Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

because it was an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, as "legitimate" as the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990.

let's see, where to start:
-referendum held at gunpoint by an invading force;
-referendum held in a two week period with only one side represented;
-no independent tabulation of results; etc., etc.
Now perhaps if a legitimate referendum had been held, the results would have been similar, but we will never know. Only the Russians think invading a country, carving off a piece of its territory and holding a referendum at gunpoint is "legitimate".

Would you be so kind as to explain your Iraq example in detail, so I (at some later point) do not present your point of view in a wrong way? If I understand you correctly (and please do correct me if I am wrong) - you compare the use of forces legally station in Crimea, if without the proper initial authorisation (which did come at a later point from both the Ukrainian Commander in Chief and the local authority) to an invasion by an external third party (such as in Iraq 1990)?

As to the referendum, where the people forced to vote at the gun point? Was there a widely spread sentiment that their safety was threatened by the Russian Armed Forces (or the militia forces there)?

Was there no option to stay within the Ukraine during this referendum? What were the voting patterns for the region, did the local population support the Maidan events or their leaders?

Was there no media presence, or the external observers?

I would now answer those three groups of questions:

As far as I am aware no, they were not directly forced to vote. Nor was there a widely spread sentiment that the local population's safety was threatened, with the exception of the Crimean Tatar's ethnic group's parliament's executive organ - Meidzhlis (and their Islamic extremist wing which was promoting creation of the Islamic State of Crimea) and various fringe groups (such as the Ukrainian Nationalists), which were rightfully concerned for their safety, as per Russian law (but not the Ukrainian law, as Ukraine was using those organisations for decades to suppress local separatism) such hate/radical groups are prosecuted.

Yes, there was an option to stay within the Ukraine. However you could argue that there was no equal ability to promote that view via local media and other means, not that it would (most likely) matter due to the voting patterns.

There was, both the observes and journalists, even though such respected organisations as OSCE have refused to monitor it.

The point I am trying to make is that even though this process was imperfect, there was no reasonable possibility to conduct the matter in the ideal manner, if only for the violent suppression that would have occurred (and did occur historically), morever even such imperfect process is, overall, comparable to other such instances, for example - Kosovo, even though the details of those two cases were not exactly the same.

If you wish to discuss the matter of Kosovo example vs Crimean example - in detail I would gladly oblige.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by MH

What is not about ego...ask Freud.

Yet when it comes to Putin I suppose he has some vision about future Russia , similar to how China is run.
In cases like this it is difficult to be concerned about every single citizen although the end result may benefit the whole nation...
Regular Russians are in a nothing to lose situation in this regard , they had been at the bottom including the ego.


In the west in more about here and right now.
Russians who don't have much tradition of democracy look at this western , sometimes schizophrenic behavior with skepticism.

I think the key is closer to the policy (both internal and external) that was conducted by Boris Yeltsin and his team (though in the second term he was so drunk that a number of presidential orders were signed for him and I think without his consent).

[MH]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I think the key is closer to the policy (both internal and external) that was conducted by Boris Yeltsin and his team (though in the second term he was so drunk that a number of presidential orders were signed for him and I think without his consent).

Ahh yes ...forgot Boris Yeltsin.

[Bilge_Rat]

Ikalugin,

so you are claiming that it is perfectly legitimate for:

1) one country to invade another country;

2) immediately hold a referendum;

3) announce that it "won" the referendum without any independent verification or observers;

4) annex the part of the country it invaded.

Could you please point out what part of international law allows that sort of behavior, I seemed to have missed that part.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Ikalugin,

so you are claiming that it is perfectly legitimate for:

1) one country to invade another country;

2) immediately hold a referendum;

3) announce that it "won" the referendum without any independent verification or observers;

4) annex the part of the country it invaded.

Could you please point out what part of international law allows that sort of behavior, I seemed to have missed that part.

I did not claim that. In fact I have claimed something completely different, now it appears that there is a degree of misunderstanding here. Would it help if I clarify my position again, quite possibly countering those 5 points?

[Susexx]

Think about Kosovo. Almost like in the Crimea. But everyone is silent.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I did not claim that. In fact I have claimed something completely different, now it appears that there is a degree of misunderstanding here. Would it help if I clarify my position again, quite possibly countering those 5 points?

Please do.

BTW, according to figures out of Russia, it appears as few as 15-30% of eligible voters in Crimea voted in favour of annexation with Russia:

Russian government agency reveals fraudulent nature of the Crimean referendum results

In the opinion of virtually all the experts and citizens interviewed:
- The vast majority of the citizens of Sevastopol voted in favor of unification with Russia in the referendum (50-80%); in Crimea, various data show that 50-60% voted for unification with Russia, with a turnout of 30-50%.

50 to 60% of a 30-50% turnout suggests that only about 15 to 30% of eligible voters actually voted for annexation. Moreover, the low turnout rate, combined with evidence of intimidation and violence by pro-Russia forces, strongly suggests that many opponents of annexation chose not to vote out of fear

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...endum-results/

[ikalugin]

 

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Please do.

BTW, according to figures out of Russia, it appears as few as 15-30% of eligible voters in Crimea voted in favour of annexation with Russia:







http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...endum-results/

Yes, I am aware of this article. However, as, again, it is said within the article, the blog post was removed, the source of this information regarding the referendum results cannot be verified. And it is not beyond doubt that this data may have been either erroneous or in fact injected, as those websites were known to be hijacked a number of times.

The claim of the physical violence is largely unbased as:
- there is still no direct and sufficient evidence that people where forced to vote by the use of forces or threat of such use.
- there is still no direct or sufficient evidence that people where intimidated on a large scale, in those articles we are only presented with isolated incidents, shown from a biased perspective.

I would do the 5 point reply in the next post here.

p.s. I have also not seen the original blog post, so I cannot actually say if it existed in the first place.

[CCIP]

I think everyone who is able to articulate their opinion without name-calling, can keep a respectful tone and cover his issues in detail without calling for killing of other people etc. deserves a "mod shield". Just because you disagree with someone's political stance or cultural background doesn't make them a troll.

For the record, I'm as anti-Putin and anti-annexation of Crimea as someone can get. I come from a long line of Russian/Soviet liberal dissidents and, at this point in my life, consider myself a political emigrant from Russia. But I don't see either Crimea or the Ukraine or Russia's geopolitical interests as being somehow above rational discussion, and I certainly don't see either as a reason to start posting blatantly Russophobic commentary or justifying others' wrongs (even if they're lesser wrongs) and then turning around and accusing Russians of trolling when they turn up to defend or qualify their own views. If you tell them to shut up because their country is bad or something and they have to live with some sort of perpetual existentialist shame because of their country's history, you'll never accomplish anything, other than maybe making yourself feel like a bigger man. Which in that situation would hardly be true anyway, because that's a very petty way of getting through arguments.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Susexx

Think about Kosovo. Almost like in the Crimea. But everyone is silent.

Because Kosovo was an oppressed albanian majority defecting FROM evil Serbs.
Everyone hates the Serbs.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Because Kosovo was an oppressed albanian majority defecting FROM evil Serbs.
Everyone hates the Serbs.

if I recall a lot of very nasty thing actually happened before NATO got involved to resolve the mess.
With Ukraine it is sort of the other way around or simultaneous.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by kranz

ok, I'm done with this thread. (basically got cancer reading this)
Trolls in the past have been keelhauled for lesser trolling but all of a sudden this guy gets some 'mod-shield' and is allowed to repeat his BS since August.
People who tried to argue with the troll either gave up (like me; Steve - the vids are there - take your time and find them; don't have the time? don't bother with 'moderating') or were banned (surprise, surprise).

If that is how you feel then so be it but I will add that I am a little disappointed after having posted (see quoted post below).

For the record: Nobody has a 'mod shield' and I believe my stance on name calling and insults is well known on this forum.

I'll talk to Steve regarding the position of moderation because we do discuss forum members concerns quite regularly on Skype.

As far as I'm concerned Steve has intervened with justification and well within the remit given to Steve and I by Neal in our positions as 'Global Moderators'. He has sought to give clarification to comments and did not threaten or give any warnings or infractions. 'Damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't' springs to mind here.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I'd just like to flag up a point....

This thread has moved positively in the right direction and is now being debated in a positive, adult-like and non-aggressive manner.

Credit to all of you that make it so.

I for one certainly enjoy catching up on the thread developments.

Originally Posted by CCIP

I think everyone who is able to articulate their opinion without name-calling, can keep a respectful tone and cover his issues in detail without calling for killing of other people etc. deserves a "mod shield". Just because you disagree with someone's political stance or cultural background doesn't make them a troll.

For the record, I'm as anti-Putin and anti-annexation of Crimea as someone can get. I come from a long line of Russian/Soviet liberal dissidents and, at this point in my life, consider myself a political emigrant from Russia. But I don't see either Crimea or the Ukraine or Russia's geopolitical interests as being somehow above rational discussion, and I certainly don't see either as a reason to start posting blatantly Russophobic commentary or justifying others' wrongs (even if they're lesser wrongs) and then turning around and accusing Russians of trolling when they turn up to defend or qualify their own views. If you tell them to shut up because their country is bad or something and they have to live with some sort of perpetual existentialist shame because of their country's history, you'll never accomplish anything, other than maybe making yourself feel like a bigger man. Which in that situation would hardly be true anyway, because that's a very petty way of getting through arguments.

QFT

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Yes, I am aware of this article. However, as, again, it is said within the article, the blog post was removed, the source of this information regarding the referendum results cannot be verified. And it is not beyond doubt that this data may have been either erroneous or in fact injected, as those websites were known to be hijacked a number of times.

Perhaps, but you are still in a situation where according to "official" Russian results which are impossible to independently verify, 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia, while according to the "Council of the President of the Russian Federation", it may be as little as 15-30% of eligible voters who voted to join Russia.

As I said before, a very dubious referendum.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by MH

if I recall a lot of very nasty thing actually happened before NATO got involved to resolve the mess.
With Ukraine it is sort of the other way around or simultaneous.

Similar case, but different mechanics.

In Crimea the Russians helped the Russians in Crimea to forcefully detach the area from Ukraine and attach it to Russia. The internal conflict was started with the intent of moving from Kiev to Moscow.

In Kosovo Albania did not help Albanians in Kosovo to gain independence and the area was declared a sovereign state. The process happened by outside powers diplomatically and Serbia lost Kosovo with a signature. The internal conflict happened years before and was not intended to free Kosovo.


Kosovo has more similarities with Israel in 1948 than Crimea

[Susexx]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Perhaps, but you are still in a situation where according to "official" Russian results which are impossible to independently verify, 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia, while according to the "Council of the President of the Russian Federation", it may be as little as 15-30% of eligible voters who voted to join Russia.

As I said before, a very dubious referendum.

Come visit in Crimea, ask the residents. Learn a lot and without news of a "zombie box" (TV)