Putin Should Be Ostricized From All Internantional Meetings....

[global1]

Don't recognize him. Shun him and his country. Force him to back down in the Ukraine & quite possibly get him to resign as President of Russia. There is no excuse to shoot down a commercial plane and he doesn't deserve to be called a world leader. He should not be allowed to participate in any major or minor world meetings.

[Autumn]

1. Like they should have done to the US in 2003?

It just don't work that way.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Russia has a security council seat and UN membership. How are you excluding them from that?

[MohRokTah]

4. You stop all flyover rights for NATO member nations. eom

[Warren Stupidity]

8. what?

UN members have a treaty obligation right to attend UN meetings. But I digress what on earth does "You stop all flyover rights for NATO member nations" have to do with anything?

[MohRokTah]

11. Putin could not get to the UN unless he can fly over Europe. eom

[Gravitycollapse]

9. There's almost certainly no way that's legal.

You cannot just deny airspace to a head of state. Especially not a high ranking member of the United Nations.

[MohRokTah]

10. You most certainly can.

Each nation controls the airspace over their territory and have every right to deny flyover rights.

The only exception is flying over US airspace to get to the UN.

[geek tragedy]

12. All flight plans must be approved by the country

over whose airspace the plane will land. If Putin is banned from US airspace, he watched general assembly meetings on TV or the Internet.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. So we should violate our treaty obligations and push toward war

because of the accidental shooting down of this aircraft?

[geek tragedy]

16. What treaty obligations?

There wouldn't be any kind of war because Putin had to send some flunky to speak at the UN in his place. Of course they would still keep their UN vote and veto, etcetera.

[Gravitycollapse]

18. I believe it is a violation of UN convention to deny a member state access to the headquarters.

[geek tragedy]

21. They denied Yassir Arafat access.

And the world kept on spinning around and around .

Putin would have to be one hell of a pariah to get that treatment. But, this coming week could make him one.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. A. That we did it does not make it legal or ethical B. Russia is a permanent member of the UN.

And UN Security Council.

Maybe you don't understand the importance of the second facts.

[geek tragedy]

23. This is all speculation of course.

Chances are he'll wise up before there are even whispers of such things.

[Gravitycollapse]

24. Everything said on this board is, in essence, speculation. Yours just happens to be especially daft.

[geek tragedy]

35. I'm sure Evo Morales would agree that heads of state

never get denied air space rights .

[Gravitycollapse]

38. And I distinctly remember that being a particularly serious affair. But you seem confused...

I never said that such egregious violations have NEVER taken place. Precisely the opposite, the times that it has occurred has highlighted the serious and potentially dangerous nature of doing such a thing.

What this really comes down to is a rather petty argument for punishing Putin which could have potentially catastrophic consequences.

[geek tragedy]

39. The larger point being that if Putin is going to

make himself a pariah, he leaves himself open to some inconveniences. Maybe he gets approved, but his top aides don't. Or the number of people he brings with him gets reduced by 75%. Or he has to sit on an airport runway for hours.

Or, more likely, Europe weans itself off his gas, the EU and US impose draconian sanctions, his economy implodes, and he's reduced Russia to being China's gas station.

And Ukraine gets admitted into NATO.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Say what?

By the way Arafat was not ever the leader of a recognized UN member country. Individuals are not covered by treaty obligations.

[geek tragedy]

34. There was a giant stink about it.

UN general assembly voiced its disapproval, with only two states voting against. You'll never guess which two.

Bottom line is that if the US wanted to keep him out, they could.

And you can ask Evo Morales about air space rights.

[Gravitycollapse]

40. In what special world do you exist that committing an illegal act justifies it?

Now we know what you'll be clucking on about for the next dozen posts.

Evo Morales. Evo Morales. Evo Morales.

Let's say we're sitting at a table discussing how it is illegal to physically assault someone. Out of the blue I punch you directly in your face. Then I stand over you saying "yeah, I guess it's not illegal since I just did it."

Law is persuasive rhetoric, not physically prohibitive. That something shouldn't happen does not mean that it literally cannot happen. Thus, that an illegal act happens is not evidence that it was legal all along.

[geek tragedy]

43. The law on the US needing to allow whomever a foreign

government designates . . . does not exist.

The governing treaty is the UN Headquarters agreement to which the US explicitly made a reservation that maintained its ability to deny visas. Most recently they rejected the visa of Iran's UN ambassador. And that was that.

Did it violate the headquarters agreement? The UN didn't take up the matter, so apparently not.

[Gravitycollapse]

44. Comparing an Iranian diplomat to the President of Russia is so ridiculous it's obscene.

[geek tragedy]

51. Only because Iran is so marginalized and viewed as

an irresponsible state. The only real question is what the fallout would be. Certainly the legalities are similar--it's the politics that differ.

[Gravitycollapse]

54. Well, no, because comparing a diplomat to a head of state is absurd.

Comparing a diplomat to the head of state of one of the 5 original UN members? That I don't quite know how to describe.

Obviously, both represent an abuse of our power. But one is clearly much more severe than the other.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Your dishonesty in this discussion is on view.

[geek tragedy]

60. The old "liar liar pants on fire" rejoinder.

Quite mature.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. Um, you said something untrue and then when called on it

you just revised your assertion to fit in with the "new facts". That is just flat out dishonest.

21. They denied Yassir Arafat access.

And the world kept on spinning around and around .

Putin would have to be one hell of a pariah to get that treatment. But, this coming week could make him one.

34. There was a giant stink about it.

UN general assembly voiced its disapproval, with only two states voting against. You'll never guess which two.

Bottom line is that if the US wanted to keep him out, they could.

And you can ask Evo Morales about air space rights.

You're just making shit up as you go along. When you get called out you reword your bullshit and toss some other nonsense into the mix. What we did to Evo Morales was a shameful transgression of international law, not something to write home about. It was a bully move, you know, the sort of stuff we think Putin should stop doing.

[geek tragedy]

62. either that, or you're just not able to follow the argument

What part of what I wrote was untrue? The US has excluded various disfavored people, usually on the basis of 'security concerns' multiple times, most recently with Iran's UN ambassador. Sometimes there's strong disagreement from the UN general assembly (Arafat) sometimes there is not even a whimper ( Aboutalebi). If the UN general assembly disagrees with the move, there's a convoluted arbitration process that could drag out for quite some time. In Arafat's case, the US changed course probably because the international outcry was so overwhelming.

But, absent such outcry, the US has denied visas with no real consequences. Aboutalebi is one example.

Or, if you don't think that can happen do a foreign head of state these days, Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir requested a visa in fall 2013 to come to New York to address the UN General Assembly.

You'll never guess what happened.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/sudan-un-protests-presidents-us-visa-denial

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Sudan used its speech at the United Nations' annual gathering of world leaders to protest what it said was a U.S. decision to deny a visa to the country's president, who faces war crimes charges.

Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Ahmed Karti called the alleged visa denial an "unjustified and unacceptable action" that sets a "very serious precedent in the history of the United Nations."

What happened to Evo Morales wasn't praiseworthy, but it did happen. Airspace rights and landing rights can get denied to a head of state, and in reality there is precious little that can be done about it. If a state doesn't want to let you land at its airport, there's nothing that can force them to do so--the UN police aren't going to show up with a court order from UN court at the airport while UN fighter jets escort the plane in.

So, if the US really, really wants to keep someone out, they will. Whether they reverse course depends on how much international sympathy the person has. Arafat certainly had more international support than Bashir did. Where would Putin fall in that continuum?

[Warren Stupidity]

63. "They denied Yassir Arafat access." nt.

[geek tragedy]

64. they denied his visa request.

they then reversed the decision.

if you're going to launch a big insultfest over the difference between "access" and "visa" in terms of gaining entry to a foreign country . . .

also, have anything to say about the denial of Omar Al-Bashir's visa? Do you find that outrageous?

[former9thward]

32. Yassir Arafat did not represent a member state.

Of course you knew that.

[morningfog]

53. That's not going to happen.

[MohRokTah]

3. Stop all landing rights at all airports in NATO member nations. eom

[Gravitycollapse]

6. I believe that is illegal.

[MohRokTah]

7. Nope, any nation can stop any landing rights in their territory.

For example, Cuban aircraft cannot land in the US.

The only exception is diplomatic aircraft for the UN.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. cuban aircraft fly to New York to transport UN diplomatic personnel.

[MohRokTah]

15. Right the only exception.

And only because New York houses the UN.

NATO nations, with the exception of the US, for example, can stop ALL landing rights for Russian diplomats as they house no UN facilities.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. No really they can't blocade diplomatic flights without breaking treaty obligations.

Nobody in Europe, thankfully, is that fucking stupid.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. As I've been reading, it appears countries negotiate treaties with other countries for air access.

And, I assume, treaties have been negotiated between Russia and other countries. You would have to revoke those treaties in order to avoid breaching the terms of the agreement.

In other words, violating such treaties could have considerable negative economic and diplomatic impact.

Is whatever motivation you would have for breaking such laws strong enough to justify the negative consequences? Denying flyover rights to the head of state for one of the most power countries on Earth would be unprecedented. Imagine if a body of countries did the same for the US President.

[MohRokTah]

25. It's happened before.

It can happen again.

Some times the mere threat of such action can alter behavior.

[Gravitycollapse]

28. Except it would be a baseless threat and mean nothing. It would be difficult enough to enforce...

Threatening to do it? That's barely a threat at all.

But let's assume we somehow manage to enforce a total ban for access to airspace in Europe and the United States for Russian diplomats and heads of state. Then what? What happens when they inevitably violate such bans?

You've just created an incredibly dangerous international conflict (will we shoot down the Russian President's aircraft?). What's happening in Ukraine is not alone going to start WWIII. But if we followed your advice and the advice of others in this thread, we may very well change that fact.

Your rhetoric deeply reckless.

[KoKo]

29. Which or What Behavior of Putin would you like to "modify?"

That is the question...

which I assume is the point of your post

... Which certainly is worthy of discussion. If you are honestly asking...

[MohRokTah]

37. His spport of separatists in Ukraine.

I think that may come about without any outside agitation, though, as those morons have turned this entire thing intot the biggest PR debacle possible.

[KoKo]

42. Morons? You don't think these people have a cause that resonates with them?

What a demeaning put down.

Where do you get off calling people fighting for a cause..."Morons?"

Who are YOU to Judge whether their cause as worthy or not?

[KoKo]

47. And, what would that accomplish? What do you want from Russia?

[morningfog]

57. I have yet to hear anyone offer a plan or an objective.

They just stomp and stammer. Sometimes they will give the indefinite "more sanctions" answer. But the question remains, to what end?

[morningfog]

56. That won't happen.

[arcane1]

5. Unless he ordered it shot down, I don't see him as responsible.

This isn't the first time a civilian airliner was accidentally shot down, and I don't ever recall a country's leader resigning because of it.

[Malone]

48. ..

Yeah but he instigated the whole rebellion thing trying to bring former Soviet countries back under the fold. And he gave them the specific weapon that was used. He is directly responsible for the separatists existing at all.

If he had just relaxed and let Ukraine be their own country none of this would have happened.

[randome]

20. Putin doesn't know shame. He responds to pressure by doubling down.

Yes, it would be wonderful to see the world condemn him so much he runs from office.

But that won't happen. The Russian people are, for the most part, on board with the propaganda machine he has built and is fine-tuning.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[RKP5637]

30. Yep, sadly that's quite true. I've heard the Russian people like him, they see him as a

strong leader ... I guess they would've loved Stalin too. Russia to me is returning to the Russia of my youth, sad to say.

[RedFury]

31. Putin

Happens to be the only world leader with enough cojones to at least present an alternative to the blatant American attempt at good old fashion Empire. Hasn't been stopped. Welcome to try.

[Gravitycollapse]

33. I'm sorry, does invading and annexing part of a sovereign nation not count as imperialism to you?

[KoKo]

49. He didn't invade Crimea...it's your "TP" thinking folks here don't read?

Aren't Informed? Are gullible to "TP's" prepared? Where's your link to article that Putin Invaded Crimea with Troops and that there wasn't an Election by the People of Crimea. Haven't seen reports of Crimean People out on the Streets trying to overturn that election. Surely they could have done that if it was not valid. Ya' Think?

[Gravitycollapse]

52. Russian troops invaded Crimea before the referendums. And not everyone was happy about that.

For instance, the formerly well established but now marginalized Tatar population despised the move. Because the country was occupied by Russian troops, there's really no way of knowing the true social significance of the referendums.

Elections held under occupation are illegitimate. That isn't to say that the Crimean population wouldn't largely support being subsumed under the Russian Federation.

[geek tragedy]

36. By invading his neighbor? You have an inverted

notion of anti- imperialism, not to mention misplaced admiration.

[RedFury]

45. So you say

Crimea wanted to join Russia waaaay before the CIA sponsored NGO coup in Ukraine. Breaking Russia's only port to the Mediterranean as well as their only commercial port in navigable seawater year long: keeping it was really a matter of life and death for Russia.

Their so-called "invasion" was close to flawless -- and most are glad about the outcome.

Can you say the same about your GIANT missteps in Iraq and Afghanistan? And assorted attacks elsewhere.

[geek tragedy]

50. Bless your heart. nt

[Cha]

58. So you say.

[morningfog]

55. What does "back down" mean?

At least your proposal of resignation is something that can be delineated. But, he'd just wait a few years and come back again.