is this more about that the national status of these countries was not formally legtimized in international law? and if so, by what criteria? i agree with @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml about international recognition. the need to be internationally recognized is useless and dismisses the sovereignty of, say, colonized peoples declaring their autonomy from their encircling state.
It seems like western media is taking the comment out of context as usual. Here’s the actual conversation.
There is a contrast between what international law explicitly says and what the obvious reality is (ie. the post-Soviet states are no longer part of the Soviet Union). His point is that law isn’t the magical answer to everything. Notice how the ambassador was the one saying how Crimea’s status “depends” and how there’s a “story”, while the interviewer was the one who ignored everything else and treated the law and law only as the ultimate truth.
I saw the video this afternoon, too, and thought I’d amend my previous comment. When Lu Shaye criticises the interviewer’s framing, the interviewer doubles down. But we’ve now all been told that it was Lu Shaye pushing the dodgy narrative. What a bunch of truthtwisters.
is this more about that the national status of these countries was not formally legtimized in international law? and if so, by what criteria? i agree with @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml about international recognition. the need to be internationally recognized is useless and dismisses the sovereignty of, say, colonized peoples declaring their autonomy from their encircling state.
It seems like western media is taking the comment out of context as usual. Here’s the actual conversation.
There is a contrast between what international law explicitly says and what the obvious reality is (ie. the post-Soviet states are no longer part of the Soviet Union). His point is that law isn’t the magical answer to everything. Notice how the ambassador was the one saying how Crimea’s status “depends” and how there’s a “story”, while the interviewer was the one who ignored everything else and treated the law and law only as the ultimate truth.
I saw the video this afternoon, too, and thought I’d amend my previous comment. When Lu Shaye criticises the interviewer’s framing, the interviewer doubles down. But we’ve now all been told that it was Lu Shaye pushing the dodgy narrative. What a bunch of truthtwisters.
Western media deliberately ignoring context and lying by omission to own the tankies
a story as old as time