The Austrian journalist does a good job of representing the Western accusations about the legality of what happened in Crimea.
Putin defends the actions of the Russian Federation, describing the events & logic behind the annexation.
Russia is currently under sanctions from EU & US + puppet states, including NZ where I live - it was bad timing because we were about to sign an FTA with Russia to boost trade #thanksobama. The sanctions have led to a financial crisis in Russia.
What some people may not realise is that the Eastern region of Ukraine that has been fighting for independence since the coup in 2014 also held a referendum to be annexed. Russia did not try to annex the territory but has been supporting the secessionists by proxy.
#SlowNewsDay
Comments
(Old Spike)
not saying the US nor its puppets are honest, but this wasn't even very skillful deception. he answers a question that wasn't asked without addressing the one that was asked right off the bat. he's called out on that attempted misdirection and again gives a couple of facts that aren't related to the question asked.
he was asked why he first denied that the russian military was there and could only answer that the russian military was there, the same mechanical repetittion he accused the reporter of. next he says the russian military was there to protect russian interests, yet they were active in the entire region not just the bases, and after the area settled down and their claimed job was complete they didn't hand control back to the ukraine, they annexed the area. none of that is congruent with any of putin's claims.
(Old Spike)
Yeah he still doesn't have a good excuse for sending the troops in. It's a pretty big no-no to do that unless you are attacked so maybe that's why all the BS. I think if they'd admitted it fom the start they may have risked the referendum plan falling apart. After the fact they can admit they were there for humanitarian reasons but they've already lied about it. The reporter did his job well.
(Old Spike)
and even if you are attacked there's no excuse to leave them there after it's all died down, and certainly not for annexing the place. one of the few times when the phrase "that's literally what hitler did" is actually accurate - he sent in german troops under the pretext of protecting german people living in czech, then kept them there and annexed the place.
(Old Spike)
The law for annexation is murky. It is allowed sometimes & based on recognition by other countries. In the case of Crimea, Russia & Ukraine had a treaty which forbid the borders from changing but that was nullified by the coup so I think it falls then back to the UN Charter. I think the UN Charter says that the authority (rather than the people) of the territory must give consent but I'm not sure.....that's about as far as I got in my research - since Russia has veto power at the UNSC it becomes a moot point. Also, considering the Crimean people want to be part of Russia nobody is seriously arguing that it should be given back to Ukraine.
The general rule in occupation as far as I know is that the occupier stays until the threat is gone - usually confirmed in a formal agreement between the states. But you're not allowed to send military troops into another country unless invited or attacked. In the case of an attack you can cross the border to nullify the threat - that's when the initial occupation is legal. There are strict laws on what you can & can't do as an occupier.