Is Putin Worse Than Stalin?

Drudge Report ^ | 7-25-14 | Pat Buchanan

[Nifster]

You are delusional.

[duckln]

Putin said the break up of the Soviet Union in the 90's was catastrophic. Something I'm sure we would say if the US was broken up, as almost happened, but Lincoln prevented it.

He said that Kruschev giving the Crimea to the Uks was stupid and Russia wanted it back, and they, he, got it back for them.

There's an old saying, calling someone a pig, makes you one.

[Rashputin]

Sorry, but no.

Look it up. The sort of document that was signed is not equivalent to a Treaty although some like to argue that it has the same force as a treaty. It does not.

The sort of agreement that was signed is all about intentions, not about obligations. Treaties are all about obligations.

In spite of what Ukraine likes to scream, no on who signed the document is obligated to do anything that can be enforced under International Law beyond an International Court ruling that a given party is not acting in accordance with the intentions they had at the time they signed the document. At that point, the whole thing is over and the agreement is dissolved due to one party not acting in accordance with the intentions they had at the time they signed.

Where does enforcement of this particular agreement by an International Court stand at the moment, for example? Has Ukraine taken the matter to court? Or have they sidestepped doing so by taking other issues to court with references to this document as their basis for other charges?

On what other occasions has a document of the same type, a Memorandium of Understanding, like this one been taken before an International Court and what was the outcome? Was anyone forced to go to war or provide troops, military aid, or other assistance to one party due to another party to the Memorandium having acted in a way that contradicts their stated intentions?

Given that this particular document includes the implict understanding that Ukraine act in accordence with their Constitution as written in all matters, and given that it's quite likely an International Court would agree that they did not abide by their own Constitution when removing the legally elected Head of State, how could Ukraine argue that any other party to the agreement was bound by it beyond the point at which the Ukraine Head of State was removed from office? There are plenty of legal arguments around and the weight of legal thought weighs heavily on the side of said agreement being nothing but a piece of paper once the Ukraine Head of State was removed. Furthermore, that even if the Ukraine Head of State had been removed legally, this Memorandium is and was an understanding between interested parties on how each intended to behave, all other things being as they were at the time, with respect to some gray areas in an existing Treaty but not in and of itself a Treaty or any sort of alteration, amendment to, or revocation of, any part of the Treaty it relates to.

I suggest you look up International Law and this specific sort of agreement rather than continuing to call names based on your personal ASSumptions.

Have a nice day