Now, if only Ukraine had thought about building a wall and making Russia pay for it…
2 Likes
Oof. I’m all for diversifying your news intake in order to weigh different viewpoints, but you’d do well to avoid pieces that look like they may as well have been written by Dmitry Peskov. I concede that the analysis of those satellite photos could be wrong - that part of Bellingcat’s investigation is not particularly strong. But to claim that this exculpates Russia from the downing of MH17 is nuts.
From the beginning, the likeliest explanation - taking both Occam’s and Hanlon’s razors into account - has been that MH17 was shot down by mistake, the intended target being some Ukrainian military transport plane. Separatist (and Russian) social media was happy to claim as much in the immediate aftermath, before they figured out what was hit. Bellingcat’s tracing of a Russian BUK to the likely launch site is very well documented and convincing. There are some unanswered questions: Did MH17 get targeted due to faulty intelligence or incompetence? Was the BUK operated by local separatists or Russian servicemen? What chain of command was in place? These, I expect, will be answered when the international criminal investigation is concluded (which should be soon, unless Russia drags its feet on information requests even more than it has been doing so far).
4 Likes
Her support from neocons doesn’t surprise me at all. A lot of them are businessmen with international interests and fans of NATO. They see a lot of danger in the possibility of electing an isolationist who’s very good at alienating and antagonizing foreign business and government. Outside of Kagan I wouldn’t say they’re all fans of war, per se, but I can see their point, though I’m most definitely not a neocon.
4 Likes
Groats is fourpence.
2 Likes
The International Court of Justice assessed the unilateral separation of the Kosovo and declared that it was not illegal under international law. Sure, not as a binding decision but more an expert opinion; but still a precedence and probably near the result of an actual court case.
1 Like
During Bill clinton’s presidency, there were a lot of grumblings about NATO having no purpose no that Russia was friendly. But a purpose was found-- working together to bomb Serbia.
First: IANAL.
Second, a careful reading of your link and the Cree Nation’s report can be boiled down to a few principles. In order for unilateral separation to be ‘legal’, in as much as there is such a thing as international law, there are a few requirements (working from memory):
- there needs to be a clearly expressed will;
- there needs to be a definable nation with a shared history and shared future/goal;
- there needs to be a lack of self-determination. That is, little or no political representation in the larger state and a lack of regional self-governance;
- clear, effective control of the territory.
And, of course, you need recognition by other states.
In the case of Quebec(a) and in the case of Scotland(b) and the Cree© of Northern Quebec:
1a) Contrary to what Jacques Parizeau claimed, 50%+1 doesn’t cut it.
1b) Scotland would have a stronger case if it hadn’t wimped out (yes, I said it!) in the last referendum and voted to leave at just under 50%.
1c) The Cree had a plebiscite before the last Quebec referendum. The people were consulted as to whether they should separate from Quebec (actually, ‘remain in Canada’, see the footnote) if independence was achieved. The vote came in at 97% in favour of remaining in Canada in that case. That’s what you call a clearly expressed will. In addition, the vast majority of the people living in Northern Quebec are Cree.
2a) For Quebec, this is a difficult question: is the Quebec nation - and thus who gets to vote in a referendum - defined as i) all French-Canadians, ii) all Quebeckers in the current geographical boundaries, or iii) only the francophone Quebeckers?
The problems are:
i) can’t win the referendum - francophones outside Quebec as a whole are fiercely federalist because they see Canada as their only hope of retaining their culture in a sea of English;
ii) can’t win the referendum - you can’t define a nation by using an existing line on the map, all the anglophones Quebeckers are federalists so ‘yes’ can’t win.
iii) can win the referendum - but can’t use this definition because, very clearly, this is racist and a clear violation of non-francophone Quebeckers’ rights.
3a) Something like half of the Prime ministers on Canada were Quebeckers, Quebec does send MPs to Ottawa, and Quebec has its own National Assembly. In fact, Quebec has more self-governance powers than any other province in Canada.
3b) As for Scotland, a similar case as for Quebec applies, though less so. Mind you, a strong case could be made for non-representation because of the medieval land holdings that the British Peers have in Scotland which strip the Scots of their rights. (Bastards!)
3c) The Cree have one MP and one MNA for the whole territory - no effective representation. Their full status as citizens of Canada is relatively recent. As far back as something like the mid 1960’s, they were considered ‘wards of the federal state’, and thus not really Quebec citizens. In fact, because of their status as federal wards, their numbers were not included in the calculations of equalization payments (federal tax redistribution) Ottawa made to Quebec every year.
4a) During the Oka Crisis, Quebec was unable to gain effective control of the situation, despite the crisis being a less than a hundred kilometers from the Sureté du Québec’s head office on Parthenais Street in Montreal.
4b) While Police Scotland is a step in the right direction, The Troubles have shown just how much Parliament in London can be a relentless, unyielding, brutal arsehole when you talk about separation. Plus, it’s a relatively simple, short drive from Britain to Edinburg.
4c) See 4a). If the SQ couldn’t control what was going on in Oka, do you really think that they’d be able to control, say, a tax revolt in Northern Quebec? Do you know just how big that territory is?
Jean Chrétien, probably after witnessing decades of strife in Ireland (and so many other places) knew what happens when a clear, substantial proportion of the residents don’t want to be citizens of your country. So he created a mechanism which set down the rules for separation. It’s almost unique in the world; and, if I can say so, a clever political move.
Again, as I’ve said elsewhere on this site: the details DO matter. That, and Canada has been dealing with these kinds of questions for some time now. So some of us have developed a bit of expertise, and it does give some of us an opportunity to be pedantic every once in a while.
And that’s a good thing, eh.
8 Likes
Thanks for your response. As to your points:
So your common Western spelling is in fact Russian.
Agreed (with @nimelennar, too). That doesn’t make it any less of a common Western spelling (esp. in the media – see for example the AP Stylebook or the BBC style guide), which was my point. It smacked of a lazy amateur propagandist who typed “English transliteration Ukraine capital” into Yandex instead of researching the Western media’s common spelling for its Western audience.
Second, you do realize that people occasionally disagree with you who aren’t paid for it, right?
Absolutely. But I recognised the comment as having many of the stilted, one-sided and bombastic hallmarks of Putin’s 50-Cent Army, whether the writer is in St Petersburg or outsourced to some fool. From what I can see I wasn’t alone here in having those “alarm bells” raised. As to the age of the account, I’ve read that one of their newest tactics is hacking near-defunct social media and commenter accounts that have weak passwords – not necessarily the case with this commenter (who hasn’t posted in more than a year) but it does make the prospect somewhat more likely than you imply.
You don’t have to defend yourself from accusations of being a paid shill because you don’t instantly come off as a member of Nashi who’s trying out his impression of a Westerner (and not only because you actually criticise Putin for valid reasons in context). Propagandists don’t have nuanced views like yours. Similarly, if you wanted to paint me as a shill for Yanukovych’s opponents you’d have to get past my extreme dislike of Ukraine’s right-wing authoritarian parties mentioned elsewhere, and also my opinions about the historical legitimacy of Russia’s claims to Crimea (if not the methods by which Putin “claimed” it).
You can hate Yanukovych all you want. He’s an oligarch scumbag as far as I’m concerned, but he wasn’t a Russian puppet
I’d disagree on that last bit. He was certainly elected legitimately (I didn’t claim otherwise), but as you note his base was in the East and favoured Russian-speaking Ukrainians – the same ones who’ve been pushing for separatism for a while now. Given his age and his first languages and managerial career under the Soviets, he was also accustomed to the idea of Ukraine as a component of the Soviet empire, which Putin is now attempting to recreate as part of the tinpot “Great Power” expressed by the concept of Russkiy Mir. I’m sure there was some additional affinity between him and Putin as fellow kleptocratic oligarchs.
As a kleptocratic oligarchs sometimes do, Yanukovych got a little big for his britches and thought he could play at the same level as his liege lord. He did this by trying to hedge a little with the EU (NATO was a whole different matter – that sort of thing leaves one with cement overshoes in the Don). He was slapped down hard for his trouble and told to heel like a good dog, which didn’t please the opposition parties in the capital when he then tried to play strongman.
[Putin]'s your basic strongman whose sole positive trait is that he appears downright saintly if you compare him to the outside perception of America
Please. First, to call him a “basic” strongman is an insult. He is, to paraphrase Hans Gruber, “an exceptional strongman. And since he’s moving up to trying to mess with the U.S. election, you should be more polite.”
Putin is a sneaky right-wing autocrat who has laughed at the idea of term limits and as an old KGB hand keeps his assassinations and invasions on the down-low – Polonium tea and hotel-room beatings can kill just as well as drones, and it turns out that soldiers “on vacation” can be as effective invaders as those still on the clock. The idea that there would be any “interesting debate about the limits of executive power and the ethics of pre-emptive warfare” in Putin’s Russia is also absurd, whether you’re talking about the State Duma or the self-censoring Russian media.
Whatever issues you and I have about Obama’s pushing the limits of executive power, he’s subject to checks and balances while in office and will leave that office in January (without switching places with Biden). That his likely successor is a bigger warhawk is a serious issue for me, as is her opponent who seems to be in the pocket of Putin’s wealthy pals and is advised by the likes of Paul Manafort and Carter “Gazprom” Page.
I think the conduct of the Russian military in the Chechan wars was deplorable and he has command responsibility for that one. Mm… lesseee… I think the Georgian conflict was not justified at the level it was pursued
The Georgian conflict was yet another unnecessary war brought to us mainly by America’s incompetent neoconservatives, with Putin responding in the only way he’s capable of doing. At least we’re free of those Bush-era bunglers for the moment here in the US.
4 Likes
Very good post. For the record, I was not arguing pro or against secession of Quebec, Scotland, Catalunya or Kurdistan, just pointing out that such an event could actually have a legal basis. Of course, it has to happen in certain ways. My point was simply that secession can, in fact, be fully legal, given the right context.
Scotland in particular will probably have a re-vote should the UK really leave the EU; coupled with solid support for the SNP in several rounds of elections and the SNP not taking part in the UK cabinet, it would likely entitle the Scottish people to ask for self-determination through independence.
3 Likes
Thanks! I didn’t make it clear enough, I think: I was addressing unilateral secession.
And, since you mention the Kurds, their case is particularly difficult, seeing as their nation spans two different states. It’s criminal just how much they’ve been screwed over by both Turkey and the USA.
Man, a Biden-Obama ticket would have smashed it out of the park. Yet another reason to hate HRC’s stubbornness.
AFAIK there is not limit for VPs, correct? So this sort of switch would be constitutional, right?
2 Likes
I’m not sure how that would work from a Constitutional POV but it would go against the spirit of term limits. Besides, Biden has too much mind of his own and too little moustache to be a pathetic creature like Medvedev.
Unilateral in what sense? Balkans, Taiwan etc seem to indicate that populations do have a right to secede without consent from “superior” established authorities, as long as support for such secession is strong enough.
If you meant that half of the population can unilaterally decree secession – I agree that I would not consider that legal, in the sense that the population/nation as a whole is clearly not united enough to express a clear will on the ultimate matter of sovereignty. As with all constitutional changes in sane countries, supermajorities should always be required when messing with the system’s fundamental blocks.
As I understand it, the VP must meet all of the qualifications to become President, because if the President dies, that’s exactly what happens.
Since Obama has already served as President for two terms, I don’t think he meets those criteria, so he can’t run to become VP.
ETA:. The wording’s a bit unclear (does “ineligible to be elected as President” mean the same thing as “ineligible to be President?”), But here’s the relevant parts of the Constitution:
12th Amendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
22nd Amendment:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
3 Likes
I voted in both Quebec referendums. And for the record, I’m definitely not a separatist.
In the first referendum, the question was so lame - Do you give us the right to negotiate terms of separation? - , I voted ‘yes’. I thought: “Sure, go ahead an negotiate. Come back afterwards, I’ll say no to separation.”
I had encountered so much outright racism against French Canadians in the few times I’d been in Toronto (and southern Ontario) up to that point, I figured that it was our duty, as a people, to make those bastards sh*t in their pants.
For the second referendum, the question was way too power-granting, something like "Do you give us a mandate to separate after consultation with Ottawa?"
Even if Ottawa gave Quebec everything it wanted, the wording made it clear that the PQ didn’t have to consult again in order to separate. I voted no on that one, fer sure.
The spirit of term limits was to screw with FDR-like candidates, so as a leftist, I say screw that 
That’s a very good point. The VP is literally backup-P, and when your server crashes you don’t want to waste time arguing on which tape you should pick your backup from.
2 Likes
For Taiwan, they were able to easily fulfill the four conditions (and that most important fifth condition, Taiwan’s recognition by other countries).
As for the Balkans, American/Clinton’s tampering and the North American media’s shoddy reporting at the time (and still!) has made it nearly impossible for me to understand what the heck is/was going on there. I’ve given up.
1 Like
There were some silly suggestions of a Clinton/Clinton run that led to this being looked at:
The Twelfth Amendment: “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The Twenty-Second Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice ….”
Article II, § 1, cl. 4: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Does having been elected to the office twice before make you constitutionally ineligible to become President again without being elected to it (i.e. getting it back when the President carks it)? The Supreme Court would probably have to rule on that.
3 Likes
I used the phrase “probably more realistic perspective” for a reason. It’s mostly because I don’t trust the mainstream media’s reporting on this (and sooo many other things). Parry often reconstructs the timeline whenever he address this and other topics. His perspective is refreshing. Media merely parroting official government press releases doesn’t cut it for me any more. Not for decades now.
I had completely forgotten about MH17. I was talking, in this particular thread, about Victoria Nuland’s involvement in the Ukraine. Just a clarification. And she should still be taken to the ICC.
/ It’s good to know that I’m not the only person here who forays onto Bellingcat’s site once in a while.
I reread that part of the article a few times this morning and thought I just wasn’t awake enough to unjumble it. Several hours and coffees later, I still find it meaningless.
I don’t tweet, but if I did I’d use #indecipherableDonald
3 Likes
