On that note, when is Draug coming back? :-(

You guys are so self-congratulating and narrow-minded, it's unreal. I don't always agree with Putin (either Putin), but the argument isn't one sided. I think although the annexation of Crimea was problematic, and not exactly by the book, it was rather understandable/sensible and given the circumstances shouldn't be so widely condemned. The airliner being shot down wasn't Putin's fault, at all, and the west's reaction is so hypocritical given the response when America shot down an airliner. Assad obviously does a lot of bad things, but is still preferable to alternatives (like IS), and getting involved is an awful idea (see Libya).

International law and UN rules are generally bs and a waste of time.

As for steephie22, to even write 'enemy' is part of the reason there is a problem.

I just don't understand this argument that in effect says ' Country A violated the law therefore we (country B) can.

I'd also like to point out the UK parliament voted against hitting Syria last time this was debated, partially due to legal uncertainty and that was when Assad was using chemical weapons. There is even less of a legal basis to attack a country when no such chemicals are currently being used ( to the best of my knowledge). The UK isn't generally seen as Russia's closest ally thee days.

The UK, or at least the government, is composed of a bunch of cowardly asses. Of course they're going to oppose stuff like this.

Putin is a hypocritical scumbag, but hey, we knew that already.

The Crimea referendum was invalid, obviously. It also wasn't a basis for joining Russia.

Putin is a lot smarter than some of you think, he's just wrong for god knows what reason.

No Socialist party worth their salt supports Russia now, it's just the monumentally stupid ones that do. Like the one in my own country. Russia is more Fascist than it is Communist, anyway.

@phil and others who denounce the Crimean referendum. I agree that it wasn't constitutional, but does anyone really doubt that the will of the people has been expressed? Also, we hear a lot about how bad it is that a country has changed its sovereignty based on the will of the people, but can anyone show me one article that denounced that very same country changing its sovereignty based on the whim of one person in 1953?

Maniac hit the nail on the head with this:

"I just don't understand this argument that in effect says ' Country A violated the law therefore we (country B) can."

Who cares whether or not Putin is being hypocritical (he's not, at least, not any more than basically anyone else).

@SD: Well yes, that's what I'm pointing out. I said " 'the enemy' " because I don't think they are 'the enemy' but that's what people seem to think.

@Socrates:

"I think although the annexation of Crimea was problematic, and not exactly by the book, it was rather understandable/sensible and given the circumstances shouldn't be so widely condemned."

1. What "book" are we discussing here, "How to Commit an Unlawful Seizure of Part of Another Nation Without Batting an Eyelash?"

2. In seriousness, though...how can you say the Crimea annexation was sensible? The referendum was by every measure invalid, the international community asked and pleaded and demanded and condemned and everything in between and Putin STILL went ahead and swallowed up part of another country, and essentially did so with the old schoolyard bully's tactic of:

"Oh yeah? What are YOU gonna do about it?"

And since no one wanted to start World War III with Russia to save an inviolate landmass, he took what he wanted, NOT because it was legal or fair or any permutation thereof, but simply because the ONLY way Crimea would've been saved from annexation was if the West forcibly defended it...that's a bully's tactic, pure and simple, give me what I want or else start a war and fight me for it.

Not civilized, and nor is it defensible by ANY means.

"The airliner being shot down wasn't Putin's fault, at all,"

Russia supplied the weapon that did it,
Russia supplied the training,
Putin was told NOT to supply weapons,
Putin insisted he was NOT escalating this war,
He lied, he cheated, he supplied the means and training for a murderous tragedy...

He aided and abetted and created the conditions for and is an accessory to murder.

"and the west's reaction is so hypocritical given the response when America shot down an airliner."

1. Give your example, so I'm clear, and

2. The West being (potentially) hypocritical doesn't clean the blood off Putin's hands...their being wrong doesn't mean he's cleared of wrongdoing.

"Assad obviously does a lot of bad things, but is still preferable to alternatives (like IS), and getting involved is an awful idea (see Libya)."

Saying Assad is preferable to alternatives like ISIS is like saying it's preferable to be gassed to death rather than brutally beheaded.

...Actually, considering this is Assad, that's EXACTLY what it's like, now, isn't it?

Saying you're marginally less repulsive than the scum of the Earth doesn't make one a viable alternative, nor does it make one someone who should be left in power.

Haven't we done this before, the United States?
Left brutal dictators in place of regimes we found less savory?
Haven't we tried the "Lesser of two evils" brand of foreign diplomacy?
And how did that work out, for us, for the oppressed people, for the world, for all?

@obi: a lot of those things count for the USA just as well. If USA gets to do evil while blaming Russia for doing evil, why shouldn't Russia get to do the same back?

Why would USA be the only one allowed to make a desperate, hypocritical and futile stand against breaking treaties?
If Russia wants to do the same, what exactly is the problem? USA will just continue anyway, just like Russia did. That's because USA is, at least in this sense, no better than Russia.

What territory has the USA annexed after a war of aggression in modern post-WWII era of international law? That's the issue here.

Russia has stolen Ukraine's land. Simple as that.

@obi - its fine for the west to condemn Crimea leaving Ukraine, but it would carry more weight if you could find me just one example of the west deploring Russia ( or more accurately 1 man) gifting Crimea to Ukraine in 1953. Just find me one example of the outrage. Just one.

In 1953 giving Crimea to Ukraine was like putting a municipality in one county rather than another. Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union then. Why would the West care about internal administrative lines?

Here, you have one sovereign state invading another sovereign state and annexing the conquered territory. Totally different scenarios.

Hell, the Soviet Union even ABOLISHED the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic. The republics and their borders meant nothing until suddenly the whole thing fell apart and, thank God, peacefully broke along those lines.

Ukraine was stolen from the people of Crimea by the thugs in Kiev. They were happy enough being Ukrainian, satisfied with the direction their country was moving in, and had faith in their Democracy. This was shattered by the people in Kiev, and as soon as the elected government was overthrown Ukraine the democracy essentially ceased to exist. From that moment on Russian leaning Ukrainians knew they would never get their way, would never be listened to, and would be marginalised in their own country.

Even if all that's true, Russia's actions are still illegal.

I agree. Russia taking Crimea (does anyone else get confused over where and where not to use the word "the" with this part of the world?) was extremely unhelpful. What (the) Ukraine needed was an honest broker. Sadly the EU and USA had already ruled themselves out by siding with the thugs in Kiev, so there was no one available.

Invictus: "post-WWII era"
Ha ha, arbritrary distinction. That said, you could make a case for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Not arbitrary at all. Look into when we started having a global system of codified international law. It's been in the wake of the UN. It's incomparable how different the international order is now that the UN system exists.


I've never heard WWII described as an American war of aggression before. This makes me think you're kind of an idiot.

"What (the) Ukraine needed was an honest broker. Sadly the EU and USA had already ruled themselves out by siding with the thugs in Kiev, so there was no one available."

First, it's a choice of thugs. I don't know where you're getting the idea Ukraine was some well-run democracy beforehand.

Second, what Ukraine needed and needs is unconditional support in the face of an invader set on stealing land.

I don't for a moment believe Ukraine was a well run democracy before hand, but run it was and a democracy it was. At least everyone believed that they could win via the ballot box.

Ukraine's problem was it was surrounded by an expansionist Russia on one side and an expansionist EU on the other. Both of which were more than happy to use dirty tricks to get their way. Frankly I think Ukraine would have been better off with Russia. The Russians genuinely care about Ukraine and were willing to support them generously.

Of give me a break. Ukraine was a corrupt oligarchy. This was a popular revolution. Not universally so, obviously, but widely supported.

As for Russia genuinely caring about Ukraine, that's rank nonsense. Russia is waging war on Ukraine. It wanted to envelope the whole country into the soon-to-be Eurasian Union, and when much of Ukraine resisted Russia decided to steal Crimea and goad existing unrest in the East in order to at least prevent Ukraine from integrating with Europe.

Ukraine was a corrupt oligarchy. It has been for the last several governments. In time, it is probable that the existing government will be seen as corrupt too. Truly, Maidan was a popular revolt. Regionally speaking, the uprising in Lugansk and Donetsk is too. I'm sure that it is supported and encouraged by the Russians, but the west certainly didn't play a neutral role in overthrowing Yanukoych.

"As for Russia genuinely caring about Ukraine, that's rank nonsense."
This statement is utter b.s. Ukraine and Russia have ties of faith, ethnicity, language, and history. The idea of Orthodox Slavs warring against Orthodox Slavs is thoroughly unappealing to the Russians. As we well knew...

Below is an excerpt from a formerly confidential memo, leaked by Wikileaks, and authored by former US ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The punchline: the memo is dated February 1, 2008.

Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

"kraine and Russia have ties of faith, ethnicity, language, and history. The idea of Orthodox Slavs warring against Orthodox Slavs is thoroughly unappealing to the Russians. As we well knew..."

Are you blind? A war is going on now. Crimea has been invaded. More stealthily, so has the east of Ukraine. Whole cities are occupied by separatists who rely on Russian aid. If Russia "cared" about Ukraine it wouldn't be doing its damnest to tear it asunder.

So, the Russians were just biding their time waiting for an opportunity? Is that your interpretation? Clearly the Russians have intervened. I don't believe it is something they looked for or wanted, as expressed in the above quote from Ambassador Burns.

Interesting.

I should note that I wouldn't even expect that confidential memo to be completely without an agenda.

"So, the Russians were just biding their time waiting for an opportunity? Is that your interpretation? Clearly the Russians have intervened. I don't believe it is something they looked for or wanted, as expressed in the above quote from Ambassador Burns."

In a sense, yes. Russia has coveted control of Crimea for centuries. Without a base there, it is not a serious power in the Black Sea. When Putin thought the base was threatened by the new government, he made a choice to act. That act was aggression. Textbook aggression. Russian aggression continues in the east of Ukraine, where Russia is supporting separatists. Saying Russia "cares" about Ukraine while Russia is literally stealing swaths of its land is ludicrous.

Invictus: You think there was no "global system of codified international law" before the UN? This makes me think you are kind of an idiot.

As for natives, they were a League of Nations Mandate. Japanese abuses do not justify later abuses by the United States. The United States caused massive casualties in the invasion of much of the islands, did not ask for native permission to operate a United Nations Trust Territory after conquering the islands, treated the Trust Territory as annexed land, forced the natives to eat uranium for decades and forbade the natives even post-independence from declaring themselves nuclear-free zones. This is a small window into dark reality that was and is U. S. occupation in the Carolines, Marshalls and Marianas. But have you heard of any of this? No, of course not.

And by the way, while this may not have resulted from a post-World War war of aggression, the United States illegally annexed the Hawaii and Alaska Territories after World War II. As territories listed in the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, the United States was obliged to provide the option of independence in the statehood referendums, which didn't happen.

"As for natives" --> 'As for the islands'