Crimea joining Russian Federation

[Wayne]

What happens if Crimea votes to become part of Russia?
 
Will this action start a civil war?
 
Check out the news stories for today!
 
How does your Crimean wife/girl friend, etc. feel about this?
 
How will she vote?
 
So you will need a visa to enter Crimea?
 
How would this effect a K-1 CR-2 OR IR-1 in progress?

[fathertime]

What happens if Crimea votes to become part of Russia?
 
Will this action start a civil war?
 
Check out the news stories for today!
 
How does your Crimean wife/girl friend, etc. feel about this?
 
How will she vote?
 
So you will need a visa to enter Crimea?
 
How would this effect a K-1 CR-2 OR IR-1 in progress?

I just read that as I woke up this morning.  The people of Crimea are now calling the Ukrainian forces "Occupiers" and are demanding that they leave. 

I say let those people vote and decide their own fate. It appears to me that this region is somewhat distinct. If they want to be a part of Russia, then let them...if they want to stay a part of Ukraine, then let them.[size=78%]  [/size][/size]   I wonder if this vote would have happened had he Russians not forced the issue with their radical move?  [size=78%]


Fathertime!   

[lordtiberius]

Like that vote will be fair . . .

[Wayne]

16 March is this coming Sunday. I wonder how many Crimeans even know about this vote? There is not a dense population here. A small faction could sway the vote. A lot of people own property there, but do not live there full time.

[Noch1]

Putins Russian, has to first Approve accepting them, before it matters.
It will not like be a fair vote.

[ML]

Putin will send a large number of people over from Russia to vote in the elections in Crimea.

[Wayne]

Why bother to send people to vote, just fill up some ballot boxes  and truck them over. Look at all the gas it would save!

[GQBlues]

This region is already known as 'The Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. They already have their own parliamentary government, thus they reserved the right for self-determination. If they want to be 'part of Russia', that's their decision.

It wasn't too long ago that the sentiment of the vast majority of Ukrainians oppose membership to NATO. I believe it was only about 15-20% of the population actually were proponents of membership in NATO. Since 1990, election of their politicians were largely determined by their anti-NATO campaigns.

Thus, this is NOT an affair the US should be involved in, and by NATO alliance extension, neither should the EU.

Ukrainians wanted to plot their self-determination by ousting an elected president. They should and did. They didn't want membership with NATO, then NATO and the western countries do NOT have a dog in this fight. Let the Ukrainians deal with Russia alone.

The US should not be screaming moral and ethical banters towards the actions of Moscow considering the posture they took in Cuba and the promise they gave the Soviet regime, along with Germany, that NATO will not advance ONE centimeter beyond the existing boundary of 1989.

Putin is wrong for the military positioning inside Crimea, but I can honestly say I can understand why.

Let the Ukrainians grab this opportunity and determine for themselves what and how they want to progress right here and right now. The western states have as much right to be IN Ukraine as Russia do, which is NONE. So they should 'butt-out'

Lastly, now at least, the global leaders - along with the rest of the world, have a better understanding of the frustrating challenges we, hubbies and boyfriends, experiences trying to relate with persons borne out of Slavic/Soviet mentality.

[Noch1]

This region is already known as 'The Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. They already have their own parliamentary government, thus they reserved the right for self-determination. If they want to be 'part of Russia', that's their decision.

It wasn't too long ago that the sentiment of the vast majority of Ukrainians oppose membership to NATO. I believe it was only about 15-20% of the population actually were proponents of membership in NATO. Since 1990, election of their politicians were largely determined by their anti-NATO campaigns.

Thus, this is NOT an affair the US should be involved in, and by NATO alliance extension, neither should the EU.

Ukrainians wanted to plot their self-determination by ousting an elected president. They should and did. They didn't want membership with NATO, then NATO and the western countries do NOT have a dog in this fight. Let the Ukrainians deal with Russia alone.

The US should not be screaming moral and ethical banters towards the actions of Moscow considering the posture they took in Cuba and the promise they gave the Soviet regime, along with Germany, that NATO will not advance ONE centimeter beyond the existing boundary of 1989.

Putin is wrong for the military positioning inside Crimea, but I can honestly say I can understand why.

Let the Ukrainians grab this opportunity and determine for themselves what and how they want to progress right here and right now. The western states have as much right to be IN Ukraine as Russia do, which is NONE. So they should 'butt-out'

Lastly, now at least, the global leaders - along with the rest of the world, have a better understanding of the frustrating challenges we, hubbies and boyfriends, experiences trying to relate with persons borne out of Slavic/Soviet mentality.

You are correct, but Last we looked, the west does not have battle ships, armoured
Vehicles  and 16000 plus troops in Crimea.

[CDW]

Vote we MOVE The Swallow's Nest Castle into Ukraine's mainland?  How about moving to Odessa?  lol

[dogspot]

You are correct, but Last we looked, the west does not have battle ships, armoured
Vehicles  and 16000 plus troops in Crimea.

Two wrongs don't make a right

[Noch1]

Two wrongs don't make a right

I did not say that, if you noticed I quoted someone else.
My words were a direct reflection of this.
I do not think anyone's military should be Ukraine, but their own.

As for assistance the west and Russia need to be involved in Ukraine's Future, IMO
Politically and financially

[jone]

This region is already known as 'The Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. They already have their own parliamentary government, thus they reserved the right for self-determination. If they want to be 'part of Russia', that's their decision.

It wasn't too long ago that the sentiment of the vast majority of Ukrainians oppose membership to NATO. I believe it was only about 15-20% of the population actually were proponents of membership in NATO. Since 1990, election of their politicians were largely determined by their anti-NATO campaigns.

Thus, this is NOT an affair the US should be involved in, and by NATO alliance extension, neither should the EU.

Ukrainians wanted to plot their self-determination by ousting an elected president. They should and did. They didn't want membership with NATO, then NATO and the western countries do NOT have a dog in this fight. Let the Ukrainians deal with Russia alone.

The US should not be screaming moral and ethical banters towards the actions of Moscow considering the posture they took in Cuba and the promise they gave the Soviet regime, along with Germany, that NATO will not advance ONE centimeter beyond the existing boundary of 1989.

Putin is wrong for the military positioning inside Crimea, but I can honestly say I can understand why.

Let the Ukrainians grab this opportunity and determine for themselves what and how they want to progress right here and right now. The western states have as much right to be IN Ukraine as Russia do, which is NONE. So they should 'butt-out'

Lastly, now at least, the global leaders - along with the rest of the world, have a better understanding of the frustrating challenges we, hubbies and boyfriends, experiences trying to relate with persons borne out of Slavic/Soviet mentality.

I agree with most of what is said here.  Crimea has the right of self determination. 

However, I do not believe that such self-determination should be at the muzzle of a gun.  If true self-determination is to happen, it should happen naturally and should be something won with logic and friendship.  The current self-determination does not resemble this in any way.

I think Russia has bitten off more than it can chew.  The ultimate response of the Ukrainian people will be a decided movement in the direction of the West.  They will have no choice because they see the heavy hand of Russia and will need refuge from future land incursions.  Ukraine, now, has no choice but to seal its Eastern border to stop the number of Russians coming over to participate in overthrow activities.

The net response for Russia is that they will now have a loosely affiliated autonomous region and a next door neighbor that is totally pissed off with them.  It will be a long time before any Eastern European country will trust Russia, or, for that matter, any of the Western powers. 

Welcome to the Second Cold War.

[Misha]

As some Russian commentators have been asking on Russian online newspapers: what's the rush? First planned for May, then March 30, now the 16th. At this rate, the next announcement will be tomorrow that the referendum was held yesterday 

[dogspot]

I did not say that, if you noticed I quoted someone else.
My words were a direct reflection of this.
I do not think anyone's military should be Ukraine, but their own.

As for assistance the west and Russia need to be involved in Ukraine's Future, IMO
Politically and financially

Sorry Noch, not meant as an attack on you...rather, a response to the assertion of others on this board that military intervention on part of the US and/or NATO is in the best interest of the Ukrainian people.

[jone]

Misha,

Russia is losing in the rest of the Eastern Ukrainian areas.  The propaganda is wearing off and people are realizing that they really don't want to be part of Russia again. 

This is typical from one of my Russian heritage friends who lives in Ukraine:

"I hope never will Russian army in Ukraine at all! Only they can take Russian people from there who said they don't love Ukraine and back to their home and forget about us."

Were Russia to wait for May, there will be a whiplash effect and they will be sent home with their tail between their legs.

[Misha]

I agree with you. Holding a rushed referendum is a sign of desperation...

[Muzh]

Russia is losing in the rest of the Eastern Ukrainian areas.  The propaganda is wearing off and people are realizing that they really don't want to be part of Russia again. 

Were Russia to wait for May, there will be a whiplash effect and they will be sent home with their tail between their legs.

All that and Ukraine has yet to fire a shot.
 
It was said that Putin was asking: 'Is Paris Burning?'*
 
*'Why aren't they shooting?'

[Larry1]

As some Russian commentators have been asking on Russian online newspapers: what's the rush? First planned for May, then March 30, now the 16th. At this rate, the next announcement will be tomorrow that the referendum was held yesterday 

Well, I'm not sure exactly when the referendum will be held, but I'll bet the votes have already been counted.

[CanadaMan]

Well, I'm not sure exactly when the referendum will be held, but I'll bet the votes have already been counted.

Good one.   

[Faux Pas]

This region is already known as 'The Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. They already have their own parliamentary government, thus they reserved the right for self-determination. If they want to be 'part of Russia', that's their decision.

It wasn't too long ago that the sentiment of the vast majority of Ukrainians oppose membership to NATO. I believe it was only about 15-20% of the population actually were proponents of membership in NATO. Since 1990, election of their politicians were largely determined by their anti-NATO campaigns.

Thus, this is NOT an affair the US should be involved in, and by NATO alliance extension, neither should the EU.

Ukrainians wanted to plot their self-determination by ousting an elected president. They should and did. They didn't want membership with NATO, then NATO and the western countries do NOT have a dog in this fight. Let the Ukrainians deal with Russia alone.

The US should not be screaming moral and ethical banters towards the actions of Moscow considering the posture they took in Cuba and the promise they gave the Soviet regime, along with Germany, that NATO will not advance ONE centimeter beyond the existing boundary of 1989.

Putin is wrong for the military positioning inside Crimea, but I can honestly say I can understand why.

Let the Ukrainians grab this opportunity and determine for themselves what and how they want to progress right here and right now. The western states have as much right to be IN Ukraine as Russia do, which is NONE. So they should 'butt-out'

Lastly, now at least, the global leaders - along with the rest of the world, have a better understanding of the frustrating challenges we, hubbies and boyfriends, experiences trying to relate with persons borne out of Slavic/Soviet mentality.

There's the little eventuality in your synopsis there GQ. Did Ukraine turn away from the West and NATO because of the Putin puppet that was the President or did in fact Ukrainians did not want to align with the West and NATO. I guess at this point we'll never know.

[The Natural]

Ukraine now, Russia next.

Let Ukraine never be a member of NATO, I say. Or is this issue important enough for us hypocritical westerners that we risk nuclear armaggedon?

[jone]

Ukraine now, Russia next.

Let Ukraine never be a member of NATO, I say. Or is this issue important enough for us hypocritical westerners that we risk nuclear armaggedon?

This one went like the Russian bullets shot at Ukrainians last week:  Over my head!

[GQBlues]

There's the little eventuality in your synopsis there GQ. Did Ukraine turn away from the West and NATO because of the Putin puppet that was the President or did in fact Ukrainians did not want to align with the West and NATO. I guess at this point we'll never know.

Well, there's enough info about this to understand and, maybe, accept what we always knew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations

Polls, elections, etc...had easily shown the vast majority of Ukrainians would like not to ever become a member of NATO. The majority see a membership to NATO more as a threat to its security than a protection.

[Gylden]

Well not exactly GQ, it wasn't until Yanukovych that there was a change of heart.

"In the 2000s, the government of Ukraine was leaning towards NATO membership, and a deeper cooperation with the alliance was set by the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan signed in 2002. It was later agreed that the question of joining NATO should be answered by a national referendum at some point in the future.[14] In April 2005, Ukraine entered into Intensified Dialogue with NATO,[15] and during the 2008 Bucharest summit NATO declared that Ukraine could become a member of NATO when it wants to join and meets the criteria for accession.[16] However, by 2010 Ukraine had announced that it no longer had NATO membership as a goal under the foreign policy of President Viktor Yanukovych.[17] Ukraine has a close relationship with NATO, and it is the most active member of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensified_Dialogue#Intensified_Dialogue