[duxup]

It's an interesting contrast, your concern about outsiders involvement, and the basis for support for a oppressive government ... recognition from the outside.

I believe government legitimacy has more to do with it's own people's feelings about the government's legitimacy and that government's own actions.

[fuoqi]

Let's get it straight, in your opinion a simple unilateral designation of a foreign government as "oppressive" is enough to justify actions which will help to overthrow it (including black flag operations and general destabilization), to fund and train militias which will fight against it, and even take a direct military action against the government forces?

Do you think that Russian support of Donbass rebels in the Ukrainian civil war is justified?

If your answer to the first questions is yes, and no to the second one, then I am afraid you think in terms of the mainstream propaganda, so the further discussion between us will be fruitless.

[duxup]

I think a government's legitimacy comes form the people.

Locals don't start a civil war just because someone tells them, but as far as I can tell that seems to the only way you understand it.

[fuoqi]

You haven't answered my two questions. They are simple yes and no questions.

Yes, legitimacy comes from people, but any dictatorship or authoritarian government does require some amount of support from its people otherwise it will not last long (the number can be significantly smaller than 50%, but usually quite substantial). There are a lot of people in Syria who sincerely support the government (you can call them brainwashed by propaganda, but it does not change the fact) and any state has a sufficient amount of people who are unhappy about its government and would like to change it as soon as possible.

Is the current US government a legitimate one? Can Russia start covert support of the BLM protests by supplying means to confront police forces and embedding intelligence officers into the movement to help with coordination, while being justified in your eyes? What gives the US right to decide that Syrian government is not a legitimate one, thus creating a justification for such crude interventions, which only destabilize situation further?

The point is: one internationally recognized government can do deals with another internationally recognized government (with some restrictions, such as non-proliferation agreements, UN sanctions and others) and such deals are not equivalent to military support of foreign non-state actors and active attempts to overthrow "oppressive" governments (list of which by a very strange coincidence does not include Saudis and similar countries).