Ukraine-in-a-thread

[HoreTore]

I have learned some new thing as well: challenge means giving evaluative judgements calling the opponent "boring", "childish" and his arguments "bollocks". Other people here even if they may disagree with me don't resort to snobbery.

Grow a thicker skin. As long as the arguments support it, calling a position "bollocks" is perfectly justified. Still, Sarmatians posts in this thread have been a bit more emotional than they usually are...

were caused by my excessive trust to a British documentary.

Completely off topic, but:

British WW2 documentaries tend to suck. They rarely give a full picture, choosing to focus on "action elements" instead. They are also extremely etnocentric, and rarely does much to attempt the reasonings of non-Brits.

The French ones are much, much better.

[Sarmatian]

I have learned some new thing as well: challenge means giving evaluative judgements calling the opponent "boring", "childish" and his arguments "bollocks". Other people here even if they may disagree with me don't resort to snobbery.

Well, after I've explained at least 5 times why your arguments are factually incorrect, your response was to continue spouting propaganda and jump on high horse how I don't respect your opinion, feeling almost insulted that I don't want accept your arguments as correct ones. What did you expect?

I'm not a historian. If I dabble in history my interests lie in medieval period. So I don't deny that I'm not a great specialist in WWII history, at least not in the warfare waged outside the Soviet Union. But you generalize things basing your judgement on the mistake(s) you may have spotted in my posts. Those mistake(s) (which Hore Tore corrected, and not you, by the way) were caused by my excessive trust to a British documentary. Adopting your approach I may claim that you don't know English (look at your quote above). Or is it a specific example that proves nothing?

One more thing I have learned from discussion with you: you see disregard of democratic principles only if the "illegal/illegitimate" government in Kyiv is guilty of it (and blame personally me in it) and are OK with it if the opposite side resorts to it as well. You give advice (unsolicited, by the way) expecting personally me to follow it and start parleying with Putin. I have told it several times: Russia does not want to have any negotiations with any representatives of contemporary Ukrainian government.

You don't have to be a historian to know that there was no chance Soviets would allow German planes on their airfields in 1940. You stated it as a fact. It was bollox. HoreTore was just nice enough to explain it to you in detail.

On account of the second part, you're wrong, but it doesn't matter much. We're not Putin and Obama, we can press the reset button.

Here's a very simplified overview of my opinion concerning Ukraine crisis and you tell me where you disagree with me and we will go from there:

1) Protesters overthrew democratically elected president and government
2) Both president and the government were corrupt, greedy bastards
3) Protesters then set up a new government, by bullying and threatening MP's who didn't agree with them, giving it a facade of legality
4) New government started pulling anti-Russian moves and fundamentally altering domestic and foreign policies
5) Russians started sabre-rattling and the new government withdrew most anti-Russian moves, at least for the moment
6) Russians decide Ukraine is too unstable to be considered a dependable enough partner and moved to get control of Crimea, which is vital for their strategic interests
7) They start spouting propaganda and plan to hold a referendum to give their unlawful occupation of Crimea a facade of legality
8) The only thing Ukraine can do at the moment is to try and placate Russia

On which points you disagree with me and why?

[Gilrandir]

Grow a thicker skin.

I will try. I have got used to a different type of dialogue on TW forums.

[Sarmatian]

I will try. I have got used to a different type of dialogue on TW forums.

Concerning TW stuff, sure, but not in the backroom . This is the big league. Consider it your baptism of fire.

[HoreTore]

1) Protesters overthrew democratically elected president and government

3) Protesters then set up a new government, by bullying and threatening MP's who didn't agree with them, giving it a facade of legality

Revolutions are, by their nature, illegal actions. A legal revolution is an absurdity.

[Gilrandir]

there was no chance Soviets would allow German planes on their airfields in 1940.

Why not if both countries were allies at that time? They cooperated in dividing Poland and the Soviet Union was actively trading with Germany the last Soviet trains with grain to cross the border with Gemany as late as 21 June 1941.

3) Protesters then set up a new government, by bullying and threatening MP's who didn't agree with them, giving it a facade of legality

The bullying was there, though how extensive, I don't know. But by that time (and even before) many Party of Regions' MPs had started to realize that

Both president and the government were corrupt, greedy bastards

so something must be done. Some didn't want to be associated with Yanukovych any more. Plus some MPs controlled by tycoons were swayed by their "masters" to change their stance. So in shaping this "facade of legality" (as you call it) bullying was not the desicive incentive. The parliament now is more factioned than it was - you can't form and keep the factions functioning by bullying.

4) New government started pulling anti-Russian moves and fundamentally altering domestic and foreign policies

I would rather say that those moves were considered anti-Russian by Russia. Nothing was further from the mind of the new government than getting Russia's hackle up and seeking a new enemy. I agree, though, that some of the moves (such as lanuage law) were bad and untimely calls. I don't see any fundamental change in foreign politics as EU association had been proclaimed, pursued and "relegated until some time later" by Yanukovych. As for domestic change I don't know what you mean - aspiring to put an end to corruption?

7) They start spouting propaganda and plan to hold a referendum to give their unlawful occupation of Crimea a facade of legality

They started spouting propaganda as far back as December 2013. It has been gathering momentum and now is in full swing.
On other points I completely agree with your vision of the situation.

[Gilrandir]

Consider it your baptism of fire.

The only arsonist I encountered here was you.

[Myth]

Concerning TW stuff, sure, but not in the backroom . This is the big league. Consider it your baptism of fire.

As if any of you BR patrons still play TW. Heck, I bet most of you don't have a single TW game installed even.

[Husar]

I'm not sure my last post came across correctly.

Putin was actually right about WMDs in Iraq, but as usual, America dismissed him as a crazy dictator who just wants to support his dictator friends, went into the war only to be proven wrong and regret it in the end. The point being that if you dismiss Putin just for being Putin that neither makes you right nor does it guarantee that you won't regret doing that.

As for the Nazi thugs, their medieval bludgeoning tools and so on, apparently Ukraine wants to recruit 60,000 of them for a national guard to support the army, which currently has only about 6,000 soldiers ready to fight due to "years of mismanagement". Some might say that's how all armies recruit but I do not see it as a very positive sign to recruit the people who set policemen on fire who weren't shooting back.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why hasn't Ukraine thought of having their own referendum on the secession of Crimea? This would strengthen their legal claim that the secession is illegal.

Also Husar, it was a revolution. It was miraculous that more firearms weren't used. The people who fought against the Berkut are soldiers, so if the government needs soldiers it would stand to reason.

[Myth]

Why hasn't Ukraine thought of having their own referendum on the secession of Crimea? This would strengthen their legal claim that the secession is illegal.

Also Husar, it was a revolution. It was miraculous that more firearms weren't used. The people who fought against the Berkut are soldiers, so if the government needs soldiers it would stand to reason.

No, they were rebel scum.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So were our Founding fathers. We even made one of the ringleaders our first President.

Contempt for "authority" and the realization that your government is made up of confused mere mortals is a healthy basis for a nation

[Husar]

Also Husar, it was a revolution. It was miraculous that more firearms weren't used. The people who fought against the Berkut are soldiers, so if the government needs soldiers it would stand to reason.

Was it a revolution or a coup?

http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/03/07/...an-revolution/

The new deputy prime minister, Oleksandr Sych, is from Svoboda; National Security Secretary Andriy Parubiy is a co-founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party, Svoboda's earlier incarnation; the deputy secretary for National Security is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of Right Sector. Chief prosecutor Oleh Makhnitsky is another Svoboda member, as are the ministers for Agriculture and Ecology (Channel 4, 3/5/14). In short, if the prospect of fascists taking power again in Europe worries you, you should be very worried about Ukraine.
[...]
"Are there Neo-Nazis in Ukraine?" writes Satell. "Sure, just as there are in Chicago and every other major American city. Are some politically active? Yes, as is David Duke in our own country. Do they have any power to shape policy or events? Categorically no." Unless you count leading the fighting that overthrew the government as shaping events, or getting to run the military and justice system as affecting policy.

It is really hard to find even a single article in a "respected" media outlet in English that would even dare to attempt s abalanced review of the situation. I just searched al Jazeera only to see that the only expert opinions they offer are from professors of US Universities. On Google, every article headline you find is already anti-russian. The mere thought that Russia could have a point is nowhere to be found and all articles are based on the idea that Russia is the enemy. Do you consider that balanced reporting? Is it okay to arrive at a conclusion without even considering the counterpoints?
I've seen some Germans being rather enraged about that as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdrBMRSFqOg
http://www.cashkurs.com/kategorie/ca...r-den-unruhen/

They make their own little mistakes but at least they do offer a counter argument that people can consider, I see little of that when I search on Google using English terms. Except if you go to outlets that most here will probably decry as fringe nutters and refuse to read in the first place:

Such as socialists: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014.../pers-m04.html

Monday’s lead editorial (“Russia’s Aggression”) in the New York Times does not contain a trace of analysis. It consists entirely of denunciations, saber-rattling and limitless hypocrisy.

Or this guy, who also links to the wsws site halfway down the article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ame...40204-580.html

Nuland noted that the fate of Ukraine was warranted not only because it lay "at the center of Europe" but also because it was also a "valued" and "important" partner to the United States.In his own report to the meeting, Melia announced that the US had "invested" over $5 billion in Ukraine since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, with $815 million of this total going directly to pro-US NGOs. Melia also reported that, since 2009, the Obama administration had donated $184 million to various programs aimed at implementing political change in Ukraine. Both Nuland and Melia underlined that the "US stands with the Ukrainian people in solidarity in their struggle for fundamental human rights". Their comments were then supplemented by a report by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who warned many years ago of the central importance of Ukraine on the Eurasian chess board.

Of course we all know that the US would never do such things while Putin has a really bad history of being bad and just has to be bad as a consequence.

Oh and here is another perspective: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...be-war-ukraine

Will there be war in Ukraine? I am afraid so. After all, the extremists who seized power in Kiev want to see a bloodbath. Only fear for their own lives might stop them from inciting such a conflict. Russia is prepared to move its forces into southern and eastern Ukraine if repressive measures are used against the Russian-speaking population or if a military intervention occurs. Russia will not annex Crimea. It has enough territory already. At the same time, however, it will also not stand by passively while Russophobic and neo-Nazi gangs hold the people of Crimea, Kharkiv and Donetsk at their mercy.

Of course I wouldn't pretend that this is entirely without bias or entirely correct either, I do however not condone the Western media releasing nothing but propaganda that is absolutely nowhere below the level of Russian propaganda and possibly even more sophisitcated and clever than that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

By most standards, when a government has been overthrown by huge mobs of people firebombing police and taking over the government - that is a revolution.

The parliament may have altered procedure in a coup, but the government had already abdicated by force when they did this. People were walking around the Presidents private grounds when parliament broke the news.

There will almost certainly be war in Ukraine. Russia is doing whatever it can to bus provocateurs into the east and create a shooting war so that he has cause to intervene further. It is his interest to secure and annex the East and South now that the West has ceded the entire Black Sea region to the Russian Empire. This may have happened anyway, but invading Crimea and promising to swoop in and protect Russian thugs a from Ukrainian has definitely given thugs the cover that they need to act with impunity.

The tree of liberty occasionally requires the blood of patriots and tyrants. Like South Carolina supported Massachusetts in breaking free of their government, I support my Ukrainian brothers in arms.

I haven't called the Maidan movement a peaceful protest since it first began. Since then it has been an insurrection. I didn't call it a revolution until they started using firebombs and taking over police stations, stripping police naked to take their arms.

[Pannonian]

So were our Founding fathers. We even made one of the ringleaders our first President.

Contempt for "authority" and the realization that your government is made up of confused mere mortals is a healthy basis for a nation

And your Founding Fathers were opposed by one or more factions who were equally convinced of the righteousness of their side, who were only defeated in argument through defeat in war. Why were the Loyalists wrong and the Patriots right? Because the Patriots won the war and expelled or otherwise silenced the Loyalists. Reverse the outcome, and you have the Unionists who were right under Lincoln and the Rebels who were wrong under Davis. After the Maidan-led revolution overturned the previous rules of democracy, it is now up to the current Ukrainian government to prove that they're right. If they can't, then it means whoever can uphold their version of right must by definition be right.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And your Founding Fathers were opposed by one or more factions who were equally convinced of the righteousness of their side, who were only defeated in argument through defeat in war. Why were the Loyalists wrong and the Patriots right? Because the Patriots won the war and expelled or otherwise silenced the Loyalists. Reverse the outcome, and you have the Unionists who were right under Lincoln and the Rebels who were wrong under Davis. After the Maidan-led revolution overturned the previous rules of democracy, it is now up to the current Ukrainian government to prove that they're right. If they can't, then it means whoever can uphold their version of right must by definition be right.

Might makes power, not right.

vice news has had great coverage. Their most recent video Russian roulette dispatch 8 is pretty brutal

[Husar]

Russia is doing whatever it can to bus provocateurs into the east and create a shooting war so that he has cause to intervene further. It is his interest to secure and annex the East and South now that the West has ceded the entire Black Sea region to the Russian Empire. This may have happened anyway, but invading Crimea and promising to swoop in and protect Russian thugs a from Ukrainian has definitely given thugs the cover that they need to act with impunity.

Claims the country that spent $184 million on supporting local Nazi thugs?

[Sarmatian]

Revolutions are, by their nature, illegal actions. A legal revolution is an absurdity.

Exactly. To move from square 1, we need to establish whether it was a revolution or a legal change of government. Western politicians maintain it was a legal change of government - the parliament simply withdrew backing of the existing government and chose a new one. That works because then all is well and the current government is legal and legitimate.
Unfortunately, facts say that it was protesters who chose the government and MP's who were against were bullied and threatened into accepting it. That makes this a revolution, makes the current government illegal and illegitimate and all rules are off the table, giving Russia perfectly fine legal footing not to recognize the current government. It happened many times in history. For example for quite a long time Taiwan was considered China, while the communist China was unrecognized by many countries. Taiwan even had a permanent security council seat for quite some time.

Why not if both countries were allies at that time? They cooperated in dividing Poland and the Soviet Union was actively trading with Germany the last Soviet trains with grain to cross the border with Gemany as late as 21 June 1941.

They were never allies. They had a non-aggression pact. Everything Stalin did, he did it to buy time. He used the pact to reclaim territories lost to Poland earlier. Those territories were mainly inhabited by Ukrainians and Belarussians, and in the north, Lithuanians.

The bullying was there, though how extensive, I don't know. But by that time (and even before) many Party of Regions' MPs had started to realize that

so something must be done. Some didn't want to be associated with Yanukovych any more. Plus some MPs controlled by tycoons were swayed by their "masters" to change their stance. So in shaping this "facade of legality" (as you call it) bullying was not the desicive incentive. The parliament now is more factioned than it was - you can't form and keep the factions functioning by bullying.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. In the honour of a new breakthrough, I will leave the discussion of how widespread bullying was for some other time.

I would rather say that those moves were considered anti-Russian by Russia. Nothing was further from the mind of the new government than getting Russia's hackle up and seeking a new enemy. I agree, though, that some of the moves (such as lanuage law) were bad and untimely calls. I don't see any fundamental change in foreign politics as EU association had been proclaimed, pursued and "relegated until some time later" by Yanukovych. As for domestic change I don't know what you mean - aspiring to put an end to corruption?

The changes with language opened a pretty big can of worms, and gave Russia a reason and a pretext, especially concerning how influential are the far-right parties and movements in the new government, and I'm not entirely convinced the Maidan government would have stopped there were it not for Russian forces armed to the teeth looking them across the border.

The domestic policies issue refer to try to ban the communist party and to encourage and organize people to repeat the Maidan scenario in the east.

The change in foreign policy wasn't official, but implied. Western diplomats noted how new Ukrainian government was making overtures to NATO. EU membership wouldn't be a problem by itself. I believe the sentiment in Moscow would have been "unfortunate, but tolerable". NATO membership, on the other hand, isn't. That means another 1000 km on NATO border, loss of strategic Crimean bases and NATO forces within swimming distance of the new pipeline.

That is the crux of the issue here. Putin isn't performing a land grab, in my humble opinion. If he wanted, he could have taken a huge chunk of eastern Ukraine under the same pretext as Crimea, there was no one to stop him. Obviously, Putin (correctly or incorrectly) believed the bases in Crimea are under threat.

[Gilrandir]

As for the Nazi thugs, their medieval bludgeoning tools and so on, apparently Ukraine wants to recruit 60,000 of them for a national guard to support the army, which currently has only about 6,000 soldiers ready to fight due to "years of mismanagement". Some might say that's how all armies recruit but I do not see it as a very positive sign to recruit the people who set policemen on fire who weren't shooting back.

The stipulated quantity of the national guard is 30 000 most of which (about 20 000) are to be the former "internal armed forces". If any voulnteers wish to join they are welcome.

[HoreTore]

That makes this a revolution, makes the current government illegal and illegitimate and all rules are off the table

No.

That a revolution is inherently illegal, as in not allowed by the current laws, does not make it either illegal, illegitimate nor does it mean that all rules are off the table.

A law does not have to be written for it to be a real law. As you boast about your democratic knowledge, you should know this. In fact, an unwritten law can take precedence over a written law, and adhering to a written law over an unwritten one can be illegal.

[Gilrandir]

They were never allies. They had a non-aggression pact. Everything Stalin did, he did it to buy time. He used the pact to reclaim territories lost to Poland earlier. Those territories were mainly inhabited by Ukrainians and Belarussians, and in the north, Lithuanians.

Sometimes this pact is (though not very correctly) called Nazi-Soviet alliance. What else would you make of a treaty which essentially divides eastern Europe into spheres of influence? It is naturally expected to consider such parties allies.
Everything Hitler did had the same aim in view.
It also gave to Stalin the Baltic states lost pretty much at the same time as mentioned by you. Having lost something does not make the invasion of Poland (or any other country) justified. Why, the argument of retrieving the loss is a good one for Putin to make today.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. In the honour of a new breakthrough, I will leave the discussion of how widespread bullying was for some other time.

I never denied the bullying. I wanted you to see that bullying was (and is) there from both sides (now applied in Crimea). And I insist: what is now going on within the parliament testifies to the fact that the Party of Regions faction was not a homogeneous entity having more than one center of influence (both within and without). The rift was evident (for me at least) as early as January 22 when the most violent clashes started. Tygypko group (about 30 deputies) and Akhmetov group (about 40 deputies) openly denounced the violence and were ready to depart from the faction and only a personal visit (and bullying) from Yanukovych to the parliament mended the rift (albeit temporarily). So bullying was among other factors (and not the dominant one, as you seem to believe) in reshaping the parliamentary roster.

Putin isn't performing a land grab, in my humble opinion. If he wanted, he could have taken a huge chunk of eastern Ukraine under the same pretext as Crimea, there was no one to stop him.

He wasn't, you mean. Now Crimea-grabbing looks more like whetting his appetite.
And grabbing Crimea was easier since he had troops deployed in Sevastopol so he just had to order them out. In Eastern Ukraine he would have had to send tanks across the border (I don't think he would have had the cheek to use artillery and planes) which would have been a blunt iniquity. But who knows we may still live to see that scenario in view of what is happening in Donetsk. You know, a man was killed in clashes yesterday (you may find out yourself who attacked who since you wouldn't believe me anyway) and he was a Svoboda member (one Nazi less, as you would probably say). Russia reacted at once, saying that there are victims among Russian-speakers.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26552066
Sarmatian, what do you now think of the voice-of-Saruman effect I spoke of? A choice offered between going down to the hell of suffering with nazis from Kyiv and ascending blissful heaven with fraternal Russia.

[Husar]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26552066
Sarmatian, what do you now think of the voice-of-Saruman effect I spoke of? A choice offered between going down to the hell of suffering with nazis from Kyiv and ascending blissful heaven with fraternal Russia.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0hwa2H9agV...ICA+4+blog.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p02spN8ScC...E+IS+CLEAR.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xE0W68G02K...istMarxist.png

And just because it's funny:
http://1jux.com/-23J

I mean, it can't be wrong if America does it.

[Sarmatian]

No.

That a revolution is inherently illegal, as in not allowed by the current laws, does not make it either illegal, illegitimate nor does it mean that all rules are off the table.

Actually, it means just that. You can't hide behind the same principles you've just violated.

A law does not have to be written for it to be a real law. As you boast about your democratic knowledge, you should know this. In fact, an unwritten law can take precedence over a written law, and adhering to a written law over an unwritten one can be illegal.

That's so extremely rare it exists basically only in legal theory.

I never boasted about my knowledge of democracy, I merely pointed out lack of it in some other cases.
Anyway, law and democracy aren't the same thing, I don't understand why you're equating them. Law should be based on democratic (among many other) principles and values, but democracy must also be bound by law, otherwise it may become a case of two wolves and a sheep voting what they're gonna have for dinner.

Sometimes this pact is (though not very correctly) called Nazi-Soviet alliance. What else would you make of a treaty which essentially divides eastern Europe into spheres of influence? It is naturally expected to consider such parties allies.
Everything Hitler did had the same aim in view.
It also gave to Stalin the Baltic states lost pretty much at the same time as mentioned by you. Having lost something does not make the invasion of Poland (or any other country) justified. Why, the argument of retrieving the loss is a good one for Putin to make today.

Hardly the same, but that's too much off-topic to discuss here. Feel free to start another thread where we can discuss it.

I never denied the bullying. I wanted you to see that bullying was (and is) there from both sides (now applied in Crimea). And I insist: what is now going on within the parliament testifies to the fact that the Party of Regions faction was not a homogeneous entity having more than one center of influence (both within and without). The rift was evident (for me at least) as early as January 22 when the most violent clashes started. Tygypko group (about 30 deputies) and Akhmetov group (about 40 deputies) openly denounced the violence and were ready to depart from the faction and only a personal visit (and bullying) from Yanukovych to the parliament mended the rift (albeit temporarily). So bullying was among other factors (and not the dominant one, as you seem to believe) in reshaping the parliamentary roster.

Of course, but the fact is that Crimea would be calm and still a part of Ukraine for the foreseeable future had it not been for the revolution and several bad moves afterwards.

He wasn't, you mean. Now Crimea-grabbing looks more like whetting his appetite.
And grabbing Crimea was easier since he had troops deployed in Sevastopol so he just had to order them out. In Eastern Ukraine he would have had to send tanks across the border (I don't think he would have had the cheek to use artillery and planes) which would have been a blunt iniquity. But who knows we may still live to see that scenario in view of what is happening in Donetsk. You know, a man was killed in clashes yesterday (you may find out yourself who attacked who since you wouldn't believe me anyway) and he was a Svoboda member (one Nazi less, as you would probably say). Russia reacted at once, saying that there are victims among Russian-speakers.

Nah, I don't believe he is. At least if the Maidan government doesn't make a couple more huge blunders and give him a pretext. So far they've shown they've come to their senses. That's still in the hands of Kiev. If they'd played it differently from the start, maybe Crimea would have still been.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26552066
Sarmatian, what do you now think of the voice-of-Saruman effect I spoke of? A choice offered between going down to the hell of suffering with nazis from Kyiv and ascending blissful heaven with fraternal Russia.

What do you expect them to say? We're holding a referendum because of all the flowers we're expecting from Kiev? Their propaganda is fully in tune with their rhetoric.

[HoreTore]

That's so extremely rare it exists basically only in legal theory.

Nonsense, it's extremely common. I can take an example from the Norwegian constitution:

According to our constitution, we do not have a parliamentary system. Our constitution builds on the theory of separation of power, where the executive does not answer to the legislative. Since 1885, however, we have had a parliamentary system. Our executive does answer to our legislative. Yet, this is not written in any law. It simply is by the power of existing.

If a government tried to follow the law of the constitution and refuse to answer to the legislative, they would break the constitution, in effect doing a coup d'état. In order to follow the law of the constitution, a Norwegian government would have to write a new constitution.

[Sarmatian]

Nonsense, it's extremely common. I can take an example from the Norwegian constitution:

According to our constitution, we do not have a parliamentary system. Our constitution builds on the theory of separation of power, where the executive does not answer to the legislative. Since 1885, however, we have had a parliamentary system. Our executive does answer to our legislative. Yet, this is not written in any law. It simply is by the power of existing.

If a government tried to follow the law of the constitution and refuse to answer to the legislative, they would break the constitution, in effect doing a coup d'état. In order to follow the law of the constitution, a Norwegian government would have to write a new constitution.

Ok, colour me confused and send me a pm full of links.

[Husar]

Sounds like Norway is very weird.

How can no law say that the executive has to follow the legislative and yet the executive would break the law if they didn't?
If there is no law, they can't break it. I suppose it means that there is no written law and they'd break an unwritten one. It basically sounds like the constitution has become superflufous, but then why would they break the law of the constitution it if they do not follow an unwritten law that contradicts the constitution?

[HoreTore]

Sounds like Norway is very weird.

How can no law say that the executive has to follow the legislative and yet the executive would break the law if they didn't?
If there is no law, they can't break it. I suppose it means that there is no written law and they'd break an unwritten one. It basically sounds like the constitution has become superflufous, but then why would they break the law of the constitution it if they do not follow an unwritten law that contradicts the constitution?

Welcome to the world of state law.

An illegal act becomes legal once they have managed to pull off said act. More legal than the constitution itself, actually.

[Sarmatian]

Welcome to the world of state law.

An illegal act becomes legal once they have managed to pull off said act. More legal than the constitution itself, actually.

So, Crimea voting for secession is legal if they pull it off?


I'm afraid it doesn't work that way and I'm slightly skeptical about your interpretation of Norwegian politics... Links, please.

[HoreTore]

So, Crimea voting for secession is legal if they pull it off?

Actually, I'm not sure. Territorial changes are handled by international and not national law(regime change is handled by national law).

I have much in Norwegian, but since I don't know the specific term in English, I haven't found much... The first paragraph of this blog discusses what I'm talking about though.