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.
According to Valentina Matvienko, the Chairman of the Federation Council, Russia is
(Russian Parliament upper house), to a peaceful and prosperous Ukraine
interested in maintaining its territorial integrity.
She stressed that any talk of an annexation of the territory of the neighbouring State.
"But the Crimea has the right to hold a referendum and to decide how she want to live,
If she wants a more detailed further autonomy,"said Matvienko in the TV channel Rossiya 1 on Sunday.
hey, everyone seems to agree on that - why all the fuss
I'm kinda tired of repeating myself over and over again... We were discussing whether it's legal to overthrow a government, the legitimacy of Yanukovych's rule and if it's legal that said overthrown government asks a third party for help in a civil war.
To answer those questions it's essential to discuss:
- the differences between a coup d'etat led by the military and one where the military is not involved (often called "democratic coups"
- the definition of recognized governments and the differences between Effective Control Doctrine, the Estrada Doctrine and Tobar Doctrine
- the use of force in the context of international law
I argued, that according to the internationally recognized Effective Control Doctrine the person in charge is the one that:
- possess effective control over the territory: Yanukovych's government certainly doesn't control any part of the Ukraine anymore. Western Ukraine is controlled by the new government, Eastern Ukraine is controlled by pro-Russian Ukrainians and the Crimean Peninsula is controlled by Russian forces/the president of the Crimean region.
- does have the consent or acquiescence of the people: Western Ukraine does not want to be ruled by Yanukovych, Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula want to be part of Russia or independent.
- does exhibit the willingness to uphold the state’s obligations under international law
Which would mean that Yanukovych is not the person in charge anymore. So, I argued that it's not up to Yanukovych to ask Russia for military help.
Even when you'd apply the Tobar Doctrine, which is history by now, a government which has just overthrown another government would be recognized, if public elections would take place within a reasonable period of time. Something they want to do in March.
As you can see: I never said or implied that if the West (in the sense of the EU/the US) supports the new government, then Yanukovych’s regime is no longer the recognized government under customary international law...
Now I got you.
P.S. But I'd like to notice everyone that the new Ukrainian President who was elected illegally do not possess effective control over the country as well.
According to Valentina Matvienko, the Chairman of the Federation Council, Russia is
(Russian Parliament upper house), to a peaceful and prosperous Ukraine
interested in maintaining its territorial integrity.
She stressed that any talk of an annexation of the territory of the neighbouring State.
"But the Crimea has the right to hold a referendum and to decide how she want to live,
If she wants a more detailed further autonomy,"said Matvienko in the TV channel Rossiya 1 on Sunday.
hey, everyone seems to agree on that - why all the fuss
That's what I am saying all the time.
But someone desperately tries to distort the real picture.
According to Valentina Matvienko, the Chairman of the Federation Council, Russia is
(Russian Parliament upper house), to a peaceful and prosperous Ukraine
interested in maintaining its territorial integrity.
She stressed that any talk of an annexation of the territory of the neighbouring State.
"But the Crimea has the right to hold a referendum and to decide how she want to live,
If she wants a more detailed further autonomy,"said Matvienko in the TV channel Rossiya 1 on Sunday.
hey, everyone seems to agree on that - why all the fuss
Giving Crimea to Russia is definitely one possible solution, especially since the majority of people there are Russians and Crimea is understandably both a strategic and emotional issue for the Russians.
But there are several problems with that (to say the least).
First off is the land legally belongs to Ukraine and they would have to be convinced to give it up. And they might refuse. After all we are supposed to long past the nineteenth century when Empires would go into another country and say to the natives "Okay, I own this now".
Second problem and this is BIG one - how on Earth is any of the western leaders going to publicly suggest forcing Ukraine to give up Crimea to Russia? Can you imagine what would happen if Obama or Merkel suggested it? Cries of Munich Munich! I can already see FOX news attacking Obama - he is giving up the Ukraine to the Russians like Neville Chamberlain gave up the Czechs to Nazi Germany!
This is clearly an organized coup. The stooge in charge has just appointed the Ukrainian oligarchs to key positions in the government. It's very unlikely this is what the demonstrators had in mind.
So....ask yourself this....who is backing this coup?
It seems pretty clear to me it's Obama.
It would be useful to all brainwashed europeans here to read what americans say about thos coup.
Now I got you.
But I'd like to notice everyone that the new Ukrainian President who was elected illegally do not possess effective control over the country as well.
We discussed effective control in order to figure out whether Yanukovych is entitled to ask Russia for military help.
As you already figured out the new government also doesn't have effective control over the whole country. But what difference does that make? They didn't ask any foreign power to send troops that will help to gain control over the east.
My honest opinion:
If Eastern Ukrainians really feel threatened by evil fascists, they should have asked the United Nations for help. Peacekeeping forces, immediate elections and real Crimean autonomy would have been a better idea than unmarked Russian soldiers occupying the peninsula... But yeah...
We discussed effective control in order to figure out whether Yanukovych is entitled to ask Russia for military help.
As you already figured out the new government also doesn't have effective control over the whole country. But what difference does that make? They didn't ask any foreign power to send troops that will help to gain control over the east.
The legitimate authority of Crimea and all its people asked for help from Russia. Is that illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by viribusunitis
My honest opinion:
If Eastern Ukrainians really feel threatened by evil fascists, they should have asked the United Nations for help. Peacekeeping forces, immediate elections and real Crimean autonomy would have been a better idea than unmarked Russian soldiers occupying the peninsula... But yeah...
Unfortunately, some countries do not believe the UN can do something properly and take a rightful fair decision. And they have a good reason for that. It wouldn't be a surprise if the UN will die soon.
The legitimate authority of Crimea and all its people asked for help from Russia. Is that illegal?
I doubt that all people on the peninsula support the Russian intervention considering that only 58.3% of the people living there are ethnic Russians.
For a legal rundown: Google "right of nations to self-determination". For case studies: Tibet, Basque Country, South Tyrol or Caucasus Emirate. Long story short: Not even Russia thinks that that's a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by musiqum
Unfortunately, some countries do not believe the UN can do something properly and take a rightful fair decision. And they have a good reason for that.
Well, if Russia thinks they can outsmart the legal instruments provided by the United Nations they'll probably have to live with the fact that they started a war.
It would be useful to all brainwashed europeans here to read what americans say about thos coup.
Brainwashed Europeans??? Who is brainwashed? If you beleive that Obama is behind anything in the Ukraine you need to quit your job in the KGB and get a reality check.
The truth is: Putin is afraid of the EU getting a stronger position - and is using all kinds of excuses..nazis..russians..whatever.. Probably next thing he will blame the gays...
Even worse..the are huge forces within Russia that wants to get rid of Putin. What happens if things start to heat up there as well.... Russia has a load of its own problems, and Putin is certainly not the way out. So now he draws the nationalistic card.
Pathetic..
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.
