|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 13, 2014 5:14:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 14, 2014 13:13:05 GMT
Since WW II the ideology of the nations of the world has been that no nation should acquire territory by the use of military force. The above quotation is from United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 that addressed the Israeli invasion of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967 to acquire territory and it was adopted unanimously by the Security Council and expressed this fact.
Sadly because of the "permanent member status" on the Security Council of five nation where they individually have veto power the United Nations has been rendered impotent in dealing with situations like the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The UN Security Council never took any actions to impose the criteria of UN Security Council Resolution related to Israel's invasion of Syria, Jordan and Egypt because of the US veto power and the United Nations Security Council is now impotent in dealing with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine because of Russia's veto power.
The European Union is addressing the invasion as is the United States but the lack of United Nations authority is crippling the efforts of both and it's all because of the "veto power" of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This fundamental flaw in the United Nations Charter is our greatest international problem today. It has prevented enforcement of UNSC 242 and the world of nations addressing the actions of Israel because of the threat of a US veto. It has prevented effective the world of nations addressing the actions of North Korea because of the threat of a Chinese veto. And it prevents the world of nations from effectively dealing with the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia because of the threat of a Russian veto.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 14, 2014 14:34:52 GMT
The country next to Russia, many of whose citizens rely on the Russian Government for protection, has had its elected ruler overthrown by a foreign-backed coup, which includes Nazi activists amongst its instigators. The Crimea WAS Russian and has a Russian majority. We know about imperialist politicians, but do we have to act as their microphones?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 15, 2014 10:52:36 GMT
The country next to Russia, many of whose citizens rely on the Russian Government for protection, has had its elected ruler overthrown by a foreign-backed coup, which includes Nazi activists amongst its instigators. The Crimea WAS Russian and has a Russian majority. We know about imperialist politicians, but do we have to act as their microphones?
The people living in the Crimea are Ukrainians as the Crimea is a part of the Ukraine prior "nationalities" notwithstanding.
It should be noted that a democratic vote would be acceptable but only if that vote was Ukrainain as it is dealing with the sovereign territory of the Ukraine. It would be a national issue and not a local issue. If nothing else there are financial issues that must be addressed. For example the Ukraine has received IMF loans so what part of that debt is the Crimea going to be held responsible for?
Let me bring up an analogy. If Texas wanted to leave the United States it would be an issue that would have to be addressed nationally. For Texas to leave the United States it would have to assume it's portion of the US national debt as well as having a claim on US Treasury assets (e.g. gold and silver). The national debt is owed by the "people" of the United States and each has a personal obligation to repay that debt. The people of Texas can't just say, "Screw the other Americans" by secession and not being held accountable for their portion of the national debt. Texas would have to pay the US Treasury for it's portion of the national debt before it could be granted independence.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 15, 2014 12:50:10 GMT
If the government of Texas was overthrown by the Klan with Brazilian backing it might be somewhat equivalent, but it is more like the situation much sooner after you stole half Mexico, surely? The Ukraine has no serious claim to the Crimea, and well you know it. The Russians would have left it alone but for this insane plot however.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 15, 2014 19:05:24 GMT
If the government of Texas was overthrown by the Klan with Brazilian backing it might be somewhat equivalent, but it is more like the situation much sooner after you stole half Mexico, surely? The Ukraine has no serious claim to the Crimea, and well you know it. The Russians would have left it alone but for this insane plot however.
The policy of "might makes right" that existed up until WW II is no longer applicable as was noted in the statement from UNSC Resoltuion 242.
The internal sovereign affairs of the Ukraine are none of Russia's business and it has no authority to intervene as established by the UN Charter.
Yes, I will also admit that the United States has been in gross violation of the UN Charter as well which takes us back to the point I originally made which is the veto power of the five permanent members of the United Nations has corrupted to purpose of the United Nations. Instead of the United Nations being able to respond to these violation where the use of military force violates the UN Charter it is left impotent in being able to bring an official world response and action against the nation(s) responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 16, 2014 15:07:25 GMT
What makes it right to organise a coup in someone else's country to overthrow the elected President? American hypocricy is so grotesque it is hardly worth listening at all to such blather.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 16, 2014 22:16:25 GMT
What makes it right to organise a coup in someone else's country to overthrow the elected President? American hypocricy is so grotesque it is hardly worth listening at all to such blather. That can't be right because America is the great defender of democracy. We saw this when they removed the horrible, nasty corrupt, elected government in Iran so they could install their freely elected (by the American government) dictator. The same applies here. The Yanks, as is evidenced by that phone call and a CIA spy being nabbed in Ukraine, have helped engineer a coup against the elected government. There has now been a democratic vote, looking like it will land in favour of Russia, but that's illegal (according to the Yanks). Basically, screw the American government, they are way out of order here and it's sod all to do with them anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 18, 2014 10:58:58 GMT
While a believe the annexation of the Crimea is a fait accompli by Russia it does reflect a disregard for the Rule of Law which is troubling. The Crimea was an Autonomous Republic of the Ukraine based upon it's Constitution and, according to that Constitution (Articel 135) any changes to the Constitution require the approval of the Ukraine. Based upon it's own Constitution it would require the approval of a Constitutional amendment by the Ukranian government for it to become a part of Russia. It wasn't somethng that could be determined by a simple majority vote of the People of the Crimea.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 18, 2014 14:20:43 GMT
While a believe the annexation of the Crimea is a fait accompli by Russia it does reflect a disregard for the Rule of Law which is troubling. The Crimea was an Autonomous Republic of the Ukraine based upon it's Constitution and, according to that Constitution (Articel 135) any changes to the Constitution require the approval of the Ukraine. Based upon it's own Constitution it would require the approval of a Constitutional amendment by the Ukranian government for it to become a part of Russia. It wasn't somethng that could be determined by a simple majority vote of the People of the Crimea. And which international law backed the destruction of the Ukrainian Presidency by Nazi mobs paid by foreigners? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 18, 2014 15:41:41 GMT
While a believe the annexation of the Crimea is a fait accompli by Russia it does reflect a disregard for the Rule of Law which is troubling. The Crimea was an Autonomous Republic of the Ukraine based upon it's Constitution and, according to that Constitution (Articel 135) any changes to the Constitution require the approval of the Ukraine. Based upon it's own Constitution it would require the approval of a Constitutional amendment by the Ukranian government for it to become a part of Russia. It wasn't somethng that could be determined by a simple majority vote of the People of the Crimea. And which international law backed the destruction of the Ukrainian Presidency by Nazi mobs paid by foreigners?
I was not discussing international law but instead was addressing the Crimea Constitution and it's provisions for amendment that would allow the Crimea to leave the Ukraine and become a part of Russia. This is "national law" and not "international law" which is established by treaties between nations.
BTW Are you aware of the fact that the US government funded the election of Boris Yeltsin when the USSR collapsed in 1991? What the hell was the US doing becoming involved in the sovereign affairs of the Russian People in 1991 in violation of the UN Charter?
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 18, 2014 16:05:36 GMT
Tell me! The people of the Crimea want to join Russia rather than be run by Nazis bribed by Germans. Good luck to them, and laws be buggered!
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Mar 18, 2014 23:52:10 GMT
To address the OP, Its down to Putin's calculations Today he says he has no designs on anywhere other than Crimea (though reserving the right to protect the interests of Russians everywhere.) Two weeks ago he said that about Ukraine. The West's uncoordinated reaction, and his assessment of that, will determine what he does next.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 21, 2014 13:06:12 GMT
To address the OP, Its down to Putin's calculations Today he says he has no designs on anywhere other than Crimea (though reserving the right to protect the interests of Russians everywhere.) Two weeks ago he said that about Ukraine. The West's uncoordinated reaction, and his assessment of that, will determine what he does next. Or perhaps he'll remember his history and oppose the Nazis anyway? |
|
