Ukraine's European Revolution?

[derspiess]

Yi takes a lot of things as a good thing.

He's easy to please sometimes.

[Admiral Yi]

If Putin continues down the path of trying to legitimize Russia's claim to Crimea, eventually he ends up in the realm of international norms, conventions, and laws.

[derspiess]

If Putin continues down the path of trying to legitimize Russia's claim to Crimea, eventually he ends up in the realm of international norms, conventions, and laws.

Ehhh, not necessarily.

[Razgovory]

Yi, could you spell this one out of us a little more?  I'm not fully grasping what you are trying to say, and I don't think I'm the only one.

[Syt]

I'm just glad I'm no longer at my old company. We had several major hospital sites in Crimea. Then again, the country heads of both Ukraine and Russia were both ex-KGB, so it might be easy to settle between them.

The bureaucracy must be a nightmare, though.

[celedhring]

If Putin continues down the path of trying to legitimize Russia's claim to Crimea, eventually he ends up in the realm of international norms, conventions, and laws.

Ehhh, not necessarily.

Yeah, I think he's just making an ad hoc excuse here. The only thing this tells me is that he'll trump up something else the next time.

[derspiess]

A Ukrainian soldier has been killed in Simferopol:

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-29-russia-annexes-crimea/

1630 GMT: Reuters has more on the storming of the Russian base in Simferopol:
Ukrainian troops said they were being attacked by Russian forces and one soldier, Interfax news agency said quoting a Ukrainian military spokesman.

"One Ukrainian serviceman has been wounded in the neck and collarbone. Now we have barricaded ourselves on the second floor. The headquarters has been taken and the commander has been taken. They want us to put down our arms but we do not intend to surrender," he said.

"We are being stormed. We have about 20 people here and about 10 to 15 others, including women," an unidentified serviceman told Fifth Channel television. "One of our officers was wounded during the attack, grazed in the neck and arm."

We now know that the soldier who was shot in the neck has died, according to Ukrainian officials.

[Admiral Yi]

Damn.  I'm heading to Boner's bunker.

[LaCroix]

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.

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?



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.

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.)

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.

why do the nineties strongly suggest "no" to possible ukraine led referendum? are you referring to 1995? that's an indication only that ukraine is willing to prevent its provinces from trying to integrate closer to russia on their own accord, nothing more. in 50 years and enough demonstration from the majority in crimea, it's very possible they might have

no, i thought of kosovo and sudan when i wrote my post and wrote on those cases. you even reference it later 

those situations are a bit different than what we have in crimea. there is no widespread violence or any uprising, not even significant non-violent protests on a regular basis

wiki shows that during the collapse of the USSR, crimea added into its constitution that it was part of ukraine and later in that same period made other announcements showing their intent/desire to join with ukraine. "crimea hasn't been part of ukraine for very long" is a worthless argument here. close your eyes and point to a spot in europe and you could probably find a similar argument for that region. for half the spots you'd find you probably wouldn't even need to grasp at many straws. what matters is whether there's unity to a sufficient degree

i can't really counter argue "you're wrong" statements, so i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that point 

i don't see much evidence that crimea has made continuous overtures to russia, or otherwise demanded independence from ukraine. i think if they had it would be very obvious, as it tends to be with secessionist groups. we have one instance in 1995, which is this:

Meshkov tried to initiate a military-political union with a foreign country and completely disregarded opinions of the Ukrainian government.

of course the ukrainian government stomped on it. any nation would, and few would call it undemocratic

so you agree that the referendum was rigged. i agree

why should ukraine be forced to have a referendum? because there's a province in a nation that has a 58% ethnic majority? if you think that means a referendum should be forced upon a country at gunpoint (which "a concession by kiev" would be), then a whole lot of europe is fucked

[grumbler]

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

Good to see you, Grumbler.

Oh, what a surprise... look who starts his post with a non sequitur 

Good to see you, as well

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

No, homie doesn't play that game.  Just google "civil war" and find them yourself.

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.

Homie doesn't play the "search 65 pages of discussion because I proved it somewhere in there" game, either.

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 used to be better at this than that, aGelastus!

I find it ironic that you won't allow others to accommodate different circumstances unless they explicitly state that they do, and then you whine when I apply your own standards to your own arguments!

No one would argue that circumstances make no difference.  That's so obvious as to not need stating.

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.

Legally, yes.  Further, these were not "the same nation."  They were nominally sovereign SSRs in a union (Ukraine even had its own UN delegate).  If you want to argue that the transfer of Crimea was illegal, make your case.  Otherwise, my conclusion holds.

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.

I think the whole "Great Powers" thing went out with WW2.  Kosovo is not recognized by many nations in the world.

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

Name a border change that is not recognized by the losing territory, but is recognized under international law.  Kosovo's is not so recognized; it isn't allowed to join the UN as a member-state, for instance.

[snip of some tiresome irrelevancies related to the UK] Are you arguing that Wales is more a part of the UK than Scotland, or less a part?  You dispute my claim that it is equally a part.

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.

"Relevant" isn't a meaningful adjective by itself.  Saying "X is relevant" is a weasel without saying what it is relevant to.  I notice you carefully don't say how this referendum is relevant.  This is especially interesting given that you won't even say whether or not it is a valid referendum. 

So it may or may not be valid, and it is relevant (but to an unspecified something-or-other)  Are you sure you want to argue that you are not weaseling?

[Syt]

BBC:

17:34: "No one is speaking about... using forces in the eastern regions [of Ukraine]," Putin spokesman Dmiri Peskov tells the BBC's Stephen Sackur. "Definitely it's not on the agenda. But we don't want to make any forecasts for bloodshed that can occur in the eastern regions. Because if the Ukrainian government pays no attention to the gravest situation in the eastern regions then the consequences may be very, very bad."

More from President Putin's spokesman Dmiri Peskov in an interview with the BBC: "Russia will do whatever is possible, using all legal means, in total correspondence with international law, to protect and to extend a hand to Russians living in eastern regions of Ukraine."

17:42: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tells his US counterpart John Kerry that Western sanctions are "unacceptable" and "will not remain without consequences", the ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

[Syt]

A Ukrainian soldier has been killed in Simferopol:

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-29-russia-annexes-crimea/

Russians say one of their soldiers the pro-Russian self defense forces was killed by a sniper.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140318/188552565/Pro-Russian-Forces-Attacked-in-Crimea-One-Dead--Report.html

SIMFEROPOL, March 18 (RIA Novosti) – One pro-Russian militiaman was killed and two other wounded on Tuesday in a sniper attack on the streets of the Crimean capital, Simferopol, local media reported.

A unit of pro-Russian self-defense forces came under sniper fire while searching for a group of unidentified gunmen on a tip from local residents, the Kryminform news agency said citing a Crimean police source.

"As a result, one member of self-defense forces was killed and two were wounded," the source said, adding that the incident could have been a premeditated provocation.

Meanwhile, the foreign media circulated reports by the Ukrainian military earlier on Tuesday that a Ukrainian soldier was killed and another wounded during an attack on a Ukrainian military base near Simferopol.

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry, however, failed to identify the forces behind the alleged attack.

Following the reports, Reuters cited Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk as saying that the Ukrainian conflict had moved "from a political one to a military one."

The reports of bloodshed from conflicting sides in Crimea come shortly after the signing of a treaty on Tuesday in Moscow reunifying the Ukrainian breakaway region with Russia after 60 years as part of Ukraine.

[derspiess]

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-29-russia-annexes-crimea/

One of the stories linked at the bottom of that page is "Man Nails Testicles to Red Square Cobblestones"  :onlyinrussia:

[Iormlund]

I hope we don't put an embargo on Russian dashcam videos. Now that would be a loss of humanity.

[Jacob]

If Putin continues down the path of trying to legitimize Russia's claim to Crimea, eventually he ends up in the realm of international norms, conventions, and laws.

There is still hope for peace in our time.