Kiev

[Hoboh]

six US fighter jets that would no doubt be under strict orders not to open fire on any Russian aircraft or possibly start WW3!

We the West and the US in particular have to stop trying to get to a stage were we are camped on top of the Russians and they feel threatend.

If they stopped trying to move their borders west then we wouldn't be camped on top of them.

Anyway, the yanks only need 3 F16s to see the Ruskies off. You not seen Top Gun or summat?

I doubt they would be moving boarders if the EU and the USA where not trying to install centres for the elite all around them.

WTF are you talking about?

Okay it was the phone that did that!

The point

The US and the EU are running true to their undemocratic form in cajoling, by bribery, the promise of better times and cash (most of which will turn out far short of the country changing amount it initially looks or seems) to join NATO and allow big business and certain super rich individuals to plunder their resources and create another little pocket of the political cash cow elite.
These people and institutions have been doing this for years, look across Europe.
Where is the great EU project, where is the mass employment, where is the great social movement and high standard of living?
These institutions create a climate of wealth for the few, tax dodging business, and individuals, the elite, not for the people they lie to. They will rape the peoples and resources of any country daft enough to either listen to the high gloss spin or be prepared to sacrifice democracy for imagined cash.
Is it working for the people? Ask the Greeks, the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese youth, ask the low and middle income electorate who are funding all this expansion and its costs whilst all the time having democracy ripped from under their feet.
Do we really want to be a part of a group that would strangle the economy of any country or individual that does not agree with them or worse, bomb the feck out of anywhere they cannot have their own way with?
Are you really surprised the Russians are giving the finger in the only way these political shit houses understand, brute force.
The only way forward is for small groups of nations to negotiate with each other under fairly equal terms, not a monolithic giants like the EU ever expanding.
When is Tibet scheduled to join NATO/EU?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And as I pointed out last week, the Crimea was a foregone (and legal, despite the protestations of western politicos quoting "so-called referenda") conclusion, and now the fun starts. Donetsk, Kharkhiv, Odessa: that's where we see if we are heading war-wards. Hague and Kerry are not helping, they need to start speaking in Kremlin tongue and at the very least explain how a compromise can be effected when an illegal unelected pro-Western revolutionary government is not only allowed, but applauded and rewarded by the West, how that can sit evenly in the UN alongside legal protocols etc etc yada yada yada

[Relentless09]

If you take a Russian perspective, the expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe is provocative. Now that there has been a split in Ukraine, Russia see a opportunity of regaining their, 'sphere of influence.' If the Crimea referendum was carried out legitimately and is a true reflection of the people, how can the West not support it ? Surely their being hypocrites on their promotion of democracy ?

[Worthy4England]

If you take a Russian perspective, the expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe is provocative. Now that there has been a split in Ukraine, Russia see a opportunity of regaining their, 'sphere of influence.' If the Crimea referendum was carried out legitimately and is a true reflection of the people, how can the West not support it ? Surely their being hypocrites on their promotion of democracy ?

The West aren't supporting it, because Crimea isn't a country capable of holding a referendum on such an issue - it's a part of the country of the Ukraine, and therefore, could only hold a referendum with legitimacy if their government determined that was something they wanted to offer them.

As it happens, another country - nothing legitimately to do with the Government of the Ukraine has driven the notion of a referendum - I don't see any legitimacy in it at all, although I take the point that the Russian's have a different "perspective" on it.

Let's face it, if the Russians don't like the influence they have over countries that they've given control of their own destiny to (legally), then they should probably gear back up, and head for the Brandenburg Gate again? Maybe they'd need to go a bit further this time, as I've seen Americans in France in the last couple of decades.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If you take a Russian perspective, the expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe is provocative. Now that there has been a split in Ukraine, Russia see a opportunity of regaining their, 'sphere of influence.' If the Crimea referendum was carried out legitimately and is a true reflection of the people, how can the West not support it ? Surely their being hypocrites on their promotion of democracy ?

The West aren't supporting it, because Crimea isn't a country capable of holding a referendum on such an issue - it's a part of the country of the Ukraine, and therefore, could only hold a referendum with legitimacy if their government determined that was something they wanted to offer them.

As it happens, another country - nothing legitimately to do with the Government of the Ukraine has driven the notion of a referendum - I don't see any legitimacy in it at all, although I take the point that the Russian's have a different "perspective" on it.

Let's face it, if the Russians don't like the influence they have over countries that they've given control of their own destiny to (legally), then they should probably gear back up, and head for the Brandenburg Gate again? Maybe they'd need to go a bit further this time, as I've seen Americans in France in the last couple of decades.

This is where I get all confudulated. On what grounds can Crimea not hold a referendum on the subject? It is an autonomous part of Ukraine and not a sovereign entity but the UN resolutions on self-determination, plus the historical fact of it having been an independent nation in the past plus the illegal activity of the higher state (Ukraine) since that state's formation all point to the fact that not only it can, but it has done so and in a legitimate and lawful manner.
Let address this legality point by point.
The referendum is legal because of the simple fact no higher external jurisdiction has declared it illegal. The Security Council attempt to do so was vetoed by Russia - you might not like that fact, but the veto is a legitimate and legal weapon in the diplomatic arsenal of Russia, and just because the US proposes something and then it is vetoed by Russia, the US is not then entitled to claim that they have a legal stance in international law...they haven't.
The US and the present Ukrainian 'authorities' also declare the 'fact' that Crimea cannot a) seceed from the country without Kiev's consent and b) hold an independent referendum. In actual fact both of those statements are complete made-up bollox.
But what the constitution of Ukraine does state quite plainly is that a President can only leave office due to four specific reasons (losing an election, resignation, death, and impeachment)... you'll note therefore that according to Ukrainian constitution Yanukovich is still the President. (The Kiev putsch are the illegal ones).
The parliament of Crimea was elected prior to the events of February. The parliament of Crimea wielded its legitimate authority in removing the prime minister of Crimea. Yanukovich in his capacity as the legitimate President of Crimea appointed the new prime minister, all very legitimate and legal.
The new Prime Minister restored the autonomous rights of Crimea under the 1992 constitution (when Ukraine broke from the Soviet Union) which allowed for Crimea to have a President and to hold referenda. he has legitimately, through a vote in parliament, abrogated the illegal authority of the 'Kievan President' and restored the referendum that was illegally abolished in 1995. This status quo ante is a perfectly usual means of restoring authority in states that have broken down and is often outlined (by the west) as the way forward that states should take (as in the examples of Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Burkino Faso, Central African Republic and many many others that have come before thae UN).
You will also note, that in the preamble to vote for restoring the constitutional referendum of 1995 that was illegally abrogated by the Ukrainian central authority, that the present day legally elected Crimean parliament specifically refers to international law and points out in no uncertain terms (as argued by the UN) that self determination trumps territorial integrity in international rights. This has been made crystal clear within the UN resolutions on Palestine, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, and South Sudan. The Crimean authorities are the legal entity here, the Kievan 'authorities' are an illegal imposition, unelected and crying foul over a constitution that has been adhered to by Crimea but not by Ukraine.
It is clear to me that only bias prevents any neutral from seeing this.

[bobo the clown]

Logically, the UK has to pick it's words here as the Falklands and Gibraltar are small, specifuc, strategic plots of territory whose population are committed to the UK ans woukd/gave voted overwhelmingly to remain British and we justify this by virtue of "will of the people".

Not dramatically different in many ways.

Anyway .... will Russia want Alaska back ? That foxy minx Palin will doubtless have a view.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Logically, the UK has to pick it's words here as the Falklands and Gibraltar are small, specifuc, strategic plots of territory whose population are committed to the UK ans woukd/gave voted overwhelmingly to remain British and we justify this by virtue of "will of the people".

Not dramatically different in many ways.

Anyway .... will Russia want Alaska back ? That foxy minx Palin will doubtless have a view.

foxy minx, puleez? more like manky fox.

[bobo the clown]

Logically, the UK has to pick it's words here as the Falklands and Gibraltar are small, specifuc, strategic plots of territory whose population are committed to the UK ans woukd/gave voted overwhelmingly to remain British and we justify this by virtue of "will of the people".

Not dramatically different in many ways.

Anyway .... will Russia want Alaska back ? That foxy minx Palin will doubtless have a view.

foxy minx, puleez? more like manky fox.

What ?

You wouldn't ??

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Logically, the UK has to pick it's words here as the Falklands and Gibraltar are small, specifuc, strategic plots of territory whose population are committed to the UK ans woukd/gave voted overwhelmingly to remain British and we justify this by virtue of "will of the people".

Not dramatically different in many ways.

Anyway .... will Russia want Alaska back ? That foxy minx Palin will doubtless have a view.

foxy minx, puleez? more like manky fox.

What ?

You wouldn't ??

Now did I say that, did I?

[Annoyed Grunt]

Logically, the UK has to pick it's words here as the Falklands and Gibraltar are small, specifuc, strategic plots of territory whose population are committed to the UK ans woukd/gave voted overwhelmingly to remain British and we justify this by virtue of "will of the people".

Not dramatically different in many ways.

Anyway .... will Russia want Alaska back ? That foxy minx Palin will doubtless have a view.

foxy minx, puleez? more like manky fox.

What ?

You wouldn't ??

You would?!

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑↑

Highly theoretical of course but by God I would.

[Prufrock]

LLS you should have a word and set them right :


http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/03/18/sit ... n-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

I don't think that the level of discussion of this subject on here is sufficiently high brow, so I hope that nobody minds me upping the ante a little.

William Hague ‏@WilliamJHague 5h
I condemn Russia's recognition of Crimea as a 'sovereign state'. A clear attempt to pave the way for the annexation of part of #Ukraine

Will McHoebag ‏@WillMcHoebag 6h
.@WilliamJHague feck off Malteser head

[Lost Leopard Spot]

LLS you should have a word and set them right :


http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/03/18/sit ... n-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the feckin' cheek of them. I've sent in an official complaint.

[Hoboh]

Carney stressed that the White House is deciding on further economic and diplomatic sanctions, but did say it’s reviewing requests from Ukraine for military support.

Now on that note Mr Carnage, if I was Putin, the silo doors would be opening in the middle of the night, just to check if your spy sats can see them any better than a missing 777

[Worthy4England]

If you take a Russian perspective, the expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe is provocative. Now that there has been a split in Ukraine, Russia see a opportunity of regaining their, 'sphere of influence.' If the Crimea referendum was carried out legitimately and is a true reflection of the people, how can the West not support it ? Surely their being hypocrites on their promotion of democracy ?

The West aren't supporting it, because Crimea isn't a country capable of holding a referendum on such an issue - it's a part of the country of the Ukraine, and therefore, could only hold a referendum with legitimacy if their government determined that was something they wanted to offer them.

As it happens, another country - nothing legitimately to do with the Government of the Ukraine has driven the notion of a referendum - I don't see any legitimacy in it at all, although I take the point that the Russian's have a different "perspective" on it.

Let's face it, if the Russians don't like the influence they have over countries that they've given control of their own destiny to (legally), then they should probably gear back up, and head for the Brandenburg Gate again? Maybe they'd need to go a bit further this time, as I've seen Americans in France in the last couple of decades.

This is where I get all confudulated. On what grounds can Crimea not hold a referendum on the subject? It is an autonomous part of Ukraine and not a sovereign entity but the UN resolutions on self-determination, plus the historical fact of it having been an independent nation in the past plus the illegal activity of the higher state (Ukraine) since that state's formation all point to the fact that not only it can, but it has done so and in a legitimate and lawful manner.
Let address this legality point by point.
The referendum is legal because of the simple fact no higher external jurisdiction has declared it illegal. The Security Council attempt to do so was vetoed by Russia - you might not like that fact, but the veto is a legitimate and legal weapon in the diplomatic arsenal of Russia, and just because the US proposes something and then it is vetoed by Russia, the US is not then entitled to claim that they have a legal stance in international law...they haven't.
The US and the present Ukrainian 'authorities' also declare the 'fact' that Crimea cannot a) seceed from the country without Kiev's consent and b) hold an independent referendum. In actual fact both of those statements are complete made-up bollox.
But what the constitution of Ukraine does state quite plainly is that a President can only leave office due to four specific reasons (losing an election, resignation, death, and impeachment)... you'll note therefore that according to Ukrainian constitution Yanukovich is still the President. (The Kiev putsch are the illegal ones).
The parliament of Crimea was elected prior to the events of February. The parliament of Crimea wielded its legitimate authority in removing the prime minister of Crimea. Yanukovich in his capacity as the legitimate President of Crimea appointed the new prime minister, all very legitimate and legal.
The new Prime Minister restored the autonomous rights of Crimea under the 1992 constitution (when Ukraine broke from the Soviet Union) which allowed for Crimea to have a President and to hold referenda. he has legitimately, through a vote in parliament, abrogated the illegal authority of the 'Kievan President' and restored the referendum that was illegally abolished in 1995. This status quo ante is a perfectly usual means of restoring authority in states that have broken down and is often outlined (by the west) as the way forward that states should take (as in the examples of Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Burkino Faso, Central African Republic and many many others that have come before thae UN).
You will also note, that in the preamble to vote for restoring the constitutional referendum of 1995 that was illegally abrogated by the Ukrainian central authority, that the present day legally elected Crimean parliament specifically refers to international law and points out in no uncertain terms (as argued by the UN) that self determination trumps territorial integrity in international rights. This has been made crystal clear within the UN resolutions on Palestine, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, and South Sudan. The Crimean authorities are the legal entity here, the Kievan 'authorities' are an illegal imposition, unelected and crying foul over a constitution that has been adhered to by Crimea but not by Ukraine.
It is clear to me that only bias prevents any neutral from seeing this.

The fact that a higher external jurisdiction haven't proven something to be illegal, does not establish it's legality. It just means that no one has proven any suggested illegality. The US or anyone else part of that higher jurisdiction are welcome to test it as they see fit, they haven't as yet.

I don't believe it's feasible to use the Constitution of the Ukraine to prove your point about the removal of the President being illegal, at the same time as arguing it's illegally formed - which is it you want to go with? My understanding was that the Parliament voted to impeach the President (which has also neither been proven or not as yet) and I agree that therefore (unless there's something I've missed, he's constitutionally still the President), until they've followed the impeachment process to its conclusion - I have little doubt they could do this fairly swiftly, but don't know whether they have of haven't.

The Constitution of the Ukraine also expresses that the Ukraine is a unitary territory, so the ability of the Crimea to restore its autonomous rights of a previous Constitution is contestable certainly by the Ukraine and you could argue, that the 1998 Constitution of Crimea (which was agreed by both the Ukrainian Parliament and the Crimean Parliament) holds sway - and that Constitution is all phrased around Ukrainian law and it's precedence, over the Crimean constitution.

I don't believe The Ukrainian President under Ukrainian Constitution can offer the Crimea a referendum, without the ratification of the Ukrainian Parliament. So I'm not sure, other than it's a bit of a quagmire. I don't believe it's as clear cut as you are contending at all.

There is always the possibility I've missed something pertinent though...

[Dujon]

There could be, Worthy. Perhaps a lot of Russian troops and equipment?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There could be, Worthy. Perhaps a lot of Russian troops and equipment?

That's not pertinent, that's impertinent.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If you take a Russian perspective, the expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe is provocative. Now that there has been a split in Ukraine, Russia see a opportunity of regaining their, 'sphere of influence.' If the Crimea referendum was carried out legitimately and is a true reflection of the people, how can the West not support it ? Surely their being hypocrites on their promotion of democracy ?

The West aren't supporting it, because Crimea isn't a country capable of holding a referendum on such an issue - it's a part of the country of the Ukraine, and therefore, could only hold a referendum with legitimacy if their government determined that was something they wanted to offer them.

As it happens, another country - nothing legitimately to do with the Government of the Ukraine has driven the notion of a referendum - I don't see any legitimacy in it at all, although I take the point that the Russian's have a different "perspective" on it.

Let's face it, if the Russians don't like the influence they have over countries that they've given control of their own destiny to (legally), then they should probably gear back up, and head for the Brandenburg Gate again? Maybe they'd need to go a bit further this time, as I've seen Americans in France in the last couple of decades.

This is where I get all confudulated. On what grounds can Crimea not hold a referendum on the subject? It is an autonomous part of Ukraine and not a sovereign entity but the UN resolutions on self-determination, plus the historical fact of it having been an independent nation in the past plus the illegal activity of the higher state (Ukraine) since that state's formation all point to the fact that not only it can, but it has done so and in a legitimate and lawful manner.
Let address this legality point by point.
The referendum is legal because of the simple fact no higher external jurisdiction has declared it illegal. The Security Council attempt to do so was vetoed by Russia - you might not like that fact, but the veto is a legitimate and legal weapon in the diplomatic arsenal of Russia, and just because the US proposes something and then it is vetoed by Russia, the US is not then entitled to claim that they have a legal stance in international law...they haven't.
The US and the present Ukrainian 'authorities' also declare the 'fact' that Crimea cannot a) seceed from the country without Kiev's consent and b) hold an independent referendum. In actual fact both of those statements are complete made-up bollox.
But what the constitution of Ukraine does state quite plainly is that a President can only leave office due to four specific reasons (losing an election, resignation, death, and impeachment)... you'll note therefore that according to Ukrainian constitution Yanukovich is still the President. (The Kiev putsch are the illegal ones).
The parliament of Crimea was elected prior to the events of February. The parliament of Crimea wielded its legitimate authority in removing the prime minister of Crimea. Yanukovich in his capacity as the legitimate President of Crimea appointed the new prime minister, all very legitimate and legal.
The new Prime Minister restored the autonomous rights of Crimea under the 1992 constitution (when Ukraine broke from the Soviet Union) which allowed for Crimea to have a President and to hold referenda. he has legitimately, through a vote in parliament, abrogated the illegal authority of the 'Kievan President' and restored the referendum that was illegally abolished in 1995. This status quo ante is a perfectly usual means of restoring authority in states that have broken down and is often outlined (by the west) as the way forward that states should take (as in the examples of Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Burkino Faso, Central African Republic and many many others that have come before thae UN).
You will also note, that in the preamble to vote for restoring the constitutional referendum of 1995 that was illegally abrogated by the Ukrainian central authority, that the present day legally elected Crimean parliament specifically refers to international law and points out in no uncertain terms (as argued by the UN) that self determination trumps territorial integrity in international rights. This has been made crystal clear within the UN resolutions on Palestine, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, and South Sudan. The Crimean authorities are the legal entity here, the Kievan 'authorities' are an illegal imposition, unelected and crying foul over a constitution that has been adhered to by Crimea but not by Ukraine.
It is clear to me that only bias prevents any neutral from seeing this.

The fact that a higher external jurisdiction haven't proven something to be illegal, does not establish it's legality. It just means that no one has proven any suggested illegality. The US or anyone else part of that higher jurisdiction are welcome to test it as they see fit, they haven't as yet. [1]
I don't believe it's feasible to use the Constitution of the Ukraine to prove your point about the removal of the President being illegal, at the same time as arguing it's illegally formed - which is it you want to go with? [2] My understanding was that the Parliament voted to impeach the President (which has also neither been proven or not as yet) and I agree that therefore (unless there's something I've missed, he's constitutionally still the President), until they've followed the impeachment process to its conclusion - I have little doubt they could do this fairly swiftly, but don't know whether they have of haven't. [3]
The Constitution of the Ukraine also expresses that the Ukraine is a unitary territory, so the ability of the Crimea to restore its autonomous rights of a previous Constitution is contestable certainly by the Ukraine and you could argue, that the 1998 Constitution of Crimea (which was agreed by both the Ukrainian Parliament and the Crimean Parliament) [4] holds sway - and that Constitution is all phrased around Ukrainian law and it's precedence, over the Crimean constitution.

I don't believe The Ukrainian President under Ukrainian Constitution can offer the Crimea a referendum, without the ratification of the Ukrainian Parliament.[5] So I'm not sure, other than it's a bit of a quagmire. I don't believe it's as clear cut as you are contending at all.

There is always the possibility I've missed something pertinent though...

1. If it's not declared illegal by a higher external authority, which it isn't, I don't see how it can be 'illegal', even if in future it is declared such. But the entire basis of the US and UK argument is based around its supposed illegality (the referendum that is).
2. Oh yes I can. The President was illegally removed (according to the constitution, and the present parliament is also illegally formed (according to the Constitution) - these two facts are not only mutually reinforcing, they follow on consequentially.
3. The parliament has not impeached the President. but even if they do, the parliament who impeaches him will be (by virtue of its appointment by the illegal President and under the chairmanship of the illegal prime minister) an illegal impeachment. Only the parliament that was legally voted in can legally impeach the President. [NB I think you might be missing a vital point here Worthy, me old, half of the Kievan parliament has been 'appointed' by the new (illegal) President and his chum the new (illegal) prime minister - the real parliamentarians being 'dismissed' by the new putsch (this is also illegal under both the 1992 and 1998 constitutions).
4. The President (Yanukovich - who we've established is the legal head of state) allowed the Crimean parliament to revert to the status quop ante with regard to the 1992 Constitution. That Constitution specifically allows for both a President of Crimea, and the future possibility of a seperation of Crimea from Ukraine.
5. according to the 1992 constitution, he can, (and did in 1994 - which was then illegally abrogated by the Ukrainian parliament - which under the constitution then running, had no power to do so). And as the present, ousted but legally still operating as executive, President has allowed the 1992 constitution to stand, he therefore now has the power to grant a referendum.

You see, it is all rather simple. The difficulty only comes when specious arguments surrounding the wording in the 1998 Constitution are taken as a trump card trampling over all other legal conventions. (I mean that in association with Obama, Kerry and Hague, not your good self. I deliberately ignored Cameron, because he's an utter-know-nowt-numpty when it comes down to this issue).
I note with interest for example you didn't contest the UN reasoning about self determination. The Crimean parliament made that a central plank in the vote for a referendum and in the implementation of the referendum (its printed in the preamble on the voting papers).

[Worthy4England]

Not sure we're a million miles adrift, and I'm certainly no apologist for the US and its foreign policy, and your "note with interest" is a pertinent one, because I agree largely with self determination.

Where I'm at on this, is that two wrongs clearly don't make a right and I don't believe Crimean self determination has been undertaken without interference from a third party.

On 1. If I nick you car but no one has found it's me what did it yet, it's illegal. I'm still de facto innocent until proven guilty, but an illegal act has taken place - it's just that they haven't caught me nor tested it in court yet. the point I make about the higher external authority is that neither what Ukraine did not what the President did, not what Crimea have done has been tested anywhere. There's just a lot of finger pointing, and I suspect that neither side is entirely legal as I'll explain. As far as I'm aware, no higher court has proven that replacing the existing parliamentarians is illegal yet either (but I could've missed that bit.

On 2. I think we're both agreed on - I did think they'd impeached him, but hadn't completed that process

3. I missed that bit - I thought it was the elected body that had impeached him.

4. Here's where it starts to get a lot more murky for me. I'm not sure the elected President has the right under the Constitution to change the Constitution without the mandate of the parliament - which he hasn't got. I know the 1992 Constitution allowed for this, but a later agreed Constitution did not. The Ukrainian Constitution talks lots about unitary state and all-Ukraine referenda (I suspect specifically to cover the possibility that a pro-Russian parliament offered a vote to Crimea to set up the mechanism to move closer to Russia - so I'm not convinced yet what he's done is legal, even though I might be convinced he's one of the people legally elected. So I disagree with 5 on the same basis.

So to self determination, the principle I'm fine with (without the help of outside influence, generally), but I always fall back on how far back to take it. There are bizarre "points in time" created and of course the further you go back, the less accurate the historical recording is likely to be.