Ukraine

[Akko]

So it stands 194 nations saying Ukraine and the current government is the legitimate power in all of Ukraine, versus two unrecognized countries saying the separatists hold sovereignty over the Donbass region.

Why should I care? How does that make them right? They can't decide what's legal or legitimate, because this isn't their business. Crimea had the right to join Russia. The majority of the inhabitants spoke Russian, they were part of Russia not so long ago, so there was no reason to refuse them their right to self-determination and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

On the contrary, there was a lot of reasons to doubt that the majority of the Ukrainian population supported Maidan. Moreover, the overthrow of the Ukrainian president was illegal. Those are facts, no country can dispute that.

You speak of self-determination for the Russians, but not for the Ukrainians?

[Duuring]

and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

Suuuuure.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/01/24/ex-terrorist-leader-referendum-in-crimea-was-a-farce/

[MaxLam]

It was a revolution. Do you believe are revolutions are illegitimate?

In 1789-1794 the French made a revolution. They overthrew the monarchy and established a Republic. The structure, and even the culture of the society, changed a lot. The bourgeoisie, helped by the sans-culottes, replaced the aristocracy. That's what I call a revolution.

Now if you want to know whether I consider that overthrowing a legitimately elected president to replace him with a chocolate king is a revolution or not, the answer is: no.

I have 3 other words for you:


"National revolution"
Coup d'Etat.
Révolution de palais.

So it stands 194 nations saying Ukraine and the current government is the legitimate power in all of Ukraine, versus two unrecognized countries saying the separatists hold sovereignty over the Donbass region.

Why should I care? How does that make them right? They can't decide what's legal or legitimate, because this isn't their business. Crimea had the right to join Russia. The majority of the inhabitants spoke Russian, they were part of Russia not so long ago, so there was no reason to refuse them their right to self-determination and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

On the contrary, there was a lot of reasons to doubt that the majority of the Ukrainian population supported Maidan. Moreover, the overthrow of the Ukrainian president was illegal. Those are facts, no country can dispute that.

You speak of self-determination for the Russians, but not for the Ukrainians?

The Russians? Is that how you call the inhabitants of Crimea and Donbass? I support self-determination for everyone, including for Western Ukraine, as long as they respect other populations and countries.
But should I speak of self-determination for those who commemorate publicly SS divisions, especially SS division Das Reich which slaughtered my ancestors at Oradour-sur-Glanes? No. I would rather talk about war. And if Russia wages this war for me, should I say something against Russia? No.

[Akko]

It was a revolution. Do you believe are revolutions are illegitimate?

In 1789-1794 the French made a revolution. They overthrew the monarchy and established a Republic. The structure, and even the culture of the society, changed a lot. The bourgeoisie, helped by the sans-culottes, replaced the aristocracy. That's what I call a revolution.

Now if you want to know whether I consider that overthrowing a legitimately elected president to replace him with a chocolate king is a revolution or not, the answer is: no.

I have 3 other words for you:


"National revolution"
Coup d'Etat.
Révolution de palais.

So it stands 194 nations saying Ukraine and the current government is the legitimate power in all of Ukraine, versus two unrecognized countries saying the separatists hold sovereignty over the Donbass region.

Why should I care? How does that make them right? They can't decide what's legal or legitimate, because this isn't their business. Crimea had the right to join Russia. The majority of the inhabitants spoke Russian, they were part of Russia not so long ago, so there was no reason to refuse them their right to self-determination and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

On the contrary, there was a lot of reasons to doubt that the majority of the Ukrainian population supported Maidan. Moreover, the overthrow of the Ukrainian president was illegal. Those are facts, no country can dispute that.

You speak of self-determination for the Russians, but not for the Ukrainians?

The Russians? Is that how you call the inhabitants of Crimea and Donbass? I support self-determination for everyone, including for Western Ukraine, as long as they respect other populations and countries.
But should I speak of self-determination for those who commemorate publicly SS divisions, especially SS division Das Reich which slaughtered my ancestors at Oradour-sur-Glanes? No. I would rather talk about war. And if Russia wages this war for me, should I say something against Russia? No.

You are grouping all Ukrainians together. Most of the Euromaidan protestors were not Nazis. The Azov battalion and some sects of Right Sector are the ones you should hate, not the average Ukrainian. 

[MaxLam]

What does your "average ukrainian" do against those guys? Nothing. So why shouldn't I hate him too?

[Nipplestockings]

[Turin Turambar]

It was a revolution. Do you believe are revolutions are illegitimate?

No, especially not the one in Crimea and Donbass. I don't think the Poroshenko and Yanukovich government is a good thing for the Ukrainians but if they "want" them, I don't really care.

[Suede]

But the government is not legal nor legitimate. Not anymore than Separatist leaders.

It is.
Current government and president have been elected according to the laws, internal and international. Regarding legitimacy there could be questions only to "overthrovning" Yanu. To make this clear:
1. Yanu self-withdrewed from the execution of his constitutional powers in an unconstitutional manner and was declarated as one that does not execute his duties.
2. Above statements was declared by Resolution #419, and  resolutions required simple majority of deputies.
3. There were enough lawyers and other people in VR who understand the law enough to avoid misunderstandings when creating such resolutions
4. If Yanu such right, and this is so simple that even you prooved that he is still legitimate, why he didn't make a lawsuit to any court for recognition of his legitimacy?He'll easily win that, if he so right, isn't he?

In 1789-1794 the French made a revolution. They overthrew the monarchy and established a Republic. The structure, and even the culture of the society, changed a lot. The bourgeoisie, helped by the sans-culottes, replaced the aristocracy. That's what I call a revolution.
Now if you want to know whether I consider that overthrowing a legitimately elected president to replace him with a chocolate king is a revolution or not, the answer is: no.

Our isn't over yet, it still in progress.
and
In 1830 French made another revolution, in few days overthrow legitimate king and replace to another. Do you consider it as a revolution?

But should I speak of self-determination for those who commemorate publicly SS divisions, especially SS division Das Reich which slaughtered my ancestors at Oradour-sur-Glanes?

We have nothing to do with SS division Das Reich and Oradour-sur-Glanes.

[Frederik]

Crimea had the right to join Russia. The majority of the inhabitants spoke Russian, they were part of Russia not so long ago, so there was no reason to refuse them their right to self-determination and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

So, Germany taking Sudetenland in 1938 was right?

[Turin Turambar]

Crimea had the right to join Russia. The majority of the inhabitants spoke Russian, they were part of Russia not so long ago, so there was no reason to refuse them their right to self-determination and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

So, Germany taking Sudetenland in 1938 was right?

It was according to the right of self-determination like Crimea today (not so much this Czechoslovakia thing later).

[MaxLam]

Crimea had the right to join Russia. The majority of the inhabitants spoke Russian, they were part of Russia not so long ago, so there was no reason to refuse them their right to self-determination and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

So, Germany taking Sudetenland in 1938 was right?

Germany had the right to take Saarland.

1. Yanu self-withdrewed from the execution of his constitutional powers in an unconstitutional manner and was declarated as one that does not execute his duties.
2. Above statements was declared by Resolution #419, and  resolutions required simple majority of deputies.
3. There were enough lawyers and other people in VR who understand the law enough to avoid misunderstandings when creating such resolutions
4. If Yanu such right, and this is so simple that even you prooved that he is still legitimate, why he didn't make a lawsuit to any court for recognition of his legitimacy?He'll easily win that, if he so right, isn't he?

1. Yanu never withdrew. He even claimed that he was still President.
2. According to the Constitution, only a majority of 3/4 could have removed Yanu. There was no such majority. And moreover the procedure wasn't followed.
3. Me not understand.
4. Which court?

In 1830 French made another revolution, in few days overthrow legitimate king and replace to another. Do you consider it as a revolution?

Of course not, that was a failed revolution followed by a révolution de palais. The people revolted after Jean Maximilien Lamarque's death and demanded a republic, not a monarchy. No king can be legitimate in France since the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which states: "The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation."

[EdwardC]

[Rejenorst]

Crimea had the right to join Russia. The majority of the inhabitants spoke Russian, they were part of Russia not so long ago, so there was no reason to refuse them their right to self-determination and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

So, Germany taking Sudetenland in 1938 was right?

Czechoslovakia was created in 1918 after WW1. The borders where drawn over what had once belonged to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in an attempt to define the boundaries of a pre-existing cultural group. In doing so, the boundaries where drawn beyond what was traditionally inhabited by Bohemians or Czechs since Germanic cultural groups had inhabited the borders since medieval times. When shifting borders it is somewhat inevitable that there will be large numbers of differing ethnic groups remaining, especially if the ethnic group your liberating have been a part of a larger empire for hundreds of years. This makes conflict/expulsions/persecution and cries for help an eventual possibility.

If we assume that the world's recognition of one's actions is what separates right from wrong then the Munich agreement in this case would cater for this particular point; even it was an act of appeasement.

and no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority was indeed willing to join Russia.

Suuuuure.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/01/24/ex-terrorist-leader-referendum-in-crimea-was-a-farce/

I have no reason to doubt his comments. It was already well known that the authorities and army didn't support annexation to Russia. In regards to politicians; if they always acted in accordance with the wishes of the people then in theory the Maidan would probably not have happened but on another note I wouldn't want to risk my well being either.

Spoiler

[close]

Ironically... the more chaos, austerity and war there is in the Ukraine the less likely returning to the Ukraine becomes an appealing option to the inhabitants of Crimea (or at least the Russian centric ones).

[Desert Thunda]

The government forces were pretty nice when they bombarded the Pro-Russians right?

The government forces are the legal and legitimate armed wing of the Ukrainian government. It means they have the right to use violence. My point is, however, that this blows away (pun intended) the myth of some sort of good/bad-story. The separatists are not just using force against civilians, they're also doing so using nondiscriminatory weapons like the Grad and while not being the legal force in the area. I'm sure Mariupol can't wait to be 'liberated'.

I'm not saying the separatists are considerably 'worse' or 'more evil' then the Ukrainians. My point is that they do the exact same things as Ukraine.

Just like the Syrian Arab Army, but they get classified as "EVIL BABY KILLERS DICTATOR TOOL" and everyone goes ape shit when a civilian dies.

[Duuring]

Maybe in the middle east. I can assure you we stopped caring about the Syrian Civil war here.