Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[grumbler]

And if such a thing were to happen, it can only possibly be legitimate if it is instigated and run by the sovereign nation in question, which is Ukraine. Let me know when they let us know they think such a thing should happen...right?

Berkut I've generally been with you on this, but the UN has a long history of running independence referendums.

Which ones have been conducted with the current sovereign state opposed to it?

[Sheilbh]

Which ones have been conducted with the current sovereign state opposed to it?

It's most of them isn't it?

If the current sovereign is willing to accept separatism, it's more likely they'd conduct the referendum possibly with international observers. The UN tends to step in when, due to conflict, that's not possible - for example Timor Leste, South Sudan etc.

[Barrister]

Which ones have been conducted with the current sovereign state opposed to it?

It's most of them isn't it?

If the current sovereign is willing to accept separatism, it's more likely they'd conduct the referendum possibly with international observers. The UN tends to step in when, due to conflict, that's not possible - for example Timor Leste, South Sudan etc.

Those were exactly the most modern 2 examples I was thinking of.

[celedhring]

Guys, I'm with Berkut here. I'm not sure we should be giving precedent to aggressive war from an external power being a foundation for self-determination referendums.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Which ones have been conducted with the current sovereign state opposed to it?

It's most of them isn't it?

If the current sovereign is willing to accept separatism, it's more likely they'd conduct the referendum possibly with international observers. The UN tends to step in when, due to conflict, that's not possible - for example Timor Leste, South Sudan etc.

Um, no?

Omar Bashir, President of Sudan at the time agreed with the referendum in 2011--largely as a consequence of agreeing to the peace in the civil war in 2005.

Timor-Leste also occurred due to a diplomatic agreement sponsored between Indonesia and Portugal.

So in fact, neither is an example of the UN going in and forcing a country to let a region vote for independence against its will. In fact AFAIK the UN going into a sovereign state and forcing that sovereign state to conduct an independence referendum against its will is unprecedented and would go against most of the foundational ideas behind the UN Charter.

[The Brain]

As I understand it, in the Yi scenario the referenda would come about through an agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

[Berkut]

And if such a thing were to happen, it can only possibly be legitimate if it is instigated and run by the sovereign nation in question, which is Ukraine. Let me know when they let us know they think such a thing should happen...right?

Berkut I've generally been with you on this, but the UN has a long history of running independence referendums.

Like all such things, it is complicated.

Running a referendum us one thing. That can be done just to ensure that the process itself is seen as credible.

But as long as the sovereign nation in question is a basically legitimate, democratic nation that provides a political voice to it's citizens, then the international community has no business interfering in the decision to hold such a referendum.

If it is some group whose reason for demanding a change are in fact that they are NOT given a political voice, then that is a bit different, of course.

In this case, we have exactly the opposite. We have a functioning democracy, with a fascist authoritarian attacking and then demanding that people have their voice removed under the guise of "all people get to pick!".

[Sheilbh]

Um, no?

Omar Bashir, President of Sudan at the time agreed with the referendum in 2011--largely as a consequence of agreeing to the peace in the civil war in 2005.

Timor-Leste also occurred due to a diplomatic agreement sponsored between Indonesia and Portugal.

So in fact, neither is an example of the UN going in and forcing a country to let a region vote for independence against its will. In fact AFAIK the UN going into a sovereign state and forcing that sovereign state to conduct an independence referendum against its will is unprecedented and would go against most of the foundational ideas behind the UN Charter.

I don't think anyone was talking about the UN forcing a country to hold a referendum. But conducting it because the current sovereign state couldn't be trusted to conduct one fairly. Not least because they'd spent however many years trying to violently quash separatism. I think it's a fiction to pretend that Sudan or Indonesia elected to hold those referendums or could be trusted to administer them. That's why you get the UN in to conduct the vote.

As I say I don't think any of this is relevant to Ukraine.

[Berkut]

None of it is relevant to Ukraine, except insofar people who have this "ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE" idea around self determination are finding themselves having to square that with a fascist authoritarian suddenly agreeing with them.

It is obviously not even a remotely similar circumstance.

[alfred russel]

Man, the sphere of influence idiocy again. The United States nor USSR ever "recognized" spheres of influence.

No fucking shit.

But there were definitely spheres of influence. There isn't a point to going play by play over ~40 year period but eastern europe was militarily dominated by the USSR that never allowed those nations to express self determination or independent sovereignty. What the USSR got away with to control Poland or Eastern Germany never would have flown in France or the Netherlands. Even at the points in time that France was not in NATO.

[Habbaku]

At what points in NATO's existence was France not a part of it?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Man, the sphere of influence idiocy again. The United States nor USSR ever "recognized" spheres of influence.

No fucking shit.

But there were definitely spheres of influence. There isn't a point to going play by play over ~40 year period but eastern europe was militarily dominated by the USSR that never allowed those nations to express self determination or independent sovereignty. What the USSR got away with to control Poland or Eastern Germany never would have flown in France or the Netherlands. Even at the points in time that France was not in NATO.

The term "sphere of influence" doesn't mean "one country has dominance over another." It refers to a political science theory that a certain country, typically a regional hegemon, has exclusive rights to conduct diplomacy and military operations within a certain geographic sphere. The entire theory is predicated on other hegemons recognizing the sphere as valid and respecting it. Without that, you don't have a sphere of influence, you just have a "powerful state with vassals."

The Napoleonic Empire did not represent a "sphere of influence" it represented a satellite of vassal states centered around Napoleonic France, but no other powers regarded France's unilateral interests in Europe as something they were bound to respect. In fact--they worked assiduously to collapse French influence. This is exactly similar to the Cold War and the way the West responded to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.

The whole reason Putinists bring up the sphere of influence lie is they like to spread the idea that it was once a "norm" that the rest of the world accepted Russia had exclusive rights to do whatever it wanted over a huge swathe of area including areas where many other sovereign states are. That has simply never been reality.

The closest we have ever seen AFAIK to a spheres of influence norm would be in the division of regions like Africa by European Great Powers, and agreements between European Great Powers to not interfere with each other's interests in China and etc.

[grumbler]

Which ones have been conducted with the current sovereign state opposed to it?

It's most of them isn't it?

If the current sovereign is willing to accept separatism, it's more likely they'd conduct the referendum possibly with international observers. The UN tends to step in when, due to conflict, that's not possible - for example Timor Leste, South Sudan etc.

the UN resolution to hold a referendum in Timor Leste was made by the President of Indonesia.  Calling it opposition when it is the current sovereign's request seems a bit absurd. 

The South Sudan referendum was run by the Sudanese government, not the UN.  The UN did print the ballots for the referendum, though.  Again, running the referendum is not opposing it.

Try again?

[grumbler]

At what points in NATO's existence was France not a part of it?

Careless people confuse France's decision to leave the joint NATO military structure with some mythical French decision to leave NATO itself.

[Josquius]

I get that basically none of this war has been great for Russia's military - especially compared to their pre-war reputation - but I feel like the navy especially has really underperformed compared with Ukraine - or is that unfair/wrong?

Yes. Ish. But then it has been operating in a less than optimal situation for a navy. Any country's navy would struggle when its trying to operate around the coast of a hostile nation capable of putting up a fight, thats the domain of land and air rather than sea.

Interesting that you say this yet you assume the pro Russia side would win in a fair referendum.

The point is that the conditions for anything approaching a fair referendum could not be met for some time - Grumbler laid out some of the conditions that might create the circumstances for a fair vote.  It was a good starting list.  And I am sure that we, Grumbler included, would add significantly to that list if put in the position of an actual policy advisor.

This isn't even the main principle for me.

Even if we assumed there could be a magic, perfectly fair referendum....why?

Why should there be one in the first place? What is happening in these places that justify them getting referendums?

The only thing I know about is that Russia sent a bunch of little green men in and started an insurrection, then invaded, then invaded again, and is now getting this asses kicked.

None of those things seem like things we should consider as being good cause to go and hold referendums on secession.

And if such a thing were to happen, it can only possibly be legitimate if it is instigated and run by the sovereign nation in question, which is Ukraine. Let me know when they let us know they think such a thing should happen...right?

Providing solid evidence to show to neutral countries that Russia has no legitimacy whatsoever in what its doing isn't a good enough reason?

I'm not the one claiming that democracies are "sitting on separatist movements"  - you are.

This is just a fact. Look at the current fuss in the UK over another Scottish independence referendum or Spain's reaction to the Catalan independence referendum.

I am not the one claiming that "all people everywhere" deserve self determination, then immediately saying that it doesn't mean ALL people, or everywhere, at all.

I never said that either.

While simultaneously claiming that "so-called" democracies are apparently not democracies because they have "some people somewhere" that want to leave and are not allowed, because other people don't.

Democracy isn't a binary.
Though its a big democratic failing to not allow regions that wish to leave to do so.