|
Cantorsdust posted:And to top it all off, the only choices on the referendum were independence or joining Russia! There wasn't even a choice to stay in Ukraine! Stop trying to defend an obvious farce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014#Choices quote:Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?[76] I hope this helps. Also I have never defended the referendum itself, rather I have stated that I have not seen evidence to support that only a minority of people in crimea wanted to join Russia. If someone can show me sufficient evidence that doesn't boil down to bbbbubbbuuut the russians had GUNS I can reconsider.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:But they are totally cool with thousands of slaves dying to build stadiums in Qatar. You mean a foreign worker program which helps employ thousands of people in jobs they could not get in their country so they can support their families... and possibly be tossed into the ocean when their usefulness has expired having been paid nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
The Risk posted:I don't get what my previous posts have to do about this discussion. All I stated that if by some chance the referendum was the true will of Crimea we should just gently caress off and let them join Russia. The US has more important poo poo to focus at this moment. I'll recap my other post. Even if the referendum was the true will of Crimea: 1) Secession is explicitly forbidden under Ukraine's constitution, much like individual states were explicitly forbidden from leaving the US post Civil War. 2) There are serious humanitarian concerns with returning Crimea to Russia when you consider the historical treatment of its Tatars. The fact that Crimea has announced plans for their relocation already is disturbing evidence of this. 3) The US, Ukraine, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in the Budapest Memorandum, so Russia annexing Crimea is an explicit treaty violation. 4) Allowing Russia to annex Crimea sets a concerning precedent regarding states choosing to give up their nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up theres in exchange for the promise of protection, only to find out that the promises were empty. How would you convince some other state (Iran, North Korea, etc) to give theirs up now? They've seen what happened to Ukraine, and if Ukraine had kept their nukes this wouldn't have happened. There are plenty of reasons to prevent Crimea's annexation even if you believe the majority of Crimeans want to join Russia. Which again, I haven't seen any good polling evidence for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
It is possible to both believe that the referendum was lolworthy and that Crimeans would certainly have voted for Russia anyway. Anybody who's in the "but we don't know that" camp does not understand the concept of post-Soviet and near-Soviet elections, where "vote for the guy that promises to gently caress us the least / bribe us the hardest" has a very close to 97% prediction success rate. In the old thread somebody posted an NYT article about how South Ossetia got abandoned after the fact. The article itself had a throwaway paragraph about how Abkhazia was doing better. That's because while South Ossetia might as well be called Goatstan for all anyone in Russia cares about it, Abkhazia is on the Black Sea coastline and has a former-Soviet fancy resort town, Sukhumi, which is booming. The Crimea is much more important than Abkhazia is, strategically located and has much more news coverage. While Abkhazia is still pretty goatdamn far from Genuine European Civilization and has a suspiciously ethnic name, Crimea might well have the most 19th and 20th century Russian soldier war graves per kilometer in the world. Of course it's gonna get showered in
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
enbot posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014#Choices Also, According to the Central Election Commission of Ukraine on February 28, 2014 there were 1,534,815 registered voters in the autonomous republic of Crimea and 309,774 in the city of Sevastopol, which totals to 1,844,589 voters in the both Ukrainian regions 1,274,096 people voted in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, giving the plebiscite an 83.1% turnout in that region. In the US we have a about 50% to 60% turnout in the presidential election so it is quite impressive they get 83% turnout. If the elections were not tampered democracy really spoke there. I don't see why people cant believe they wanted to join back Russia after their close historical ties. The Risk fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
enbot posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014#Choices I'm not super savvy on all the details, but as I understand it, the 1992 constitution was essentially independence from Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
enbot posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014#Choices The 1992 Constitution gives much broader powers to Crimea and would have been a clear step towards independence. The point remains that there was no choice for the status quo. And the absence of evidence against your claim is not evidence for your claim. Come on, that's amateur level poo poo. And the Russians having guns is a big loving deal, don't try to handwave it away. In the US, you can't even have political material within a radius of a polling station. Imagine the uproar if a foreign nation placed soldiers around the station itself! Again, I just don't understand why you would try to handwave away such blatant evidence of electoral fraud and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. And I didn't just list Russians with guns as the reason the election isn't legitimate. There were procedural problems as well, like the clear ballot boxes, crowds around the polling stations, and a rushed election that was moved two months up from its original timeline. Like seriously, not only are you setting up a strawman and then dismissing my arguments, but the strawman itself should be enough to convince anyone without an agenda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:The 1992 Constitution gives much broader powers to Crimea and would have been a clear step towards independence. The point remains that there was no choice for the status quo. And the absence of evidence against your claim is not evidence for your claim. Come on, that's amateur level poo poo. quote:After a referendum on 20 January 1991, Crimea regained its status as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.[1] (Since this was months before the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991 (by December 1991 internationally recognized[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) Crimea was at the time part of the Ukrainian SSR which was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union.[1][9]) In February 1992 the Crimean parliament transformed Crimea into "Republic of Crimea" and the Ukrainian government offered them more self-government.[1] On 5 May 1992 parliament declared Crimea independent[1] (which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held 2 August 1992[10])[clarification needed Did the referendum happen, or was it cancelled?] and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day.[10] On 6 May 1992 the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.[10] On 13 May 1992 the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) annulled Crimea's independence declaration and gave its Crimean counterpart one week to do the same.[10] In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1] If you read this you can determine Crimea has never seen itself as part of Ukraine as many people here say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
The Risk posted:If you read this you can determine Crimea has never seen itself as part of Ukraine as many people here say. Are we reading the same text? Because you must be reading a novel where someone goes back in time and convinces Khrushchev to decide against giving Crimea to Ukraine.  reading comprehension is hard
Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
 Ron Paul using Ukraine to schlep for funds. http://ronpaulinstitute.org/media/117903/fightback.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:I would imagine that Russia is going to try and grab the predominantly pro-Russian area in the east, there are a lot of ethnic Russians there. If that happens, would the rest of Ukraine be able to survive on it's own? Based on my limited knowledge of Ukraine most of the wealth, industry, etc is in the Eastern portion. I was reading an article yesterday how the message was received loud and clear in Kazakhstan which also has a large Russian minority and how the leaders there may now pursue a program of derussification. It was by a supposed expert in that particular area of the world and he didn't go into details as to how this derussification might take place so take it for what its worth. Any place with a sizable Russian ethnic population has to be sweating right about now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Are we reading the same text? Because you must be reading a novel where someone goes back in time and convinces Khrushchev to decide against giving Crimea to Ukraine. What would that decree have to do with how Crimeans see themselves?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
The Risk posted:If you read this you can determine Crimea has never seen itself as part of Ukraine as many people here say. I just read it. It looks like there was never a referendum held to determine its independence. Meanwhile, the Crimean and Ukrainian parliaments then together agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine. The rest was power struggles/showmanship between the Crimean and Ukrainian parliaments that ultimately resulted in nothing happening. Furthermore, all this happened in the 90's. If I posted a poll from the 90's showing Crimea wanted to be part of Ukraine, you would laugh at it and say it's out of date. Why should I be swayed by your "evidence"? edit: And I just want to make clear--I freely admit that it's possible that the majority of Crimeans want to leave the Ukraine. But the referendum they just had was the wrong way to show it, and even if the Crimeans want independence, it's not clear that they should get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:
I don't know how you sleep at night dumping on the daily beast, free beacon, and kristol then hat tip mother loving drudge report.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I don't know how you sleep at night dumping on the daily beast, free beacon, and kristol then hat tip mother loving drudge report. Ridiculous amounts of idiot donor money makes for a mighty comfortable pillow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:And the Russians having guns is a big loving deal, don't try to handwave it away. In the US, you can't even have political material within a radius of a polling station. Imagine the uproar if a foreign nation placed soldiers around the station itself! Again, I just don't understand why you would try to handwave away such blatant evidence of electoral fraud and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. In some parts of the world they actually welcome armed officials protecting voters. The American attitude doesn't exactly matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
The other thing to consider here is that except for the Tatars, no one in Crimea has any direct stake in either state or European-style nationalism in general, because here's the timeline of the Ukrainian state post 1990: 1991-2004: authoritarian strongmen who loot the country blind 2005-2010: changeup to corrupt businessman/woman who loots the country blind 2010-2014: goto 1 2014: we are here Seriously, if you're a Western liberal you have no idea what a corrupt state actually is and how little of a gently caress your average Crimean gives about what uniforms the people demanding half his $50 monthly salary to avoid having his car impounded (again) are wearing. Of course, Russia's not exactly better in this regard, but at least, the thought goes, they're going to feed us. The ethnic Russians, and for that matter, most of the other minorities who aren't Tatars or Ukrainians pretty much won the lottery and are acting like it. Before anyone does something pants on head retarded like accuse me of being a Putin apologist, the point I'm trying to make is that you're applying the wrong values. A lot of people here are on the side of the Ukrainian government. That's the wrong side to be on, or at least was the wrong side to be on last month, because there has never been a Ukrainian government that was remotely interested in governing the Ukraine, much like there was never a USSR government that was interested in governing the Soviet Union (the RSFSR, maybe). The new guys in May might change that and maybe the EU will spur some of those changes, or maybe they'll enforce some more austerity and gently caress the rump country over twice as hard, who knows. Meanwhile, those Crimeans who still want to be Crimean are going to find that Putin honest to goodness wants to govern Crimea (he has to in order to get his full share of textbook cred), which is at least temporarily an improvement. Traditional nationalism does not apply. Giant caveat: Ukrainians and Tatars might well be hosed and if I were either of those two in Crimea I would quietly get on a plane and GTFO. A Pale Horse posted:I was reading an article yesterday how the message was received loud and clear in Kazakhstan which also has a large Russian minority and how the leaders there may now pursue a program of derussification. It was by a supposed expert in that particular area of the world and he didn't go into details as to how this derussification might take place so take it for what its worth. Any place with a sizable Russian ethnic population has to be sweating right about now. Kazakhstan is making GBS threads bricks and might do exactly the opposite of this because they're next and have to forestall that at all costs. Then again, they might be dumb enough to hand out a causus belli, idk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
The Risk posted:As a US citizen I don't see what is the difference between Crimea and Kosovo. Truly a scholar of the political arts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:edit: And I just want to make clear--I freely admit that it's possible that the majority of Crimeans want to leave the Ukraine. But the referendum they just had was the wrong way to show it, and even if the Crimeans want independence, it's not clear that they should get it. Moreover, the international legal order is based on the state, in this case the parent state, being the one to dictate the referendum. Although, Ukraine's Constitution calls for a minimum of 3 million eligible voters for a national referendum and last I checked Crimea only had 1.5 million. There are a couple cases where the UN stepped in as mediator though. Of course, Russia did not bother to even pretend to care about these options or Article 2 of the Charter with respect to Ukraine. I'm pretty sure GA 1541 1960 Principle V or VI dictates that self-determination also needs to be under the auspices of free elections via democratic means. Not tanks and guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Adar posted:Kazakhstan is making GBS threads bricks and might do exactly the opposite of this because they're next and have to forestall that at all costs. Then again, they might be dumb enough to hand out a causus belli, idk. I don't know enough about Kazakhstan to have an opinion but the analyst was Russian so maybe its setting in motion another narrative already (just in case).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:edit: And I just want to make clear--I freely admit that it's possible that the majority of Crimeans want to leave the Ukraine. But the referendum they just had was the wrong way to show it, and even if the Crimeans want independence, it's not clear that they should get it. Does this apply likewise to the groups that overthrew Yanukovych? Was that the "right way" to get their independence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:
No, there are not. Putin is not a fan of Stalin and nothing similar ever happened during Putin's rule. Plans for 'relocation' do bear unfortunate implications, but they are not official orders or anything yet. The only thing we know about it so far is that Crimean Deputy PM who is a Tatar himself no less wanted Tatars to consider switching the land they were occupying illegally (because the process of legalisation went really slowly in Ukraine) for pieces of land elsewhere. It sounds fishy, I know, but at the same time Putin is pretty forward in his attempts to attract Tatars' support, too. http://www.pravda.crimea.ua/news/2014/03/18/putin-vystupil-za-reabilitaciyu-krymskikh-tata Here he acknowledges Stalin's crimes against Tatars, and that Tatars should be fully rehabilitated in their rights. The only real threat to Tatars are crazy Cossacks and Russian nationalists that live in Crimea, but I really doubt Russian government would want to condone their actions, because it can only damage Russian reputation even further if it's even possible at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Does this apply likewise to the groups that overthrew Yanukovych? Was that the "right way" to get their independence? Yanukovych was voted out by his own parliament in a democratic process. There are some legal inconsistencies with how he left, but when you flee to Russia and won't come back your parliament has to do something about it. Also, Yanukovych lost his democratic mandate when his orders resulted in the deaths of over 100 protesters. Also, the changing of a president has nothing to do with independence. No nation was splitting during that process. edit: Paladinus posted:No, there are not. Putin is not a fan of Stalin and nothing similar ever happened during Putin's rule. Plans for 'relocation' do bear unfortunate implications, but they are not official orders or anything yet. The only thing we know about it so far is that Crimean Deputy PM who is a Tatar himself no less wanted Tatars to consider switching the land they were occupying illegally (because the process of legalisation went really slowly in Ukraine) for pieces of land elsewhere. It sounds fishy, I know, but at the same time Putin is pretty forward in his attempts to attract Tatars' support, too. It's just a relocation of a specific ethnic group, one which has historically been discriminated against by the country now taking it over. Nothing to be concerned about! And I suppose the murder of a Crimean Tartar by "three unidentified men in military-style jackets [who] led him away isn't anything to worry about either! Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Adar posted:Kazakhstan is making GBS threads bricks and might do exactly the opposite of this because they're next and have to forestall that at all costs. Then again, they might be dumb enough to hand out a causus belli, idk. Typo fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Does this apply likewise to the groups that overthrew Yanukovych? Was that the "right way" to get their independence? That's a false equivalency if there ever was one. Janukowicz was murdering his own citizens after passing draconian new laws severely curtailing the personal freedoms of the people to voice dissent. The transitional government in Kiev didn't do anything to Crimea or even imply that they would do anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Adar posted:The ethnic Russians, and for that matter, most of the other minorities who aren't Tatars or Ukrainians pretty much won the lottery and are acting like it. So whens the payoff? Seems like that could be a long way out.. Meanwhile, I know I may be talking to a biased group of people in Crimea, but family I have there tells me that business has largely stopped. Those with salaries are still getting paid, but how long that goes on who knows. Uncertainty is at an absolute high there. And just to add one more anecdote, of the family i have there most of them only know a limited few actually voted in the referendum. Either because of apathy or a belief it wouldn't make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:No, there are not. Putin is not a fan of Stalin and nothing similar ever happened during Putin's rule. Plans for 'relocation' do bear unfortunate implications, but they are not official orders or anything yet. The only thing we know about it so far is that Crimean Deputy PM who is a Tatar himself no less wanted Tatars to consider switching the land they were occupying illegally (because the process of legalisation went really slowly in Ukraine) for pieces of land elsewhere. It sounds fishy, I know, but at the same time Putin is pretty forward in his attempts to attract Tatars' support, too. The process of legalisation was also murky as hell especially in the 90s. Imagine that USA had a gigantic "mea ultimo culpa" campaign wrt the native indian population, and then the descendants of the original tribe in Manhattan started dividing into plots and settling in Central Park.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Yanukovych was voted out by his own parliament in a democratic process. What were the number of votes required to impeach? How many were cast to remove him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
And even if the relocation is just a re-evaluation of legal claims on property and who should live where, you have to ask, "why would Crimea/Russia bring it up now?" Certainly talking about relocations right after annexation is going to sound terrible on the news, right? Maybe it's because the new people in power who are going to be interpreting the legality of property ownership might be biased against the Tatars? Maybe bringing it up now is the best chance for ethnic Russians to get more land? It doesn't have to be an organized Trail of Tears-like campaign for it still to be a concerning case of discrimination against an ethnic group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Agronox posted:What were the number of votes required to impeach? How many were cast to remove him? 328 - 0 https://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv/euromaidan-rallies-in-ukraine-feb-21-live-updates-337287.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Agronox posted:What were the number of votes required to impeach? How many were cast to remove him? ^^^ Thanks! Why don't you research this before asking the question? In extenuating circumstances, it is necessary to lower a quorum in order to pass laws when cowards partial to the party killing protesters run for the hills. I can't remember if they actually lowered it or the defectors to other parties made up the difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Agronox posted:What were the number of votes required to impeach? How many were cast to remove him? 328-0 to impeach him. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26304842 They did, in fact, have a quorum as well. Enough defected to get a quorum, although just barely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:Why don't you research this before asking the question? In extenuating circumstances, it is necessary to lower a quorum in order to pass laws when cowards partial to the party killing protesters run for the hills. I can't remember if they actually lowered it or the defectors to other parties made up the difference. About 100 representatives of his own party voted against him, as I recall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:About 100 representatives of his own party voted against him, as I recall. Poor Phocion ousted by his own people and made to drink the hemlock. If only those poors weren't allowed to have a democratic voice! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:And even if the relocation is just a re-evaluation of legal claims on property and who should live where, you have to ask, "why would Crimea/Russia bring it up now?" Certainly talking about relocations right after annexation is going to sound terrible on the news, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
The Risk posted:Also, +15  Breaking news: Fire in the totally-not-Russian forces' HQ. Nothing of value was destroyed except for the results of the 2015 elections  Considering that Crimea had at most 40% or so support for joining Russia according to previous polls, a result in favour of joining Russia is believable, but a result that would be unusually high even in North Korea is just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:56
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Could it not also be seen as an attempt to prevent ethnic cleansing (through the Crimean Tatars fleeing), by assuring them that Russia will actually attempt to find a just solution instead of simply letting the issue remain unresolved? A compromise between the various groups seems like it would be much better PR than the Crimean Tatars fleeing to some other country. A compromise between various groups would not be described as a "relocation."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Typo posted:Kazahstan is also firmly in Putin's camp so he's not really going to invade the country anymore than if Yanukovych stayed in power instead of being overthrown. I know this because Turkestan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have all being persecuting their Russian minorities way worse (and there are way more of them) than Ukraine and Putin didn't do jackshit for the last 10 years. Over 600,000 Russians fled Kazahstan since Putin's presidency and he did exactly nothing because he wants Kazakhstan in his Eurasian union. Till 2008 in Georgia Russia did exactly nothing to "protect" Russians in any of the post-Soviet countries, regardless of their politics. It's almost as if it's just an excuse to achieve other goals, shocking, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Is there any new developments on how Crimea is going to get utilities and if Ukraine will deliver them? Last I heard the ARC (RofC?) had "a years worth" of supplies which I'm guessing is very optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Considering that Crimea had at most 40% or so support for joining Russia according to previous polls, a result in favour of joining Russia is believable, but a result that would be unusually high even in North Korea is just ridiculous. Even the NSDAP didn't get vote percentiles that good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:01
|
|