What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

First Up

View wrote: »

They have ample elections in which to give a pro-Russian unification party (or parties) a majority if they were interested in doing so, they have not done so.

A referendum has to be free and fair to be worth something. The one in Crimea wasn't.

How many members of the Council of Europe accept the referendum was either held according to best practice OR was free and fair?

No previous vote took place after the status of the Russian language had been downgraded or the Kiev government and elected president run out of office. They are the sort of things liable to influence how people vote.

The criticism of the referendum is not so much how it was conducted but that it should have been conducted at all. As I have previously said, the outrage over Crimea is to be taken with a pinch of salt when considered against how Kosovo was allowed to declare independence from Serbia, with considerably less justification than Crimea's departure from Ukraine.

czx

First Up wrote: »

How countries run themselves, under whatever political, cultural, religious or governance system they chose is essentially their own business.

No country exists in a vacuum. A poorly run country is likely to destabilise the surrounding region i.e North Korea. I'm sure there are plenty of people in North Korea who would like other countries to pressure Kim into changing the way he conducts 'business'

First Up

czx wrote: »

No country exists in a vacuum. A poorly run country is likely to destabilise the surrounding region i.e North Korea. I'm sure there are plenty of people in North Korea who would like other countries to pressure Kim into changing the way he conducts 'business'

Here's where we start getting selective again. Apart from a few dud rockets and lots of bellicose bluster, all North Korea does is make life miserable for North Koreans. If you want to use the "de-stabilise the region" argument, you could neatly put Ukraine/Crimea into that and hey presto - a nice justification for Russia to step in.

View

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

(Note that support for Scottish independence is currently at 39% and, as the commentator states above, they are still going through with it. Even though the Scottish referendum is, admittedly, being done in a much more orderly manner because the situation does not demand expediency).
.

The Scottish National party won a clear majority in the last elections held in Scotland (not 3 out of 100 as was the case in Crimea). Hence, a referendum is being held there.

Even with that majority, they'll probably lose which shows how incredible it is to suggest that pro-Russia unification has gone from having trivial levels of support in the last Crimean election to the reported "results" - results which would require Crimean Ukrainians to have overwhelmingly supported the idea, never mind unanimity among Crimean Russians, for those to be true.

As an election result, it makes the miracles in the Bible seem like paltry stuff.

czx

First Up wrote: »

Here's where we start getting selective again. Apart from a few dud rockets and lots of bellicose bluster, all North Korea does is make life miserable for North Koreans. If you want to use the "de-stabilise the region" argument, you could neatly put Ukraine/Crimea into that and hey presto - a nice justification for Russia to step in.

Think it's sad that some people believe that how a country governs itself is its own business. You just said that NK makes its citizens life a misery, that's not right.

North Korea is a very clear-cut case. It has been ruled by horribly for decades by the same family and is a highly militarised country with a large DMZ with the south

First Up

czx wrote: »

Think it's sad that some people believe that how a country governs itself is its own business. You just said that NK makes its citizens life a misery, that's not right.

North Korea is a very clear-cut case. It has been ruled by horribly for decades by the same family and is a highly militarised country with a large DMZ with the south

Don't disagree with you that NK is a dreadful place but what do you want to do about it?

Godge

First Up wrote: »

What country "aspires to be a low standard"? How countries run themselves, under whatever political, cultural, religious or governance system they chose is essentially their own business. You can have whatever opinion you like of how they do things but interfering in it is a different matter. That applies just as much to the US as it does to Russia or anyone else.

The US's track record in liberating (i.e interfering in) others is not exactly stellar and it's list is as long as anyone's.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is just my own opinion, but the reason I have more of a problem with the US' nefarious episodes is because of US leaders being insufferable hypocrites publicly. Most countries had nefarious episodes in their past (and many in their present), most of these countries do not trumpet their righteousness and demand that the entire world bend to their desires of how it should be run. Most other countries don't go around saying "This sovereign independent country isn't being run the way we want it to be run, let's have its government killed or locked up and force a regime which we like to be installed instead".

Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.

The anti-Americans can't have it both ways.

You cannot say that the US takes the high moral ground and criticise them for it yet state that other countries also aspire to high standards and excuse them for not reaching it.

The point I am making which you failed to address completely is that the US has higher standards of democracy, human rights and whatever else you want to call it than the likes of Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia or countless others including most of sub-Saharan Africa.

The hypocrites around here are those who criticise American foreign policy but absolve the likes of those others from criticism. We have some people even trying to excuse North Korea!!! I mean, what sort of twisted logic is that. North Koreans have been subject to the most repressive tyrannical regime for decades. It is about time someone shouted stop.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

Don't disagree with you that NK is a dreadful place but what do you want to do about it?

For a start, we could all support American attempts to force regime change in North Korea.

View

First Up wrote: »

No previous vote took place after the status of the Russian language had been downgraded or the Kiev government and elected president run out of office. They are the sort of things liable to influence how people vote.

Russian wasn't downgraded. The law on its status remains unaltered.

The President was voted out of office by the Ukrainian parliament - including by his own party, the one that Russian-speaking Ukrainians (including the Crimean ones) strongly supported.

I note you have no problem with the democratically elected government of Crimea, the one that Crimeans had overwhelmingly voted for, having been "run out of office" as soon as those "unidentified" soldiers appeared in Crimea.

Running governments out of office is okay in Crimea but not in Kiev, is that it?

SamHarris

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is just my own opinion, but the reason I have more of a problem with the US' nefarious episodes is because of US leaders being insufferable hypocrites publicly. Most countries had nefarious episodes in their past (and many in their present), most of these countries do not trumpet their righteousness and demand that the entire world bend to their desires of how it should be run. Most other countries don't go around saying "This sovereign independent country isn't being run the way we want it to be run, let's have its government killed or locked up and force a regime which we like to be installed instead".

Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.

If you believe most government do not trumpet their countries special righteousness, that is far more an indication of ignorance than a reflection of reality.

Actually the countries with power do it where they feel they can get away with it. Any number of examples in the last 70 years hold to that. So this is just wrong.

I'm curious, what country in what situation do you know admitted or implied they were morally in the wrong with their actions but were doing it anyway? I can't think of any.

This entire reply is merely proof of my assertion, not a rebuttal.

First Up

Godge wrote: »

For a start, we could all support American attempts to force regime change in North Korea.

And replacing it with....? Worked a treat in Iraq.

recedite

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It is a moot point, you're quite right..

Now it's clear how it could be perceived as a Yes and Yes choice.

No, its not clear.
I agree there is no status quo option, and I'm not convinced one was needed either.
I see two different options. One to join Russia, and one to be an autonomous republic within Ukraine. The missing status quo option, that of simply remaining a part of Ukraine with no independence, was an unpopular situation that was imposed on them since 1992.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

And replacing it with....? Worked a treat in Iraq.

Unlike Iraq, there is a perfectly functioning democracy next door in South Korea. Even if the Koreas are not unified, the South could certainly help a new democratic government to be elected. It is similar to East Germany which worked quite well.

North Korea is not Iraq.

czx

First Up wrote: »

Don't disagree with you that NK is a dreadful place but what do you want to do about it?

At an absolute minimum, not absolve it's leadership of responsibility by claiming that it's 'their country, their business'

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

What country "aspires to be a low standard"? How countries run themselves, under whatever political, cultural, religious or governance system they chose is essentially their own business. You can have whatever opinion you like of how they do things but interfering in it is a different matter. That applies just as much to the US as it does to Russia or anyone else.

The US's track record in liberating (i.e interfering in) others is not exactly stellar and it's list is as long as anyone's.

Actually on a global or historical scale you would be wrong in the last assertion. Japan, Western Europe and many other states are what they are because of massive American interference. Ireland is one of the very few places that employed what we would see as the "ideal" before American pressure, and even that was based upon and supported by the States at the time and now.

Sure, plenty of places are not, but in any of them - Iraq Afghanistan they were hardly "stellar" before any interference either.

Even the case of Iraq, despite the disaster the invasion was, Saddams regime in the ten years previously actually accounted for more deaths. The ten years before that many times the number of deaths.

Many people make the assumption that all these places would be Norway without any interference - history and fact does not support that assertion.

To many people feel comfortable making the assumption that no interference = a fully developed democratic state and base their projections on this. The fact is very few states have even made it to that position without massive outside interference at various times.

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

And replacing it with....? Worked a treat in Iraq.

The Kurds and Marsh Arabs would very much disagree with you that it wasnt worth it. Even though it was a disaster, and I disagreed with it then and now, I do not agree that Saddams regime was suddenly going to make massive changes that would have dramatically lessened the suffering in the last ten years.

About the only difference is it would have been quieter, perhaps even for people in Iraq who were not directly targeted but certainly for people in The West who routinely assume everything is fine unless a Western country is involved. That's just not the reality.

In the case of North Korea it is doubtful that any massive intervention is possible or even desirable. I don't know if it would descend into chaos like Iraq but it is far too different economically and culturally to just be integrated with the South (many of whom are comfortable with the status quo, whatever the morality of that). North Korea also may have functioning nuclear weapons, but the extent of the fanaticism there may put the middle East to shame,

Though that is not at all an endorsement of the status quo, anyone that knows anything about that regime knows how god awful it is and how very difficult it would be to make things perceptibly worse for a prolonged period of time. The instability though, is just to unpredictable for a full on invasion or massive regime change to be viable.

Dannyboy83

recedite wrote: »

No, its not clear.
I agree there is no status quo option,

So it is clear. End of debate.

The missing status quo option, that of simply remaining a part of Ukraine with no independence, was an unpopular situation that was imposed on them since 1992.

On the contrary, it was the most popular situation in the surveys:
http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif

It's the one that says (as today)

First Up

View wrote: »

Russian wasn't downgraded. The law on its status remains unaltered.

The President was voted out of office by the Ukrainian parliament - including by his own party, the one that Russian-speaking Ukrainians (including the Crimean ones) strongly supported.

I note you have no problem with the democratically elected government of Crimea, the one that Crimeans had overwhelmingly voted for, having been "run out of office" as soon as those "unidentified" soldiers appeared in Crimea.

Running governments out of office is okay in Crimea but not in Kiev, is that it?

Motion to downgrade Russian passed by parliament but not yet signed into law.
Ukraine is divided and neither street protests or military intervention are ideal mechanisms to solve political problems. The US, EU, NATO and the rest have been happy to ignore - or endorse - both when it suits them but gets all outraged and sanctimonious when others do.
Sauce for the goose and gander and all that.

First Up

Godge wrote: »

Unlike Iraq, there is a perfectly functioning democracy next door in South Korea. Even if the Koreas are not unified, the South could certainly help a new democratic government to be elected. It is similar to East Germany which worked quite well.

North Korea is not Iraq.

Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?

Which is probably the best argument against direct intervention. There are many regimes, now and throughout history, that would be far better (from a human suffering standpoint, and even political) taken out were their a guarantee of a short, sharp war followed by a quick transition to functioning democracy. Fact is, it's rarely possible to completely, or even partly, be sure of what will happen.

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

Motion to downgrade Russian passed by parliament but not yet signed into law.
Ukraine is divided and neither street protests or military intervention are ideal mechanisms to solve political problems. The US, EU, NATO and the rest have been happy to ignore - or endorse - both when it suits them but gets all outraged and sanctimonious when others do.
Sauce for the goose and gander and all that.

The US,EU, NATO and everyone else will have policies on situations based on their national interests. Why that implies something bad or special I'll never know.

First Up

SamHarris wrote: »

The US,EU, NATO and everyone else will have policies on situations based on their national interests. Why that implies something bad or special I'll never know.

So has Russia.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

So has Russia.

So we are all agreed that Russia is acting for its own selfish national interests.

It is not really interested in freeing the Crimean people from the oppressive yoke of Ukrainian imperialism. Rather it is interested in its own strategic interests in gaining better access to the ports in the Black Sea. Glad we are all clear that this is not a benevolent cuddly Mother Russia protecting its defenceless children.

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

So has Russia.

So you take Russia acting on it's own national interests as a valid reason to protect it from criticism, but the same action from the West means their actions should come in for more?

Again, the politics of people who claim the hypocrisy of the West is a reason for it being an immoral and ultimately "bad" entity are the individuals with by far the most hypocrisy in their own views. I honestly don't see how people can be so unselfcritical of their own views. I know you are far from the most vociferous defender of Russian aggression, or the biggest critic of Western policy but this is just coming up again and again with no real response. In fact it has been the ONLY argument put forward in defense of all this, it has been repeatedly shot full of holes and yet repeatedly comes up.

SamHarris

View wrote: »

The Scottish National party won a clear majority in the last elections held in Scotland (not 3 out of 100 as was the case in Crimea). Hence, a referendum is being held there.

Even with that majority, they'll probably lose which shows how incredible it is to suggest that pro-Russia unification has gone from having trivial levels of support in the last Crimean election to the reported "results" - results which would require Crimean Ukrainians to have overwhelmingly supported the idea, never mind unanimity among Crimean Russians, for those to be true.

As an election result, it makes the miracles in the Bible seem like paltry stuff.

There are other things that make the situation in Scotland different - there is not the massive threat of violence, There is a clear and free debate on this issue, international monitors are allowed full access. I'm sure I could think of more, but any one of those things would invalidate an elections legitimacy, regardless of the playing with words used in it's defense.

First Up

SamHarris wrote: »

The Kurds and Marsh Arabs would very much disagree with you that it wasnt worth it. Even though it was a disaster, and I disagreed with it then and now, I do not agree that Saddams regime was suddenly going to make massive changes that would have dramatically lessened the suffering in the last ten years.

About the only difference is it would have been quieter, perhaps even for people in Iraq who were not directly targeted but certainly for people in The West who routinely assume everything is fine unless a Western country is involved. That's just not the reality.

In the case of North Korea it is doubtful that any massive intervention is possible or even desirable. I don't know if it would descend into chaos like Iraq but it is far too different economically and culturally to just be integrated with the South (many of whom are comfortable with the status quo, whatever the morality of that). North Korea also may have functioning nuclear weapons, but the extent of the fanaticism there may put the middle East to shame,

Though that is not at all an endorsement of the status quo, anyone that knows anything about that regime knows how god awful it is and how very difficult it would be to make things perceptibly worse for a prolonged period of time. The instability though, is just to unpredictable for a full on invasion or massive regime change to be viable.

The US was selling weapons to Saddam and supplying satellite intelligence to assist his war with Iran at the time he was gassing the Kurds.
The Kurds know exactly where they fit into US values.

SamHarris

Since when have people started to believe that the one and only condition for a referendum or election to be valid is that people can walk into a poll booth and check a box?

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

The US was selling weapons to Saddam and supplying satellite intelligence to assist his war with Iran at the time he was gassing the Kurds.
The Kurds know exactly where they fit into US values.

Opinion polls disagree, I was not stating they supported the US I stated they supported Saddams fall.

The US is not even on the top 5 of countries that supplied Saddam with weapons, and the USSR supplied 98% on it's own. That entire argument is entirely overblown, they were never allies. The incredibly tenuous support they offered for Saddam is in no way an indication they were responsible for Saddam's regime or it's actions. Even if it was there would be many more countries that would place far higher on the list than the US.

Even a basic knowledge of cold war politics would tell you how much of an enemy they were from the start, with him being very much in the Soviets camp.

Also, given that you feel Russia looking out for it's national interests is a valid defense of their invasion of another country, why is the US supplying satellite photos to a state not a valid defense of their own? It is not and will never be their job to protect the Islamic regime in any way, why should it be?

First Up

SamHarris wrote: »

Opinion polls disagree, I was not stating they supported the US I stated they supported Saddams fall.

The US is not even on the top 5 of countries that supplied Saddam with weapons, and the USSR supplied 98% on it's own. That entire argument is entirely overblown, they were never allies. The incredibly tenuous support they offered for Saddam is in no way an indication they were responsible for Saddam's regime or it's actions. Even if it was there would be many more countries that would place far higher on the list than the US.

Even a basic knowledge of cold war politics would tell you how much of an enemy they were from the start, with him being very much in the Soviets camp.

Also, given that you feel Russia looking out for it's national interests is a valid defense of their invasion of another country, why is the US supplying satellite photos to a state not a valid defense of their own? It is not and will never be their job to protect the Islamic regime in any way, why should it be?

You might want to read up on the detail of that incredibly tenuous support.

View

First Up wrote: »

Motion to downgrade Russian passed by parliament but not yet signed into law.

The acting President vetoed the proposal as long ago as Feb. 28th. In addition, he has said that any replacment of or changes to the existing law must conform with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages which is specifically designed to protect minority languages.

First Up wrote: »

Ukraine is divided and neither street protests or military intervention are ideal mechanisms to solve political problems.

The only major division in Ukraine is Crimea and that required large quantities of external "unidentified" Russian soldiers and sailors to achieve - scarcely a sign of widespread popular support.

First Up wrote: »

The US, EU, NATO and the rest have been happy to ignore - or endorse - both when it suits them but gets all outraged and sanctimonious when others do.
Sauce for the goose and gander and all that.

This is whataboutery. Russia is following the same annexation policies that Hitler did in the Sudetenland and in Prussia/Poland. You should know how well they turned out.

There is no government in Europe that will trust Russia after this. Ukraine certainly won't, will it?

Latest reports are governments are examining sanctions up to and including a full scale trade war with Russia. How wonderful a prize will Crimea look for Russia after a trade war?

View

SamHarris wrote: »

Since when have people started to believe that the one and only condition for a referendum or election to be valid is that people can walk into a poll booth and check a box?

Nobody other than the Russians does.

Then again democratic choice there has degenerated to:

Please choose if you want Putin to run Russia as:
A) President
Premier

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

You might want to read up on the detail of that incredibly tenuous support.

Again, mathematically a drop in the ocean to the support from many other states. You can think of it however you please beyond the numbers, really. The Soviets alone provided the vast majority, France a distant second, Italy a distant third. Saudi Arabia and West Germany also gave many times the support the US did. Again we see the double standards at play that dictates many peoples politics. Many nations that people on the left wouldnt dream of criticisng a great deal, for example Brazil, made massive amounts of money selling to both sides. And yet people need to retain their bogey man ...

What is your point, anyway?

First Up

My point?
I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

My point?
I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.

Who are "the US"? and how far back into the past do we go with this?

First Up

Jonny7 wrote: »

Who are "the US"? and how far back into the past do we go with this?

United States, 1980's.

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

My point?
I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.

Yah but the present tense is being used..

Which generally indicates falling into the common trap of equating Obama's present-day stance with foreign policy decisions taken decades ago by different acting presidents

Which is why I asked "how far back do you want to go".. it's whataboutery

Hollande isn't Mitterrand, Cameron isn't Thatcher, Merkel isn't H...

You get the point

recedite

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

So it is clear. End of debate.



On the contrary, it was the most popular situation in the surveys:
http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif

It's the one that says (as today)

Opinion polls vary. How about this one?

View wrote: »

The acting President vetoed the proposal as long ago as Feb. 28th.

Re the crackdown on Russian language, he was in favour of it initially, then did a (temporary ?) u-turn following the $hitstorm in which he lost control of Crimea.

First Up

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yah but the present tense is being used..

Which generally indicates falling into the common trap of equating Obama's present-day stance with foreign policy decisions taken decades ago by different acting presidents

Which is why I asked "how far back do you want to go".. it's whataboutery

Hollande isn't Mitterrand, Cameron isn't Thatcher, Merkel isn't H...

You get the point

No I don't. We are talking about moral authority. That is something you earn. Obama is a big improvement on some of his predecessors but we still have Afghanistan, drone strikes in Yemen and plenty more. All justified in the name of freedom and democracy of course.
The point here is that we are seeing selective application of moral standards to suit political agenda. Some of it justified but much of it is pure hypocricy.

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

My point?
I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.

Wow, you honestly think that no country uses moral language? This is the problem with everyone just getting snippets of news from, at best, the occasional show or newspaper. They seem to think the only things they notice are the only things there ARE to notice

I'm afraid every country claims to have the moral high ground. On anything. Can you give one example of one country saying they DONT have the moral high ground, but wuold like to do X anyway?

I'm becoming more and more convinced as I read these posts and others on other threads that the vast majority of the critics of America are motivated by a neurosis about american power rather than anything of substance. That they even bring it up so much when Russia invaddes Crimea is cringe worthy. The explanations have always been, at best, childish, at worst outright ignorant in thn assumptions they make about American actions or the lack there of or the motivation of either.

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yah but the present tense is being used..

Which generally indicates falling into the common trap of equating Obama's present-day stance with foreign policy decisions taken decades ago by different acting presidents

Which is why I asked "how far back do you want to go".. it's whataboutery

Hollande isn't Mitterrand, Cameron isn't Thatcher, Merkel isn't H...

You get the point

And considering many of these people don't keep a consistent moral approach throughout a single post, the accusation that others do not over decades and different administrations is... Strange to say the least.

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

No I don't. We are talking about moral authority. That is something you earn. Obama is a big improvement on some of his predecessors but we still have Afghanistan, drone strikes in Yemen and plenty more. All justified in the name of freedom and democracy of course.
The point here is that we are seeing selective application of moral standards to suit political agenda. Some of it justified but much of it is pure hypocricy.

I'm sorry, I thought you were one of the people that thought the invasion of Crimea was justified?

First Up

SamHarris wrote: »

I'm sorry, I thought you were one of the people that thought the invasion of Crimea was justified?

Maybe if you read my posts more carefully you would understand them.

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

Maybe if you read my posts more carefully you would understand them.

Perhaps if your ideas were not based on wild assumptions, such as that the US is special in using moral language in foreign policy, they would not be so forgettable.

I'm still curious if you have many examples of a country conceding the moral high ground in a situation, given that when the US claims it is seems so out of the ordinary to you?

First Up

SamHarris wrote: »

Perhaps if your ideas were not based on wild assumptions, such as that the US is special in using moral language in foreign policy, they would not be so forgettable.

I'm still curious if you have many examples of a country conceding the moral high ground in a situation, given that when the US claims it is seems so out of the ordinary to you?

Do you know what hypocricy means? A simple version is saying one thing and doing another. Or criticising someone for something, while doing much the same yourself.

SamHarris

First Up wrote: »

Do you know what hypocricy means? A simple version is saying one thing and doing another. Or criticising someone for something, while doing much the same yourself.

Would an example be roundly condemning the invasion of, oh I don't know, Iraq whilst supporting the invasion of another state? Would it be doubling down on the hypocrisy if someone were to claim that when a state does the same thing - supports one invasion but condemns another - that this is particularly morally bankrupt?

Please, I've been bombarded with examples of it on this issue, thanks. And the reasons given for it must even seem weak to the people saying them.

So no examples? And yet you seem to have based an enormous amount of your positions on international issues on the assumption. I doubt you will change it, regardless of it being pointed out how naive it was, but then thats not surprising.

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

No I don't. We are talking about moral authority. That is something you earn.

Not really, if Ron Paul, or any newcomer stepped into office and declared military operations in Pakistan over - no one would accuse them of being hypocritical - much less of not having the moral authority to do so

we still have Afghanistan, drone strikes in Yemen and plenty more. All justified in the name of freedom and democracy of course.

At least these are modern examples done under his leadership - but - still a very separate complex situation and a good bit off-topic

Putin is annexing foreign territory - it's a hard position to defend - the worst way to defend it is to try to attack other leaders for taking the same or similar action in the past or even present

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not really, if Ron Paul, or any newcomer stepped into office and declared military operations in Pakistan over - no one would accuse them of being hypocritical - much less of not having the moral authority to do so

As in you see it as something that is lost, not something that is gained? I agree.

If Bush had cancelled the Iraq war before it began no one would say "Well the US DIDNT invade Iraq, so Russia has no right to invade Crimea" or at least, none of the people claiming this is all legitimate would acknowledge it as a good argument.

I'm still getting my head around the fact the biggest defence for all this is that the West invaded countries. They then go on to say how bad that was, usually, or imply it. Then point out the hypocrisy. That so many people can do this, including Putin and people jaws are not hitting the floor is very irritating.

alaimacerc

SamHarris wrote: »

There are other things that make the situation in Scotland different - there is not the massive threat of violence, There is a clear and free debate on this issue, international monitors are allowed full access. I'm sure I could think of more, but any one of those things would invalidate an elections legitimacy, regardless of the playing with words used in it's defense.

There are interesting parallels, though: David Cameron describing both votes as "illegal" if held without the express permission of their "parent" entity. In other words, he's consistent (at least between these whole two instances!) on the right of self-determination of "autonomous" entities: there simply isn't one.

I think the debate here is less about how far the Crimean situation falls short of "ideal" and "democratic norms", and more about how accurate Western responses like Joe Biden's "land grab" are. Accounts that erase the context and motivation for this happening are all too common.

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

Running governments out of office is okay in Crimea but not in Kiev, is that it?

I think the difficulty many of us have is that exactly the opposite assumption seems to be the unexamined orthodoxy in a lot of places.

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

pro-Russia unification has gone from having trivial levels of support in the last Crimean election

This is a fanciful construction to put on the results of an election that was not about unification with Russia. If you're merely uninformed, try reading 538's article on this. If you're being actively disingenuous, as seems not unlikely given your track record in this thread, consider yourself called on it.