"This Doesn't Look Good for the Baltics" Topic

Russia examining whether their 1991 recognition of Baltic independence is legal.

link

Yea, I saw that.

Appears they'll try all the tactics in the book.

I suspect the outcome to be fairly predictable.

The three Baltic states joined the EU and Nato in 2004.

We'll soon see if that NATO membership means anything!

I think the Russians would justify any action by claiming that since the Baltics were never independent, they have no legal right to enter agreements with the EU or NATO.

The Russians really do know how to play this game of brinksmanship.

@cwlinsj,
Well there's what the Russians think and then there is what the members of NATO think.

So what's the over/under on when the Poles get their own nukes?

Well, what about the legality of the Russian conquest of the Baltic states in the 1940s? And if the West were to start setting up enquiries about other Russian states with a view to recognising 'governments in exile'?

What about the West Bank and the Golan Heights?

Well the Vatican is near to recognising a Palestinian state, itll be interesting to see if South America might follow suit

How many divisions does the Pope have?

Well, given the independence of the Baltics is recognised by around 200 other countries, it doesn't really matter….

Bangorstu,

My guess is the same 200 countries also recognized that Crimea was part of the Ukraine too.

West Bank and Golan Heights are Israel's from time immemorial.

The Russian claim on Crimea is somewhat stronger given it was only transferred to Ukraine by a drunken Krushchev….

And Ukraine isn't backed by a military alliance.

As it happens, the Russian legal system is only examining this because someone asked them to.

If Russia invades the Baltics, the EU and USA simply destroy their economy…. it's creaking badly a sit is.

Speaking of legalities, it's worth noting that dissolving the USSR was not actually legal at the time.
When this was raised, Yeltsin dissolved their equivalent of the parliament.

Given their inability to actually take over their chunk of the Crimea, I wouldn't exactly be shaking in my boots at the thought of them rolling into the Baltics.
I doubt it'd be a very pleasant endeavour.

That being said, this seems like political waving of the you know what, more than anything actionable.

So "time immemorial" is recognised as a legitimate claim in International Law? … I suppose it may as well be.

"The Russian chief prosecutor's office is to examine whether the Soviet Union acted legally when it recognised the Baltic states' independence in 1991."

But as the Soviet Union is no longer in effect has that not ceased to be relevant?

Estonia became independent between 1988 (first sovereignty declaration) and 1994 (last Russian troops left). Whether or not Russia's recognition was lawful, nonetheless they did do so (4 days after the USA and Europe had recognised it). Does one require unanimous global recognition to be lawfully independent? Evidence would seem to indicate not (and one may then argue that Crimea cannot be part of Russia if only Russia and a handful of other countries have recognised it) so even if Russia refuses to now recognise it (20 years too late really) the rest of the world seems happy – just one more step on Russia's path to seemingly attempted global isolation.

Last week Russia's chief prosecutor declared illegal the transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954.

It was transferred by the Former First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and confirmed by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union:

"the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees: To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR"

Legality has been raised because no referendum was carried out, although all 13 of the 27 members present voted in favour. However it was subsequently recognised by Russia at the time of Ukraine's independence in 1993….

How much more legal can you get?

"…only transferred to Ukraine by a drunken Krushchev…."

This was a suggestion by the former VP of Russia that they must have been drunk, only because he disagreed with the decision. However it was an administrative transfer of territory within the Soviet Union (to the Ukrainian SSR), not given to Ukraine at that time. The true ratification came in 1993 when Ukraine became independent and Russia AGREED that Crimea was included within their territory. Only then did Crimea become part of Ukrainian territory, and the Budapest Memorandum gave Ukrainea assurances that it would be recognised by Russia. All this faff about Krushchev in 1954 is a red herring.

(Contrary to many assertions, Krushchev was not Ukrainian – he was ethnically Russian, although his wife was from Ukraine and he did feel an affinity with Ukraine)

Crimea has long sought independence, from both Russia and Ukraine. The 'referendum' (and I do use that word extremely loosely) played on that by hinting that Ukraine would never give them independence so by coming to Russia they stood a much better chance. Clearly that was never going to happen, and I do feel sorry for the Crimeans who have now lost pretty much any chance of autonomous and independent operation.

…But in terms of real politik, the Crimea is, de facto, Russian; as the West Bank and Golan Heights are Israeli, regardless of who recognises the legitimacy or not.

If you are going on percentage of ethnic population…. then on that basis, the UAE is de facto Indian or Pakistani…

link

Good luck with getting that past the arabs ;-)

…I was going on military occupation, not "% of ethnic population".