Ukraine's European Revolution?

[The Larch]

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

What about a strategic embargo on mail order brides and terrible porn?

[Admiral Yi]

What about a strategic embargo on mail order brides and terrible porn?

How about an embargo on everything except mail order brides and porn?

[Agelastus]

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

Debaters do play that game, Grumbler. If you don't want to debate, don't make a post.

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

It's called a "search function" grumbler. 2 clicks and nine letters, and the fact that I've not made above six posts in the thread should make it easy. And the fact is the articles make interesting and reasonably unbiased reading given their age (the early 2000s) source (Western, one of them the UN) and level of detail.

To be honest I'm surprised you didn't read them when they were first referred to a few pages ago.

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.

Apparently in your lexicon showing knowledge that different circumstances exist when challenging someone else is equivalent to stating that I don't think they exist myself. Despite explicitly acknowledging they exist by virtue of my challenge.

That's the most ridiculous jump of logic ever.

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.

I had indeed forgotten that the USSR had extorted extra seats for 2 of its component members on the by then spurious grounds that the Dominions gave Britain extra representation back in the 1940s.

However, since you refrained from acknowledging the first part of the comment I assume you're conceding that the Ukrainian SSR, the Crimean ASSR and the Russian SSR had no way of saying "no" to Krushchev, then?

And on the subject of it (the transfer iself) being subject to international law, was the 1954 transfer ever registered with the UN? The 1990 border treaty would have been but my google-fu fails to find anything about the 1954 original transfer.

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

it is, however, recognised by most of the nations of the world that would qualify as "Great Powers". the exceptions being Russia and the PRC. And it is exactly "Great Power" politics that's keeping it out of the UN (see below.)

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.

Kossovo can't join the UN because Russia would veto it; there's no other legal obstacle.

The ICJ has issued an advisory opinion that Kossovo's unilateral declaration of independence was legal under international law.

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.

Something is only a "tiresome irrelevancy" when you're wrong, isn't it Grumbler?

And no, "Wales" is not equally a part of the UK as Scotland because "Wales" does not have the same legal existence as Scotland. Yet, anyway.

As I said, comparing Scotland and England, or Northern Ireland and Scotland, would have been the argument to make.

"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?

Quite sure. Anything that acts to reinforce Russia's position concerning the will of Crimea's people is relevant even if there are issues of its legal validity or conduct.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the vote would not have been in favour of Russia, just that the level of unanimity is suspicious.

[LaCroix]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the vote would not have been in favour of Russia, just that the level of unanimity is suspicious.

um, i don't think it's possible to know this. had there been no instigation by russia, no crisis, and it was during a peaceful era it's likely given past referendums that the voters would have chosen to not declare independence/join russia. you have some ethnic russians excited right now because there are russian soldiers on the ground in crimea. it's a huge crisis going on, in the minds of everyone.

if it was a simpler occasion without all the fanfare, would you have nearly as many people all gung-ho? probably not. look at quebec, scotland, etc. there's a vastly larger majority of ethnic groups in those areas compared to the russian majority in crimea. we're talking about 80-90% vs. 58%. and in both occasions it failed. even if 2014 referendum in scotland succeeds, it's probably going to be close

(edit) hell, we don't even know how many are gung-ho these days. it's a rigged referendum. even with the crisis, it's very plausible (maybe even probable) that crimea wouldn't vote for independence/join russia

[Agelastus]

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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?

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,..

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.

so you agree that the referendum was rigged. i agree.

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.

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

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".

[grumbler]

Debaters do play that game, Grumbler. If you don't want to debate, don't make a post.

That's not how debate works.  If you have a specific question, ask it.  Otherwise, stop even trying to play the "prove every word you say" game.  Are you actually questioning the assertion that populations who attempt to secede against the will of the remainder of the population trigger civil wars?

It's called a "search function" grumbler. 2 clicks and eight letters, and the fact that I've not made above six posts in the thread should make it easy. And the fact is the articles make interesting and reasonably unbiased reading given their age (the early 2000s) source (Western, one of them the UN) and level of detail.

What assertion of yours do you believe that you are supporting with this "just read everything I link to" demand?

Apparently in your lexicon showing knowledge that different circumstances exist when challenging someone else is equivalent to stating that I don't think they exist myself. Despite explicitly acknowledging they exist by virtue of my challenge.

That's the most ridiculous jump of logic ever.

No, that's challenging a strawman by mocking it.

However, since you refrained from acknowledging the first part of the comment I assume you're conceding that the Ukrainian SSR, the Crimean ASSR and the Russian SSR had no way of saying "no" to Krushchev, then?

I have no idea who "the Ukrainian SSR" et al even are in this case.  However, I suggest that the Krushchev history shows that people could not only say 'no' to him, they could fire him.  I don't know, and don't believe that you know, how much opposition to a Crimean transfer would have been possible in 1954.  I'd note that no one transferred it back, even after they fired Krushchev.

And on the subject of it (the transfer iself) being subject to international law, was the 1954 transfer ever registered with the UN? The 1990 border treaty would have been but my google-fu fails to find anything about the 1954 original transfer.

I am not sure what registry the UN would keep.  I need more detail to answer this question.

it is, however, recognised by most of the nations of the world that would qualify as "Great Powers". the exceptions being Russia and the PRC. And it is exactly "Great Power" politics that's keeping it out of the UN (see below.)

I don't know what a "Great Power" is in your world, so this argument leaves me unmoved.

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.

Kossovo can't join the UN because Russia would veto it; there's no other legal obstacle.

The ICJ has issued an advisory opinion that Kossovo's unilateral declaration of independence was legal under international law.

So, you can't provide an example?  I didn't think so.  Also, the ICJ opinion didn't say that the DOI was legal, it said that it was not illegal.  There is a difference (given that the law is still fluid in cases where states under UN administration declare independence).

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.

Something is only a "tiresome irrelevancy" when you're wrong, isn't it Grumbler?

And no, "Wales" is not equally a part of the UK as Scotland because "Wales" does not have the same legal existence as Scotland. Yet, anyway.

I'll type this slowly, since you don't seem to be able to see it when typed at normal speed: If wales is "not equally a part of the UK," is it MORE a part of the UK than Scotland, or less?  It is a simple question. 

Quite sure. Anything that acts to reinforce Russia's position concerning the will of Crimea's people is relevant even if there are issues of its legal validity or conduct.

Relevant to what?  Relevant to legality under international law?  No.  Relevant to conduct?  What does that mean?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the vote would not have been in favour of Russia, just that the level of unanimity is suspicious.

I heard a Crimean argue on NPR just the other day that Crimeans want no part of Putin's Russia, so you'd be wrong there.

[derspiess]

1815 GMT: The statement from the Ministry of Defense says that, as a response to the photogrammetric center in Simferopol by forces wearing Russian uniforms and carrying automatic weapons and sniper rifles, Ukraine's military forces are now authorized use weapons to defend themselves.
Thus far, the hallmark of Ukrainian military forces in Crimea has been restraint. It seems, however, that this era of the conflict is now over and another one is beginning.

[derspiess]

I've seen just about every Kalashnikov variant in pics from Crimea, customized every which way.  Odd to see one of the Russian dudes with what appears to be an AR-pattern rifle with a big-ass scope, suppressor and bi-pod (?).

[Ed Anger]

Damn.  I'm heading to Boner's bunker.

Tits or GTFO

[Admiral Yi]

I'm in.

[Ed Anger]

I'm in.

Female tits, you knob.

[Agelastus]

That's not how debate works.  If you have a specific question, ask it.  Otherwise, stop even trying to play the "prove every word you say" game.  Are you actually questioning the assertion that populations who attempt to secede against the will of the remainder of the population trigger civil wars?

I'm questioning your assertion -

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.

Which, as you will note, says nothing about them "causing civil wars" just that it was a "bad idea"...oh, and also that the "Crimea" was a microstate, something equally dubious. Or, incidentally, about it being "against the will of the remainder".

Back your assertion up with facts or stop pretending to be interested in debate. If you'll note, I have backed up the other assertion (the one you spuriously claimed this assertion was a logical response to) in my debates with LaCroix.

What assertion of yours do you believe that you are supporting with this "just read everything I link to" demand?

Grumbler, I've made maybe six posts and linked to two documents in this entire thread before today; both relevant to your claim that my contention that "the majority of Crimeans have always wanted to avoid a close linkage with the Ukraine" was mere assertion.

Come back and complain to me when I post 100s of documents and make some lazy claim that "its all in there". Two documents, however (and in the latter case you only really need to read the "précis of events" that's the first, albeit long, section anyway) should be well within a debater's reach.

No, that's challenging a strawman by mocking it.

No, that's attempting to make hay of someone's challenge to a simplistic position while only making yourself look like a fool.

I have no idea who "the Ukrainian SSR" et al even are in this case.  However, I suggest that the Krushchev history shows that people could not only say 'no' to him, they could fire him.  I don't know, and don't believe that you know, how much opposition to a Crimean transfer would have been possible in 1954.  I'd note that no one transferred it back, even after they fired Krushchev.

So politically damaged, post-de-Stalinisation Krushchev of 1963 is one and the same as at the height of his power Krushchev of 1954. That's another novel proposition on your part.

More to the point, after having pointed out that the Ukrainian SSR had a seat on the UN, what do you mean by claiming you have no idea who the "Ukrainian SSR, Crimean ASSR and Russian SSR" are in this case - they can't exist one minute as legal entities and not the next. It seems a fairly nonsensical comment especially given the thrust of your argument was against the man, not the institution.

I am not sure what registry the UN would keep.  I need more detail to answer this question.

International treaties (certainly concerning boundaries) have to be registered with the UN; however the 1954 treaty was internal to the USSR. But, as you astutely pointed out, the Ukrainian SSR had a seat at the UN, an "international" existence. Your arguments have posited that the original transfer was subject to international law, hence a treaty or instrument should be registered with the UN. I can't find reference to it (since Google is clogged up with current articles on the referendum.) I was wondering if you were aware of one given your contention.

I don't know what a "Great Power" is in your world, so this argument leaves me unmoved.

I find it unlikely that my definition would significantly differ from yours. Nor do I understand why you feel my argument should leave you "moved". Provisionally then I'll just have to assume that you lack an adequate response.

So, you can't provide an example?  I didn't think so.  Also, the ICJ opinion didn't say that the DOI was legal, it said that it was not illegal.  There is a difference (given that the law is still fluid in cases where states under UN administration declare independence).

You actually wanted an example? Pre Second Gulf War Kuwait vis-à-vis Iraq (Iraq having inherited the Ottoman claim to the region.) Or, if you consider the claim to have been correctly rescinded in 1963 (which is open to some question) then pre-1963 Iraq vis-à-vis Kuwait.

I'll type this slowly, since you don't seem to be able to see it when typed at normal speed: If wales is "not equally a part of the UK," is it MORE a part of the UK than Scotland, or less?  It is a simple question.

I'll have to type this very slowly indeed then Grumbler since you seem to be losing your ability to parse answers.

Scotland is an equal part of the UK to Northern Ireland and England-Wales.

Wales due to its historical treatment by England is not an equal part of the UK to Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is, in fact more a part of England than the UK. This imbalance is being corrected but has not been yet.

Now, since we are in a discussion concerning international law, administrative entities, historical claims and legal borders that should suffice to answer your question. Or are you under the mistaken assumption that I would applaud a Russian attempt to take over further Ukrainian oblasts?

The Crimean ASSR is much more analogous to Scotland in the UK than it is to Wales-as-a-part of England in the UK. This is as true of its historical constitutional arrangements as it is of its current political situation. It is, in fact, the only part of the Ukraine in such an analogous position, being the only former ASSR (and autonomous region according to the current constitution) within the Ukraine.

Relevant to what?  Relevant to legality under international law?  No.  Relevant to conduct?  What does that mean?

Relevant to the political situation, the propaganda situation, the diplomatic situation and to the situation in general.

Although as I've said it would have been a much more effective weapon if Putin hadn't bottled out on doing it as a secret ballot.

I heard a Crimean argue on NPR just the other day that Crimeans want no part of Putin's Russia, so you'd be wrong there.

Which would be interesting given the voting records of Crimean citizens; 66% of them voted either for pro-Russian (rather than pro-EU) or outright re-unificationist parties in the last elections.

And here we get back to basic debating technique here. A random Crimean is not evidence. Who is this Crimean? What proportion of the population does he claim to represent? Have you a link to a source concerning this?

Moreover did he express an opinion of the Ukraine or was his a "pox on both your houses" attitude?

And as a basic courtesy (since I had to look it up to be certain) the use of the full "National Public Radio" rather than the abbreviation NPR would also be appreciated; and I assume that if its anything like the BBC I'm going to be unable to directly listen to the interview/news program without doing weird stuff with proxies?

[Admiral Yi]

Female tits, you knob.

[derspiess]

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

[garbon]

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