Ukraine's European Revolution?

[PDH]

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

See, that is a good reason

[PDH]

And for the record:  Lucullus won't be in a bunker, Lucullus will be eating a chocolate eclair when others go to their bunker.

[Tonitrus]

And for the record:  Lucullus won't be in a bunker, Lucullus will be eating a chocolate eclair when others go to their bunker.

Lucullus will be dining with Lucullus?

[grumbler]

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". 

So, you are questioning that civil wars are "bad ideas" when they can be avoided, and your problem is with the phrase "microstate?"  Consider microstate withdrawn, and explain why avoidable wars are not a "bad idea."  Not sure about your last objection.  It makes no sense.

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.

Back up your assertions with facts, or you can stop pretending to be interested in debate.  What avoidable civil war was not a bad idea?

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.

None of your documents support that assertion.  They describe a situation where Crimean Russians wanted autonomy (sometimes supporting autonomy within Ukraine, sometimes in Russia), but that it was autonomy, not the avoidance of linkage with Ukraine, that was the objective.  That has never been in contention.

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



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.

Oooh, the irony!     A simplistic strawman, right after complaining about a simplistic positions!

My point is that no one knows how much opposition could have been raised to Khrushchev plan to help the Crimean economy by linking it more closely to that of Ukraine.  You don't know, and I don't know, so making any hypothetical opposition, or the lack of it, the basis of an argument is a non-starter.

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 challenging your use of "they" to describe the Ukrainian SSR, Crimean ASSR, and Russian SSR.  All were filled with groups with diverging political goals, so saying what "they" wanted is simplistic nonsense.

International treaties (certainly concerning boundaries) have to be registered with the UN

Ah, the Secretariat List.  Interesting observation.  it would be in volume 2 of the Cumulative Treaty list, but isn't there (or in Vol 3).  I'd note that the paper  you cited by by Natalya Belitser argued that

To have a deeper insight into the causes and circumstances of the current Crimean crisis, and the means employed in attempts to resolve it, it is necessary to briefly delve into the history of the post-W.W.II and post-soviet Crimea. In particular, it should be recalled that Crimea had been stripped of its autonomous status on 30 June 1945, by the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, and that in June 1946 the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic passed a law giving the peninsula the status of an ordinary oblast of the RSFSR. Over the following years, this region, which had been degraded and devastated by the forceful deportation of its indigenous population during the W.W.II, turned into a dreadful economic failure that the newly arrived Russian settlers were unable to overcome. Despite the widespread view that in 1954, Crimea was just "presented" to Ukraine by Nikita Khrustchev to commemorate the three hundredth anniversary of Ukraine's union with Russia[2], this very failure was the main reason why Crimea was moved from Russian to Ukrainian jurisdiction. It was believed that the situation could be alleviated if the peninsula was administered by that entity with which it had closer economic, geographical, and cultural links.

This decision was issued by the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet and then approved unanimously by a law passed by the USSR SS on 26 April 1954. It is important to stress that throughout the following period until late 80s, when the Crimean peninsula still held a status of an oblast of the Ukr SSR, this status had never proven contentious either within Crimea, Ukraine, or the USSR, or beyond.

So, while your point is interesting, I don't know that it makes sense to draw conclusions from it.

My argument is that border changes are a violation of international law when they are unilateral.  This change was not, as both the RFSSR and UkSSR agreed to it.

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'm not buying it. Iraq twice acepted its border with Kuwait, in 1932 and 1963:

In the interwar years, the border question again arose. In 1922 the British convened a conference at Al Uqayr in Saudi Arabia that set Saudi Arabia's borders with Kuwait and Iraq but not Kuwait and Iraq's border with each other. However, in 1923 the British high commissioner in Iraq sent a memorandum to the political agent in Kuwait laying out the border between Kuwait and Iraq. When in 1932 Iraq applied to the League of Nations for membership as an independent state, it included information on the borders from the memorandum.

Iraq thus seemed to be moving toward acceptance of its border with Kuwait when the discovery of oil, the promise of more Kuwaiti oil revenues, and the related Majlis Movement occurred. As the Majlis Movement grew, Iraq began to support dissidents in Kuwait and simultaneously put forward claims to Kuwait. Iraq also explored the idea of building a port on Kuwait's coast to give Iraq an alternative to its port of Basra. Iraq began expressing interest in the islands of Bubiyan and Warbah as well. The Majlis Movement in Kuwait failed, however, and Iraq had to await another opportunity.

As long as Britain was there to support Kuwait, Iraq could do little more than assert a verbal claim. When Kuwait became independent in 1961, the Iraqi government tested Britain's resolve by bringing forces to Kuwait's border in support of its claims on the shaykhdom. British and Arab League forces, however, forestalled any Iraqi military action.

In 1963 a new government came to power in Iraq. Anxious to mend fences, this government formally recognized Kuwait and signed an agreement recognizing the borders between the two states as those set forth in Iraq's 1932 application to the League of Nations. Iraq then dropped its objection to Kuwait's membership in the UN and in the Arab League and established diplomatic relations, including the exchange of ambassadors, with Kuwait.

http://countrystudies.us/persian-gulf-states/32.htm

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.

So, is that "more a part of the UK" or "less a part of the UK?"  You still are beating around the bush. 

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.

Are you arguing that a Scottish political party with a temporary majority of votes in Scotland (or even just claiming such a mandate, if they can bogus-up a "referendum") could declare Scotland independent (or declare it to be part of, say, France with the agreement of the french government), regardless of UK  law?  That any peoples can define themselves to be a part of any other state, without regard to the laws of the state they currently are part of?  That's not how international law has operated in the past (why would Hitler have even negotiated with anyone over the Sudetenland if he could simply have taken it over after a referendum?).  Can El Paso, Texas join Mexico by a simple majority vote?  Can it change back again by another vote? These are the implications of saying that the Crimea can detach itself from Ukraine by simply conducting a referendum (or pretending to, for that matter).

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

I have no idea what this means.

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.

An effective "weapon" for what?  Referenda can advise, but can only have power if the law of the land allows it; the Ukrainian law does not.

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?

You argued that "no one would say."  I provided an example of someone who said.  You point is disproven.  It doesn't matter who he is.

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?

Fair gripe about my using the abbreviation NPR.  But, no, it is not like the BBC.  It isn't government-owned and anyone can listen.
try http://wamu.org/listen  that's the news/talk station in DC.

[alfred russel]

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

Can I join your bunker? I'll make up a new persona every few weeks to keep things from getting stale.

[Ed Anger]

First:

*takes a drink* at the wall of Grumbletext.

Second:

No.

[Admiral Yi]

See, that is a good reason

Et tu, Peedy?

[Caliga]

Good going Tsar Putin

[Jacob]

Tsar Tsar Tsar Putin
Lover of the Russian Queen

[Razgovory]

First:

*takes a drink* at the wall of Grumbletext.

Second:

No.

I don't even know what they are arguing about.  There but for the grace of God.

[PDH]

Lucullus will be dining with Lucullus?

Yer damn skippy

[Syt]

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html

Crimean Tatars Will Have to Vacate Land – Official

MOSCOW, March 18 (RIA Novosti) – Ukraine's breakaway region of Crimea will ask Tatars to vacate part of the land where they now live in exchange for new territory elsewhere in the region, a top Crimean government official said Tuesday.

Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliyev said in an interview with RIA Novosti on Tuesday the new government in Crimea, where residents voted Sunday to become part of Russia, wants to regularize the land unofficially taken over by Crimean Tatar squatters following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"We have asked the Crimean Tatars to vacate part of their land, which is required for social needs," Temirgaliyev said. "But we are ready to allocate and legalize many other plots of land to ensure a normal life for the Crimean Tatars," he said.

Temirgaliyev emphasized that members of the Tatar community could receive senior political positions in the new government, in an apparent move to ease ethnic tensions in the region.
"I think that Crimean Tatars will be well represented in the government and parliament," he said.

The Crimean Tatars, a historic people of the region, were deported en masse to Central Asia by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin 70 years ago. Although many of them returned in the early 1990s, they were unable to reclaim the land they had possessed before their deportation.

Many Crimean Tatars have taken over unclaimed land as squatters by building houses, farms and mosques. Ukrainian authorities have in the past failed to settle the land disputes.

The Tatars, who make up 15 percent of Crimea's population, remain amongst the staunchest supporters of the new government in Kiev that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych last month.
Crimea, a largely Russian-speaking autonomous republic within Ukraine, was part of Russia until it was gifted to Ukraine by Soviet leaders in 1954.

Putin signed a decree Monday recognizing Crimea as an independent state, following a referendum Sunday that saw voters on the peninsula overwhelmingly support secession and reunification with Russia.

Nearly 30 percent of Crimean Tatars voted in favor of reunification with Russia at Sunday's referendum, Temirgaliyev said.

[DGuller]

There is still plenty of land in Siberia.  I think they know how to get there by now.

[Syt]

The noise around Transnistria is getting a bit louder:

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/724144

Russian government to meet on March 20 over Transniestria blockade by Ukraine

World  March 18, 15:31 UTC+4

MOSCOW, March 18. /ITAR-TASS/. Russian government meets on March 20 to discuss the actual Transnistria blockade by Ukraine, - said Deputy Prime Minister Dmirty Rogozin.

"Definitely, we will hold big and serious meeting on 20 March with all the ministers and departments order in Transnistrian governance felt the presence of major consultants and advisors from the Russian government in regard to issues of how to survive the economic blockade, which today already is a reality, - said the deputy head of the Russian government.

According to him, "the situation is more complicated in the case of Moldova signs agreements with the European Union".

"Chisinau, in fact, does not think about Transnistria, and shows by all actions that Transnistria is not Moldova's land. Due to this reality we will draw our own conclusions", added Deputy Prime Minister.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/724121

Dniester public organizations ask Russia to consider possibility of Transnistria accession

In 2006, Transnistria held a referendum similar to Sunday's referendum in Crimea, at which 97% of the population voted for independence from Moldova with subsequent accession to Russia

TIRASPOL, March 18. /ITAR-TASS/. Public organizations of the Dniester region have appealed to Russia's State Duma, asking to add a clause to Russian legislation which might offer a possibility of accession to Russia of the self-proclaimed Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

The resolution was adopted at a round-table meeting attended by deputies of the Dniester parliament and representatives of youth organizations, head of the local parliament's press service Irina Kubanskikh told Itar-Tass on Tuesday.

Public representatives of Transnistria have appealed to the Russian leadership, asking to consider a possibility of applying the legislative bills, discussed at the State Duma, on the order of granting Russian citizenship and admission of new members into the Russian Federation," the spokesperson said.

In 2006, Transnistria held a referendum similar to Sunday's referendum in Crimea, at which 97% of the population voted for independence from Moldova with subsequent accession to Russia.
Later, the Transnistrian administration developed a concept of adapting the local and Russian legislative acts in the field of the economics and civil law.

In 2013, Transnistrian leader Yevgeny Shevchuk stated that free parallel circulation of the Russian ruble and the Transnistrian currency was possible, thus, making easier the accounting with members of the Customs Union.

Russian government meets on March 20 to discuss the actual Transnistria blockade by Ukraine, - said Deputy Prime Minister Dmirty Rogozin.

"Definitely, we will hold big and serious meeting on 20 March with all the ministers and departments order in Transnistrian governance felt the presence of major consultants and advisors from the Russian government in regard to issues of how to survive the economic blockade, which today already is a reality, - said the deputy head of the Russian government.

And afterwards the corridor between Russia/Crimea and Transnistria?

[Razgovory]

So, Putin's going full mad tyrant now?