Its really his only chance at salvaging anything from his mess. The problem is, at which point does it become worth the effort/pain for the west/EU to slap Russia down, and is Ukraine over that line?
The Crimea has become part of Russia after the vast majority of its people have voted to do so. Live with it.
What validity has such a vote when held with an occupying force controlling the country? I’d say as much validity as the general election in Iraq held under the barrel of American guns. That, if you’ll recall, was a “triumph for democracy” even though many Sunni refused to take part. The West has such a short and selective memory.
Let’s just call it what Human Action calls the anti-democratic violent uprising in Kiev the first two months of this year. The people of Crimea had a ‘popular uprising’ and asked the Russian president for trucks. So he gave them some. Then they voted to join Russia in defiance of Ukraine’s Constitution. The same Constitution that the popular western-backed uprising had defied when the elected president was replaced by the legiskature without legally impeaching the constitutionally elected one.
This is simple. A poular uprising followed a popular uprising and both uprisings got what they wanted.
I remember us leaving Iraq and letting it have its own government, one that has ties we wouldn’t like with Iran and that rejected our desired Bilateral Security Agreement. Whatever problems there were in Iraq while it was an American protectorate I think it’s laughable to suggest we didn’t give them a real democracy. We may not have given them a democracy, or a country, that will last. We certainly didn’t make them into American puppets, and such claims are false. Sunnis boycotting the vote certainly did not make it undemocratic. Indeed, in developing countries when one faction boycotts a vote it is essentially always because they recognize they will lose and they reject the entire concept of elections that they are not guaranteed to win.
Unfortunately “living with it” isn’t something that is the natural state of affairs after an invasion. If Ukraine wasn’t the passageway for Russian natural gas to Europe, if it wasn’t a sizable country relatively near NATO members and if A Russian/Ukrainian conflict didn’t have the potential to destabilize Europe as a whole, then I suppose that most people could indeed, “live with it.”
However, there’s a little more to this than simply ignoring it. And as history has shown, ignoring conflicts in Europe never has net positive effects for the US.
The Ukraine’s new government promised to crackdown on anti-Russian right wing extremists in Ukraine. I see they’ve started doing so.
No need for a Russian invasion of anywhere. Would it be ok with you if Putin and Russian tycoons put their money into Ukraine to fund a protest movement against any Ukraine moves to join the EU and try to remove Yatz… or the next president by ‘popular uprising’ as Human Action calls it.
Maybe its time for a pro-Russia trade tent city protest in Kiev since Putin has witnessed how the government responds to the Molotov voting method after all.
Fine, “Act of Parliament stating that Yanukovych was no longer President”, then. The meaningful distinction was that this came well after the popular uprising, and well after the opposition struck a transitional deal, and only in response to further popular uprising. It wasn’t a coup by Parliament.
Do you accept that a) it wasn’t a coup, and b) John McCain’s presence doesn’t make it “Western backed”? Again, you asked to be told what was untrue about your post.
Who is “the West”? I mean, I think Iraq was a disgusting fiasco and the U.S. invasion a crime. I think Russia is a hostile, imperialist power. Where do I live?
Well I think you have to give some leeway on talk like that. I think “the West” would mean official government positions.
We are “living with it”. And Russia is going to have to “live with” our reaction.
If Putin is baffled by any of this, I’d suggest he look up the population and GDP of the US + EU and compare and contrast to those of Russia.
You are quite flippant about the Ukrainian Constitution then. An act of Parliament under the Ukrainian Constitution cannot depose a President. The Constitution requires two courts to be involved and an extended period of review in order to impeach a President. There is a procedure written in the Constitution that was ignored and defied. The Crimeans recognized the illegality and so did Putin so they moved.
The **sudden and decisive action **in Ukraine last February was the threat to the President’s life that resulted in the **‘change of government’ **by ‘illegality’. As I explained what the Parliament decreed was illegal. They can’t re-write the Constitution on the fly as the did an then call it legal.
And if we go back to the French… there is no doubt that there was a ‘stroke concerning the state’ in Kiev last February.
I have to agree with Putin who reiterated his belief that it was a coup d etat. It was an illegal change of government.
It is not difficult at all to see that the illegal change in government caused a popular uprising by the pro-Russian majority in Crimea.
One million voters in Crimea voted for Yanukovich in 2010 to a five year term as President. Yanukovich won the election by 500,000 votes according to Rachel Maddow just a few minutes ago. She was trying to point out a tactical error on the part of Putin for bringing those one million voters into Russia and never again being able to vote for a pro-Russia President. She must of forgot the events of last February. It appears that in Ukraine winning elections don’t mean anything anymore of the elected leader chooses Russian ties over over EU ties. What’s in it for Crimeans to ever vote again in Ukraine. They have been pissed on. Those one million votes were pissed on. I would be nice if Rachel could be objective as a journalist.
Russia has a ridiculously high murder rate for journalists, and Putin’s era was certainly one of the bloodiest:
Famed Putin critic Anna Politkovskaya’s assassinationwas probably the turning point, as she was highly regarded in her field for her investigations in Chechnya and Russian civil liberties in general, and had a fearless reputation. Putin was rumored to have threatened her directly (though obviously the case is “unsolved”), and her murder was probably one of the last blows to Russian freedom of expression.
Some guy named Litvinenkoloudly accused Putin of the murder, and he was found dead, poisoned, not long afterward. Again, no one knows what really happened, but it doesn’t take much imagination to guess.
Anna just happened to be an award-winning journalist that the international media cared about - the real number of lesser-known figures silenced by the Putin regime will probably remain unknown. If you’re a Russian reporter and do anything to shake up the political establishment, hope you’re happy looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life (just kidding, you’re probably already dead).
No nation has the right to bomb and invade a sovereign nation in violation of international law as was the case in Iraq in order to ‘establish democracy’. With working UN inspections on the ground in Iraq there was no security threat and there was no humanitarian justification for ‘killing’ people in an offensive and aggressive == pre-emptive war.
If **you want **to go there ‘establishing democracy justifies violation of international law’ Democracy in Ukraine was obviously broken so Putin went in to fix it.
Iraq’s a bad example because there was no reason to invade Iraq in the first place… because international law was being served by the presence of the of UN inspectors on the ground as Russia and France said.
Putin was right. He mentioned it today. I wish our President was smart enough to recognize that at the time.
I’ll ask you again… Do you have case that Putin’s order’s Journalists to murdered or would have a reason to do so?
That stuff you just frigging quoted gave “reason(s) to do so”. WTF?
Ronney says, "These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in** Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion,”
It was asked on MSNBC How does Mitt Romney propose to give assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in** Kiev since A US President cannot give assurances for any sovereign nations other than the USA.
Romney still does not know what the secession of Crimea was about.
What stuff "I recently quoted?
Which particular word is confusing you? “Just”? The post I replied to. That’s what I meant.
You wrote that ‘I’ recently posted the reasons that Putin has for murdering people. I’m arguing the opposite.
Still ignoring the Russian “non-troops” all over Crimea well before the actual troops moved in, I see. Is there something in the Ukrainian constitution that allows for that?
A manufactured uprising followed a popular uprising, you mean.
That is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen. Your argument is that the invasion of Iraq was bad unless you don’t think the invasion of Iraq was bad in which case the invasion of Ukraine was good, and thereforethe invasion of Ukraine is good even though you think the invasion of Iraq was bad?
Oh FFS. Go back and read for comprehension. He’s referring to Shooby’s post that you had just quoted, which sets out quite clearly potential reasons for the Putin administration to have journallsts murdered.