Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Berkut]

But why should the people in the annexed territories get that choice?

What is it about being annexed by a hostile conquering butcher means that there has to be a referendum?

Why shouldn't the people of Kyiv get this choice? Or the people of Paris? Or the people of Latvia? Des Moines?

[Josquius]

I do not understand your question.

It's rhetorical. Answering your questions by pointing out the flaws in that line of thinking.
People, all people everywhere, deserve self determination.
 That Putin decided to invade and decide for them doesn't mean the world should forbid them ever having a free choice just because even after all this shit they might decide to go with Russia.

As said I can't see Russia ever agreeing to a fair referendum as it seems very likely to go against them. If they did agree do it they'd doubtless work to undermine it and ignore the results if they don't go their way.

Nonetheless as an ideal giving the people in the annexed territories a real choice is absolutely the optimum scenario. They are entitled to this by default and Putin can't erase this right.

No, people everywhere do not deserve self determination.

This is so trivially easy to disprove, I am kind of amazed it is still up for debate.

What is you line - how many people have to decide to agree to destroy a sovereign nation? 50.0000000000000000001%? Is that enough?

If 51 out of 100 people all vote to secede from the middle of some country and join their neighbor, does that mean that the remaining 49 can all vote to secede from the new enclave and go back? Oh sorry  only 25 of the 49 would need to so vote, of course.

Again with the daft bad faith questions.
All people deserve self determination is not the same thing as any random group of people of any size can 50.0001% decide to secede and do it.

I've made the point lot in the past that I favour real majorities on this kind of thing.

What size is big enough, where do you draw the line, etc... is a very fluffy question where you'll never find a scientific one size fits all answer.

But why should the people in the annexed territories get that choice?

What is it about being annexed by a hostile conquering butcher means that there has to be a referendum?

Have you watched the news at all lately?
Might have escaped your attention but there's a bit of a war going on.

Why shouldn't the people of Kyiv get this choice? Or the people of Paris? Or the people of Latvia? Des Moines?

Why shouldn't they?
Interesting you seem to have completely flopped sides here.

[Berkut]

No, I am curious as to why YOU have flopped sides, actually.

So you cannot answer the question of what number of people is determinant of "self-determination". You say it is a "fluffy" question.

Apparently, whatever the fluffy answer might be, being invaded gets you past those answers, and straight to a "yep, you get to have a referendum!"

You think the people of Des Moines should hold a referendum to see if they want to remain part of Iowa?

Why? Should Iowa have a referndum to see if they want to stay part of the USA? 

What circumstances, other then being invaded by a foreign power, trigger this need for a referendum to determine the will of the fluffy "maybe majority"?

[Admiral Yi]

Ukraine should give things but Russia shouldn't give anything?

NATO membership would be a concession.  UN supervised referenda would be a concession.  Referenda only in those areas would be a concession.

[Admiral Yi]

"Krutschev 'randomly' 'for some reason' 'giving' Crimea to Ukraine" is straight up a Putin talking point.

Not clear on your point.  Do you mean it is not true?

[Jacob]

"Krutschev 'randomly' 'for some reason' 'giving' Crimea to Ukraine" is straight up a Putin talking point.

Not clear on your point.  Do you mean it is not true?

Krutschev was the man in charge when Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in the Soviet Union, that is true. That does not mean it was random or otherwise invalid. Nor does it matter particularly today. Making that the central part of the narrative - and agreeing that it's an "error" that has to be "corrected" - is the Putin talking point.

It's kind of like saying it's okay for some guy to kidnap his ex because it was "a mistake" to break up with years ago. Yeah, maybe he dumped her. And maybe that was a foolish thing to do, but that doesn't mean violence is justified to try to "correct" for that "mistake".

[Valmy]

I don't even understand the concept of a mistake in this context. As if the natural order demands a place that the Russians conquered by conquest and subjected to ethnic cleansing is somehow an essential part of Russia.

[Sheilbh]

There's no answer in history on this. Crimea was as valid a part of Russia and the USSR as any other territory acquired and ethnically cleansed in the 18th century. Khruschev redrew boundaries of Soviet republics secure in the knowledge that the USSR wouldn't collapse and was the future - again, not unlike other imperial projects. But there's no way to undo any of that.

There's no way to discern what people in Ukraine wanted in 2014 prior to the invasion. Crimea voted, with the rest of Ukraine, for independence and was a stronghold for pro-Russian Ukrainian parties. But after the failed Transnistria style breakaway (peacefully solved by Ukraine and Russia) there wasn't, a big separatist movement yearning for reunification and there wasn't any anti-Ukraine civil unrest or violence. Crimea was pro-Russian within the context of Ukraine - though in terms of votes, less so than parts of Donetsk. Not sure why they're treated differently. I don't think the past is as relevant as that it's unacceptable for a country - especially one with a nuclear umbrella - to invade its neighours and re-draw international boundaries.

I'm with Jos on self-determination but the way to estabish that, in my view, is not for it to be imposed form the outside (unless there's some need and possibility for the international community to intervene due to violence) but to get back to internationally recognised borders. If within Ukraine's democratic system, there's a Crimean separatist party then self-determination is something that matters - but that wasn't happening prior to the Russian invasion and I don't see any reason why its more likely now. I get Russia has tried to position its 2014 invasion as a version of Kosovo but there's no reason from what I can see to concede that.

[Jacob]

You're falling into the same faulty thinking of Russia somehow being rewarded out of this theoretical.

Russia has some pretty clear war goals now that they've given up on their initial goal - to destroy and annex Ukraine. Now they want to hang on to the territories they're currently occupying while they build up strength to finish the job.

Any settlement that gives gives them their current war aims when they're otherwise losing is in fact rewarding them.

It's far more that the innocent people suffering most from all this shouldn't be punished because of something that happened to them. It's their land and their future so they should get to decide it.

Sure. But not as a result to an armed invasion by a fascist regime.

To use your nazi comparison it's like saying Slovakia didn't have the right to become an independent country because of its past history as a nazi puppet.

Slovakia's nationhood was determined after the Nazis were defeated. You're proposing making a deal with the Nazi equivalents before they're defeated.

And you're also assuming - apparently - the people of the occupied parts of Ukraine have a distinct national identity and a yearning for nationhood that exists outside the schemes of paid FSB agents.

Not to mention the core idea that this thing that Russia would never agree to is somehow what Russia wants.

Great. So your proposal is something that neither Russia nor Ukraine wants. What is this supposed to accomplish?

[Jacob]

I'm with Jos on self-determination but the way to estabish that, in my view, is not for it to be imposed form the outside (unless there's some need and possibility for the international community to intervene due to violence) but to get back to internationally recognised borders. If within Ukraine's democratic system, there's a Crimean separatist party then self-determination is something that matters - but that wasn't happening prior to the Russian invasion and I don't see any reason why its more likely now. I get Russia has tried to position its 2014 invasion as a version of Kosovo but there's no reason from what I can see to concede that.

Yeah that's legit. If within the sovereign state of Ukraine there's a separation movement, that should have the same right to democratically seek independence as the people of Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia etc.

But it should not be imposed by outsiders, especially not under threat of conquest and destruction by fascist Russia (and that includes the West saying "accept the deal or we'll stop supporting you.")

[Berkut]

Ukraine should give things but Russia shouldn't give anything?

NATO membership would be a concession.  UN supervised referenda would be a concession.  Referenda only in those areas would be a concession.

How is NATO membership a concession? Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and does not need permission from Russia to join NATO, most especially after Russia attacks them, proving that Ukraine needs NATO.

How is a freaking referendum a concession, UN supervised or otherwise? Why would there be a referendum at all? This is like suggesting that there should be a referendum in 1940 to see if the Poles would like to join Germany or the USSR.

[Berkut]

I'm with Jos on self-determination but the way to estabish that, in my view, is not for it to be imposed form the outside (unless there's some need and possibility for the international community to intervene due to violence) but to get back to internationally recognised borders. If within Ukraine's democratic system, there's a Crimean separatist party then self-determination is something that matters - but that wasn't happening prior to the Russian invasion and I don't see any reason why its more likely now. I get Russia has tried to position its 2014 invasion as a version of Kosovo but there's no reason from what I can see to concede that.

I am not at all with Jos on blanket self determination, but would have zero issue with what you are describing here - a political process that respects the wishes of everyone involved to determine if there is some reason, within the boundaries of a States sovereignty, to adjust borders.

Self determination is something that matters, but is just one of many, many variables that matter in that context.

The context of "self determination" in a state of war? No, that matters not fucking at all. There can be no reasonable or balanced way of establishing such a thing during a state of war when the basic war aims of the aggressor is the destruction entirely of the entity involved.

[Valmy]

There's no answer in history on this. Crimea was as valid a part of Russia and the USSR as any other territory acquired and ethnically cleansed in the 18th century.

The 18th century you say? Well this may come as a shock but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars

The USSR behaved badly. And it ceased to be a valid part of Russia and the USSR. The history of how or why it came to be in Russia is very fucking relevant to claiming it has some kind of historical valid claim.

And now Russia wants its big "self-determination" reward for all the ethnic cleansing it conducted.

This is precisely why I hate this entire idea that self-determination is such a sacrosanct idea. It encourages and rewards exactly this kind of thing. It basically holds the carrot out there demanding ethnic cleaning and genocide in order to have a viable claim to an area. The whole idea that Russia claims it has any kind of claim to this territory when it ceases to own it is disgusting. Yes history is no factor here, even fucking history in living memory, horrible crimes against humanity should be ignored. And rewarded possibly.

You committed atrocities? No problem. Let bygones be bygones. Especially since hey Russia recognized it belonged to Ukraine in multiple treaties.

[Admiral Yi]

How is NATO membership a concession? Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and does not need permission from Russia to join NATO, most especially after Russia attacks them, proving that Ukraine needs NATO.

How is a freaking referendum a concession, UN supervised or otherwise? Why would there be a referendum at all? This is like suggesting that there should be a referendum in 1940 to see if the Poles would like to join Germany or the USSR.

NATO membership and referenda are concessions because they are things Russia doesn't want.

There would be a referendum because both parties would agree to it.

[DGuller]

The discussion on the last page or two has been extremely depressing.  You'd think that a genocidal invasion would be enough to snap some people out of the instinct to succumb to the shifting of the Overton window, but evidently not.