Putin's invasion of the Crimea was justified

An Expansion On The Moral Justification For Intervention The legal justification for intervention has already been made, but the humanitarian argument is just as strong. Putin intervened to protect Ethnic Russians. The illegitimate Ukrainian parliament, once it came to power, instantly adopted a bill to repeal the 2012 law on minority languages, which protected the status of languages other than Ukrainian, such as the Russian language. This attempt to make Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels, seemingly in an expression of Ukrainian nationalism, alienated many in the vast Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine. Although this bill was never enacted, due to a presidential veto, the majority of the new government had voted for it. It was a telling act and revealed the anti-Russian attitude of the new regime. This government was propped by anti-Russian leaders. Dmytro Yarosh is a Ukrainian nationalist politician. He was the leader of the party known as the" Pravy Sektor" (Right Sector), which embodies some of the greatest fears of Ukraine"s ethnic Russian minority. He has openly referred to Russia as the "centuries-old enemy of Ukraine," and has spent years training a small paramilitary force to fight what he calls "Russian imperialist ambitions." At the time of the coup he was offered top positions in Ukraine"s security structures. Zoryan Shkiryak who was involved in the negotiations over Yarosh"s role in the government, says the right-wing militant was in the running to become deputy prime minister overseeing the security services. After much debate, Yarosh was offered the role of deputy head of the National Security Council, but rejected it as beneath him. This government was a threat since it supported anti-Russian legislation and was backed by anti-Russian politicians. The fear of the new anti-Russian government was what drove ethnic Russians to fight against it. Dobrynya, an organizer of a large pro-Russian protest in the Crimean capital of Simferopol, said her greatest concern was the role of Right Sector in the new government. "We"re supposed to accept these radicals deciding who is going to rule Ukraine? That can"t happen". In four other cities of eastern Ukraine, major demonstrations called for Russia to send contingents to protect them from the "fascists." As I have already said in round one, the majority of Ukrainians respect the Russian establishment, and so this new, illegitimate, government did not represent the views of Ukraine. When Russian military intervention came most of Ukraine thought of it as more of a liberation than an invasion. If this intervention had been a brutal attack on a nation who was resisting a foreign power we ought to have seen every Ukrainian out on the street waving flags in support of Ukraine's new government. But instead, just as the democratic referendum to join Russia had shown, people welcomed Russia. As the news of Russian intervention spread, locals in at least four major cities in the east of Ukraine climbed onto the roofs of government buildings and replaced the Ukrainian flag with the Russian tricolour. The majority wanted the Russians to intervene. The largest pro-Russian demonstration had a peak attendance of 30,000 people in Sevastopol. This is three times the largest pro-Ukrainian protest with 10,000 people attending, in Odessa. Putin could not be more justified his intervention to protect ethnic Russians against an illegal, anti-Russian, nationalist government. The Hypocritical West The U.S and E.U have both imposed sanctions and criticised Russia based on incorrect hypocritical arguments. The Daily Mail reporter, Stephen Glover, highlights the West's double standards: "How would we feel if there were an enclave in France that until 1954 was part of Britain, whose inhabitants largely saw themselves as British and spoke English? We would feel a great affinity with them, and, if they wished to re-unite with this country, and separate from France, we would support their aspirations. Didn"t Margaret Thatcher send a taskforce halfway around the world over 30 years ago to defend the interests of 2,000 Falkland islanders who saw themselves as British? Look how irate the Spanish are about the tiny outcrop of Gibraltar. If they can feel this way about a strip of land that has not been Spanish since 1713, and contains very few, if any, Spaniards, imagine how much more the Russians must yearn for their Crimean brethren to be re-united with them after a recent divorce that was a whim of history, and entered into without any democratic legitimacy." Russia's intervention was legal and the Crimea has the right to leave Ukraine, as Eric Posner, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, tells us, "There is no law against one territory seceding from another. In fact, the right to self-determination is enshrined in the UN charter and several human rights treaties." The American attitude towards Syria's chemical weapon use could also be an example of American hypocrisy. As Posner says, "President Obama was prepared to use military force to punish Syria for using chemical weapons against civilians, based on a mix of legal and interest-based motivations"to strengthen a norm against using chemical weapons, to protect civilians, and to weaken the Syrian government." Another instance of American hypocrisy is the intervention in Kosovo, which I discussed in round one. The West condemns the Russian "annexation" of Crimea all the while supporting Israel's creeping annexation of Palestinian land through colonial-settlement expansion. As Putin said, Western politicians seem to call things "white today and black tomorrow". Of course denouncing the actions of Western nations does not justify Putin's actions. But it shows that the only people criticising Putin are politically motivated to do so and this means they are purposefully ignoring the valid legal arguments in support of intervention. Summary Putin intervened with the support of law for humanitarian reasons. In international law, if a state consents, then the use of force by another state is allowed. This is made clear by three distinguished international law professors: Antonio Cassese, Professor of International Law at the University of Pisa International Law (written 2001): "international use of force without Security Council mandate may be justified in self-defence; with the genuine consent of the territorial state; or in necessary and proportionate response to an unlawful but small-scale armed action by another state" Monica Hakimi, a proffessor of international law, studied at Yale Law School, To Condone or Condemn? Regional Enforcement Actions in the Absence of Security Council Authorization (written 2007): "The Charter prohibits the use of force against any state, except with that state"s consent, in self-defense, or as authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII." David Wippman, a Professor of international law, studied at Princeton University Military Intervention, Regional, Organizations, and Host-State Consent (written 1996): "consent may validate an otherwise wrongful military intervention into the territory of the consenting state is an accepted principle." Ukraine's legitimate government (which remains the legitimate government since the president was deposed through unconstitutional methods according to Articles 108-112 of the Constitution of Ukraine) did consent. As the letter from Viktor Yanukovich states: "I would call on the president of Russia, Mr Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine." Putin's military intervention was justified. And the use of force for protection was morally right. http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...