Comments by "turquoisestones" (@turquisestones) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
12
-
10
-
@ "first of all, when places have rebels, government is to fight it"
- First of all, did you not notice the word "illegally" in my comment? The rebels were not the people of Donbas but rather those who had deposed the legally elected President of Ukraine—who had been recognized as such by all the nations of the world—through unconstitutional means, namely the so-called "Revolution of Dignity." Just keep in mind that the word "revolution" is never found in the Constitution of Ukraine.
Thus, the acting president, Turchynov, who was appointed by Parliament, was appointed illegally. He had no constitutional right to exercise control over any region of Ukraine. There was—and still is—no law obliging the people of Donbas to submit to the new authorities in Kyiv, who had come to power by violating the Constitution of Ukraine. Therefore, the people of Donbas were not rebels; they were simply those who refused to side with the actual rebels.
"second, whatever happened to Donbas is Ukraine internal affairs"
- Donbas and Crimea announced their refusal to submit to Kyiv just a few days after the unconstitutional coup. This effectively meant that they declared their independence, which, in turn, signified the collapse of the Ukrainian state as defined in the Constitution—a state in which, according to that very definition, the legally elected president cannot be removed from office against his will without impeachment. Therefore, this was no longer merely an "internal affair of Ukraine" but rather a war between the territories under Kyiv's control and Donbas.
"what Russia has to do with it? That is the excuse you use to justify the invasion against Ukraine?"
- Given what I have just said, Russia NEVER invaded Ukraine. What Russia did was invade Donbas and Crimea after they had already declared their independence. Yes, this was a violation of international law. However, Russia was not the first to do so. The excuse here is the same as, say, NATO’s excuse when it invaded Iraq or when it started bombing Yugoslavia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ "international laws do not recognize a region's self-declared independence from its country unless it's a colony"
- Absolutely not true. Care to provide any clause from the IL where this "unless it's a colony" thing is mentioned. Both the International Covenants of 1966 (Article 1) and the UN Charter of 1945 (Article 2) declare peoples' right to self-determination, and there is no mention of colonies in either. By your logic, then, Kosovo should not be recognized as a sovereign state because it was never a colony of Yugoslavia.
"And no country recognize Donbas independence except for Russia and few its close allies"
- And why on earth is that needed? History, in fact, has many cases where a certain political entity was not initially recognized by any member of the UN but was later recognized—Bangladesh, Eritrea, and South Sudan, to name just a few. Besides, the Constitution of Ukraine clearly stated that it was the supreme law defining the state of Ukraine (this, among other things, meant that on the territory of Ukraine, the Constitution of Ukraine took precedence over any international agreement or law. And the Constitution of Ukraine was, by the way, recognized by all states, including Russia). It was exactly in this supreme law that it was defined that the President of the state could only be changed or removed from office through the means provided in the Constitution, and revolution was not one of them.
"Even what you said about president being unconstitutional is true, doesn't mean Ukraine protecting its soil from rebel is wrong"
- This argument can be easily reversed: if what I said about the president is true, it means that Donbas people protecting themselves from those who had rebelled against the constitutional order and tried to submit them by force are not wrong at all. Once again: in the eyes of Donbas, it was those who came to power through the unconstitutional 'Revolution of Dignity' who were the rebels—those who had rebelled against the Constitution of Ukraine and the constitutional order in the country. And you won’t find anything in the Constitution that would say something like "In case state power has been changed through unconstitutional means, all regions of the state must submit to the new authorities anyway."
"And on Yugoslavia and Iraq NATO is wrong, but doesn't justify what Russia did."
- So, the question is: If NATO countries violated international law based on their own ideas of what is right and wrong, why can't Russia violate international law based on her own ideas? International law was created by all nations after the end of World War II, with the understanding that all nations would agree to peacefully co-exist on this planet under that law. Now, the West is the first to have violated that agreement since then. If that's the case, why can't Russia? Why should Russia still stick to it?
And it was NATO that had been creeping toward Russia’s borders since 1991, not the other way around. You know, if in the village where I live, one guy has already thrown a stone into my neighbor’s house and is now approaching my house with a stone in his hand, I’d be an idiot to just sit idly by and wait until he throws a stone at me before I act.
By the way, you’ve already deviated from the original point of who started this war. Regardless of whether you think Russia is justified or not, it was Kyiv that first started killing civilians in Donbas, not Donbas killing civilians in Kyiv. And Russia came to Donbas much later. So the fact remains: the war was started by Kyiv, not by Russia.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1