Not imho, but it wasn't your post that was making me vomit.
I know,that was reply to it.
I think it was at least in theory.Soviet are literally translates either as council or advice.
On other hand,dictatorship of the proletariat...
God marxism is not an easy read.
At least if you don't read Stalin.That man sure knew how to write.
They had elections and everything.
There is a difference between "socialism"and socialism.
|
Pro russian government have a two question referendum.A "formal request" to join a country while that country's troops are patrolling your streets is suspect at best.
Where's the resistance?
Because,you see,in Chechnya there was resistance,and it was not even independent.
Let's say referendum fails.What then?They will gun down parliament?
The ONLY thing on the russia's side here is that whole situation looks like will of Crimea's people.
Otherwise,that's an invasion,and NO-ONE back home will support invasion of Ukraine.
and you can't answer "No"
Politics is what you can get away with....
Yep.Even in that treaty there was self-defence clause which you can spin.
And without it to bind....anyone,russians are trying to spin Kosovo precedent.
Which is kinda ironic.But,at least bombing Ukraine to stone age was not required.
In kosovo they were killing each other en mass. Crimea and the ukraine were....?
If the treaty wasn't ratified, then what says the ukraine can't have nukes?
and you can't answer "No"
Pro russian government have a two question referendum.
Of course you can.Voter turnout of less than 50% is fail,i heard.
Just don't go.
For the record, my main point in that was that the situation was really not comparable at all, not just in the Russia is pure and innocent kind of way it was presented.
In other words, a whitewash of the US's plans in Iraq just like some are whitewashing Russia's role in Crimea.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Thread, but US's case for Iraq was "weapons of mass destruction" (false) and "connections to al-Qaeda" (false), lies told by the American government, international leaders and perpetuated by the US media (NY Times = RT?). "Whitewash" doesn't quite cover it, imho.
Russia's case for Crimea: Far-right Ukrainian nationalists overthrow elected government (true), threaten national rights of non-Ukrainian speakers (true), former Head Ukrainian plutocrat and Russian-speakers in Crimea request intervention (seems to be true). "Whitewash" sounds about right.
But I probably did skim the thread and missed the intention of the post. I still feel nauseous, though.
China, Russia, and other unpopular countries have repeatedly compared American action abroad as violation of international law. Not my opinion, but theirs. This is not to say I support their spin, but they are two of the big 5.
Oh it definitely was. When we invade though we just want to put in an army base and get our corporations a piece of the action. Russia is going for a land grab, big difference.
If the treaty wasn't ratified, then what says the ukraine can't have nukes?
Of course they can!
Who am i to deny them that right?Problem is,they don't have nukes,they have no science!,no infrastructure and no money to manufacture them.
Also no time.
former Head Ukrainian
Actual.Constitutional procedures weren't followed.
China is viewing this as a test run for taiwan.
Russia's case for Crimea: Far-right Ukrainian nationalists overthrow elected government (true)
How exactly does "lets go back to the old constitution where the president had actual limits" qualify as far right?
The president was unanimously voted out of office by the legislative body, who were the same legislators that the people elected.
threaten national rights of non-Ukrainian speakers (true)
You're going to invade over what language they write the laws in?
former Head Ukrainian plutocrat and Russian-speakers in Crimea request intervention (seems to be true)
Which he explicitly cannot do.
China is viewing this as a test run for taiwan.
ROC have pretty badass navy and airforce.
They sure can bite back.Also,how much of their population supports reunification,again?far right?
Svoboda party is far-right ultranationalists and they have...err..4 of 18 ministeries(sp?)ATM.
Which he explicitly cannot do.
Can you direct me to some part of Ukrainian constitution that says so?
update:found it myself.85/23.He actually CAN request military help,but Rada must allow right to station forces on Ukrainian soil.Oh,well.SRBMs,anyone?
Russia's case for Crimea: Far-right Ukrainian nationalists overthrow elected government (true)How exactly does "lets go back to the old constitution where the president had actual limits" qualify as far right?
The president was unanimously voted out of office by the legislative body, who were the same legislators that the people elected.
threaten national rights of non-Ukrainian speakers (true)You're going to invade over what language they write the laws in?
former Head Ukrainian plutocrat and Russian-speakers in Crimea request intervention (seems to be true)Which he explicitly cannot do.
For the record, I'm not at all defending Putin's argument, I'm saying they are a hell of a lot more based in fact than the case against Iraq.
But, to answer.
1) Are you saying that Svoboda is not a fascist party? Nor the Right Sector? And that these anti-Semitic, Nazi-collaborator-worshipping scum weren't the vanguard of the Maidan Square movement and now don't have a frighteningly large number of positions in the new government?
2) It seems weird to Americans, but Eastern Europeaners have been duking it over language rights since at least the Czechs in 1848, probably a lot longer. I also know that law was vetoed by whatever his name is, Yats. But it was inteneded as an attack on the national rights of non-Ukrainians and it was perceived as an attack on the national rights of non-Ukrainians.
3) But he and they did. Americans have laid siege to countries for decades on such flimsy bullshiznit 's all I'm saying.
(Edited)
Not imho, but it wasn't your post that was making me vomit.
I know,that was reply to it.
I think it was at least in theory.
Soviet are literally translates either as council or advice.
On other hand,dictatorship of the proletariat...
God marxism is not an easy read.
I don't know, I find it a lot easier than, say, postmodernism, or, say, Christianity...
I don't know, I find it a lot easier than, say, postmodernism, or, say, Christianity...
That's because it makes sense.
And even if you do not agree with ideology,it's Ultimate Revolution handbook.People in Crimea sure did read it.
In Kiev...not so much.
1) Are you saying that Svoboda is not a fascist party? Nor the Right Sector? And that these anti-Semitic, Nazi-collaborator-worshipping scum weren't the vanguard of the Maidan Square movement and now don't have a frighteningly large number of positions in the new government?
I'm saying that I don't buy the fallacy of composition. Its not like there weren't far right elements in the old government that got tossed out either.
2) It seems weird to Americans, but Eastern Europeaners have been duking it over language rights since at least the Czechs in 1848, probably a lot longer. I also know that law was vetoed by whatever his name is, Yats. But it was inteneded as an attack on the national rights of non-Ukrainians and it was perceived as an attack on the national rights of non-Ukrainians.
Isn't the Crimean peninsula effectively its own government anyway?
I wouldn't be all that opposed to crimea splitting off , but 60% of the population can't squash the rights of the other 40% by putting them under Russian rule where you have no rights.
3) But he and they did. Americans have laid siege to countries for decades on such flimsy bullshiznit 's all I'm saying.
Right, but if you accepted the horsefeathers as true then at least it was a reason to invade.
dictator at the top?
Who cares about figurehead?I said"figurehead"because last time that wasn't the case was in,like,50s.
Each state had it's own supreme soviet,which was elected.Or does democracy requires no less than two political parties?
Why not three?Because on last elections(not 2014)in North Korea there was,like,4?
Isn't the Crimean peninsula effectively its own government anyway?
Not entirely,hence the second answer on referendum:return to 1992 constitution and remain in Ukraine.
Fun fact:Crimea actually declared independence like,two days ago.But then,Rada will never approve,and even if they will,they don't have the president to sign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Are you saying that Svoboda is not a fascist party? Nor the Right Sector? And that these anti-Semitic, Nazi-collaborator-worshipping scum weren't the vanguard of the Maidan Square movement and now don't have a frighteningly large number of positions in the new government?
I'm saying that I don't buy the fallacy of composition. Its not like there weren't far right elements in the old government that got tossed out either.
So, the argument is based in fact, then, unlike the wmds or the connections to al-Qaeda?
2) It seems weird to Americans, but Eastern Europeaners have been duking it over language rights since at least the Czechs in 1848, probably a lot longer. I also know that law was vetoed by whatever his name is, Yats. But it was inteneded as an attack on the national rights of non-Ukrainians and it was perceived as an attack on the national rights of non-Ukrainians.
Isn't the Crimean peninsula effectively its own government anyway?
I wouldn't be all that opposed to crimea splitting off , but 60% of the population can't squash the rights of the other 40% by putting them under Russian rule where you have no rights.
I am not going to stake out a claim on plebiscites at gunpoint or national self-determination referendums. I'd have to read up a lot more. All I'll say is that this has nothing to do with whether or not one of the first acts of the new Ukrainian Rada was to attack the national rights of non-Ukrainians.
3) But he and they did. Americans have laid siege to countries for decades on such flimsy bullshiznit 's all I'm saying.
Right, but if you accepted the horsefeathers as true then at least it was a reason to invade.
I don't know what you're arguing here, but, so far it sounds like, on the scale of horsefeathers, Sexy Putin's relatively non-violent intervention into Crimea (which I am opposed to and have had comrades arrested for opposing) is less based on bullshiznit than the Coalition of the Willing's wash of destruction over Iraq. 'S all I'm sayin'.
{Edited)
Not entirely,hence the second answer on referendum:return to 1992 constitution and remain in Ukraine.
I did say "effectively"
Fun fact:Crimea actually declared independence like,two days ago.
But then,Rada will never approve,and even if they will,they don't have the president to sign.
Which they also explicitly can't do.
Splitting off from your country is suspect enough without doing so under the barrel of a gun of an invading neighbor.
Splitting off from your country
Double standards!I love them!
Russians practically nuked Chechnya over literally the same thing)Fuel-air bombs counts as nukes,right?
So...where's the difference?I don't know.Really.
But then,i don't know how much of Chechnya's population actually was for independence.
But you can't bomb Crimea to stone age because russians.
Politics are hard.
Splitting off from your country
Double standards!I love them!
Russians practically nuked Chechnya over literally the same thing)
Fuel-air bombs counts as nukes,right?
They were killing each other there, to the point of genocide. When your own countrymen are slaughtering you THAT is a good reason to leave. Where is the similar justification for Crimea splitting off? The national Ukrainian government didn't even DO anything- they vetoed the bill the Crimeans didn't like, and it wasn't remotely the same as killing people even if it HAD passed.
Where is the similar justification for Crimea splitting off?
From my understanding,they never wanted to split from Russia.I know that's no justification(
As is mad russian dollarz.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that the majority of the crimean tartars were deported to central asia by Stalin, and Russians moved in to replace them. The number of 'natives' is small.
I can't pretend to be an expert, but from what I've been reading, the Tatars were finally allowed to repatriate in the 90s(?). Without double-checking facts and shiznit, I think they're like 20%(?) of the population. And, from what I'm reading, they tend towards non-Russophilic.
I can't pretend to be an expert, but from what I've been reading, the Tatars were finally allowed to repatriate in the 90s(?). Without double-checking facts and shiznit, I think they're like 20%(?) of the population. And, from what I'm reading, they tend towards non-Russophilic.
Deported:200.000
Population ATM:250.000Anywhere from 10-15% of total Crimean population.
Their problem is that substantial number of them owns no property.
They claimed some land and built houses...kinda...there,but it's in no way legal.
In Ukraine,no-one cares,but in Russia...
In Ukraine,no-one cares,but in Russia...
Department of housing applies you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Iraq a large coalition of nations deposed a ruthless dictator
Who was then executed for causing like 150 deaths.
Causing direct deaths upwards from 10k,and indirect second only to iran-iraq wars of eighties.attempted to put in place a representative democracy
If you attempt to apprehend a known serial murderer and he resists arrest, and in so resisting brings about the deaths of even more people, do you at some point say, "Well, maybe if we stop trying to arrest him he'll stop killing people?"
If you attempt to apprehend a known serial murderer and he resists arrest
is it morally acceptable to nuke town he's living in?
"Every" is so, I don't know, all-encompassing.
[Thinks for a second]
Let's be safe and say "three-quarters."
"As for the principles of international law, Putin put it well last week:
"'We are often told our actions are illegitimate, but when I ask, “Do you think everything you do is legitimate?” they say “yes”. Then, I have to recall the actions of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where they either acted without any UN sanctions or completely distorted the content of such resolutions, as was the case with Libya.'
"Putin is wrong about Afghanistan (a case of self-defense later ratified by the Security Council), but he is right about Iraq and Libya, and he could have added Grenada, Panama, and Kosovo as well—all wars that the United States started in violation of international law.*"
I don't know who Eric Posner is, but page says he teaches at University of Chicago Law School. For the sake of argument, I'll give you Iraq, too. So far, we're at only 2/3rds of US's actions abroad are violations of international law.
Yeah, I think it's great, as all my previous posts about Smashing US imperialism through Workers Revolution and calling Obama and Kerry blood-stained hypocrites would indicate.
I love how the USA has declared their right to hold a referendum without whitehouse consent a crime under international law.
I think it has more to do with the fact that the referendum to join russia is taking place during a russian invasion.
|
I love how the USA has declared their right to hold a referendum without whitehouse consent a crime under international law.I think it has more to do with the fact that the referendum to join russia is taking place during a russian invasion.
Come on. Surely we can trust the Russian army not to ask their men to vote as if they were Crimeans and not to prevent pro-ukrainian Crimeans from voting, right ?
After all, Russia is surely a greater defender of democracy and freedom than the US and the EU can ever hope to be.
The whole thing reminds me of a bit from The Lion in Winter
Putin's not being quite so obvious about it, but that's really what it comes down to.Henry II: The Vexin's mine.
Philip II: By what authority?
Henry II: It's got my troops all over it; that makes it mine.
Yes. He IS being that obvious about it.
Come on. Surely we can trust the Russian army not to ask their men to vote as if they were Crimeans and not to prevent pro-ukrainian Crimeans from voting, right ?
Where's the logic?Why try to affect votes(and voters)in ANY way,when referendum was won the second it was declared?To get,what,90% of votes instead on 70%?And this accomplishes what?
After all, Russia is surely a greater defender of democracy and freedom than the US and the EU can ever hope to be.
In this day and age,more like a lesser evil.
"We're taking it because we can."
You do realize that russia actually doesn't NEED any new territories,right?
142m pop on the continent's worth of space.Russia CAN take almost anything that isn't in the NATO.Russia had the ability to eliminate Georgia as country in .08.It can do more now.It doesn't really need Sevastopol as naval base.You can actually build new naval base.
From population standpoint,southeast Ukraine is far more interesting prize,but,sadly,right now they are being used as examples.
You see,you can join Russia like Crimea,keep your government and gain some mad dollarz,or you can....not.
It's not pretty even now,with regular shootouts.It will get worse.
Strategic.
Russians had that port until at least 2042.
Economic.
For that,you need to take southeast.Crimea actually will be pretty pricey.
Nationalistic.
To accomplish what?Boost public support of ruling party higher?
Then why now,elections are not even on the horizon?
In other news,Russia deployed some ACTUAL special forces in multiple points west of Ukrainian borders via Mi-24s.Some even were spotted:
not important ones
Important ones came from west,flew below radars(what little of them remains in east)and gone to ground.
From what i know of Russian military doctrine,deployment of SF in that fashion normally occurs 2-3 days before any major military operation.
Something's coming.
|
|
Where's the logic?Why try to affect votes(and voters)in ANY way,when referendum was won the second it was declared?To get,what,90% of votes instead on 70%?And this accomplishes what?
Come on. Surely we can trust the Russian army not to ask their men to vote as if they were Crimeans and not to prevent pro-ukrainian Crimeans from voting, right ?
Alas, as soon as Russia had undercover troops and allied militias seize the Crimean assembly, all hopes of ever knowing the true result of a referendum (and the true wishes of the Crimean people) went up in smoke :-(
Thanks to Putin, we will NEVER know if the referendum would have been won or not.
Thanks to Putin, we will NEVER know if the referendum would have been won or not.
Of course not.
You see,without self-defence force,this little crimean riot would be supressed,southeast style.There would not be a referendum.
So this is as close as it gets.
It's not the first time Crimeans tried it,you know.
Or are you still pretending these are the first ACTUAL special forces involved.
I think so,yes.Well,I do not deny that they are russian-speakers.There are rumors about PMCs,which KINDA make sense.Also these may be russian marines,which are not SF.And had legal right to be there.That makes more sense.
I think actual SF were deployed today,and not to Crimea.