Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, what you are saying is that no international rules should apply at all? And by the way: There is lots of criticism towards US foreign policy as well. the only thing Russia IS doing right now IS waging war. So criticism is appropriate in this case.
If we use international law, then Yanukovich is still president, since he was elected in a fair election, and parliament violated the constitution by ousting him from power (and the whole coup was against international law). As the legitimate president, he can request troops into the country.
Ah, but that is the issue; international rules are ambiguous, and only apply as people seem fit. The US invaded Iraq against the UN Charter due to the spin (and eventual proof of lying) with UN Resolution 1441, but the US was ok with that due to how they interpreted it. Russia has much more legitimacy being involved in Ukraine than the US has in Iraq. The US invasion of Grenada was against international law and while condemned, no action was taken against the US.
The issue is; the US loses a lot of leverage when requesting countries to do things, like obey international law, when the US itself does not even do it. This is the issue I have with US foreign policy, and why after years and years, and trillions invested, the results are pretty poor in light of what they should be with such a resource output.
I'm not wrong: Use of force on foreign soil may be granted by a foreign head of state or government, but such an agreement becomes illegal when said head of state/government is party to a civil war. That's stuff you can easily research yourself. I know, though, that Russian literature on Human Rights/Law of Military Interventions/Public International Law may be scarce.
That is only if you call it a "civil war". Was the US not a party in the Soviet-Afghan War? Are they not a party now in Afghanistan against the Taliban insurgency? Iraq during the insurgency? All those were battles for control of the gov, all could be technically called a civil war. Same with the Balkans, was the US not a party in that conflict? How about Haiti? Is the French not a party in Mali? Was the West not a party in Libya?
Just as the US did not call Egypt a "military coup", because that would have made it against US law to send military aid, and the military industrial complex does not want to lose $3 billion is sales a year.
If we use international law, then Yanukovich is still president, since he was elected in a fair election, and parliament violated the constitution by ousting him from power (and the whole coup was against international law). As the legitimate president, he can request troops into the country.
Ah, but that is the issue; international rules are ambiguous, and only apply as people seem fit. The US invaded Iraq against the UN Charter due to the spin (and eventual proof of lying) with UN Resolution 1441, but the US was ok with that due to how they interpreted it. Russia has much more legitimacy being involved in Ukraine than the US has in Iraq. The US invasion of Grenada was against international law and while condemned, no action was taken against the US.
The issue is; the US loses a lot of leverage when requesting countries to do things, like obey international law, when the US itself does not even do it. This is the issue I have with US foreign policy, and why after years and years, and trillions invested, the results are pretty poor in light of what they should be with such a resource output.
As I said before: A head of state is not allowed to order foreign troops when he's a party to the very same civil war. That would apply here.
And because you are always mentioning the US: I'm not from the US, my country is not part of the NATO and we didn't send any troops to Iraq. In fact, there are hardly any people who'd consider the war against Saddam Hussein legal (besides some NATO diplomats with a quirky smile on their face). Resolution 1441 or not.
Well, it's an open secret that the Russian government tend to not give a **** about international law.
The US never really cared for it much either. Drone strikes anyone? Oh wait, the US states they do comply, even though the UN states they do not. I can go on further about international laws the US breaks.
As I said before: A head of state is not allowed to order foreign troops when he's a party to the very same civil war. That would apply here.
And because you are always mentioning the US: I'm not from the US, my country is not part of the NATO and we didn't send any troops to Iraq. In fact, there are hardly any people who'd consider the war against Saddam Hussein legal (besides some NATO diplomats with a quirky smile on their face). Resolution 1441 or not.
Again, depends on the definition of "civil war"; anyone can spin the definition anyway they want. Can call Ukraine a "coup", thus not a civil war at all, the US invaded Haiti after a coup.
I think that we decide ourselves how we want to live. New authorities sent to East of Ukraine their representatives which were strangers to the local population. Free elections are impossible when strangers carried them.This caused a backlash.
The US never really cared for it much either. Drone strikes anyone? Oh wait, the US states they do comply, even though the UN states they do not. I can go on further about international laws the US breaks.
Well really ironically this appears to be siply a Ukrainian-Russian issue 'fraternal' issue now. And does Russia care anything for international condemnation now? But I'd think Putin is confronting the Eurpeans and the US on very tenuous ground here boxus. He's playing a deadly game if he ramps up activity. Funny thing is he's very quiet and not very forward on that nebulous 'troop' movement business. Haven't heard a peep by Lavrov. I don't know. And the fellows that are doing the talking namely Mr. Y (that boy actually has the audacity to think he's going to get back in power????)now are really the wrong guys. Time to get at the big table and do some diplomacy before the whole place explodes.
I think that we decide ourselves how we want to live. New authorities sent to East of Ukraine their representatives which were strangers to the local population. Free elections are impossible when strangers carried them.This caused a backlash.
I'm all for that. But a referendum on the "Anschluss" of Crimea and/or Eastern Ukraine to Russia can hardly be called objektive while the Russian army patrols the streets of Ukraine cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rus36
our Russian introduce troops and peace, the legal government will come back and all will be well
Добро пожаловать to the forum! Funny how many new faces turn up when it's necessary to defend the great Russian pride
Time to get at the big table and do some diplomacy before the whole place explodes.
This.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
