Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Nice deflection. Regardless of whether one necessarily approves of the governments in, say, Ukraine or Georgia, the question still remains if these nations have a right to sort out their own internal affairs without Russian invasion or interference. Seems like a straightforward enough question.

Think of it this way. The US undoubtedly possesses the military strength to annex portions of Mexico - let's pretend there was some discovery of significant oil reserves off the shores of Baja California, and since our current regime is in the mood to drill like madness, such reserves would be tempting to exploit. With a good propaganda effort, the current US regime could even make this annexation appear to be a plausible "popular" move that reflects the "will" of the residents of Baja California. Would that be acceptable? We could game out similar scenarios regarding Canadian territory. Would a US annexation of those territories be acceptable? Would you be willing to write those off as "independence movements" on the part of those annexed?

Where do we draw the line - especially when it comes to the rights of the neighbors of a major regional power or world power with regard to managing their own internal affairs without fear of interference? I don't know if I have much of an answer, but I do think it is a fair question to be asked.

"There are no innocents. There are, however, different degrees of responsibility." -- Lisbeth Salander

by Don Durito on Mon Jan 8th, 2018 at 08:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do these nations (Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Honduras, Angola, Haitia, India, &tc.) have a right to sort out their own internal affairs without Russian invasion or interference?

The answer to specific and general causes of such action (intervention, interference, invasion) by foreign states, eg. Russia, UNSC, USA, &tc, is, no. World history is littered with justifications (alliance, "just war", R2P). This should explain why political dissents in one nation-state frequently request and receive material and financial aid from another nation-state in order to prosecute civil wars.

As a practical matter, you need not trust that Russia did not start civil wars in Ukraine and Georgia. Or that constituents in both nations had rejected their governments' bureaucracies and especially torrid corruption of their heads of state before requesting foreign "aid" -- be that billions-EUR-USD IMF debt, peace-keeping patrols, munitions or "technical" training.

The more interesting question is, which states do not expect invasion? It's a short list of OEMs.

Finally, the applicability of the "rights" of a sovereign government is intended by unscrupulous politicians to be a problematic test of their personal legitimacy and constituents' appetites for profiteering adventures elsewhere.  Ideally and regardless of government form, a nation-state constitutes itself in sui generis origin of "rights" granted to or withdrawn from its constituents, citizens. For a nation-state acquires, or incorporates, supreme authorities from no other source but manifest obedience of the people to that authority. When that obedience evaporates, who generated the most advertising to promote civil war or generate donor funding for civil war counts for nothing but future sales.

Isn't it strange that by all accounts, Russia has posted poor returns on its "meddling & interference" by comparison to its peers.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Jan 12th, 2018 at 01:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series