Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Jacob]

Can we make sure Age's endlessly long posts don't make the list?

How?

[garbon]

I don't know, I was just being hopeful.

[LaCroix]

1992 (when the Ukraine bullied the Crimea into abandoning a referendum), 1995 (when the Ukraine prevented the Crimea from holding a referendum that didn't even include a secessionist option), 1998 (when Ukraine blocked a Crimean parliamentary resolution to hold a referendum) and on the overall impression given by this list of 1990s events -

http://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html

You are aware that the insertion of the "we are a part of Ukraine" part of the 1992 constitution was made after threats from the Ukrainian parliament and did so little to satisfy said parliament that it authorised their president to "use all necessary means to prevent Crimean Independence" (an implicit threat of the use of military force) a week later?

[The list of events skips it for some reason, but the amendment to Crimea's 1992 constitution adding the "part of Ukraine" line was made on May 6th.]

And even the statements they made that "they were a part of the Ukraine" advocated a "2 state" union that Kiev would never have accepted (several sites state that in September the 1992 constitution of the Crimea was amended to make it compatible with the Ukraine's - this is actually incorrect, the amendments still did not bring the constitution in line with Kiev's instructions.)

Let's try again...you're "they're economically linked so the rest of the country has a say" argument should logically have prevented the breakup of the USSR since the majority of the SSRs post the departure of the Baltic states voted in favour of a treaty that didn't break it up. Ukraine, IIRC, was the hold-out - and then the coup threw everything up into the air and in the aftermath the CIS was born.

Moreover, the same argument would suggest that at the same time that Scotland was voting to leave the UK English and Northern Irish voters should be voting on the same issue as it affects them.

That's why I considered your argument specious. There's always economic costs to a break-up, and attempted break-ups are always initiated first in the would be breakaway territory; then the central government has to decide whether to accept it or not. Take Scotland as an example. The SNP wants to break away and has a majority in the Scottish parliament; but the enabling legislation for the referendum has to be, and was, done through Westminster.

In many ways the situation in the Ukraine is similar; according to their laws a valid referendum has to be approved by Kiev. However, the Kievan government has a track record of exerting itself to prevent such referenda.

Hence why I asked if you believed that Kiev would have allowed a legal referendum?

See the list above; I haven't found a similar one yet for the 2000s.

My next port of call is probably a close look at events in Crimea concerning the "Orange" Revolution.

There's actually a slight difference between "gilding the lily" and outright rigging. Outright rigging suggests that without it Russia would have lost the referendum which Crimea's voting history of the last two decades shows to be vanishingly unlikely. The final result is not 100% accurate, I agree.

I have never said that I agree with the Russians military actions.

Conversely, however, how many countries in Europe have been as active in preventing referendums on one of their constituent regions future as the Ukraine? The Czechs and Slovaks broke up peacefully, the UK is giving Scotland a vote, the Basques have consistently failed to support the terrorist actions of ETA and seem happy with autonomy rather than independence, Catalonia and Flanders don't seem to have yet come up with concrete independence referendum proposals (to the best of my knowledge) etc. etc.

I'd also note that Crimea's electoral history suggests that its not just the "58% Russians" who want to join Russia. There's even one Crimean Tartar organisation that called on Russia to disavow the 1954 cession in 1998! Possibly because, and this is probably the most surprising thing of all, of all the constitutions of the Crimea the most favourable one towards the Tatars (and other ethnic minorities) was the constitution of 1992 that Kiev never accepted.

Suffice it to say I do not agree with and approve of Russia's actions; however, I lack total sympathy for the Ukraine's position because of their history of, if you'll forgive the language, "fucking the Crimeans about".

thank you for supplying that link! contains much more info than the wiki page

i don't see ukrainian bullying anywhere. what i see is a province of a nation illegally trying to hold referendums to secede, which it had no right to do, with the nation then responding. no boots on the ground or violence. no uprising, mass chaos or demonstrations that usually accompanies legit movements. furthermore, much of the 90s crimean secessionist movement seems instigated by russia. the first call for a referendum in 1992 occurred a month after russia publicly urged them to. and crimean calls for independence fizzled out shortly after russia and ukraine signed the partition treaty of 1997. also, in the 1991 referendum, 54% of the votes from ethnic russians in crimea supported independence from the USSR

oh, and ffs..

A poll is reported showing only 23% of Crimeans support Meshkov. The report which gave this statistic also reported that leader of the Tatar (Kuraltai) faction of parliament has said that it would be better to live as an oblast of Ukraine than under Meshkov.

meshkov. the obsessive crimean president secessionist throughout the mid 90s. did you read this link you gave me? all of the pro-russian demonstrations listed, did you see the participants? 4000 here, 5000 there. actually, after may 28, 1997 (the partition treaty as mentioned above), these demonstrations drop to 150, 200, etc.

there is absolutely no evidence that there was a widespread struggle of independence by the majority of crimea. i have no idea where you're getting this "fucking the Crimea about" bit from. it really looks like a secessionist bias has you finding monsters where there are none 

as for the economics argument i made earlier. first, that was only one example to show how a region is connected. second, the context of that argument was in reference to democracy of a nation. i was pointing out that it's not necessarily undemocratic for a nation to refuse to allow a referendum. third, once again you're overlooking where i noted oppression. USSR held its states together through fear and oppression. ukraine has not done that - they have not oppressed crimea. they have stopped what appears to be runaway politicians acting on moscow's orders while unsupported by the rest of crimea

your point re: north irish voting in the scottish referendum is silly. scotland isn't forcing this referendum on its own. that would be like what crimea did. no, the UK consented to the referendum. therefore, north irish are represented. that's my point, and that's why ukraine stomping on crimean referendums not approved by the national government isn't undemocratic

as to your final point, as noted above, there doesn't seem to be any serious attempt to hold a referendum beyond the actions of what appears to be pro-russian cronies. it seems a very vocal minority, just like with the basques and almost every other separatist movement. except in the 90s that vocal minority happened to get into power (possibly?) due to the naturally tumultuous nature of the immediate post-soviet collapse. we do know it hasn't been repeated since, until now

[Queequeg]

Dokku Umarov is dead.  Um.  Any chance the Russian military is trying to clear house in the Caucasus so they can move people elsewhere? 

[Jacob]

Dokku Umarov is dead.  Um.  Any chance the Russian military is trying to clear house in the Caucasus so they can move people elsewhere?

Who is Dokku Umarov?

[Queequeg]

I've seen a lot of different spellings of his name, but he was the leading Chechen Islamist terrorist in the entire Caucasus and head of the Caucasus Emirate.  If he's dead there may be a  reason the Russian military desperately wants a stable Caucasus front for the time being. 

[LaCroix]

Who is Dokku Umarov?

chechen terrorist

unrelated to the events in ukraine. russia has wanted him for awhile

[derspiess]

Dokku Umarov is dead.  Um.  Any chance the Russian military is trying to clear house in the Caucasus so they can move people elsewhere?

Who is Dokku Umarov?

Ex-Jedi who fell to the dark side and fought against the Republic.

[Ed Anger]

Just bring along a young sacrificial virgin as tribute & Ed will let you hang out as long as you want.

No Languish assburgers allowed.

[Agelastus]

At the request of a respected Languish poster, I'll try and keep this short.

thank you for supplying that link! contains much more info than the wiki page

You're welcome.

i don't see ukrainian bullying anywhere. what i see is a province of a nation illegally trying to hold referendums to secede, which it had no right to do, with the nation then responding. no boots on the ground or violence. no uprising, mass chaos or demonstrations that usually accompanies legit movements. furthermore, much of the 90s crimean secessionist movement seems instigated by russia. the first call for a referendum in 1992 occurred a month after russia publicly urged them to. and crimean calls for independence fizzled out shortly after russia and ukraine signed the partition treaty of 1997. also, in the 1991 referendum, 54% of the votes from ethnic russians in crimea supported independence from the USSR

I wasn't referring you to the list of events in regard to the number of demonstrators; I found it much more interesting that throughout the decade there was a consistent majority of parliamentarians pushing for at the very least a far greater degree of autonomy than the Ukraine was willing to grant, and that in three different years this got as far as voting for referendum motions. The voting public was being damn consistent even if they weren't on the streets.

They're were Crimean parliamentary elections in 1990, 1994 and 1998, after all.

Interestingly, after the Ukraine changes its law the Crimeans "faff around" in 2002 as if they don't know what to do, then rally behind pro-Yanukovich parties (the pro-Russian candidate.) I'd hazard a guess given the Nineties that part of this was due to a "next best option" feeling.

i have no idea where you're getting this "fucking the Crimea about" bit from. it really looks like a secessionist bias has you finding monsters where there are none 

You don't consider a consistent pattern of "we'll stay out of it/no we won't/no this is still unacceptable/fine we'll impose our own terms" to be "fucking around"?

Not to mention the lovely little change in the law that makes the Ukraine your dream state. Any secessionist vote has to be held on a national level.

I wonder what the world would have said if the British parliament had passed enabling legislation for the Scottish independence referendum that specified the same thing?

-
--
---

And what's even more amusing is you accusing me of having a secessionist bias! I think my fellow British Languishites can tell you exactly what I think of the Scottish Nationalists (or, since they seem to use the same lies) the Quebecois separatists etc.

Crimea's situation is unique. The other artificial creations of the twentieth century (thinking in particular of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia here) have broken up, in the one case violently, in the other case peacefully. The Ukraine/Crimea conglomerate is the last (and most recently created) of this ilk; I was honestly surprised it didn't die back in 1991.

[derspiess]

Just bring along a young sacrificial virgin as tribute & Ed will let you hang out as long as you want.

No Languish assburgers allowed.

[derspiess]

2030 GMT: This is, literally, an ugly sign of the degradation of relationships between Russia and the United States:
Ugh, brother of the deputy prime minister of Russia calling @ambassadorpower a transvestite https://t.co/9D3bRC4weU Kremlinoids are creeps

— CatherineFitzpatrick (@catfitz) March 18, 2014

Скажите, только у меня возникло ощущение, что на Чуркина в ООН от США напал трансвестит...? Представьте её без волос pic.twitter.com/VgcO6LXBzE

— Михаил Дворкович (@mdvorkovich) March 17, 2014

[Ed Anger]

Just bring along a young sacrificial virgin as tribute & Ed will let you hang out as long as you want.

No Languish assburgers allowed.

I can barely tolerate most people here for only short periods. Locked in a bunker? There will be blood.

[The Brain]

The virgin doesn't have to be a Languish assburger.

[Ed Anger]

Yi would start using those stupid nicknames and I'd have to shoot him.