COUP IN KYIV?

@spendius,

That's still more honest than the USA or the UK, Spendi.

0 Replies

@Lash,

I have read the referendum poses a legality problem because of the alteration to Ukraine's borders and because another state has intervened.

Quote:

What do experts on international law make of the referendum?

Western experts agree that both the Crimean parliament's vote and the imminent referendum on the region entering the Russian Federation are not binding under international law. Although the Ukrainian constitution does allow local referendums on political questions, alterations to Ukraine's borders require national referendums. In other words, only the entire Ukrainian population can legally decide whether Crimea should join Russia.

Although a people does have the right to self-determination in principle, a small group within a people can only claim that right in exceptional circumstances. Despite the many political tensions currently mounting in the region, the inhabitants of Crimea have not reached that stage - yet.

On top of this, the right to claim secession is annulled if another state intervenes externally, which Russia has clearly done. Moscow's argument, that it is only intervening in the conflict to protect the Russian section of the population, is not legitimate, legal experts say. The deployment of Russian soldiers in Sevastopol is a clear violation of international law. The United Nations Charter bans the threat or the use of violence against a territory or the political independence of another state.

source

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I can't be the only one who knows that if you have no means of enforcement, it's not binding. It's just a worthless piece of paper.

Certainly you're not the only one.

In International law, we find a lot of multilateral "binding agreements", which actually aren't ineffectiv due to lack of enforcement. (For instance rulings of the European Court of Human Rights or [most] EU laws then were just worthless pieces of paper!)

That it works is described with the legal term erga omnes: obligations owed by states or a state towards the community of states or another state.

But I do agree that there are ongoing quite a few diverting theoretical debates about this (international law as part of international relations).

"Self-help" to enforce treaties/agreements/memoranda, however, is generally seen as a mechanism of past centuries.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

That's the position most take ... outside Russia/Crimea.

They (Putin) say that the referendum fully meets international law norms, referring especially to Kosovo as another (more recent) example.

The "guaranteed right of a free expression of will and self-determination" for a group of people within an existing state ... well, there always seem to be two diametric points of view ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

two diametric points of view

True, but I am not sure how Russia/Crimea has a leg to stand on because from what I have seen so far the only ones getting harassed and even killed have Ukrainians when they staged the protest. (I am aware there is a report of who shot the protestors, but I find that report suspect as being too convenient for Russia)In any case, regardless, there has not been to this date any large scale (or any that I have read)harassment or threats towards Russians in Ukraine so Putin's excuse rings hollow. Also, from what I read, since the referendum involved Ukraine's borders, in their constitution the whole of Ukraine would have had to vote, otherwise it unfairly leaves Ukraine out of a decision regarding where the border are. Also, it seems to me Crimea has the best strategic spot having the naval bases, effectively blocking off Ukraine's route to the sea. (again from what I have read recently, could be wrong..)

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Generally, I agree with your post, revelette.

If Crimea really is the best strategic post for a naval basis - certainly in history, but today? (It wouldn't block Ukraine's route to the sea - that would be Turkey/Bosporus/Istanbul. But since their main naval basis are only on Crimea ...)

0 Replies

@revelette2,

That's all very well, rev, and people can feel as sorry or as indignant for the Ukranians as they like, but when push actually comes to shove, what is the rest of the world prepared to do about it?
Imagine your thuggish next door neighbour taking over the small piece of land at the very end of your garden and building a fence around it.
Most of your quiet neighbours on one side agree with you that he is nasty, but his extended family numbers into the thousands, they are all prepared to burn your house to the ground if you get uppity, and anyway, the piece of land used to belong to them in the recent past, and his family have camped there with your permission for years.

What do you do? Twenty burly cousins sit just the other side of the fence, fully armed and ready.
The police force only has jurisdiction in your garden, but anything the other side of the fence is controlled by Mr Thug's police force, huge in number and trigger happy.

I tell you what you do. You get together with your neighbours and ban several key members of the Thug family from using the local supermarket.

Why? Because that's all you can do in the harsh reality of the real world.

2 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

All of this makes me strain to view the big picture and question as to why did Putin decide to do it now? Perhaps because he feels politically that he can (get away with it). He must have detected enough weakness across the pond and on his side of the pond to pursue it with relative impunity.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Putin started now because there was a "reason".

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Or at least a reason he could use.

Ukraine flirted with the West.

2 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

... and the economics of the continual loss of revenue as well as threat to Russian security at the naval base...has become clear to him.

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

That's what I meant.

I've always though that problems with (around) Kaliningrad Oblast would arise earlier ...

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

... and the economics of the continual loss of revenue as well as threat to Russian security at the naval base...has become clear to him.

Or he just fancied a new holiday destination, and doesn't like to travel abroad. Very Happy

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

Quote:

Why? Because that's all you can do in the harsh reality of the real world

.

I know I had that fact figuratively pounded into me a week or two ago.

I was exploring the legality of the referendum.

0 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

Lordyaswas wrote:

Ragman wrote:

... and the economics of the continual loss of revenue as well as threat to Russian security at the naval base...has become clear to him.

Or he just fancied a new holiday destination, and doesn't like to travel abroad.

There was an item on BBC News 24 where Russian speaking Crimean businessmen were talking of their opposition to the referendum. Most of them did business with Europe, and sections of the beach are being fenced off by corrupt businessmen, and the Crimean gas/oil pipelines are not going to be used. They were all predicting massive unemployment.

0 Replies

I've appreciated everyone's input. Hope it ends with Crimea. This morning, I watched Obama talk about personal sanctions of people who made this happen. Very general... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ I don't think this would deter anyone.

0 Replies

Interesting read on what has happened.

http://voices.yahoo.com/condi-rice-explains-why-russia-invaded-ukraine-12564629.html

2 Replies

@Lash,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/condoleezza-rice-will-america-heed-the-wake-up-call-of-ukraine/2014/03/07/cf087f74-a630-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

For anyone interested.

Excerpt: “Meet Viktor Yanukovych, who is running for the presidency of Ukraine.” Vladimir Putin and I were standing in his office at the presidential dacha in late 2004 when Yanukovych suddenly appeared from a back room. Putin wanted me to get the point. He’s my man, Ukraine is ours — and don’t forget it.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Interesting read on what has happened.

http://voices.yahoo.com/condi-rice-explains-why-russia-invaded-ukraine-12564629.html

Rice neglects to mention that the main problem was that Obama had promised to never go it alone like Bush had done, so when the Europeans were unwilling to hurt Russia badly(because the last thing the fagile EU needed was that economic world of hurt) Obama had to drop it. A secondary problem is that Obama tends to lack interest in global affairs. A third problem is that Obama is a very partisan political creature and his base at that time did not take Russia seriously, another reason why he simply did not care very much about what the Russians did in Georgia.

I should add that Ukraine should play out the same way so long as Putin does not go for too much.

0 Replies

Sebastopol has never been a good site for a base. Because of their humiliation and their sense of betrayal in 1854-55, they have held on to it. The anchorage is long and narrow, with steep sides. Even today, under conventional attack it would be a nightmare for the Russian navy. Because the anchorage is long and narrow ships could not easily maneuver to avoid air or missile attack. The ships could not sortie easily, and would very likely only be able to sortie one at a time. It proved a trap for the Black Sea fleet in 1854--they were unable to support the besieged troops from the French and British ground attacks. Although those conditions no longer obtain, it would still be a trap for them today. The Black Sea fleet is based there for historical reasons, not because it's a good place for such a base.

3 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know