Russia's lame legal arguments
The broadest of his claims is that Russia has the right to intervene anywhere, anytime, if ethnic Russians are endangered. If accepted by the world community, this modern day Brezhnev doctrine (the Soviet Union has the right to intervene in communist countries to protect them from the threat of capitalism) would give the Russian leader the right to intervene in the internal affairs of any country of the former Soviet empire.
Putin has also put forward a number of legal arguments, the first of which is that the government in Kiev is an illegal formation. Russian leaders have pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution allows for the removal of a president only by death, illness, physical or mental incapacity, or impeachment. When the Ukrainian parliament removed President Viktor Yanukovych from his position after he fled the country, the parliament did so by a majority vote - failing to observe the constitutional niceties.
Consequently, Yanukovych remains president of Ukraine. This has a number of implications. Since the current government in Kiev was created outside of constitutional provisions, it is illegal and Russia has no one with whom to dialogue about events.
Putin has asserted that Crimea has always been a part of Russia and that Premier Nikita Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was "in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then." When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian people realized they were not simply robbed, but plundered.
Russia also uses the principle of self-determination to justify annexation of Crimea, citing a referendum held in March in which 83 percent of Crimean inhabitants participated. The vote was held under the guns of armed supporters of Moscow. Integration into Russia received 96 percent approval.
Russia has gleefully called on the example of the West, including the United States, that approved the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. If Kosovo can do it, Putin asked, why can't Crimea?
The Russian position is wrong. While it is true the Ukrainian constitution did not include removal of a president by majority vote, the constitution also did not envision its president fleeing the country after looting the treasury. Further, there is no provision within the constitution authorizing parts of the country to declare independence or to unite with neighboring powers.
Putin declared the fall of the Soviet Union the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. It is therefore odd to hear him challenge the 1954 decision of that country's premier. The leader of the Soviet Union had the power to send its citizens to the Gulag, authorize mass deportations of the Tatars and so on, but Putin does not believe he had the power to transfer Crimea.
No one accepts the legitimacy of the 2014 referendum that took place while Crimea was under armed occupation. A more accurate view on the right to self-determination is the 1991 referendum in which 54 percent of Crimeans voted to separate from Moscow.
Kosovo separated from Serbia after war and ethnic cleansing. Kosovo did not seek to join another country. In Crimea, there was no war, no ethnic cleansing and no desire for independence. International law recognizes the right of a government to have the monopoly on the use of force within a country: Kiev's efforts to regain control in the east is its sovereign right.
Moscow's meddling in Ukraine is cynical, power politics and not justified by international law.
Putin has also put forward a number of legal arguments, the first of which is that the government in Kiev is an illegal formation. Russian leaders have pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution allows for the removal of a president only by death, illness, physical or mental incapacity, or impeachment. When the Ukrainian parliament removed President Viktor Yanukovych from his position after he fled the country, the parliament did so by a majority vote - failing to observe the constitutional niceties.
Consequently, Yanukovych remains president of Ukraine. This has a number of implications. Since the current government in Kiev was created outside of constitutional provisions, it is illegal and Russia has no one with whom to dialogue about events.
Putin has asserted that Crimea has always been a part of Russia and that Premier Nikita Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was "in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then." When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian people realized they were not simply robbed, but plundered.
Russia also uses the principle of self-determination to justify annexation of Crimea, citing a referendum held in March in which 83 percent of Crimean inhabitants participated. The vote was held under the guns of armed supporters of Moscow. Integration into Russia received 96 percent approval.
Russia has gleefully called on the example of the West, including the United States, that approved the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. If Kosovo can do it, Putin asked, why can't Crimea?
The Russian position is wrong. While it is true the Ukrainian constitution did not include removal of a president by majority vote, the constitution also did not envision its president fleeing the country after looting the treasury. Further, there is no provision within the constitution authorizing parts of the country to declare independence or to unite with neighboring powers.
Putin declared the fall of the Soviet Union the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. It is therefore odd to hear him challenge the 1954 decision of that country's premier. The leader of the Soviet Union had the power to send its citizens to the Gulag, authorize mass deportations of the Tatars and so on, but Putin does not believe he had the power to transfer Crimea.
No one accepts the legitimacy of the 2014 referendum that took place while Crimea was under armed occupation. A more accurate view on the right to self-determination is the 1991 referendum in which 54 percent of Crimeans voted to separate from Moscow.
Kosovo separated from Serbia after war and ethnic cleansing. Kosovo did not seek to join another country. In Crimea, there was no war, no ethnic cleansing and no desire for independence. International law recognizes the right of a government to have the monopoly on the use of force within a country: Kiev's efforts to regain control in the east is its sovereign right.
Moscow's meddling in Ukraine is cynical, power politics and not justified by international law.
