General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Most of us here were against the invasion of Iraq, correct? [View all]Tommy_Carcetti
(43,223 posts)It did not have control of the entire Crimean peninsula, and in fact had stated in treaties it signed in 1994 and 1997 that it would not lay claim to Crimea. Moreover, there are concerns that Russian troops may choose to "intervene" not just in Crimea but in other portions of the Ukrainian mainland....in other words, a possible precedent is being set by Russia.
By your first argument, you could claim that Southern Arizona ought to be part of Mexico on those same grounds. (With the exception of voting to join Russia--which hasn't happened yet, but now will probably happen while Russian troops are occupying the territory. And despite the fact there had already had been a referendum scheduled and recognized by Ukraine as to whether Crimea wished to become fully independent, and yet Russia chose to "intervene" and schedule its own referendum....for Russian annexation.)
True, there's no WMD excuse for Russia (since Ukraine voluntarily gave up those in an agreement that Russia wouldn't invade its territory.) Instead, Russia has claimed that the new government in Kyiv is "illegitimate" (a feeling also professed by a few at DU) and that it needed to go into Crimea to protect ethnic Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians from "persecution." Even though there have been no reports of any significant violence targeting ethnic Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians since Yanukovych fled from power. So it's BS, just another type of BS.
Illegal invasions are illegal invasions. It should be that simple.