|
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. I already had. According to this they needed 3/4, which they didn't get: http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html My point is, people are trying to turn this into a dumb "good guys" vs. "bad guys" argument. There's only "bad guys" and "probably less bad guys." Let's cut the bullshit and stop pretending that there was anything other than a power struggle over Ukraine. Neither side can legitimately claim to be lovers of freedom, democracy, and constitutional rule.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
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.  Nationalists do not want Tatars in Crimea Tatars do not want to leave their homes Compromise: Move Tatars from Crimea Could you elaborate more on this, I really don't understand what the compromise is in relocation? Cantorsdust posted:328-0 to impeach him. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26304842 To be technical, he was not impeached, he was removed from the post of president which are two different events. An impeachment would mean criminal charges and would require an opinion from the Ukrainian supreme court, a vote to remove him just needed parliament's approval.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
blowfish posted:... 40% poll result and referendum asked different questions. Stop bringing it up as a justification. Berke Negri posted: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. Same way they got them before, by paying the companies that provide utilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:
It's a Republican-style compromise, my friend!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Agronox posted:I already had. According to this they needed 3/4, which they didn't get: When you say people, who are you talking about? The last thread had some digressions and straw man fallacies thrown about with reckless abandon, but I don't consider a few posters dominating the discussion to be representative of the thread as a whole. The article you linked also discusses how the issue is moot. The declarative power of the new Ukrainian government is bolstered by its recognition by the UN, US, UK, and the EU on one side versus Syria, North Korea, and Russia on the other. It's legitimate because that's how these things work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Tartars are not removed from Crimea. What used to happen is that the Tartars would just show up, claim a site a burial ground and take the property under a very lax law. The Russians decided to stop that practice and put them up on some other unused land.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted: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! No, it's nothing yet. And it's hopefully going to be a settlement of old land disputes, not a forceful relocation. As for murder, again, nothing clearly proves Russian army's involvement here. Why would they pick that specific guy all of a sudden? Why only one? He wasn't even someone important, he was just a protester. Some local nazis are probably behind it. Another thing you should keep in mind that many Russian soldiers (those without insignia) are not even ethnically Russian. We saw plenty of Asian-looking guys, we heard about Chechens, too. Ethnic cleansing just doesn't fit Russia's modern narrative. Did you know that Russian Muslims and Jews can learn basics of Islam and Judaism in state schools (I believe, there are six different cultural/ethical/religious courses one can pick from)? Did you know that Russian's minister of defense Sergey Shoygu is a Tuvan Buddhist? There is no way in hell Russia plots some ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Agronox posted:I already had. According to this they needed 3/4, which they didn't get: I'm not talking about the power struggle in Ukraine. Obviously that's a complete mess with the EU and Russia pulling the country towards their side. My argument this whole time has been that the annexation of Crimea is clearly illegal and sets a dangerous precedent internationally. Ukraine is screwed for the next decade, anyway. As to the quorum, I remember a big deal being made about it in the earlier threads and could have sworn that they had reached a quorum. This live blog seems to indicate that they had one when they dismissed Yanukovych. Anyone have more info?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:A compromise between various groups would not be described as a "relocation." DrProsek posted:
E: It would also dovetail pretty nicely with Russian infrastructure investment in the region anyway, if Putin wants to show the world how much better Russia is for Crimea than Ukraine was. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted: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. There was some prep work done for charging the "enemy occupiers" market rates, though it's not clear how they are going to distinguish those from loyal Ukrainians suffering under foreign occupation....
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm talking about how Putin would prefer to see it done. I don't doubt that Russian nationalist probably just see the Crimean Tatars like Israelis see Palestinians. Offering people (no matter their ethnicity) cash in return for relocating, alongside unambiguous legal recognition of whatever land the compromise ends up leaving them, seems like something that could work. Obviously it depends a lot on how it is carried out, but I don't think it's inherently that problematic. It's not like imminent domain does not exist in other countries, in this case the project facilitated by moving people would be a ratcheting down of tensions and restitution, as opposed to building a highway, but the principle isn't really that different. I agree that the process you described would work, and it sounds perfectly fair. But the historical trends, the recent murder, and the current tone in Crimea should still concern the Crimean Tatar population, which was my point. And there's no indication that the process you're describing is what was meant by "relocation" or that relocation in real life would be carried out so fairly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I agree that the process you described would work, and it sounds perfectly fair. But the historical trends, the recent murder, and the current tone in Crimea should still concern the Crimean Tatar population, which was my point. And there's no indication that the process you're describing is what was meant by "relocation" or that relocation in real life would be carried out so fairly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Agronox posted:My point is, people are trying to turn this into a dumb "good guys" vs. "bad guys" argument. There's only "bad guys" and "probably less bad guys." Let's cut the bullshit and stop pretending that there was anything other than a power struggle over Ukraine. Neither side can legitimately claim to be lovers of freedom, democracy, and constitutional rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I'm seeing reports emerging that the Russians have captured the Ukrainian submarine Zaporozhye. Looking for any links that may exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:I'm seeing reports emerging that the Russians have captured the Ukrainian submarine Zaporozhye. Looking for any links that may exist. I've seen reports of that --- actually of a defection --- from an Odessa news site (a pro maidan one) http://dumskaya.net/news/podvodnaya-lodka-zaporoge-pereshla-na-storonu-ok-033931/ They cite their own sources in the Ukrainian Navy though. I can't really say much about their accuracy, though, except they do seem to be willing to post retractions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:I'm seeing reports emerging that the Russians have captured the Ukrainian submarine Zaporozhye. Looking for any links that may exist. http://dumskaya.net/news/podvodnaya-lodka-zaporoge-pereshla-na-storonu-ok-033931/ http://fakty.ua/178840-podlodka-zaporozhe-perehodit-v-sostav-rossijskogo-flota Most sources say they voluntarily joined Russian fleet. http://atn.ua/politika/podvodnaya-lodka-zaporozhe-zahvachena-rossiyskimi-okkupantami-ili-sdalas-im But some say they were pressured to surrender. efb Paladinus fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
I just wanted to post this while the thread is still young. One of the few good essays people should read to understand current Russian politics is this one in London Review of Books. It touches on Surkov and indirectly Duginist Eurasian bullshit. An appropriate quote:quote:In Soviet Russia you would have been forced to give up any notion of artistic freedom if you wanted a slice of the pie. In today’s Russia, if you’re talented and clever, you can have both. This makes for a unique fusion of primitive feudal poses and arch, postmodern irony. A property ad displayed all over central Moscow earlier this year captured the mood perfectly. Got up in the style of a Nazi poster, it showed two Germanic-looking youths against a glorious alpine mountain over the slogan ‘Life Is Getting Better’. It would be wrong to say the ad is humorous, but it’s not quite serious either. It’s sort of both. It’s saying this is the society we live in (a dictatorship), but we’re just playing at it (we can make jokes about it), but playing in a serious way (we’re making money playing it and won’t let anyone subvert its rules). A few months ago there was a huge ‘Putin party’ at Moscow’s most glamorous club. Strippers writhed around poles chanting: ‘I want you, prime minister.’ It’s the same logic. The sucking-up to the master is completely genuine, but as we’re all liberated 21st-century people who enjoy Coen brothers films, we’ll do our sucking up with an ironic grin while acknowledging that if we were ever to cross you we would quite quickly be dead. Note: Life is getting better / Жить стало лучше, жить стало веселее is a nice historical Stalinist slogan. Point being, nobody in Russia (and by this I mean Moscow/St. Petersburg because no other places matter) actually believes in Eurasianism, managed/sovereign democracy or whatever else the establishment purports to believe. This is not a new thing, nobody actually believed in workers-and-peasants-of-the-world-unite догоним и перегоним Communism since at least late Khruschev. Curiously for Western observers, it didn't matter, the Soviet system continued to exist not because people genuinely believed in it, but because it more or less worked and provided stability, which is the one thing Russians really, really want. We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us, as the old Soviet joke goes. After a short intermission in the early 90ies the situation is almost the same today. Eurasianism is not a thing that people believe or that people even are supposed to believe, it's just a tool to use when negotiating with foreigners. Remember articles in the last thread about how Bush looked in Putin's eyes and then was unpleasantly surprised? When Putin brought up those Dan Rather being fired analogies later (I'm too lazy to look for examples, but it's basically a А у вас негров линчуют thing) Putin was approaching it from a high-context standpoint. That is, we are both world leaders (  ), we both know we are not getting along, let's grandstand a bit and get down to business. When Bush or whoever (a Westerner) brings up human rights issues, most Russians wouldn't believe it's out of genuine concern but as a sort of sparring prelude to the real discussion about realpolitik. Westerners are much more direct in negotiations with Russia and say what they believe in a general open low-context way, but no Russian has believed what any local or foreign politician has said for hundreds of years.This approach can sort of explain the 'local self defence militia' in Crimea. No one believes in local militia, no one is supposed to believe in local militia. It's just a challenging opening position: well, the People are on our side, your move EU/NATO/USA. But EU/NATO/USA doesn't play by the same seemingly self-evident rules of spheres of influence, self-aware elites keeping the proles down and elaborate systems of justifying the status quo. The problem seems to be that on one side there are cynical opportunists who think their position is obvious (money for me and my people, incidentally Russia strong) and on the other side are almost genuine true believers in neoliberal capitalism. tl;dr: from Russian point of view the problem with USA is that they believe in their own myths and from American point of view the problem is that Russia never says what it really believes (because it doesn't really believe)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Riso posted:Tartars are not removed from Crimea. What used to happen is that the Tartars would just show up, claim a site a burial ground and take the property under a very lax law. The Russians decided to stop that practice and put them up on some other unused land. Regardless of the legal status of a population's housing, compulsory relocation of an ethnic group is called "genocide".
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Regardless of the legal status of a population's housing, compulsory relocation of an ethnic group is called "genocide". No, that would be the act of killing them all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Regardless of the legal status of a population's housing, compulsory relocation of an ethnic group is called "genocide". Actually it's probably more appropriate to call it "ethnic cleansing".  But yes, using the claimed vagueness of a law that is basically one giant [Citation needed] as the justification to round up everyone of a certain ethnic group and truck them off over the horizon that-a-way is the loving first-line definition of ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
http://rt.com/news/russia-parliament-crimea-ratification-293/ Crimea, Sevastopol officially join Russia as Putin signs final decree quote:Russia has finalized the legal process of taking Crimea under its sovereignty, as President Putin signed a law amending the Russian constitution to reflect the transition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:I just wanted to post this while the thread is still young. One of the few good essays people should read to understand current Russian politics is this one in London Review of Books. It touches on Surkov and indirectly Duginist Eurasian bullshit. An appropriate quote: This is a Good Post and you're a cool dude for making it. So basically Russian rhetoric doesn't actually serve any purpose beyond letting the head honcho grandstand a bit and strut like a peacock?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:I just wanted to post this while the thread is still young. One of the few good essays people should read to understand current Russian politics is this one in London Review of Books. It touches on Surkov and indirectly Duginist Eurasian bullshit. An appropriate quote: Adam Curtis did an amazing piece on Surkov and Russian post-soviet ideology two years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Regardless of the legal status of a population's housing, compulsory relocation of an ethnic group is called "genocide". I hate to be a pedant, but no: The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide posted:Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area "ethnically homogeneous", nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is "to destroy, in whole or in part" a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. I guess you could say it's just one court's opinion but it meshes with prevailing opinion re: the Genocide Convention and other investigations into forced migrations (Darfur etc.) edit: That's actually a verbatim ICJ quote so added the pdf link - it's para. 190 kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Life goes on series of pics from Crimea: http://an.crimea.ua/page/articles/59424/ Pre-referendum ads about advantages of Russian social net, with "Glory to Ukraine" written over:  One way to date, the sign says "Will marry a military man from Sevastopol": 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Riso posted:No, that would be the act of killing them all. One tends to beget the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Regardless of the legal status of a population's housing, compulsory relocation of an ethnic group is called "genocide". I think you mean ethnic cleasing, but that really doesn't change the fact that this is a Bad Thing. OddObserver posted:There was some prep work done for charging the "enemy occupiers" market rates, though it's not clear how they are going to distinguish those from loyal Ukrainians suffering under foreign occupation.... Trying to cut utilities to Crimea would literally be the dumbest move possible that the government in Kiev could so right now. First of all, if they're going to insist that the Crimea is part of Ukraine, then they're essentially starving their own citizens and that could very well put a slight dent in western support. Secondly, since they'd be starving their own citizens this would boost the popular legitimacy of the Russian occupation immensely. For the average joe, nationalist fervor probably won't hold when your side is loving you over and the ostensible enemy is keeping you alive. Finally, this would hand Putin a the best possible pretext for occypying eastern Ukraine as well. He'd go up and make angry speeches about how the fascists in Kiev are trying to starve the brave Russian people of Crimea just like the nazis and Russia has to protect its citizens and so on and so forth and people in Russia would almost certainly lap it up. All in all, it's a goddamn idiotic idea it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:One tends to beget the other. Ethnic cleansing can be part of a genocide (using international law terms here), but doing the former doesn't automatically make it the latter. The court case kustomkarkommando referenced above found that while ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily make something a genocide automatically, it almost certainly falls under other "Crimes Against Humanity" laws, usually Persecution. tl;dr- Russia is probably engaging in a large-scale crime against humanity with regard to the Tatars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:I just wanted to post this while the thread is still young. One of the few good essays people should read to understand current Russian politics is this one in London Review of Books. It touches on Surkov and indirectly Duginist Eurasian bullshit. An appropriate quote: A great post right there. I wouldn't say, of course that no one believes any ideology in Russia, but very few people do. It's sort of like Church of England with its 60% or more of atheists among lay people. I guess Russians feel some connection to their traditions and whatnot, but only because they feel like it's the right thing to do. That also explains how rampant right-wingers can seemingly sencerely praise Soviet internationalist army for saving Europe from nazis while 'believing' in 'Moscow is for Moscowians'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
nudipedalia posted:tl;dr: from Russian point of view the problem with USA is that they believe in their own myths and from American point of view the problem is that Russia never says what it really believes (because it doesn't really believe)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Article by a former British Ambassador in 1997 on Russia vs Western Europe. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/bringingrussiain/#.Uywmuqh_t8F Here's but a small taste quote:The threat from the Soviet Union ended in 1991. But we have not yet worked out how to bring Russia into a new European settlement. Russia is too large to join Nato and the EU, and it is too powerful to be ignored. The Russians believe that they are entitled to a say in the affairs of the continent to which they belong. The east Europeans hope that membership of Nato and the EU will insure them against their neighbour to the east. Both sets of aspirations are understandable. But they are difficult to reconcile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Ethnic cleansing can be part of a genocide (using international law terms here), but doing the former doesn't automatically make it the latter. The court case kustomkarkommando referenced above found that while ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily make something a genocide automatically, it almost certainly falls under other "Crimes Against Humanity" laws, usually Persecution. Fair enough, but telling that Riso seems to think they'd have to kill all of them. Not just 70% of them, or a handful that resisted forced relocation, all of them. As long as a Tatar walks the earth, nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
This might have been posted in the previous thread but gently caress it http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26663168 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
iv46vi posted:Life goes on series of pics from Crimea: It also says 'shite' (in Ukrainian?) near 'Russia' on the ad about education.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Fair enough, but telling that Riso seems to think they'd have to kill all of them. Not just 70% of them, or a handful that resisted forced relocation, all of them. As long as a Tatar walks the earth, nothing to see here. That case referred to above provides some of the logic at hand: if you are just killing a few Tatars to encourage the rest of up sticks and move to (say) Turkey, that's a crime against humanity, but not genocide necessarily. You don't even need to kill more than that necessarily to make it genocide, I should note- just to do that plus some other obviously genocidal stuff (forced re-education in Russian language, say) and some other dirty poo poo like systemic rapes or whatever. But if you're just trying to drive them away, that's just ethnic cleansing. Conversely, you don't need to kill more than the same handfull of dudes to make it genocide; you just need your reasoning to be a sincere desire to kill as many as you can get your hands on. If the rest of them run away to Turkey, but you try to catch as many as you can, then that same 100 dead Tatars can very well be attempted genocide. The reasoning behind the act matters, like murder vs. manslaughter. I think if you even broke the 5 or 10% mark on outright deaths, that would constitute attempted genocide- the counterexample cited in that court case was a Bosnian village where ~130 people were killed in an effort to drive the rest out of the region. Thousands or more deaths, though, and I think you've crossed over into genocide rather than mere persecution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
So, the current conservative rhetoric here seems to be that the US sanctions are meaningless. Does anyone have information on how effective they might be, if at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:So, the current conservative rhetoric here seems to be that the US sanctions are meaningless. Does anyone have information on how effective they might be, if at all? Effective at what? They sure as poo poo won't get Putin to hand back the Crimea if that's what you're after.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Effective at what? They sure as poo poo won't get Putin to hand back the Crimea if that's what you're after. At anything. What are they supposed to accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:At anything. What are they supposed to accomplish? It's reasonable to say a regimen of sanctions should serve as punishment for launching a (nearly bloodless) war of aggression even if the actual annexation can't be reversed without a war. The current sanctions don't appear to have accomplished that very well and it's a question as to whether Western governments should be pushing harder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Farecoal posted:This might have been posted in the previous thread but gently caress it That's some crack work, Beeb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:15
|
|
