Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian troops deployed in an area near the Ukraine border to return to base after the completion of their training operation.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was quick to condemn the announcement, saying it was the third time Russia had reported a redeployment, and that they couldn’t see any movement on the border.
But maybe they’re not looking hard enough? Ukrainian border patrols confirmed a decrease in Russian military activity in the area along their mutual border, and Reuters also confirmed seeing tanks leaving the training area.
NATO has long demanded Russia withdraw the troops, while Russia has urged Ukraine to similarly withdraw its troops from the border areas, where they have been attacking protesters.
Wait, weren't the West-residing Putinites saying that there never were Russian troop buildups in the first place???
Poor Foggy – if he were to confirm the movement then he'd lose that as a cudgel for making war on Russia. Much easier to deny and continue down the path they've chosen.
In Country A, members of the ethnicity of Country B, a minority in Country A, try to secede and join Country B. Country A seeks to enforce its laws against the rebel minority. Country B masses troops on the border with Country A and claims that it will withdraw its troops if Country B ceases to enforce its laws. How does that square with Country A's sovereignty?
Even stipulating to the legitimacy of Westphalian "sovereignty" claims in general (entirely for the sake of argument), your question seems to assume that the "sovereignty" of Country A somehow miraculously and magically devolves on the gang that violently seized power three months ago.
You still haven't answered my question — do I magically and miraculously become the "legitimate" governor of "sovereign" Florida if I drive up to Tallahassee with an M-16 and send Rick Scott and the legislature running out of the state Capitol? Or are there perhaps other elements involved in "sovereignty" and "legitimacy?"
Thomas L. Knapp: «Or are there perhaps other elements involved in "sovereignty" and "legitimacy?"»
Me: well spotted; I take the liberty (= freedom) of taking 'sovereignty' on an excursion. Backing up one step:
[POD:] sovereign —n. 1 supreme ruler, esp. a monarch.
Me: That's a BIG problem, right there. We hear rumours of "Deep State" OR "deep government;" obviously there is such a thing, but worse, they think they're *sovereign* = kings (or queens, as in Mmes Clinton & Nuland, say.)
Now we can see what's happening = going wrong. You may have heard of a 'Goldilocks' solution?
…
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
…
Me: Here you have an almost universal answer to the Q: "Why is the world so bad?" – It's the 'Humpty Dumpty' solution.
A: Because they so order it, where they are the *controlling interests* in the mainly US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist Israeli regime (= I/J/Z-plex), combined = the utterly evil US/Z duo-plex rogue-regimes.
a = academia = economists, psychologists, lawyers etc.;
4 = MSM+PFBCs,
† = churches
add $ = banksters, ¿ = spies.
Any with 'eagle eyes' may recall seeing this utterly evil US/Z duo-plex recently; the 'fix' for this problem is the same; to avoid repetition, look here.
PS @Michael Kenny: "How does that square with Country A's sovereignty?"
The short answer is also in that cited article; keyword UDHR; Country A may only assert sovereignty over *consenting* 'subjects.'
Let's take the next obvious step, taking both "sovereignty" and "legitimacy" on an excursion.
Consider a different Country A's natives = ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) = People A, and an itinerant group of vagrants with no fixed address = People B (defined more by religion than genes, say.) People B covet People A's land/property – and try to a) move to Country A and b) buy it up. People A are *not* keen, c) to have such new neighbours and d) refuse to sell. Regardless, People B keep 'immigrating' = an aggressive alien invasion by stealth, aided by Country C. People B gather $50mio from sympathisers in Country D to buy arms, then People B attack People A, ethnically cleansing most of Country A and 'occupying' ever more of it = improperly dispossessing People A.
Now, in this, our modern world, the people are *sovereign*. People have *inalienable* rights; see:
UDHR; PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, …
Article 3.
•Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
•(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
•(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property
Then, one more fact; before TSHTF (Plan Dalet + all other such outrages), People B built up their 'share' of the population of Country A from ~3% to ~30, while only managing to purchase ~6% of People A's land/property.
Sooo, to our Qs;
1. How legal were/are the actions of People B?
2. Who may assert sovereignty over People A's land/property?
3. What is the legitimacy of the entity (illegally) occupying People A's improperly dispossessed land/property?
4. IF Country C and/or D support People B's actions in Country A, does that make the C and/or D rogue-regimes accessories to murder for spoil?
Skrik,
Interesting take on things (I reject Westphalian "sovereignty" in all cases, being an anarchist).
I do find it odd that you leave out one element that strengthens your case against Israel: Most of the land the Zionists bought was purchased from absentee Ottoman landlords, not from actual occupants.
Of course, maybe you left that out because it's at least balanced by the facts that the Zionists accepted the UN partition plan which would have left Arabs in Palestine with their own land and their own government, while the "sovereign" Arab states which had no business in the matter at all rejected the plan, threatened to murder any Arab who accepted partition and chose to live in peace with the Jews, promised to give the Palestinian Arabs all of Palestine after they had murdered all the Jews, sent five armies into Palestine TO murder all the Jews, got their asses handed to them, then stuck the Palestinian Arabs behind barbed wire for 60-plus years for propaganda use instead of accepting them into the bosom of the larger Arab "nation."
That said, I oppose all US foreign aid, including to Israel, and acknowledge that Israel doesn't want peace any more than the Arab "leadership" does.
Thomas L. Knapp: "got their asses handed to them, …"
Me: How well this fits to "being an anarchist," I don't know, but murdering for spoil is a definite crime, as the Nuremberg courts demonstrated (1946) by multiple hangings of perpetrators who had sought Lebensraum by aggressive alien invasion = supreme international crime – *precisely* what the Zionists, *after* those judgments, are attempting – 1947+, via vile, murdering terrorism.
Yes, I know that Zionists purchased sub-standard land at excessively high prices, but I simply can't get everything into every post. But so what? Bad real-estate deals are par for the 'Caveat emptor' course?
UNGA181 may have been accepted by the Zionists, possibly because they 'ghost-wrote' all or part of it, but it was a) rejected by the UNSC and therefore never became 'law;' but worse, b) it was invalid anyway, not least for "an area … shall be evacuated" – no power on or off this planet may so order; see UDHR Article 17, (1) & (2) above. Before we 'move on' from 181, an appropriate quote; Ben-Gurion told the twentieth Zionist Congress, "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. … we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine." Also, note, demonstrating Zs' 'perfidy.'
As for any 'military competency' of Arabs (or otherwise), we must look to the instigator of 'conflicts,' here Hertzl&Co, aided by Balfour then 'strategised' by Jabotinsky. So now I take the liberty (= freedom) to quote the I/J/Z-plex's 10 steps to utter, criminal ignominy:
Charged with premeditated ethnic-cleansing of approaching the entire 'Mandate Territory' (a trust designed to protect natives' inalienable rights; totally violated) using genocidal methods. Proof:
1. Herzl; coveting, expropriation
2. Balfour; aid Zs, no consult Ps
3. Jabotinsky; colonise by force
4. Ben-Gurion: "we are the attackers and the Arabs … own the land"
5. UNGA181: "an area … shall be evacuated" (invalid + no UNSC action)
6. Meir; $US50mio for arms + Plan Dalet&Co = premeditated aggression
7. When immigrants (=aliens) attack natives, it's not civil war but Nuremberg-class crime
8. Z-terrorism; down to today; highest-tech vs. besieged & blockaded natives
9. US-support & vetoes; also down to today
10. Z-hasbarah = mostly lies, designed and deployed to deceive
Some may have seen parts of the above before, but to underline "Country D's accessory status," note the 100+ UNSC vetoes on Zs' behalf.
Then, @Thomas L. Knapp: "the UN partition plan which would have left Arabs in Palestine with their own land and their own government, …"
Me: No, and perhaps someone should be thoroughly ashamed. People A's land was/still is *all* of Country A not flogged off = 100 – ~6 = ~94%. If in any doubt, kindly refer to UDHR above plus this definition:
[POD] inalienable adj. that cannot be transferred to another or taken away (inalienable rights).
The only possible function of risibly-called 'peace talks' is to agree the details of RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation (=fully UNGA194-compatible). Just get on with it!
So I'm trying to figure out your point, and your point seems to be that Israeli claims of "sovereignty" as a state are insupportable.
I have no problem agreeing with that insofar as I don't recognize any such claims from any state.
The purpose of "peace talks" is to keep the US aid checks coming to all parties involved. As is the purpose of ongoing violence by both sides. The "peace talks" are the carrot, the ongoing violence is the stick.
@Thomas L. Knapp: "So I'm trying to figure out your point, and your point seems to be that Israeli claims of "sovereignty" as a state are insupportable."
Me: No, or at least not quite; 'sovereignty' is the least of the Ps' problems – as I've just spent a squillion words documenting/explaining. My goal is truth + justice = peace; perpetrators to be prosecuted then punished (as far as is practicable, also their heirs and successors = those who benefit from the vicious, supreme international crimes), plus hapless victims to be adequately recompensed (ditto heirs, etc.); see RoR+R*3.
As for @Thomas L. Knapp: "keep the US aid checks coming," that plays directly to another symptom, namely 'leadership failure.'
UDHR, Article 21.
•(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Refer to the mainly US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, particularly 'C' and '4.'
C: Most 'Western' parliaments are full of corrupt representatives.
4: Most 'Western' MSM+PFBCs transmit *and assist* lying propaganda.
We, the people, have the right to jettison all corrupt representatives, and 'shop around' for the truth, completely bypassing the corrupt & venal 4th estate.
People A should do so, then press directly for RoR+R*3.
People B should do so, to shed their tyrants, and begin their journey back to becoming respectable, civilised humans – if at all possible.
People C & D should do so, plus any/all other oppressed, also to shed their tyrants, and begin the journey back towards 'the Enlightenment.'
Shouldn't be too hard; all it needs is enough awareness + the will.
Well, OK.
In my opinion, the journey to becoming respectable, humane humans BEGINS with the abolition of the state. All states. So we're probably talking at cross-purposes.
Beware the danger of fiddling at the margins. What we *need* is to dump all representatives (most go uselessly, often criminally corrupt); it doesn't mean anarchy but rather reasonable people (a qualified electorate, by adequate examination), (collectively) setting reasonable rules. The role of the state is two; a) to enforce fairness and b) to do the things capital in the 1st place declined to do, and/or the things people require (clean water, sewage, etc.), *without* extracting parasite-profit/economic rent. It's all to do with civilisation, where cooperation trumps confrontation; decent people working together to advance all people, sustainably.
The role of the state is one: To forcibly transfer wealth from the pockets of those who work and to the pockets of those who are connected to the state.
All contrary claims regarding the role of the state are propaganda and advertising hooey.
Reasonable people don't need masters. Reasonable people don't seek to be slaves.
@Thomas L. Knapp: "Reasonable people don't need masters. Reasonable people don't seek to be slaves."
Me: You forgot to say "IMHO." Other than that, yes, it may well be that *a* view of the *current* "role of the state [is to] forcibly transfer wealth from the pockets of those who work …," but to me it looks more like one of *enabling* transfers, but from the 99% to the wicked 1%, say.
*Some* transfers may be desirable, like to a properly implemented, *socialised* medicine (ooops; bad word for some; sorry, but not too sorry), or to support the old, infirm etc. = truly less fortunate. Also see 'protection of the commons,' and egalitarian provision of required services, say.
'The state' has been hijacked and its purposes perverted. Most of state villainy is driven by the 1%, and that is why IF 'The state' can be brought under proper, popular direction THEN 'The state' can work *with* us, as opposed to *against* us. See the difference? Work *with* is not a master/slave relationship.
[POD] anarchy n. disorder, esp. political. – would lead to *more* depredation of the wicked = psychopathic 1%, rather than less.
If you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to Karl Marx: The state is the executive committee of the ruling class.
There's no IMHO about it — in any given area, "the state" is simply the largest and most powerful criminal organization.
You don't have to like that or admit it — that's how it is whether you like it or admit it or not.
@Thomas L. Knapp: "You don't have to like that or admit it — that's how it is whether you like it or admit it or not."
Me: As a gand, I don't have to do anything I don't want to do. F-IW!
Apart from that:
wiki {Here's a quote widely circulated on the Internet and attributed to Einstein:
"The thinking it took to get us into this mess is not the same thinking that is going to get us out of it."}
Einstein or not, it's close enough to correct.
As a 'world improver,' I don't talk about 'what is' so much as 'what should be,' and how to get there from here.
Rasmussen reminds me of Cheney.