Putin is now in the middle of a civil war

Was reading an article today with someone (a critic of Putin's I believe) noting that though the charges were dropped Prigozhin is a "dead man walking" and that Putin has jailed or assassinated people for far less. Prigozhin is allegedly hold up in a windowless hotel room which would seem to eliminate him "falling from a window" as has happened to a number of people who annoyed Putin of late.

The article also noted that though Putin has a number of issues there are not large scale defections among military leadership so for now he would seem safe. But the use of so many mercenaries and time frame demands (which caused the issue with Wagner) does make one wonder.

 

This isn't the first time. Russia tried to take Crimea (from the Ottoman Empire) in 1854, resulting in the Crimean war and some of the worst military defeats Russia ever received. It took decades for the Russian Empire to recover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War


The Transfer (by Russia) of Crimea from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR took place a century later in 1954. Now there are no SSR's - I guess Russia decided in 2014 that it wanted Crimea back from its former republic, Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#

 

Illegal. The invasion of Crimea was illegal? Immoral and ill advised I’ll buy but what makes it actually illegal?

 

I assume that he's talking about the UN charter. Besides that there's a rule at my house as well that no other country is allowed to take over my house, city or state.

quote (article 2 principle 4):
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text#:~:text=All Members shall refrain in,Purposes of the United Nations.

 

I don't think the UN Charter is really a law. No one is able or willing to enforce it.

 

Otherwise George W. Bush would be charged, tried, and possibly convicted.

 

I'll guess that means that you also think the rule at my house that no other country is allowed to take over my house is not really a law either? (Hint: that was supposed to be a clue that I didn't think the UN charter was a law either.)

 

I agree. That's why I (a) posed it as a question and (b) didn't return the (perceived) favor. All good.

 

I don't know that the lack of an enforcement means something isn't a law. I seem to recall there being some consternation recently over some election laws without enforcement mechanisms.

 

It really depends on the definition as to what a law means. For example, the wiktionary.org has a dozen different definitions. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law

Here in the USA a law, from a lawyer's point of view, is pretty clear. A legislature passes a bill and the executive signs the bill making a law. Another example is common law in the UK. There it is a bit more "iffy" what a law is. And that doesn't even touch on the many different definitions on Wiktionary. For example, what is probably closest to the UN charter.

3. (more generally) A rule, such as:

1. Any rule that must or should be obeyed, concerning behaviours and their consequences. (Compare mores.)
   "Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" is a good law to follow.
   the law of self-preservation

 

Not lack of enforcement. Lack of any authority to enforce. The UN has no authority really, just pretty words on paper.

 

Can they at least kick it out? Especially seeing how "russia" never actually joined the UN (let alone the Security Council), they just quietly switched "Soviet Union" signs to "Russia", and everyone pretended they did not notice.
This is part of the reason otherwise informed people say patently untrue things like "Ukraine split from Russia in 1991". No, both Ukraine and Russia gained independence, at the same time, by meeting up with Belarus and Kazakhstan and agreeing to withdraw from the Soviet Union (thus effectively dissolving it). Ukraine was not "part of Russia" since 1917 (and seeing how the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanoff empire split Ukrainian lands with the Habsburg empire, effectively never).

Fun thing is, Ukrainian SSR and Belarussian SSR were in fact the UN members, since the UN was founded. Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was not).

 

That's not accurate. Russia annexed Crimea, an independent polity that was a long-time vassal of the Ottoman Empire, in 1783 (breaking a 1774 treaty with Ottomans). It was done in characteristic russian super-treacherous way - breaking their promises to the Khanate and the Ottomans by supporting a puppet claimant, and then immediately breaking promises to said puppet claimant (various "freedom fighters" in Donbass saw this firsthand). The main fighting of the Crimean War happened in Crimea; it started over russia taking what is now Romania and Moldova.

Funny part is that the major tenet of the north-mordorian propaganda virtually everyone believes there is "we are peace-loving and never attacked or annexed anyone". Bwahaha.

 

Just to maybe explain my emotions: a lot of Ukrainians grew up with Russian as a first language. This doesn't mean we do not identify with our country; most of us are both victims and unwitting tools of imperialist oppression. Personally, we as a family switched to Ukrainian when kids started to speak, to spare them the awkward "I'm Ukrainian but speak Russian" identity. Yet russia constantly cites the "share of Russophones" (often just "Russians") in their propaganda, including as justification of this recent, openly genocidal, invasion. Now, Crimea is a special place, deliberately saturated with Russian-speaking military retirees and naval base personnel from all around USSR; even then, separatist movement was not that strong there.

It is really jading when a Westerner says something that seemingly parrots russia's "defending our compatriots" line (which incidentally parrots Nazi Germany's "defending our German compatriots" line). Even celebs like Mila Kunis, coming from 100% Russophone background, can identify and support their actual heritage. Be more like them.

PS. also, almost everyone of us knows "it was always russian-speaking" line as a lie it almost always is. Because we have parents or grandparents who were forced to switch to Russian because opportunities for Ukrainian speakers were extremely limited. And because the environment for them was extremely hostile (this one, first-hand. In most circles, speaking Ukrainian even in Kyiv meant ridicule, being treated as an unwashed peasant). Those ratios didn't just "happen"

 

Thanks for the correction(s). Your knowledge of these historical events is way better than mine. I hope to improve.

 

Wasn't their admission demanded by the USSR to gain the Soviets' support of the UN? Three votes instead of one and all that?

 

Nonetheless, RSFSR (Russia proper) was not a member.
One result of this was the fact Ukraine got state attributes other republics did not, like its own "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and "Ministry of Defense". Pretty much a complete sham, of course.