More Bad News for Russia

[AkMike]

At the same time Putin stated:

http://www.voanews.com/content/putin-warns-of-retaliation-against-us-missile-shield-in-europe/3349885.html

It's closed only in the Huilomeisters vacant mind. The rest of the world views it as an armed invasion. There was no legitimate vote, only a encephalitic idiot would believe anything else.

[Boethius]

There was a referendum, and while it was not without flaws, no one can honestly dispute that at the time, it reflected the wishes of a majority of Crimeans.

[JayH]

There was a referendum, and while it was not without flaws, no one can honestly dispute that at the time, it reflected the wishes of a majority of Crimeans.

And you cant honestly say it did reflect the wishes of a MAJORITY-only YOUR opinion.

EG-- being held up at the point of a gun and handing over your money-- no one could honestly say that did not reflect your wish at that time-- would it. Now the point being-- what other option was there-at the time= none. In the Crimeans case--no choice.
The bottom line of your oft repeated comment--is that is is rubbish.

[Boethius]

The bottom line is you need to read more broadly and without Ukrainian nationalist blinders on.  And, I say this as one who is a true Ukrainian patriot.


Yes, the majority of Crimeans were in support of joining Russia.  This is not even disputed by Ukrainians.  The Razumkov Centre had numerous polls on this very issue, and in most, about 70% of Crimeans wished to secede and join Russia (according to polls in 2001, 2008, and 2011 - there may be more, I haven't read thme all).  It is not "rubbish" to admit reality.

[AkMike]

There was a referendum, and while it was not without flaws, no one can honestly dispute that at the time, it reflected the wishes of a majority of Crimeans.

  That's totally wrong Boe. 
 Two choices on the rigged ballot. And neither option was to remain with Ukraine. This vote was only after the armed take over of the Krym government their expulsion and the installation of unelected Kremlin puppets. Then there's the fake voter turn out numbers..

[Boethius]

I am aware of the referendum, plus the fact that Russia engaged in media censorship before the vote.  Nevertheless, the majority of Crimeans supported joining Russia.  That predated the invasion, and has been the case for at least a decade.

[AkMike]

Have a look at this 2014 Forbes article for the faked numbers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/#6748c13a10ff



Then there's the actual ballot and the options that were available from the Kremlin's sock puppet government.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797

[Boethius]

Go to the Razumkov Centre, the preeminent research centre in Ukraine (funded by the US government, incidentally) and read their polls on Crimea.  They consistently show that a majority of Crimeans wanted to join Russia.   That is a fact.

Crimea has never been "Ukrainian".  You would never hear Ukrainian on the streets of any Crimean city.  Even after independence, relatively few individuals there spoke Ukrainian, and they didn't have to, given their autonomous status.

Finally, Crimea was always a net drain on the Ukrainian economy.  I don't think that has changed for the Russians.

[ML]

Mike and Jay, you need to listen and understand what Boe is saying.

Yes, Russia sent in military to effect their takeover.
Yes, the election had flaws.
Yes, there was no option on the ballot to stay with Ukraine.

But, the population was overwhelmingly of Russian ethnic descent who really did want to join with Russia.  This is only common sense.

So a fair election, with an option to remain with Ukraine, and with no Russian military presence would have lead to the same result  . . . i.e. join Russia.

Now, of course, another issue is:  was this a legal action?

No, it was not.  Parts of countries cannot take a vote to leave and join another country.  Usually constitutions, etc., prohibit it.

And our man Lincoln said he would string up his mother if she participated in trying to split off part of the USA.

But the current issues are . . . should Ukraine want back a peoples who really don't want to be part of Ukraine? And should Ukraine want back a land area that has been a drain on the budget of Ukraine mostly forever?

[Boethius]

Exactly, ML.  Thank you.


I do believe sanctions should remain in place against Russia and Crimea, because the annexation was contrary to international law.

[JayH]

Mike and Jay, you need to listen and understand what Boe is saying.

Yes, Russia sent in military to effect their takeover.
Yes, the election had flaws.
Yes, there was no option on the ballot to stay with Ukraine.

But, the population was overwhelmingly of Russian ethnic descent who really did want to join with Russia.  This is only common sense.

So a fair election, with an option to remain with Ukraine, and with no Russian military presence would have lead to the same result  . . . i.e. join Russia.

Now, of course, another issue is:  was this a legal action?

No, it was not.  Parts of countries cannot take a vote to leave and join another country.  Usually constitutions, etc., prohibit it.

And our man Lincoln said he would string up his mother if she participated in trying to split off part of the USA.

But the current issues are . . . should Ukraine want back a peoples who really don't want to be part of Ukraine? And should Ukraine want back a land area that has been a drain on the budget of Ukraine mostly forever?

ML-- because SOME may have made other choices if it was an available option--is not justification of what unfolded.
As an example--if the question was being asked-- would you be better off? the answer back then on the simple $ amount comparisons- would have been "yes". That does not mean that there was grounds for Russia to have usurped part of Ukraine.
It was a piece of opportunistic invasion of a foreign country-- FULL STOP.

On the % who would have preferred Russia per se- even if it was at 70%- it is irrelevant. In the past-I have disputed that 70% figure-I have posted other numbers long ago. Additionally-I was quite close to someone involved in collecting data and analysis and the issue of alignment was not clear cut in the way numbers are attempted to be used.
   
 I have written previously on some guys I met- some months after the invasion.They had been on ships trapped and held by the Russians- they refused to surrender and hand over their ships.For months-they stayed. Amongst the many conversations this came up-"my family is Russian,I have always considered myself Russian,my family lives in Sevastopol- BUT-WE ARE ALL LOYAL UKRAINIANS." This guy-- and his friends-were bursting to do whatever was necessary to get Russia out of all Ukraine.

To this day--there are many loyal Ukrainians on the Crimea.They should not be abandoned.

[AkMike]

First, think about the words on the ballot paper. Crimea avoided the yes/no dichotomy traditionally favoured by referendum organisers, and offered instead two options:
1. Do you want to join Russia?
Or
 2. Do you want to make Crimea independent, by returning to the (abortive) constitution of 1992?

 Was this any sort of choice? That's hardly called a 'Flaw".

[Boethius]

No one is saying the invasion was justified.  However, the reality is, the majority of Crimeans do not wish to be part of Ukraine.


Whether or not the referendum was flawed is also irrelevant to the facts of today. 

[JayH]

The bottom line is you need to read more broadly and without Ukrainian nationalist blinders on.  And, I say this as one who is a true Ukrainian patriot.

In the time after the invasion of the Crimea and in eastern Ukraine there were many who i consider patriotic Ukrainians countenancing the idea of letting go those Ukrainian territories--on the basis that it would appease Russia and leave the rest of Ukraine in peace.
It was  a valid idea that needed discussion- and even ardent patriots contemplated it.
My view was that conceding anything to Russia would be a mistake- and still is. That view was quite consistent with many patriots in Ukraine. As it has unfolded--that is a view now widely accepted in Ukraine-- and the views of many have hardened considerably.Today-any concessions being made to Russia in the east are being heavily opposed.
The idea of appeasing Russia to save Ukrainian lives and infrastructure was a valid consideration--AT THAT TIME- when the real possibility of Russian tanks rolling across all of Ukraine was very real possibility.
What has transpired and became clear as events moved quickly in 2014 was that Putin and the Kremlin was intent on destabilising Ukraine and cause as much harm as was possible-- a policy that they are still trying today.

[AkMike]

Whether or not the referendum was flawed is also irrelevant to the facts of today.

 Except that this is the basis of the "facts of today." It was totally illegal by any stretch of the imagination and that is the basis for Russia's 'annexation'.

[Boethius]

I don't think it is appeasement to Russia to recognize that Crimea is gone.  I also don't think it is appeasement to isolate Donbas and let the criminals in charge keep on running it.

Donbas' primary source of wealth comes from coal, a dying industry. 

Ukraine would succeed by focusing on minimizing systemic corruption and raising the standard of living of its citizens, and pushing for a EU lead ceasefire in Donbas.

Incidentally, the outcome in Donbas was not unexpected.  I posted a video right after Yanukovych fled Ukraine, of Western Ukrainian politicians trying to take over a television station in Donbas.  There was no way that was going to fly in that region.

Also remember, that virtually every politicians from Western Ukraine now sitting in the Rada was part of the KGB in Soviet times.

For those who understand Russian, an excellent analysis of Ukraine by a Polish "journalist" -

[Boethius]

Except that this is the basis of the "facts of today." It was totally illegal by any stretch of the imagination and that is the basis for Russia's 'annexation'.

The annexation was illegal, yes.  However, you can't change what the people of that region want.  And it definitely is not Ukraine.

[AkMike]

We don't know what the locals want because the vote was rigged right from the beginning under gunpoint. It'd be hard to vote with guns at your back. The voter numbers are skewed from what actually happened so your statement is not founded in facts.

 As you know both Krym and the Kuban region have much more history with Ukraine than with Russia. IIRC it was about 1919 when the USSR took Krym away from Ukraine's control and returned it in 1954 (while keeping Kuban)
 that's only 35 years under Russian/Soviet control.

[Boethius]

We know from polls from Ukraine's preeminent think tank, that the majority of Crimeans wanted either (depending on the year) full autonomy, or reunification with Russia.

Actually, no, Crimea does not have "much more history with Ukraine than it does with Russia".  It was part of Kiev Rus', but Kiev Rus was a precursor to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.  It was not a "Ukrainian" state.  Crimea was the home base of Tatars, who made their raids into Ukraine from there.  The Ukrainians (who would not have self identified as "Ukrainian" then) living there were slaves taken in those raids.

In the mid 17th century and into the 18th century, Ukrainian hetmen and Cossacks had peace treaties, and even alliances with the Crimean Tatars.  They traded with them, but they did not occupy the lands.  By the late 18th century/early 19th century, Crimea was part of Russia.

[JayH]

Perhaps the posts pertaining to Crimea should be in Crimean thread?
While Ukraine wanting Crimea back is bad news for Russia-there is a more appropriate thread to discuss.
Leave the bad news thread to Russian matters !

[BillyB]

The majority of Crimeans wanted to be with Russia. In the past, they tend vote for Russia's puppets to lead Ukraine's. The vote was illegal. Ukraine's constitution says all of it's citizens be included in the vote when there is to be any change of Ukraine's borders. Russia didn't let that happen.

[Anotherkiwi]

The majority of Crimeans wanted to be with Russia. In the past, they tend vote for Russia's puppets to lead Ukraine's. The vote was illegal. Ukraine's constitution says all of it's citizens be included in the vote when there is to be any change of Ukraine's borders. Russia didn't let that happen.

Is that for real, Billy?  If it is, then Ukraine must surely be the only country with a constitution that envisages such a change.

[JayH]

Is that for real, Billy?  If it is, then Ukraine must surely be the only country with a constitution that envisages such a change.

"Ukraine's constitution says all of it's citizens be included in the vote when there is to be any change of Ukraine's borders"
BB is correct.

[BillyB]

Is that for real, Billy?

Scroll down to read Article 73

http://www.infoukes.com/history/constitution/index-en.html

If it is, then Ukraine must surely be the only country with a constitution that envisages such a change.

I'm not going to go and read every country's constitution but I'm pretty sure ever country's constitution or laws prevent secession. There's always some individuals, some cities, or some states that are unhappy at any given time and threatens to leave and take land with them when they don't get their president or prime minister elected. They can leave their government peacefully without war if they have a bully such as Russia on their side. It's not legal but effective.

[Boethius]

Is that for real, Billy?  If it is, then Ukraine must surely be the only country with a constitution that envisages such a change.

It does, because its drafters, virtually all of whom were the children of Ukrainian DP's, and many of whom were Canadian, envisaged territorial incursions by Russia.  Anyone who knows Ukrainian history knows this was bound to occur. 


The secession is illegal by international law as well, which is why sanctions are in place.  However, de facto, Crimeans no longer wish to be part of Ukraine.  So be it.  Just keep the sanctions, and Crimean isolation in terms of the greater world, in place - no bank transactions, no international ships docking there (which was a big business before 2014), visa restrictions for Crimean politicians, etc.