You think Ukraine is joke?

[Hugh Akston]

One further thought on legitimacy: I can think of a certain Head of State who, among other things, kills people (even his own citizens who ostensibly enjoy protections against such things) with no due process beyond a written list and a vague assurance from his underlings that the people on it probably have it coming, who keeps people in jail who have been convicted of no crime, who denies clemency to convicts whose crimes have been decriminalized, who gleefully jails people for doing the same thing he was fortunate enough not to get caught doing when he was young, who conducts patently illegal surveillance on his own citizens, who uses federal agencies to investigate and harass his political enemies, who does everything he can to circumvent legal checks on his power, who refuses to address direct questions about his questionable practices, who indeed persecutes and harasses people both inside and outside his administration who try to shine a light on his abuses of power. Yet this Head of State faces no consequences for his actions except that he has to leave office after eight years because the idiots who voted him into office the first two times are not allowed to do so a third.

Because of that last part, this Head of State presides over a government that JasonL and Painboy consider legitimate. So the question is whether there are any actual abuses of humanity that will render a government illegitimate, or does anything go so long as it has the mob's seal of approval?

[Aresen]

It's Bush's fault.

[JasonL]

One further thought on legitimacy: I can think of a certain Head of State who, among other things, kills people (even his own citizens who ostensibly enjoy protections against such things) with no due process beyond a written list and a vague assurance from his underlings that the people on it probably have it coming, who keeps people in jail who have been convicted of no crime, who denies clemency to convicts whose crimes have been decriminalized, who gleefully jails people for doing the same thing he was fortunate enough not to get caught doing when he was young, who conducts patently illegal surveillance on his own citizens, who uses federal agencies to investigate and harass his political enemies, who does everything he can to circumvent legal checks on his power, who refuses to address direct questions about his questionable practices, who indeed persecutes and harasses people both inside and outside his administration who try to shine a light on his abuses of power. Yet this Head of State faces no consequences for his actions except that he has to leave office after eight years because the idiots who voted him into office the first two times are not allowed to do so a third.

Because of that last part, this Head of State presides over a government that JasonL and Painboy consider legitimate. So the question is whether there are any actual abuses of humanity that will render a government illegitimate, or does anything go so long as it has the mob's seal of approval?

Legitimate doesn't mean inclined to good action, it means containing certain features that in some sense at least connect the desires of the governed to the policies of the authority. So, yes, it is absolutely the case that through a legitimate institutional framework a shittily inclined majority can create horrific policy. The degree to which a government becomes illegitimate is related to the degree the authority subverts those institutions which connect it to the populace. A policy of imprisonment of citizens or putting them on kill lists is a huge step away from legitimate government, as is a policy of domestic spying when rule of law would on its face suggest a warrant should be required. How close to a breaking point we might be is suggested in my mind by tests of the sort I suggested above. What is your expectation when you get pulled over? How do journalists feel about writing an op ed critical of the government? Are they no shit afraid as is the case in Putin's Russia? And, ultimately, yes, does the authority step down when asked.

[Painboy]

One further thought on legitimacy: I can think of a certain Head of State who, among other things, kills people (even his own citizens who ostensibly enjoy protections against such things) with no due process beyond a written list and a vague assurance from his underlings that the people on it probably have it coming, who keeps people in jail who have been convicted of no crime, who denies clemency to convicts whose crimes have been decriminalized, who gleefully jails people for doing the same thing he was fortunate enough not to get caught doing when he was young, who conducts patently illegal surveillance on his own citizens, who uses federal agencies to investigate and harass his political enemies, who does everything he can to circumvent legal checks on his power, who refuses to address direct questions about his questionable practices, who indeed persecutes and harasses people both inside and outside his administration who try to shine a light on his abuses of power. Yet this Head of State faces no consequences for his actions except that he has to leave office after eight years because the idiots who voted him into office the first two times are not allowed to do so a third.

Because of that last part, this Head of State presides over a government that JasonL and Painboy consider legitimate. So the question is whether there are any actual abuses of humanity that will render a government illegitimate, or does anything go so long as it has the mob's seal of approval?

Who voted that guy in to Office, twice? The public. Who apparently (and unfortunately) don't have much of a problem with it. So the government is reflecting the beliefs of it's populace. That's a legitimate government. It doesn't necessarily make it a good government. But dealing with a representative from the government I know that representative was elected fairly to at least try to do the populace's will and can be removed from office if the populace doesn't like the job their doing.

[Aresen]

"Legitimacy", in the realm of governments, has come to mean "ruling by the consent of the governed". Which nowadays mainly means that the government was voted in in a (reasonably) fair election. Obama would pass this test.

Putin would probably have won all three of his presidential elections even without his various shenanigans. He at least appears to be popular with a plurality of the Russian electorate. I'm not sure whether those shenanigans mean he has forfeited his legitimacy by the test described above.

I would even go so far as to speculate that the Ayatollahs in Iran could win an open election. The dissenters in Iran tend to come from the better educated upper and middle classes.

'Legitimacy' also carries an implication of 'lawfulness'. (It's right there in the Latin root.) This is a test that I doubt any government would get full marks on, though I think Obama would still score better than Putin or the Ayatollahs.* The question here is "who has the right to judge the legitimacy of a government?" I think the only answer to that is: Those subject to its rule.

By parsimony, we are forced to accept that, however much we may abhor the internal policies of the government of a nation, we may not interfere. This leaves aside the issues of blowback and 'crimes against humanity', but is really the only way in which we can operate in the world.

*"Putin and the Ayatollahs" would be a good band name.

[Kolohe]

[Stevo Darkly]

Upheld lighter.

[thoreau]

No war games,
Gonna change your defcon stage,
Tear this motherfuckin' truce up,
Like two bears caged.
I was blond in the beginning,
Hair color's changed,
Won't let Pussy Riot have me upstaged,
But I kept fighting
Kept writing the next letter,
Best believe somebody's sending Assad fighters,
All Ukraine upside amplified by the fact
That I can't get 'long with my Russian bride
And I can't provide the right type of fight for my army
Cause man, these goddamn Georgians just roll over

[Kolohe]

[Stevo Darkly]

No war games,
Gonna change your defcon stage,
Tear this motherfuckin' truce up,
Like two bears caged.
I was blond in the beginning,
Hair color's changed,
Won't let Pussy Riot have me upstaged,
But I kept fighting
Kept writing the next letter,
Best believe somebody's sending Assad fighters,
All Ukraine upside amplified by the fact
That I can't get 'long with my Russian bride
And I can't provide the right type of fight for my army
Cause man, these goddamn Georgians just roll over

Please kindly accept this Internet.

[Hugh Akston]

So is everyone assuming that the secession referendum in Crimea is so much baloney?

And are the sanctions imposed by the US and EU anything more than a neat little bow tied onto the loss of yet another pissing match with Putin?

[Number 6]

I guess I don't see the problem with letting Crimea embrace their Russian overlords. Even without the Russian troops in the streets factor, it seems like a majority of people in Crimea want to be Russian. I'm not sure why I should see refusing to accept that as having anything to do with something other than international power seeking.

[thoreau]

I guess I don't see the problem with letting Crimea embrace their Russian overlords. Even without the Russian troops in the streets factor, it seems like a majority of people in Crimea want to be Russian. I'm not sure why I should see refusing to accept that as having anything to do with something other than international power seeking.

My very limited understanding of the history is that Crimea has been a part of Russia for centuries, and only got put under Ukrainian jurisdiction by the Soviets, for one reason or another. If being under Russian overlords instead of Ukrainian overlords is more consistent with their preferences and traditions, I guess I don't care (not that they care if I care). But I don't quite believe the 97% referendum result. Since when do 97% of people anywhere agree on anything? Still, even if there were no Russian troops (excuse me, unidentified gunmen who purchased Russian uniforms in stores) on the streets in Crimea, I suspect that an overwhelming majority would vote to be under Russian overlords.

[Aresen]

I don't know if a majority of those in Crimea really wanted to join the NeoSoviet Union or not.

It is possible that a majority did.

If so, I suspect that they are soon going to discover the meaning of the adage "Be careful what you wish for..."

[Number 6]

We all know the saying about people getting the government they deserve, and about how they get it.

[Shem]

The issue is, in addition to the 25% of the population who are Ukranian, about 10-15% of the population are Crimean Tatars, who were ethnic cleansed horribly by Stalin. They don't trust Russia, and i don't blame them. This, of course, in addition to the questionable nature of an election that broke 95-5 in a region where A) there were widespread reports of intimidation, and B) where 35-40% of the population have every reason to disagree with the result.

[Aresen]

The issue is, in addition to the 25% of the population who are Ukranian, about 10-15% of the population are Crimean Tatars, who were ethnic cleansed horribly by Stalin. They don't trust Russia, and i don't blame them. This, of course, in addition to the questionable nature of an election that broke 95-5 in a region where A) there were widespread reports of intimidation, and B) where 35-40% of the population have every reason to disagree with the result.

The 95%+ figure is obviously ridiculous. (You can take the President out of the KGB, but you can't take the KGB out of the President.) However, all the reports I have seen indicate that the majority in the area are ethnic Russians, so I would not be surprised if the majority wanted to join Russia.

TBS, it is also possible that 10 - 15% Crimean Tartar minority will become another source of ethnic unrest in Putin's Great Russian Empire.

(ETA: Not that Putin will have any qualms about taking the most ruthless measures to suppress such unrest.)

[Mo]

If the French actually do this, I think Putin will back down.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/crimea-c ... fic-fleet/

[Aresen]

If the French actually do this, I think Putin will back down.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/crimea-c ... fic-fleet/

Uh, the Government of France has a record of acting more in the interest of its own majeste than complying with international opinion.

[Painboy]

From the article:

The biggest stick, in military terms, may be the Mistrals, a pair of 21,000 ton warships capable of carrying over a dozen helicopters, in addition to a well-deck for amphibious landing craft. That the Russians chose to name the second ship Sevastopol, after a city not in Russian possession until after the recent invasion, only makes the sale so much uglier from the European point of view.

Classy.

[Kolohe]

Building the Mistrals was less about having the Mistrals and more about Russia learning how to build Mistrals (and France sustaining its own military industrial complex)

Getting gator freighters back the Russian PacFleet is mostly an exercise in nostalgia, anyway. The Russian Far East needs defensive - and strategic - assets, not power projection ones.

(mostly) unrelated - Putin is helping out a Pussy Paradise, which makes this geopolitical situation much different than Syria, which is not a Pussy Paradise.

[Shem]

[Ayn_Randian]

(mostly) unrelated - Putin is helping out a Pussy Paradise, which makes this geopolitical situation much different than Syria, which is not a Pussy Paradise.

You and I are friends. Please don't inflict this stuff on me ever again. The goggles...they do nothing.

[Hugh Akston]

More evidence that Diplomacy is SRS BSNSS.

Obama called the meeting of the G-7 nations – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan – as a way to snub Moscow and devise a unified response to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from stirring up political trouble in Ukraine or ordering further incursions.

“Our view is simply that as long as Russia is flagrantly violating international law and the order the G-7 has helped to build since the end of the Cold War there’s no need for the G-7 to engage with Russia,” deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said. “They’re outside the rules of the road.”

[Ayn_Randian]

I don't have a problem with that.