that prompted the letter was in Kiev?
Can you show me some of the examples of the ‘American apologist’ and ‘USA! Rah rah!’ stuff I’ve put in this thread? Because, as with NFBW’s claims about what I wrote (as well as his supposed ‘multiple sensible posts’) I’m failing to find…well, any. So, please give me at least some post numbers of where I went all American apologist in this thread.
The President of the Ukraine doesn’t have that power, though. Nor does being the President mean he can overrule that, just as Obama being President of the US doesn’t mean he can overrule the laws against murder.
Do you deny there is a distinct historical border separating Crimea from
Ukraine?