Russia has annexed Crimea, will it stop there or go further?

[Borque]

For starters, there was no referendum in Kosovo. And Putin knows it. That alone is enough to realize he's only talking about ICoJ's opinion, which Crimean declaration actually cited. Even if his speech is misleading - as speeches can be, of course - the stance of the Russian embassy in Belgrade (and, by extension, the Russian Foreign Ministry) was not. The only similarity between two cases is the fact that both Crimea and Kosovo declared independence.

Well, you say so, but your favorite source, Russia Today, agrees with my interpretation:

Putin: Crimea similar to Kosovo, West is rewriting its own rule book

[Suttree]

There is not a single diplomat that I know off, that says it was an ordinary diplomatic talk.

Love how you linking one article turns in to "not a single diplomat".

Edit: Oh and also Pat Buchanan may agree as well. So you got that going for you...which is nice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag,

I've seen were a lot of diplomats have said the "fuck the EU" comment was very wrong but I haven't seen anyone, outside the Russian media, claim Nuland's call was somehow sinister.

Where are you getting the 5 Billion dollar figure? I'd love a link showing that the US or any naion in NATO gave Maidan protestors 5 Billion dollars.

[Miodrag]

Well, there was one in 1991, with the eerily similar result of 99,98% in favor of independence and a turnout of 86%.

The referendum was in 1991, while the declaration came in 2008, and let's not forget the NATO aggression that happened in the meantime. Is there any similarity to Crimean case?

Well, you say so, but your favorite source, Russia Today, agrees with my interpretation:

Putin: Crimea similar to Kosovo, West is rewriting its own rule book

Forget RT. I'd like to concentrate on what Putin himself says:

“Our western partners created the Kosovo precedent with their own hands. In a situation absolutely the same as the one in Crimea they recognized Kosovo’s secession from Serbia legitimate while arguing that no permission from a country’s central authority for a unilateral declaration of independence is necessary,” Putin reminded, adding that the UN International Court of Justice agreed to those arguments."

I think It's obvious how much he emphasizes "a country's central authority". He is pointing to Western hypocrisy, but he isn't contradicting himself. And there, in "a country's central authority", lays one of the main differences between Serbia/Kosovo and Ukraine/Crimea situations.

And I don't know how did you come up with RT as "my favorite source". I don't think I ever linked anything from RT. In fact, all this time I'm linking mostly, or even only, US/EU sources. But, compared to sources some other posters rely on, yeah, I'd say RT is infinitely more reliable.

[Borque]

I think It's obvious how much he emphasizes "a country's central authority". He is pointing to Western hypocrisy, but he isn't contradicting himself. And there, in "a country's central authority", lays one of the main differences between Serbia/Kosovo and Ukraine/Crimea situations.

What difference would this be? In both cases, the central authority opposed secession.

[Miodrag]

Love how you linking one article turns in to "not a single diplomat".

Edit: Oh and also Pat Buchanan may agree as well. So you got that going for you...which is nice.

Love how you can read my 18-words-long post, but fail to keep in mind all the words. "Not a single diplomat that I know off"! Which means that I don't know of any diplomat that claims the opposite. Got it? Also, be free to point to any example of a diplomat that justifies what Nuland said in that recording.

[Miodrag]

What difference would this be? In both cases, the central authority opposed secession.

Are both central authorities legal and legitimate?

[The Iceman of the North]

And second, as I already wrote, by recognizing Crimean independence, Russia possibly violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but only if there was the constitutional order in Ukraine at the time, because a declaration of independence is an internal issue of a state, and not a matter of international law. If there wasn't constitutional order in Ukraine, just like Russia claims (and any number of evidence supports), then it wasn't necessary a violation of international law. I, for one, would like to see some trial over that issue. But, it's telling that the Kiev putschists are acting very differently from Serbia when we were attacked. And I'm not talking only about the military actions. Yes, we did fight against NATO, which was not a bit more favorable than Ukraine's hypothetical war against Russia, but OK, let's ignore that. What is Kiev doing besides military operations? Did they declare a state of emergency? Did they declare a state of war (which foreign aggression inevitably is)? No. They've done nothing except issuing one 'warning' after another and one statement after another. I'd like to see what legal actions they plan to take against Crimea/Russia, but so far there was none. Opposite to that, Serbia was taking all kinds of actions against the violation of our territory.

Am I interpreting you correct here that you claim that the integrity of a sovereign state only applies when there is a functioning constitution?

[Miodrag]

Am I interpreting you correct here that you claim that the integrity of a sovereign state only applies when there is a functioning constitution?

Not necessarily. I'm saying that Russia's actions would clearly be a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and integrity, if there was the functioning constitution in Ukraine. Since there wasn't a functioning constitution, then, as I said, Crimean and Russian action isn't necessarily a violation. It may be, but then again, it also may be not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag,

just as it is ridiculous to believe 5 billion dollars were spent on cookies alone

Where are you getting this figure? Are you saying 5 Billion Dollars were spent by the West in support of the Maidan?

[Suttree]

Love how you can read my 18-words-long post, but fail to keep in mind all the words. "Not a single diplomat that I know off"! Which means that I don't know of any diplomat that claims the opposite. Got it? .

Oh I got it the first time. Glad that you aknowledge it was an absolutely meaningless statement on your part.

[Borque]

Are both central authorities legal and legitimate?

Well, that depends who you ask. But it's irrelevant here, as Putin doesn't say anything in his speech of whether this makes one or the other secession more legitimate. He is all about how similar the situations are.

You might speculate all you want what he or his embassy might or might not say some other time, but I don't really see the point.

[sologdin]

do we have a master list of legitimate historical secessions? I suppose the things that mark out legitimacy are prior indigenous independence struggle, prior mass support for separation, adherence to prior constitutional forms, and so on.

secession of US from UK and subsequent secession of the confederacy from the US, as well as constituent SSR secessions from the USSR, as standard examples of legitimate secessions?

[The Iceman of the North]

sol, I'd say that WWI was a watershed as far as this issue is concerned for two reasons, one is that any secessions from before that which are still independent have the principle of custom on their side (granted this can apply to more recent examples as well, but one century is a nice round figure), secondly the aftermath of that war established the principle of self-determination. So let's limit this to claims of independence within the last century. Although the principle of self-determination was heralded as the main principle when re-drawing the borders of Europe following the Great War, the great powers have in the aftermath been not too keen to follow up this when it came to their own 'territory', as expressed through the de-colonisation process.

But based on this principle, the constitution of whatever state a territory is already part of should be irrelevant when considering the legitimacy of a declaration of independence. For such a declaration to be legitimate though it must represent the will of the people living in the territory, ideally expressed through a democratic plebiscite, or following an election where parties campaigning on a platform of independence get a majority of the seats of a legislative body representing the entire territory in question.

In the world of Realpolitik, there are certain large states, like Russia, China, Spain, and even the US when considering themselves, that doesn't subscribe to this view. But in my eyes, this does not alter the legitimacy of these principles.

Based on this, I've come to two different conclusions when comparing Kosovo and Crimea. The former would be legal based on both the 1992 referendum (even if there were obvious problems with the legitimacy of said referendum), but more importantly based on the fact that the declaration of independence were done by the Kosovo parliament where the majority had proclaimed their intend of independence for a long time, and through several elections. As for Crimea, if there had been a referendum in the fall where status quo were an option, I'd say that they would have a far greater appeal for legitimacy.

[sologdin]

nice. westphalian sovereignty challenged by doctrine of self-determination.

[Miodrag]

sol, I'd say that WWI was a watershed as far as this issue is concerned for two reasons, one is that any secessions from before that which are still independent have the principle of custom on their side (granted this can apply to more recent examples as well, but one century is a nice round figure), secondly the aftermath of that war established the principle of self-determination. So let's limit this to claims of independence within the last century. Although the principle of self-determination was heralded as the main principle when re-drawing the borders of Europe following the Great War, the great powers have in the aftermath been not too keen to follow up this when it came to their own 'territory', as expressed through the de-colonisation process.

But based on this principle, the constitution of whatever state a territory is already part of should be irrelevant when considering the legitimacy of a declaration of independence. For such a declaration to be legitimate though it must represent the will of the people living in the territory, ideally expressed through a democratic plebiscite, or following an election where parties campaigning on a platform of independence get a majority of the seats of a legislative body representing the entire territory in question.

In the world of Realpolitik, there are certain large states, like Russia, China, Spain, and even the US when considering themselves, that doesn't subscribe to this view. But in my eyes, this does not alter the legitimacy of these principles.

Based on this, I've come to two different conclusions when comparing Kosovo and Crimea. The former would be legal based on both the 1992 referendum (even if there were obvious problems with the legitimacy of said referendum), but more importantly based on the fact that the declaration of independence were done by the Kosovo parliament where the majority had proclaimed their intend of independence for a long time, and through several elections. As for Crimea, if there had been a referendum in the fall where status quo were an option, I'd say that they would have a far greater appeal for legitimacy.

I don't know where is all this "the right of self-determination" stuff coming from. There is no such thing in international law. No region is allowed to self-determine its status whenever it wants and any way it wants. Would America allow any of its states, or any of its regions, to decide their own fate? Of course it wouldn't. Would any multinational country allow that kind of behavior? Of course not. Does international law give that right to regions and provinces of the world? Absolutely not.

A province or a region must abide the constitution of a state it belongs to, if and how the constitution allows self-determination. If a province or a region finds it unacceptable to stay in the union any longer regardless of the constitution, it can break the constitution and declare independence if it wants, but it must have a damn good reasons to do so. In other words, if you want to act illegally - as you must when you face oppression, for example - make sure your actions are legitimate.

[sToNED_CAT]

Ukraine to increase gas prices by 50% in one month.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-26/dear-ukrainians-your-gas-bill-goes-50-may-1-have-nice-day

This was the thing that sent Tymoshenko to the jail BTW.

While it's likely they would have no choice anyway, the fact that IMF demands it will hardly improve Ukrainians opinion of West. Those people are so poor, that such increase would be huge shock for whole economy. And that's not the end the increases will continue until 2018. And EU and West don't offer proper compensation for this at all. It would be funny if in next democratic election Ukraine elected prorussian government again, what a fiasco will it be for Obama administration pushing for sanctions while Ukraine makes peace with Russia.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I don't know where is all this "the right of self-determination" stuff coming from. There is no such thing in international law. No region is allowed to self-determine its status whenever it wants and any way it wants. Would America allow any of its states, or any of its regions, to decide their own fate? Of course it wouldn't. Would any multinational country allow that kind of behavior? Of course not. Does international law give that right to regions and provinces of the world? Absolutely not.

A province or a region must abide the constitution of a state it belongs to, if and how the constitution allows self-determination. If a province or a region finds it unacceptable to stay in the union any longer regardless of the constitution, it can break the constitution and declare independence if it wants, but it must have a damn good reasons to do so. In other words, if you want to act illegally - as you must when you face oppression, for example - make sure your actions are legitimate.

The right to self-determination is codified in both the First Chapter of the Charter of the United Nations and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the latter of which clearly provides that people have the right to "freely determine their political status."

Now, as a matter of practice, these aspirational principles amount to little more than noise unless being used as an ex post facto justification for some bit of unappealing realpolitik. But, the principle exists.

[sologdin]

yeah, dead wrong on that. self-determination was part of the westphalian peace and has been the subject of a number of UNGA resolutions, and, as nestor notes, is part of the UNC.

[Suttree]

There is no such thing in international law.

Not so much dead wrong as having zero compunction concerning making things up on the fly to support his rants...