Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointman
It sure was. In fact, I don't think that the word "illegal" should, in general, be applied to such events. Laws usually exist within the country. There are no legal procedures for creating and dissolving the country. Laws are smaller than country so to speak and the process of countries emerging and folding was never a legal process in history of the mankind. Scotland may set a new era precedent, but if you look at any country that ever existed, your best bet is that its birth and death were "illegal" and were accompanied by wars and revolutions.
|
The thing is Putin is introducing a lot of false moral equivalencies and misinformation into his discussions. Russia's invasion of Ukraine for example was done under the pretense of "Crimean self defense militia units" which, as of yesterday, Putin still maintains (though elements of his own government and troops on the ground confirms) despite having widespread proof that they are VDV/Spetsnaz. This is a direct violation of the Geneva convention as it can be viewed as a false flag operation given the specific use of soldiers without insignia. Violation of national law during the domestic creation and dissolution of a state is one thing, violation of another sovereign nations laws and international treaty to force dissolution of a country is another. Putin doesn't seem to see a difference here given the common Soviet past of the two countries.
Another bit of false equivalence Putin brings up a lot is Western intervention into other countries justifying his own use of force. Western intervention has never been about claim to territory yet here Putin is pushing laws through the Duma to "simplify" the annexation.
Sadly the fact that many news outlets still refer to those troops on the ground as Pro-Russian forces instead of Russian troops shows how effective Putin's communication strategy is.