Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[celedhring]

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

By conceding the referendum you'd be legitimizing their invasion. There was no discernible demand for this kind of referendum before 2014.

[Josquius]

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

By conceding the referendum you'd be legitimizing their invasion. There was no discernible demand for this kind of referendum before 2014.

Only if the pro Russian side wins.
Which they won't.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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

By conceding the referendum you'd be legitimizing their invasion. There was no discernible demand for this kind of referendum before 2014.

Only if the pro Russian side wins.
Which they won't.

Better to not even give them the chance.

[Tamas]

Holding the referendum would on its own provide post-fact casus belli to the Russians in their reading at least and more importantly as it has been explained many times, the result of foreign aggression cannot be a referendum on the topic the foreign aggressor was pushing.

There were zero calls from Russia or in fact from those regions for a referendum before the 2014 Invasion so calling for one now is taking Russia's side in this blatant aggression, simple as that, I am sorry.

[Zanza]

I feel that this is comparable to the referendum in Austria in 1938 after Germany occupying it a month earlier.

[Berkut]

But regions do not wish to leave. Some people within some regions claim to wish to leave. Other people within those regions do not wish to leave.

The Brits are not "sitting on a separatist movement". The Scots have equal rights within Britain to advocate for whatever political structure they like, and that includes advocating for separation, and *some of them* do just that.

What should Britian do differently if they were a real democracy, rather then just a "so-called democracy"? Force Scotland to separate even against the wishes of those who do not want to separate because someone in Scotland somewhere wishes it to be so? And then if the new Scotland is a real, rather then "so-called" democracy, it will let everywhere there is 50%+1 of people in some defined area turn around and rejoin the UK?

The entire idea is just ludicrous, especially in an area that is already a democracy. The reality is that separation is insanely complicated, and for it to happen in the context of a democracy is incredibly problematic. Which is why it almost never happens. Not because the democracies in question are so imperfect at being democracies, but because they are democracies.

[Berkut]

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

By conceding the referendum you'd be legitimizing their invasion. There was no discernible demand for this kind of referendum before 2014.

Only if the pro Russian side wins.
Which they won't.

No, simply holding the referendum questions the legitimacy of Ukraine as a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations do not have votes to determine if pieces of themselves ought to be carved out for invaders.

The outcome of the referendum is irrelevant to the objection against it.

You are arguing the same thing that Putin has been arguing all along. That Ukraine is not a real nation, and its neighbors out to decide what bits and pieces it gets to keep.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In any case, I reject the first principle being established--that countries must allow separatists to leave if they want and must arrange votes to facilitate such leaving.

I think the maxim is that a country should deal with separatism within the structures of its society and how its country operates, and in a democratic society it is up to the elected leaders of that country to decide exactly what that looks like. I think in some situations, it is entirely rational to conclude that it is best, either for reasons relating to peace/order, or just philosophical reasons, to facilitate the independence referendum.

I don't think Britain or Canada was "wrong" to have held separatist referendums, I don't think America was wrong to disallow the South from secession. I think they are both legitimate philosophical positions and policies that were up to the elected leadership of those countries.

Saying separatism is some natural right is akin to trying to shoehorn what is really a complex policy position with no universal answer into the realm of vaguely defined international rights to kill discussion about it, it's bad thinking.

FWIW one of the biggest arguments against secession in a democracy is most modern democracy have a set of rights that the national government is required to protect. There are many forms of secession which would see large swathes of that country's population subjected to losing those rights. For example if Texas wanted to secede and we let it hold a referendum, and 60% voted to secede, and newly independent Texas immediately outlaws gay marriage, repeals separation of Church and State, disallows speech criticizing police officers and things of that nature--the residents of Texas who were American citizens are now being denied core constitutional rights we have long agreed upon in our country. Further, and even more perniciously, there was a significant portion of the population of Texas that voted against leaving. We are essentially saying in such cases that it is justifiable to vote away from certain people their core constitutional rights.

[The Larch]

I hope this guy has a bullet-proof health plan agains falls from tall buildings.

Oligarch renounces Russian citizenship over Ukraine war
Oleg Tinkov, who has previously spoken out against the conflict, says he 'won't be associated with a fascist country'

The billionaire banker and entrepreneur Oleg Tinkov has renounced his Russian citizenship because of the conflict in Ukraine, which he has previously criticised.

"I have taken the decision to exit my Russian citizenship. I can't and won't be associated with a fascist country that started a war with their peaceful neighbour and killing innocent people daily," Tinkov said.

"I hope more prominent Russian businessmen will follow me, so it weakens Putin's regime and his economy, and put him eventually to defeat," he wrote on Instagram.

He shared an image of a certificate confirming the "ending" of his Russian citizenship. "I hate Putin's Russia, but love all Russians, who are clearly against this crazy war!" Tinkov wrote.

The colourful billionaire is one of Russia's best-known self-made tycoons and founded the online Tinkoff Bank. The bank is one of Russia's largest lenders, behind state giants Sberbank and VTB. Tinkoff has about 20 million customers.

Tinkov, 54, has strongly criticised Russia's offensive in Ukraine, describing it as an "insane war" as he called on the west to end the "massacre".

He has also been targeted by British sanctions imposed soon after the conflict began in late February.

He was previously arrested in London in 2020 on charges of tax evasion in the US. He was later released on bail and treated for leukaemia in London.

He quit his role as CEO of Tinkoff in 2020 and the bank has distanced itself from his comments.

[alfred russel]

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 dictionary definition, per marriam webster, is:

sphere of influence noun

: a territorial area within which the political influence or the interests of one nation are held to be more or less paramount

That isn't what you have above. I maintain it certainly does apply to eastern europe in the cold war.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sphere%20of%20influence

Cambridge dictionary:

an area in which the power or interests of a country or an organization are of greatest importance

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sphere-of-influence

I already quoted wikipedia and the section it has on the Cold War.

[Barrister]

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 dictionary definition, per marriam webster, is:

sphere of influence noun

: a territorial area within which the political influence or the interests of one nation are held to be more or less paramount

That isn't what you have above. I maintain it certainly does apply to eastern europe in the cold war.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sphere%20of%20influence

Cambridge dictionary:

an area in which the power or interests of a country or an organization are of greatest importance

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sphere-of-influence

I already quoted wikipedia and the section it has on the Cold War.
[/quote]

Okay but what does Paramount mean:

adjective

noun
Synonyms
Synonym Chooser
Example Sentences
Word History
Entries Near

Show More

paramount
1 of 2
adjective
par·�a·�mount ˈper-ə-ˌmau̇nt  ˈpa-rə-
: superior to all others : SUPREME
a matter of paramount importance
Unemployment was the paramount issue in the election.

Did the USSR has more influence in eastern europe?  Sure - it had all kinds of troops stationed there, it had installed ideologically friendly governments there.  Bus was the USSR supreme in the region?  Did no other nations have influence there? 

No.

[alfred russel]

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.

That is me. Careless and reckless. Thankfully god gave me a repugnant personality or else I would have died from multiple STD infections years ago.

[alfred russel]

Did the USSR has more influence in eastern europe?  Sure - it had all kinds of troops stationed there, it had installed ideologically friendly governments there.  Bus was the USSR supreme in the region?  Did no other nations have influence there? 

No.

I mean the governments were both communist and locked into military support for the USSR through alliances that were completely against the wishes of the population. Hell in some cases industry was even shipped out from eastern europe to help industrialize the USSR.

[Barrister]

OK, I don't see this reported elsewhere, but the source is the Twitter blue-checkmarked "Advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine".

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1587412820181893123

Russia will abide by the Ukraine grain deal if Ukraine guarantees the safety of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

[Grey Fox]

 

Poor Russia.