- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,618
- Reaction score
- 276
- Location
- UK, Cymru mostly.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So was Yugoslavia. I see nothing about the someone drawing a line around a given territory that supersedes the right of those within it to self-determine. Not that I believe Putin's motives are particularly noble here. The whole issue could have been avoided in a referendum where both Ukraine (and by extension the west) and Russia had as little to do with the procedures as possible.
This has nothing to do with Yugoslavia but everything to do with your comment about the Ukraine's "perceived sovereignty". They are a sovereign nation and should be respected as such.
Simpleχity;1063082116 said:United Nations News Centre - Backing Ukraine’s territorial integrity, UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid
Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea was illegal, illegitimate, and a flagrant violation of the UN Charter concerning territorial integrity and sovereignty.
As the UN votes were being tallied today, tens of thousands of Russian soldiers were poised on the border waiting for Putin's order to invade and occupy other regions of Ukraine.
Okay, but why specifically does the UN not recognize it?
Because unless they can prove that the referendum was rigged - I see no problem with a territory leaving a country after a successful referendum.
The Crimea was occupied when the referendum was held. You see nothing strange in that?
Occupied?
There were Russian troops based there as per a prior agreement with Ukraine.
Besides, every poll I saw before the referendum showed that most Crimeans wanted to join Russia.
So, by your logic, then every single election in Afghanistan (and before in Iraq) is/was illegal because there are foreign troops occupying the country?
So, when Allied troops occupied Germany after WW2, that means every election was illegal to you because foreign troops were occupying the country?
And I wanted the specific reasons - as stated by the UN, not by some guy on a chat forum.
Do you have a link that gives the UN's official reasons for their decision?
Did this assembly do an in-depth investigation? It seems premature to reach this conclusion. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that these people might actually want to be part of Russia. Ukraine hasn't always been kind to it's ethnically Russian population.
They were invaded, had a referendum organized, and were annexed in the space of several weeks. The comparisons fall flat.
Should I waste my time debating the ignorant (on world affairs), self-serving rambling's of a neocon on this?
Pass.
You are mostly wrong on this, I am mostly right on this.
You disagree...I don't much care...we are done.
Good day.
it wasn't a rebuttal...I don't have enough respect for that guy on this subject to waste my time with a proper 'rebuttal'. It was a 'whatever'.That was a weak rebuttal. Though foreign troops were stationed in Afghanistan, post-WW2 Germany, etc., they did not vote to annex the country to those foreign nations. There is a clear distinction when you are sending troops into a sovereign nation, and within weeks there is a vote of questionable legitimacy giving that country to you. The resemblance is slight at best.
it wasn't a rebuttal...I don't have enough respect for that guy on this subject to waste my time with a proper 'rebuttal'. It was a 'whatever'.
Also, so where is your link to factual, unbiased proof that those troops had zero influence on those votes in those other countries?
If you are saying that Iraqi's or Afghani's were not in any meaningful way influenced by their countries crawling with foreign troops (with their leader's own agenda's) then you are very naive, IMO.
Also, those Russian troops were not all over the Crimea. They were in and around their Black Sea naval base. Sure, there were other troops in key locations that people assume were masked Russian troops...but there is no proof of that. Evidence, yes...proof, no.
Besides, the polls long before the whole mess began were - to my knowledge - for rejoining Russia.
Which would you rather be a part of...a country that is broke that is falling into apparent chaos that just erased Russian language as an officially recognized language (Ukraine) or a politically stable (though quite corrupt), financially much more secure nation that many of your descendants came from (Russia)?
The answer is obvious.
Anyway, this is all moot...I don't really care what people 'feel' about this. I have an opinion and so do they...why waste time debating it? I doubt I will change their minds and the same goes for me...so why bother? I am really just interested in facts.
All I want to know - and I still have not got an answer - is what was the official UN reason for their decision?
Not theories or guesses..the OFFICIAL reason.
If having American troops in Afghanistan coerced the Afghanis into voting against their will then that is a shame. Though, having elected a president (Karzai) who openly attacks America on frequent occasion, such a claim seems to me dubious at best.
But there is, of course, a huge distinction between political coercion leading to inept governance, and annexation of the entire country, which is what Russia just did. To treat the two as the same, is misguided I believe.
FWIW, I am not a neo-con and still disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan.
But, although the Crimea referendum was far from ideal...I feel that (under the circumstances) it was more-or-less as fair as it was going to be. And I find it hypocritical of the West that they freely recognize an illegal coup in Kiev but choose to ignore a semi-legal referendum in the Crimea. The reason should be obvious, the coup in Ukraine was pro West...the referendum in the Crimea was not.
I think if the reverse was true, they would be condemning the 'violent, illegal overthrow of a legally elected government' in Kiev and supporting 'the will of the people' in the Crimea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?