Ukraine's European Revolution?

[garbon]

I would never travel to Africa.

Morocco counts.

I could see him going to south africa.

I don't want to be murdered or catch the AIDS

But that's the spice of life.

[Ed Anger]

 

[DGuller]

Are you addressing the Onion or something before that?

The Onion article.  I'm getting kind of sick of hearing Obama and the Temp PM put their feet in their mouths about how Russia's undermining democracy in Ukraine.  A plebiscite is about as democratic as it gets, whether you like the results or not.

No.

After being occupied by an invading force, having it's autonomous government removed and replaced by one backed by 4% of the electorated a plebicite is held where the options are "yes" and "hell yes", where international election observers are denied access with virtually zero time available for campaigning with obvious harrassment of political opponents of the 4% regieme one can hardly call this plebicite "about as democratic as it gets".

I think you are taking DSB's words for more than he intended.  He was making a joke along the lines of the Onion article he referred to; he wasn't making a serious argument.

He does in every single post of his, and yet people are still falling for it. 

[Liep]

He does in every single post of his, and yet people are still falling for it. 

He's too good at appearing stupid.

[grumbler]

He does in every single post of his, and yet people are still falling for it. 

He's too good at appearing stupid.

Welcome, both of you, to the "Pointlessly Irritating Fuck" club. 

Yi isn't around to indict induct you right now, but anyone telling the truth about Captain Carrot's schtick gets awarded that title by Yi.

[Agelastus]

Oh well...time to purposefully walk into a minefield here.

russia is most certainly undermining democracy. they're holding a gun to ukraine's head and forcing a plebiscite.

Accepting the proposition that the majority of Crimeans don't want to be closely linked to the Ukraine (which has been evident since the break-up of the USSR) do you believe that Kiev would have allowed a referendum on Crimea's future? The history of the Nineties would strongly suggest a "no" here.

that a portion of crimea wants to join russia means nothing, because that focuses on a portion of a country rather than the whole. that a portion wishes to secede means nothing if the rest of the nation doesn't want it. the provinces of a nation today are more interconnected than ever before.

So you think Kossovo should still be a part of Serbia then? You don't seem to be allowing for any qualifications due to circumstance here.

You are aware that Crimea didn't want to be a part of the Ukraine in the first place? That Krushchev transferred it without considering the wishes of Crimeans? Nor, in fact, that is has been part of the Ukraine for very long compared to the rest of the regions of the country?

no one can say that crimea is entirely separate from the rest of ukraine. for example, crimea helps provide wealth to the rest of the nation through its industries. that wealth is enjoyed by the whole nation, not just crimea. therefore, someone in kiev has just as much of a say in whether crimea stays or exits as the crimeans do.

I'm actually having trouble wording my response here so I'll just leave it as a statement that I consider your argument specious. Extremely so.

furthermore, there is no evidence of widespread discrimination or exploitation of crimea by the rest of ukraine, so it cannot be argued that the crimeans remained in ukraine only due to threat of force.

No, judging by the last two decades it has only remained a part of the Ukraine because the Russians have been too diplomatic to encourage or accept their overtures prior to the current crisis. Not to mention that there actually have been more than implied threats of force from Kiev in the past (back in the Nineties.)

not to mention the results thus far are bullshit. 58% of crimea's population is russian, 95% so far have voted to join russia? i don't think so. nothing is that close, even if crimea was 100% russian

At 58% of the population you're already up to over 80% of the vote given a turnout figure of around 73% (as seems to be the most common figure around.) With all the calls for boycotts probably only the pro-Russian groups from the other population groups voted en masse. I actually agree that 95% seems to be gilding the lily, but then, Putin's done that before. I wouldn't be the least surprised at the actual figure being 85-90% in favour though.


And no, I don't think that Putin's military intervention is correct; don't lump me in as an asinine "Russian apologist". A much sterner response to the move should have been forthcoming from the West. However treating Crimea as an integral part of the Ukraine rather than as a "special case" as seems to be the general opinion around here is equally incorrect given the last few decades of Crimean history. A concession by Kiev of a second, properly questioned, internationally observed referendum on the Crimea's future should be a part of any solution to the crisis.

[derspiess]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/12/who-predicted-russias-military-intervention-2/

Who predicted Russia's military intervention?

my confirmation bias alarm ticks with the failure of realism, but still, historical experiments are usually not this specific

I predicted this earlier on in this thread, so maybe it's just crazy people who know what other crazy people are going to do.

Were you thinking Crimea specifically or Ukraine proper?  Because I'd like to think I'd have considered Russian intervention in Crimea more likely, given the Russian majority and Russian naval base there.

[grumbler]

Oh well...time to purposefully walk into a minefield here.

Accepting the proposition that the majority of Crimeans don't want to be closely linked to the Ukraine (which has been evident since the break-up of the USSR) do you believe that Kiev would have allowed a referendum on Crimea's future? The history of the Nineties would strongly suggest a "no" here.

The history of history tells us that it is generally a bad idea to allow microstates to create themselves whenever a population wants to secede from the larger political unit and/or join another political unit. 

We also don't have to accept that the majority of Crimeans have always wanted to avoid close linkage with the Ukraine.  Yours is a mere assertion.

So you think Kossovo should still be a part of Serbia then? You don't seem to be allowing for any qualifications due to circumstance here.

Is there anyone who doesn't think Kossovo should be part of Serbia, and that its breakaway was regrettable, even if necessary?  You don't seem to be allowing for any qualifications based on circumstances here. 

You are aware that Crimea didn't want to be a part of the Ukraine in the first place? That Krushchev transferred it without considering the wishes of Crimeans? Nor, in fact, that is has been part of the Ukraine for very long compared to the rest of the regions of the country?

You are aware that border changes can only come lawfully under international law with the consent of both parties to the change, and that this was the case in the transfer by Kruschev?  That comparative lengths of "being part of" a country has no weight in law?  That Scotland is every bit as much a part of the UK as Wales? The aspect of international law dealing with border changes is actually fairly clear and simple, and a mere vote by a population doesn't change that.

No, judging by the last two decades it has only remained a part of the Ukraine because the Russians have been too diplomatic to encourage or accept their overtures prior to the current crisis. Not to mention that there actually have been more than implied threats of force from Kiev in the past (back in the Nineties.)

I'm actually having trouble wording my response here so I'll just leave it as a statement that I consider your argument specious. Extremely so.

At 58% of the population you're already up to over 80% of the vote given a turnout figure of around 73% (as seems to be the most common figure around.) With all the calls for boycotts probably only the pro-Russian groups from the other population groups voted en masse. I actually agree that 95% seems to be gilding the lily, but then, Putin's done that before. I wouldn't be the least surprised at the actual figure being 85-90% in favour though.

Not that it matters what the vote totals actually were, the numbers presented by Putin's government are, even you admit, phony.  Even had this referendum meant anything under international law, it wouldn't be classified as free or fair.  I'm not sure why you are even bothering to defend it.

And no, I don't think that Putin's military intervention is correct; don't lump me in as an asinine "Russian apologist". A much sterner response to the move should have been forthcoming from the West. However treating Crimea as an integral part of the Ukraine rather than as a "special case" as seems to be the general opinion around here is equally incorrect given the last few decades of Crimean history. A concession by Kiev of a second, properly questioned, internationally observed referendum on the Crimea's future should be a part of any solution to the crisis.

I think you are beating up a strawman here.  People are criticizing the referendum you seem to be arguing is lawful, fair, and relevant.  no one is arguing that Crimea's present autonomous status should be voided, nor is anyone arguing that the future of Crimea shouldn't be the subject of future Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.  You say you are not "an asinine 'Russian apologist'" and yet you support the Russian line on the elections, knowing the elections to be fraudulent (even admitting that the numbers represent Russia's having at least "gilded the lily").  I'm not sure what to make of your arguments.  Do you, in the end, regard the referendum as valid, or not?

[derspiess]

Let's get back to more important issues. Like that young lady in uniform.

Sand colored boots with a dark uniform (about 1:25 in).   

http://lifenews.ru/news/129068

Nice legs though. 

I like watching her speak Russian.

[derspiess]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russias-putin-prepares-to-annex-crimea/2014/03/18/933183b2-654e-45ce-920e-4d18c0ffec73_story.html

Putin mentioned Kosovo several times in a 50-minute speech that was a catalog of Russian complaints about the West over the past 20 years. He touched on the downfall of the Soviet Union, Kosovo, NATO expansion, missile defense, Libya, Iraq and Syria. He mentioned Soviet support for the reunification of Germany in 1990. "I hope Germans will support the aspirations of Russians to restore Russia," he said.

"Our Western partners have crossed a line," he said. "They've been unprofessional."

He said the challenge presented to Russia by the Ukrainian crisis couldn't be ducked.

"We have to admit one thing -- Russia is an active participant in international affairs," he said. "At these critical times we see the maturity of nations, the strength of nations."

Putin traced Russian roots in Crimea to the baptism there of Vladimir, who converted the Russian people to Christianity just over 1,000 years ago. He mentioned that the bones of Soviet soldiers who fought the Germans in World War II are buried all across the peninsula.

"All these places are sacred to us," he said. After noting that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev assigned Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, he argued that Russia by rights should have gotten it back in 1991 when the Soviet Union dissolved.

"Russia was not just robbed -- it was robbed in broad daylight," he said.

In his historical remarks, he also touched on Russians' roots in Ukraine, in a way that a large number of Ukrainians may not have found to be reassuring. "We sympathize with the people of Ukraine," he said. "We're one nation. Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities."

[Ed Anger]

Maybe the can jam a brigade into Kiev and get it shot up too.

[Agelastus]

Oh, what a surprise...look who has quote for quote posted.

Good to see you, Grumbler.

The history of history tells us that it is generally a bad idea to allow microstates to create themselves whenever a population wants to secede from the larger political unit and/or join another political unit. 

We also don't have to accept that the majority of Crimeans have always wanted to avoid close linkage with the Ukraine.  Yours is a mere assertion.

Well, back up your first argument by assertion with examples and then we can have a discussion.

And then go and read the articles I previously posted in the thread before you argue that I am merely arguing by assertion concerning the long term opinion of the majority of Crimeans.

Is there anyone who doesn't think Kossovo should be part of Serbia, and that its breakaway was regrettable, even if necessary?  You don't seem to be allowing for any qualifications based on circumstances here.

You used to be better at this than that, Grumbler!

How you get from someone pointing out that qualifications due to circumstance exist to a reply implying said person is a doctrinaire who allows for no qualifications due to circumstance to exist is really rather strange.   

You are aware that border changes can only come lawfully under international law with the consent of both parties to the change, and that this was the case in the transfer by Kruschev?

So the Ukrainian SSR, the Russian SSR, or the Crimean ASSR could have said no to Krushchev, the leader of the USSR. And Krushchev complied with international law even though the transfer was between two constituent parts of the same nation.

What a novel argument.

That comparative lengths of "being part of" a country has no weight in law?  That Scotland is every bit as much a part of the UK as Wales? The aspect of international law dealing with border changes is actually fairly clear and simple, and a mere vote by a population doesn't change that.

Except where the Great Powers want it to, as has been shown in the last couple of decades. Consider the differences between the success of Kossovan "nationalists" and "Somaliland" nationalists.

International Law is a lot more malleable than the tone of your posting implies.

And incidentally, Wales is not "just as much a part of the UK" as Scotland; as the flag, laws and history shows, the UK is "England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland". There's a reason Wales has no representation on the Union Jack; for both Acts of Union it was an adjunct to/a part of England, not a contracting party.

That's changing now, and about time too. But if you're going to try and beat me over the head with an example from my own country at least use a proper example such as comparing Scotland and England or Northern Ireland and Scotland.

I'm actually having trouble wording my response here so I'll just leave it as a statement that I consider your argument specious. Extremely so.

Read the articles I previously found and then try again.

Not that it matters what the vote totals actually were, the numbers presented by Putin's government are, even you admit, phony.  Even had this referendum meant anything under international law, it wouldn't be classified as free or fair.  I'm not sure why you are even bothering to defend it.

Does stating the numbers are not as far fetched as people think given the turnout and history of the region (which I seem to have read up on and which you seem not to have) qualify as defending said referendum?

I said that it appears that Putin is "gilding the lily", after all. Hardly a statement made in defense of the referendum being "free and fair".

In fact, Putin would have been better off running it with a proper secret ballot. There's no way he was going to lose. Although, oddly enough, this is a weakness he's displayed before. Wasn't it the last presidential election where he would have won even without (apparently) stuffing the ballot boxes to give him an extra 10% or so? Or was it the parliamentary elections? The man seems to become deeply insecure at the oddest times.

I think you are beating up a strawman here.  People are criticizing the referendum you seem to be arguing is lawful, fair, and relevant.  no one is arguing that Crimea's present autonomous status should be voided, nor is anyone arguing that the future of Crimea shouldn't be the subject of future Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.  You say you are not "an asinine 'Russian apologist'" and yet you support the Russian line on the elections, knowing the elections to be fraudulent (even admitting that the numbers represent Russia's having at least "gilded the lily").  I'm not sure what to make of your arguments.  Do you, in the end, regard the referendum as valid, or not?

Grumbler, reread my post. Did I ever say it was "lawful" (Kiev changed the law in the 1990s so that it couldn't be "lawful" regardless of the deplorable presence of Russian troops anyway) and "fair" (noting as you have noted that I accused Putin of "gilding the lily")? I said it was "relevant" while, with all due respect, a lot of posters here seem to think it is "immaterial". Even the people who argue for a position that leaves the Crimea under Russian control tend to post their thoughts in terms of international politics rather than in terms that consider the desires of the majority of the Crimea's citizens.

There's a difference between arguing "validity" and "relevance".

Although I'm sure you'll accuse me of weaselling or something similar here.

-------

I recall someone earlier In the thread wondering why Russia had chosen the military option; I suspect it's because Putin believes that a good leader doesn't make the same mistake twice and that he made a mistake the last time the Ukraine had a pro-western revolution. The last time he sat quietly and manoeuvred to get a pro-Russian government in power, only to see all this undone in very short order. If he can't guarantee a pro-Russian stability in the Ukraine in even the short term he's going to make damn sure he keeps the strategic asset that's Sevastopol.

I don't think he'll push further into pro-Russian areas of the Ukraine. He lacks the historical fig-leafs that the Crimea provides him, not to mention they lack the importance (both cultural and strategic) of the Crimea. On the subjects of fig-leafs, this referendum is merely another part of the jigsaw of his fig-leafs.

Given the weak western response so far, I'd say there's a fair chance that history will say he judged the west's responses and degree of tolerance to a remarkable degree. At least, as long as he doesn't push any further.

[Agelastus]

After noting that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev assigned Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, he argued that Russia by rights should have gotten it back in 1991 when the Soviet Union dissolved.

This is the part of his position that I have a degree of sympathy with.

"We sympathize with the people of Ukraine," he said. "We're one nation. Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities."

This, however, is quite worrying; that's quite a leap from a position of "we protect Russians" to effectively saying that "Ukrainians are just Russians by another name."

[Viking]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russias-putin-prepares-to-annex-crimea/2014/03/18/933183b2-654e-45ce-920e-4d18c0ffec73_story.html

"We're one nation. Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities."

Times like this we need to remember to listen to what people actually say.

[Syt]

Seems the mayor of Sevastopol (on the right, with the grey beard) didn't receive the memo about the dress code for today's contract signing ...