Quote:
|
What it seems like Rekna and Roachboy are getting it is the idea of recognition. It seems to me that, practically speaking, recognition by other nations is what makes a country independent. So the US isn't part of Britain anymore because nobody thinks of the US as being part of Britain. It seems to make a difference, at least rhetorically, whether a nation had been independent in the past. Georgia used to be an independent nation; South Ossetia, not so much, to the best of my knowledge. There are obvious issues floating around -- the United States, as such, were never independent countries. Israel was once an independent country, but that was a little while back. Serbia, yes; Kosovo, no.
|
Um... how is everyone ignoring the fact that in order to be an independent nation it must not be under the military control of another country? It's not recognition which gives a country it's status... it's primarily the military's ability to prevent incursions within it's own territory.
Granted, wars can go bad and land get lost. Countries can be partially or completely occupied, this is where international recognitions play a role. However this is backed up by the force of economic or militaristic threats which support otherwise non-independent countries through their rough spot.
The problem here is the pot/kettle factor of Russia. If their intentions were to be taken at face value we are then to question Chechnya. The fact of the matter is this is their assertion of force under the former-Soviet states in order to gain control as before. We saw this assertion in the poisoning of the Ukranian President, we are seeing it now, and we will see it again.