Putin could invade Ukraine within a week, Nato chief warns

[vostok]

And who is "we"?
You claim that Russia is not a legal entity.
It cannot cannot assume it is USSR.
Logically, annexing Crimea to Russia is then illegal.

The USSR can of course convene new meetings, but I doubt that anyone but Russia would attend such meetings.
Maybe if only Russia attended, it could make decisions, but most organisations require a minimum attendance.
The last head of the Soviet Union was Gorbachev, and he is not going to be a player.

Any attempts by Russia to take other "illegal" countries will be condemned by the Security Council,
and cannot be vetoed by Russia since it is not a member of the Security Council.
Russia would be left in Limbo.

If Russia is legal, then Russia has acknowledge Ukraine as a Sate, and that
cannot be reversed. The legality of any government in Ukraine is then non of Russias business.

Don't get me wrong, if Russians in Crimea (or Eastern Ukraine) want to join Russia,
this is possible, in the same way as Scotland has a referendum on secceeding from Great Britain.

Needs to be done in an acceptable way to both the Crimean people and to the Ukrainan people,
This means a political process involving a democratic debate.
Not the stupid move by Putin, which alienates a lot of people to Russia.

As for right wing AKA Nazis in Western Ukraine they never got a lot of votes in elections,
so situation should be improved after elections in May.
European governments has seen the deteriorating situation in Hungary,
and wants stricter rules on behaviour of members, making Nazi/Fascist
governments n impossibility, and discrimination of Russians in Ukraine
would not be acceptable as well.

I argue that the collapse of the Union was illegal. Consequently, to restore the legitimacy we need the country's reunification. Consequently, any action aimed at the reunification of the former Soviet Union - are legitimate. And vice versa - any action to counter the reunification of the state - are illegal. It's very simple. To restore the legitimacy of the world order that emerged after WW2 we need to revive the unity of the state, whose capital is Moscow.
In 1991 should have taken place signing of a new Union treaty. Instead totally illegal Belovezhskie agreement were held. To bring the situation back into the legal field, representatives of the republics should sign new Union treaty. And after this agreement, in accordance with the legal procedures can take place legitimate output of individual republics from the New Union. For example - the Baltic states.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Putin could in fact invade Ukraine, but would that be success would be another story.

Do bear in mind, Ukraine is not Georgia, and the Russian cannot even finish the task in Georgia, how would you think they would fare against Ukraine, which is a near pear opponent? The occupation of Crimea is a show for Ukrainian to clean house, that's the only reason why Russian can stage an bloodless coup in Crimea. If you look at what changed with the geo-politic front, what Ukraine change is lose the Russian Majority state, and Ukraine in itself are now free to move toward the west. And what did Russian Get? Crimea. What did they lose? The whole Ukraine.

For people who have a slight political knowledge would know, Crimea is the cancer to Ukraine and by losing Crimea, Ukraine lose a hand to save an arms. And this is one hand that Ukrainian more than willing to lose.

The dream of reconvening USSR only happened in pipe dream, the 3 states that made up Soviet Russia with 2 of them deflected or will be deflected to NATO/EU, you cannot restart USSR with only Russia in it. And I do not ever see Baltic States and Ukraine would ever back to Russia camp, not after what happened in Crimea

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I argue that the collapse of the Union was illegal. Consequently, to restore the legitimacy we need the country's reunification. Consequently, any action aimed at the reunification of the former Soviet Union - are legitimate. And vice versa - any action to counter the reunification of the state - are illegal. It's very simple. To restore the legitimacy of the world order that emerged after WW2 we need to revive the unity of the state, whose capital is Moscow.
In 1991 should have taken place signing of a new Union treaty. Instead totally illegal Belovezhskie agreement were held. To bring the situation back into the legal field, representatives of the republics should sign new Union treaty. And after this agreement, in accordance with the legal procedures can take place legitimate output of individual republics from the New Union. For example - the Baltic states.

And you are obviously not a lawyer.
Some people argue that the agreement to dissolve the Soviet Union was illegal, maybe so.
This does not change a lot, since the member states has left the Soviet Union which IS/WAS allowed.
Ukraine and Russia has left the Soviet Union, so you don't have an argument.
Russia has recognized the Ukrainan state, and therefore should not mess in its internal affairs.
If you give a valuable ring to your wife, and then she leaves you, you are not entitled to have it back,
even if you had the ring in your family for centuries.

You are left with the political battle inside Ukraine, if you really want to work wihin legal limits.
If you believe that the current government in Ukraine is illegal, then you are allowed to
work for a legal government. Yanukovich will be put in front of a court if he shows his butt in Ukraine,
even Putin said he is out of the picture, so you need to figure out an alternative, and THEN you
can start the discussion on how to go ahead with changing country.

 

[vostok]

And you are obviously not a lawyer.
Some people argue that the agreement to dissolve the Soviet Union was illegal, maybe so.
This does not change a lot, since the member states has left the Soviet Union which IS/WAS allowed.
Ukraine and Russia has left the Soviet Union, so you don't have an argument.
Russia has recognized the Ukrainan state, and therefore should not mess in its internal affairs.
If you give a valuable ring to your wife, and then she leaves you, you are not entitled to have it back,
even if you had the ring in your family for centuries.

You are left with the political battle inside Ukraine, if you really want to work wihin legal limits.
If you believe that the current government in Ukraine is illegal, then you are allowed to
work for a legal government. Yanukovich will be put in front of a court if he shows his butt in Ukraine,
even Putin said he is out of the picture, so you need to figure out an alternative, and THEN you
can start the discussion on how to go ahead with changing country.

Necessary procedures to secede from the USSR were not met . Union Treaty still actual.
With political will, it is not difficult to revive it. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that from a legal point of view restoration of the Union Treaty is lawful.
A Customs Union , then a Eurasian Union , the reunification of the Crimea with Russia - this actions are in right direction. Gradually, step by step will be restored the unity of the Union . This will be done anyway. If West will not interfere with this process will be bloodless. If the West tries to intervene - will be blood. But the unity of the country should be restored , no matter the United States agree with this or not.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Necessary procedures to secede from the USSR were not met . Union Treaty still actual.
With political will, it is not difficult to revive it. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that from a legal point of view restoration of the Union Treaty is lawful.
A Customs Union , then a Eurasian Union , the reunification of the Crimea with Russia - this actions are in right direction. Gradually, step by step will be restored the unity of the Union . This will be done anyway. If West will not interfere with this process will be bloodless. If the West tries to intervene - will be blood. But the unity of the country should be restored , no matter the United States agree with this or not.

Exactly what was not legal? FACTS!
While I doubt this, if you actually can show that it was not correct,
the only thing that is going to appen is that states will then secede according to the formality.
Only chance of reviving the union is through illegal actions.

 

[vostok]

"All-Union referendum on March 17, 1991 on the "Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics , which will be fully guaranteed rights and freedoms of any nationality " of 185.6 million voting citizens of the USSR participated 148.5 million, or 79.58 %. Of these, 113.5 million , or 76.43 percent, were in favor of preservation of the USSR . In accordance with Art . 29 of the Law of the USSR "On the popular vote ( referendum USSR) " from December 27, 1990 N 1869 -I decision adopted by referendum USSR , is final and shall be binding on the entire territory of the USSR , and may be canceled or modified only by a new referendum USSR . As you know a new referendum on the issue have never been conducted. Legal validity of the referendum of the USSR on the preservation of the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation confirmed by the Decree of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation № 157 -II dated 15.03.96 , the idea and the project belongs to the then People's Deputy State Duma S. Baburin.

In violation of the decision of the referendum USSR Soviet President , President of the Russian Federation , Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and other officials of the USSR and the RSFSR , some union republics in selfish purposes usurpation of power , betrayal and often deliberately promoted collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the procedures defined by the USSR Law "On Procedures for Resolving Questions related to the Secession of Union Republics from the USSR »№ 1409 -I on April 3, 1990 . We then Deputy Prosecutor General of the USSR Viktor Ilyukhin courage and honor be brought against the President of the USSR criminal case under article 64 of the Penal Code for treason ."

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

"All-Union referendum on March 17, 1991 on the "Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics , which will be fully guaranteed rights and freedoms of any nationality " of 185.6 million voting citizens of the USSR participated 148.5 million, or 79.58 %. Of these, 113.5 million , or 76.43 percent, were in favor of preservation of the USSR . In accordance with Art . 29 of the Law of the USSR "On the popular vote ( referendum USSR) " from December 27, 1990 N 1869 -I decision adopted by referendum USSR , is final and shall be binding on the entire territory of the USSR , and may be canceled or modified only by a new referendum USSR . As you know a new referendum on the issue have never been conducted. Legal validity of the referendum of the USSR on the preservation of the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation confirmed by the Decree of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation № 157 -II dated 15.03.96 , the idea and the project belongs to the then People's Deputy State Duma S. Baburin.

In violation of the decision of the referendum USSR Soviet President , President of the Russian Federation , Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and other officials of the USSR and the RSFSR , some union republics in selfish purposes usurpation of power , betrayal and often deliberately promoted collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the procedures defined by the USSR Law "On Procedures for Resolving Questions related to the Secession of Union Republics from the USSR »№ 1409 -I on April 3, 1990 . We then Deputy Prosecutor General of the USSR Viktor Ilyukhin courage and honor be brought against the President of the USSR criminal case under article 64 of the Penal Code for treason ."

And this vote was boycotted by some members, and only reates to the preservation of USSR.
Not related to the membership of any specific member.
Uzbeks cannot decide on the membership of Estonia.
USSR constitution allows the members to secede.
As far as I understand this requires a referendum where 2/3s of the population agrees to secede.
If that was not met, then there may be a formal mistake, easily fixed by a new referendum.

And a decision by a Russian Duma in 1996, is not legal, if Russia in itself s illegal.

Ukrainian independence referendum, 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So there was a vote to secede with 90% + in favour of seceding.
Where is your cause?

 

[vostok]

And this vote was boycotted by some members, and only reates to the preservation of USSR.
Not related to the membership of any specific member.
Uzbeks cannot decide on the membership of Estonia.
USSR constitution allows the members to secede.
As far as I understand this requires a referendum where 2/3s of the population agrees to secede.
If that was not met, then there may be a formal mistake, easily fixed by a new referendum.

And a decision by a Russian Duma in 1996, is not legal, if Russia in itself s illegal.

I gave you facts that you asked for. Dissolution of the Union treaty could only be after All-Union referundume. Since such questions only had the right to decide by the All-Union Congress of People's Deputies. Local parliaments of the republics had no right to hold referendums or declare independence. It is illegal.
The collapse of the Soviet Union - is illegal . Reunification of the territorial integrity of the Union - a legitimate and natural desire of the peoples of the former USSR . Let Union be called Eurasian Union - it is not so important. The main thing is that the reunification process started and it will be completed , regardless of how will respond individuals or foreign countries .

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I gave you facts that you asked for. Dissolution of the Union treaty could only be after All-Union referundume. Since such questions only had the right to decide by the All-Union Congress of People's Deputies. Local parliaments of the republics had no right to hold referendums or declare independence. It is illegal.
The collapse of the Soviet Union - is illegal . Reunification of the territorial integrity of the Union - a legitimate and natural desire of the peoples of the former USSR . Let Union be called Eurasian Union - it is not so important. The main thing is that the reunification process started and it will be completed , regardless of how will respond individuals or foreign countries .

Before that you have the Article 72 of the USSR constitution, which allow members to secede.
A boycotted referendum does not change the constitution.

 

[vostok]

Before that you have the Article 72 of the USSR constitution, which allow members to secede.
A boycotted referendum does not change the constitution.

Yes, this possibility was provided. However, there were clearly described procedures, mechanisms. Without following these procedures, any unilateral action not legitimate.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Yes, this possibility was provided. However, there were clearly described procedures, mechanisms. Without following these procedures, any unilateral action not legitimate.

This is a general statement, and not a claim that the procedures were not followed.

If you still claim that procedures was not followed, you'd better specify what the problems are.

The refererendum you mentioned before does not seem to have anything to do with this.
A referendum, which does not change the constitution in a legal manner, does not
overrule the constitution. Even if a law is paased as a result of a referendum, it is void
And illegal if it violates the constitution.

A refererendum which affects the relation between several groups
should in any decent society be voted for separately in each group,
and acceptable in each group.

 

[vostok]

This is a general statement, and not a claim that the procedures were not followed.

If you still claim that procedures was not followed, you'd better specify what the problems are.

The refererendum you mentioned before does not seem to have anything to do with this.
A referendum, which does not change the constitution in a legal manner, does not
overrule the constitution. Even if a law is paased as a result of a referendum, it is void
And illegal if it violates the constitution.

A refererendum which affects the relation between several groups
should in any decent society be voted for separately in each group,
and acceptable in each group.

Questions to the dissolution of the Union treaty could be decided only by the all-Union referendum. Such a decision was never accepted, therefore - the dissolution of the USSR was not legal.
I can translate for you the law on which the republic had to withdraw from the USSR. This law has not been respected . This means that the exit of the republics from USSR is illegal and can be easily challenged in court - if there will be such necceserity .
Although now it is not as important as was in the 90s . Reintegration process has begun and it will not stop. That's when the country's territorial integrity will be restored (at least in respect of the major critical areas ) and the Constitutional Court will be able to give a legal assessment of illegitimacy collapse of the USSR .
Eurasian Union would be the legitimate successor of the USSR.

 

[Echo_419]

West promised Russia that NATO will not expand eastward - where those promises now?
Russian and Ukrainians - not "brotherly nations", in fact we are just two tribes of single nation. Historic Russian lands will be united anyway. If the West intervene in this process, then there will be blood. If West not - then it will be peaceful reunification.

Well you got a point why the hell is NATO expanding in Eastern Europe
& the excuse to counter the Iranians For placing a Missile DEFENSE shield is Pure BS.
Any one would panic if hostile nations are expanding towards you at such a rapid pace

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Questions to the dissolution of the Union treaty could be decided only by the all-Union referendum. Such a decision was never accepted, therefore - the dissolution of the USSR was not legal.
I can translate for you the law on which the republic had to withdraw from the USSR. This law has not been respected . This means that the exit of the republics from USSR is illegal and can be easily challenged in court - if there will be such necceserity .
Although now it is not as important as was in the 90s . Reintegration process has begun and it will not stop. That's when the country's territorial integrity will be restored (at least in respect of the major critical areas ) and the Constitutional Court will be able to give a legal assessment of illegitimacy collapse of the USSR .
Eurasian Union would be the legitimate successor of the USSR.

Again you say that laws are not respected but does not say what.

The law passed as a result of the referendum, is obviously not overuling Article 72., so if that is what you
is referring to, don't bother. Translate any part of the constitution, which was accepted by all
members which shows that secession was illegal.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

1977 Constitution of the USSR, Part III

Acoording to this translation, the constitution only says that each member has the right to leave the Union.
Nothing more, no referendum needed, no thick rule book.
No right for any other member to have an opinion.

Obviously the member needs to have a democratic way to determine if they should leave the Union or not,
but with a referendum having a 90% positive result, that certainly is not illegal.

Looks like you are on very thin ice...