Look, I'm as lefty as they come — longtime reader, huge opponent of our Iraq adventure, and pretty critical of US foreign policy in general.
But let's not turn a blind eye on Russia's actions here just because the US has also done some bad or stupid things. And let's not forget that Putin's Crimea ploy has brought about universal condemnation, including from virtually everyone who opposed the Iraq War.
Regarding secession, you yourself have written about how harmful this notion of ethnic separation is. You've attacked people for suggesting breaking up Iraq, criticized people who proposed breaking up Libya. The notion of territorial sovereignty is a very legitimate one under international law.
The reason the Yugoslav, Czech, and Soviet breakups were recognized internationally was because the constitutions of these states all permitted their republics a unilateral right to secede. In S. Sudan, there was a long-running civil war, and the Sudanese government consented to a referendum and independence for the South. (I agree it was unwise, though if I had to stay under Omar al-Bashir, I might have wanted out too.)
Kosovo was admittedly a different case and a somewhat problematic precedent. But — although the situation wasn't entirely black-and-white — there was a civil war, ethnic cleansing, and ultimately a separate UN administration. For all practical purposes, the country wasn't going to reunite with Serbia. And the referendum was internationally-sponsored, and monitored by neutral observers.
In Crimea, it would be a different situation if the Ukrainian government consented, or at least if there were neutral observers on the ground and some kind of international peacekeeping force. Instead, Russia invading a neighbor on flimsy pretexts, and is staging a rapid referendum without any neutral observers, unilaterally redrawing its boundaries. That's a pretty dangerous precedent, and marks one of the very few times this has happened since the WWII era.
Not really comparable situations, Juan.
Look, I'm as lefty as they come — longtime reader, huge opponent of our Iraq adventure, and pretty critical of US foreign policy in general.
But let's not turn a blind eye on Russia's actions here just because the US has also done some bad or stupid things. And let's not forget that Putin's Crimea ploy has brought about universal condemnation, including from virtually everyone who opposed the Iraq War.
Regarding secession, you yourself have written about how harmful this notion of ethnic separation is. You've attacked people for suggesting breaking up Iraq, criticized people who proposed breaking up Libya. The notion of territorial sovereignty is a very legitimate one under international law.
The reason the Yugoslav, Czech, and Soviet breakups were recognized internationally was because the constitutions of these states all permitted their republics a unilateral right to secede. In S. Sudan, there was a long-running civil war, and the Sudanese government consented to a referendum and independence for the South. (I agree it was unwise, though if I had to stay under Omar al-Bashir, I might have wanted out too.)
Kosovo was admittedly a different case and a somewhat problematic precedent. But — although the situation wasn't entirely black-and-white — there was a civil war, ethnic cleansing, and ultimately a separate UN administration. For all practical purposes, the country wasn't going to reunite with Serbia. And the referendum was internationally-sponsored, and monitored by neutral observers.
In Crimea, it would be a different situation if the Ukrainian government consented, or at least if there were neutral observers on the ground and some kind of international peacekeeping force. Instead, Russia invading a neighbor on flimsy pretexts, and is staging a rapid referendum without any neutral observers, unilaterally redrawing its boundaries. That's a pretty dangerous precedent, and marks one of the very few times this has happened since the WWII era.