|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
irritating to watch the skewed western media.
CNN and BBC pushing the "Russia invades sovereign country" slant.
-while mostly ignoring the fact that most people in Crimea are welcoming the Russians and that their autonomous government requested Russian troops to come in.
If the Russians push any deeper into ukraine then yeah, it'll be an act of aggression but so far what they are doing is legitimate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
irritating to watch the skewed western media.
CNN and BBC pushing the "Russia invades sovereign country" slant.
-while mostly ignoring the fact that most people in Crimea are welcoming the Russians and that their autonomous government requested Russian troops to come in.
If the Russians push any deeper into ukraine then yeah, it'll be an act of aggression but so far what they are doing is legitimate. |
It's not legitimate, it's understandable, predictable, and easily arguable that the US has done worse, but it is not legitimate. This is especially so considering all the time that Putin has spent talking about international law and sovereignty.
That's fine if you want to make the, probably realistic, argument that none of that really matters, but to go around calling things legitimate when they are not is skewed and irritating.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/times-russia-condemned-the-use-of-force-without-un-approval |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
It's not legitimate |
Why is it not legit when a majority of people in Crimea want it to be so?
They are clearly welcoming in the Russians and the Crimean government (already long autonomous from Ukraine) requested and invited the Russian troops in.
I can't think of anything more democratic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
It's not legitimate |
Why is it not legit when a majority of people in Crimea want it to be so?
They are clearly welcoming in the Russians and the Crimean government (already long autonomous from Ukraine) requested and invited the Russian troops in.
I can't think of anything more democratic. |
Well, it depends, are you using legitimate to mean legal? If that is the case, than it is clearly not so. Autonomous is not the same a sovereign, the security council hasn't approved it, etc. etc. Using the standards that Putin has voiced over and over in the past, it is clearly illegal.
Is it legitimate in that the majority of people in Crimea want it, possibly, but that is hard to tell. Probably not, because they haven't had the referendum, which is scheduled for later this month, and the people there by almost all reports aren't actually in any danger. If a fair referendum was held and the people in Crimea want to become part of Russia or whatever, and people who want to leave Crimea and go to Ukraine are given a chance, etc. than you would have more of a point.
Looking at how Russia treats separatist regions all this talk of legitimacy is ridiculous. If people are going to talk about this, for Russia it comes down to hard power and the rest is just window dressing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crimea's autonomous status, and there is a difference between autonomy du jure and genuine autonomy, cannot support Russia's claim to Crimea whatsoever. Even an autonomous region has responsibilities towards preserving the sovereign integrity of the nation, and the nation has a responsibility to defend the autonomous region from foreign incursion. Think of it this way: if autonomy were to compromise the sovereignty of a nation in any significant manner, why would any sovereign nation grant any of its territories or regions autonomy?
Neither can the invitation of several or dozens or even thousands of Crimeans constitute just cause for intervention. There will always be individuals aggrieved by the central power in any sovereign nation such that together they may invite a foreign power. These individuals have no authority when it comes to national sovereignty.
Only a constitutional process or legislation from the central authority of Ukraine could legitimately release Crimea. No Union can admit the legality of secession and retain its sovereignty.
Thus, Russia's actions to swallow Crimea conflict with international norms and established concepts of sovereignty.
Now, if you want to talk about Ukrainian and Russian history, it becomes a little more interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also this, which further demonstrates how illegitimate the action is.
http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484
| Quote: |
"Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the cold war, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind; |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
So apparently this thread has legs (not surprising in light of recent developments).
Just curious: did anyone actually watch the documentary? I (for one) was little-informed about this historical event - shades of the past seem to color the present.
I think the people of Ukraine likely deserve better, but geography's a bitch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Let's just hope this land grab is bloodless.
Ukraine may be losing an autonomous region, but in losing it, Ukrainians may well solidify their national identity. |
In numbers it would reduce the Russian percentage of the population from about 17% to 15%, and Crimean Tatars (0.5% or something) would be more or less gone as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some more:
1994:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ukraine-sends-troops-to-crimea-1368160.html
| Quote: |
MOSCOW - Ukraine sent top military officials and more special troops to the Crimean Peninsula yesterday amid fears of an impending crackdown on separatists.
The arrival of 30 special troops from the National Guard and Interior Ministry, added to 500 others newly moved to a Sevastopol naval base, gives Ukraine 51,000 troops in Crimea, the ITAR-Tass news service said. That compares with 18,000 two years ago. |
Here's a great example of hysterical lie lie lie lie lie American bullshit:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/putin-goes-to-war-in-crimea.html
| Quote: |
| Vladimir Putin, the Russian President and autocrat, had a plan for the winter of 2014: to reassert his country’s power a generation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He thought that he would achieve this by building an Olympic wonderland on the Black Sea for fifty-one billion dollars and putting on a dazzling television show. It turns out that he will finish the season in a more ruthless fashion, by invading a peninsula on the Black Sea and putting on quite a different show—a demonstration war that could splinter a sovereign country and turn very bloody, very quickly. |
Basically, every sentence is a lie.
1) Putin is not an autocrat. Russia is a federation with powerful regional governors and surprisingly powerful mayors. Most are loyal to United Russia in the same way most mayors are loyal to the Democrats. If Russia is an autocracy than basically every country is.
2) Russia did not spend 51billion on the Olympics. 51billion is the total development package for the entire region, over 20 years, which included Olympic spending.
3) He did not wake up and decide to invade. NED/USA/CIA/Soros/etc decided to Orange Revolution out the democratically elected government and Russia took the opportunity presented. The omission is very bold.
The rest of the article just gets worse. The New Yorker is a mag that people who think themselves informed read. This is exactly why America doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. At every level of information dissemination exists layers upon layers of lies and disinformation.
| Quote: |
| Vladimir Ryzhkov, a liberal Russian politician who no longer holds office, said that the events were not only dangerous for Ukraine but ominous for Russia and the man behind them. “It’s quite likely that this will be fatal for the regime and catastrophic for Russia,” he told Slon.ru. “It just looks as if they have taken leave of their senses.” |
Sure, sure. It is important to note that the people with the best chance to defeat Putin electorally are slightly more right wing than me. Russian nationalists talk of a reconquest of Constantinople, cleansing Europe of non-Europeans and converting the whole continent to Orthodoxy.
xxx
We started the Obama admin with full spectrum dominance and the serious threat of American war in Iran. Things have changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
Here's a great example of hysterical lie lie lie lie lie American bullshit:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/putin-goes-to-war-in-crimea.html
| Quote: |
| Vladimir Putin, the Russian President and autocrat, had a plan for the winter of 2014: to reassert his country’s power a generation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He thought that he would achieve this by building an Olympic wonderland on the Black Sea for fifty-one billion dollars and putting on a dazzling television show. It turns out that he will finish the season in a more ruthless fashion, by invading a peninsula on the Black Sea and putting on quite a different show—a demonstration war that could splinter a sovereign country and turn very bloody, very quickly. |
Basically, every sentence is a lie.
1) Putin is not an autocrat. Russia is a federation with powerful regional governors and surprisingly powerful mayors. Most are loyal to United Russia in the same way most mayors are loyal to the Democrats. If Russia is an autocracy than basically every country is. |
President Vladimir V. Putin signed a law on Tuesday that could roll back a reform pushed by his predecessor allowing the direct election of regional governors. The new law allows regional legislatures to forgo elections and appoint governors from a list of candidates approved by Mr. Putin. He abolished direct elections for governors in 2004, during his second term as president, but President Dmitri A. Medvedev pushed a law through Parliament last year to restore them in what was seen as a major concession to a growing political opposition movement. Mr. Putin, now serving his third term as president, has said that the new law is needed to protect minorities in regions where elections could be combustible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/europe/russia-new-law-allows-governors-to-be-appointed-undoing-reform.html?_r=0
| Titus wrote: |
Sure, sure. It is important to note that the people with the best chance to defeat Putin electorally are slightly more right wing than me. Russian nationalists talk of a reconquest of Constantinople, cleansing Europe of non-Europeans and converting the whole continent to Orthodoxy.
|
I might be wrong, but isn't the Communist party the second most popular one in Russia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I might be wrong, but isn't the Communist party the second most popular one in Russia? |
The only real threat at this time is United Russia splintering and nationalists forming a government. United Russia is an umbrella of multiple movements. This is unlikely. VVP will run again, and win again. Unless USG is able to knock him off.
| Quote: |
| President Vladimir V. Putin signed a law on Tuesday that could roll back a reform pushed by his predecessor allowing the direct election of regional governors. |
I wasn't aware of that. Good. An absolute monarchy is even better.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116810/putin-declares-war-ukraine-why-and-what-next
More American bs. Putin did not "declare war on Ukraine". Had he, there would be nothing left of the place. Some of the analysis isn't all that bad, but spun through the ethnic grinder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
