A clarification on Crimea

[NewSith]

I'll be short. Even though this picture isn't exactly accurate, and has a high potential of being a flamebait, here it is:


(Translation: Upper side - American peacekeepers.
Lower side - Russian occupants)

What I want say is - if you have any opinion about Crimea, please realise these things:

• Crimea is not just "Mainly Russian", it's nearly purely Russian, from the standpoint of allegiances and population, despite what media keeps on saying.
• The only real reason Europe and the US wants Russia out of there is the simple fact that there is the only place where Russian navy has access to water that never freezes (and "suffering integrity of the Ukrane" has nothing to do with all that). No Crimea for Russia - no Russian fleet in winter. New Ukranian government is obviously anti-Russian, so...
• European Union blaming Russia for its actions is the same European Union that stood by idly, promising "sanctions" and "solutions", when protesters and ukranian police were pulling triggers with live ammo at each other.
• Western Media likes to portrait Putin as the Russian version of Hitler. Western Media likes to bash on Russia in general, but that's all because of politicians being old and conservative and still believing that opposite side wants to conquer the world... And I'm not saying politicians of only one side are faulty.
• Main point: Russia isn't invading anything. Same way if Quebec decided to violently overthrow Canadian government, the US would send troops to protect english-speaking citizens.

PS Sorry, had to pour it out somewhere. Tired of listening bullshit.

[ChipMHazard]

1) Seems moot that a population is predominantly from another culture. In this case russian speaking. If you're part of a nation then you're part of that nation. Even with Crimea being an autonomous republic. How many nations do you know of that would allow a part of it to secede?
Of course regions that have stronger ties to another nation than its own do tend to cecede either violantly or peacefully in time.

2) I doubt that is even close to being the case, nor do I think the US or EU really cares about Ukraine. Had Russia not done anything then there would not have been any reason to fear a cancellation of the naval base lease and Ukraine would never cancel that agreement without due cause. Worst case is it wouldn't be renewed in 2045.
The current Ukrainian government does seem to be anti-Russian. I'll give you that. They revoked a past law that made Russian a recognised language in the eastern parts of the country. An utterly idiotic move which could only ever bring trouble.

3) Not even close to the same thing. Internal conflicts are internal and not part of the treaty that the US, UK, Ukraine and Russia signed.
Russia's actions have been aggressive and against the treaty. It can be argued that Russia hasn't broken anything, yet, since they're allowed to station 25.000 troops in Crimea as part of the lease agreement. However only at their own bases, not outside Russian territory.

4) President Putin seems to be an old-school communist at heart. He's a tyrannical bully and seemingly he wants to restore some of the previous USSR glory, in spirit if not so much in practice. Compared to someone like president Obama then he's definently worse in some areas and better in others. He kinda reminds me of a more honest and brutal version of Obama whom also doesn't cater to the business world.

5) What he did at the start was the same as most other nations would have done in his place, true. It never ended up being an invasion. Troops have since been withdrawn, probably because Putin has made his point and will be able to get Crimea relatively peacefully.

Make no mistake. Russia had no right to do what they did. Taking military bases from another sovereign nation. Placing soldiers not marked as being part of Russian military, or at least supporting pro-russian soldiers. Pressuring Ukraine soldiers to disarm themselves. Trying to force Ukraine warships to surrender etc.
Had Russia done this to a powerful nation then it would have meant war. Only reason why shots haven't been fired is because Ukraine knows it cannot win and no one really wants a war, Ukraine's sovereignty be damned.
Putin did what he did for one reason only... Because he was sure he could.
Only good thing about this so far is that it's been relatively peaceful.

What I find troubeling is that over the last decades the superpowers have completely ignored international law. President Bush invading countries without having a legigimate reason to do so. Obama violating nations' sovereign space, killing civilians in foreign nations. And now Russia being able to have Crimea secede without anyone of note caring and thus doing anything about. Even though they pledged to respect a treaty.
I don't think this is really about Ukraine as much as it's about Putin flexing his muscles and seeing what he can get away with. Basicly the good old west vs east, with propaganda on both sides filling the media.
This helps set a troubling precedence of only the powerful nations being safe. No wonder why South America created a union and Iran wants nuclear weapons. No one is going to defend you, except yourself.

This might also spark a resurgence of the Cold War, although the US might simply not care enough to damage their relationship with Russia.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

2) I doubt that is even close to being the case, nor do I think the US or EU really cares about Ukraine. Had Russia not done anything then there would not have been any reason to fear a cancellation of the naval base lease and Ukraine would never cancel that agreement without due cause. Worst case is it wouldn't be renewed in 2045.
The current Ukrainian government does seem to be anti-Russian. I'll give you that. They revoked a past law that made Russian a recognised language in the eastern parts of the country. An utterly idiotic move which could only ever bring trouble.

From what one can see on many levels, "less Russia" is considered to be good almost everywhere nowadays. Believe an english-speaking Russian on that one. And EU and US do care about Russia having too much presence close enough to central Europe.

3) Not even close to the same thing. Internal conflicts are internal and not part of the treaty that the US, UK, Ukraine and Russia signed.
Russia's actions have been aggressive and against the treaty. It can be argued that Russia hasn't broken anything, yet, since they're allowed to station 25.000 troops in Crimea as part of the lease agreement. However only at their own bases, not outside Russian territory.

Your response seems somewhat dodgy. I mean, you are NOT denying what I said about EU, while you do justify the bashing of Russia. Just a reminder - many people remember 08.08.08, and Russian actions ARE still viewed as agressive, yet I rarely hear anyone defining shelling the unevacuated city of Tskhinvali (by Georgia) as aggressive. People tend to use this word with wrong pretext nowadays and that only adds to confusion.

And I don't even want to play an anti-US hand here by mentioning some Arab countries and US involvment with them. Especially since you mention them youself.

4) President Putin seems to be an old-school communist at heart. He's a tyrannical bully and seemingly he wants to restore some of the previous USSR glory, in spirit if not so much in practice. Compared to someone like president Obama then he's definently worse in some areas and better in others. He kinda reminds me of a more honest and brutal version of Obama whom also doesn't cater to the business world.

He's just trying to show that Russia has strength. Why? Because he believes that finding a solution that negatively effects Russian image, will cause his old Cold War nemeses to crush his country under "evil capitalistic boot heels". Same way the US old guard (and you yourself apparently) expect Putin to start repressing everyone he can and threatening to "launch nuclear missiles left and right to bring comunism to the globe". That's exactly what I meant by conservative thinking ruining US-Russia relations.

Although I do think that Putin is a smart man and if he turns victorious in Crimean standoff, he will make it his final victory and leave the presidential post with new elections. Believe it or not but I voted for Putin, all that while I strongly disagree with many of his decisions. One can agree on him being tyrannical, "bullying" and greedy, but none can deny that he has Will and Brains. And as I like to tell my friends - I would much rather see a "strong thief" as our president, rather than a pure-hearted and honest person, that sadly happens to be an idiot.

What I find troubeling is that over the last decades the superpowers have completely ignored international law. President Bush invading countries without having a legigimate reason to do so. Obama violating nations' sovereign space, killing civilians in foreign nations. And now Russia being able to have Crimea secede without anyone of note caring and thus doing anything about. Even though they pledged to respect a treaty.
I don't think this is really about Ukraine as much as it's about Putin flexing his muscles and seeing what he can get away with. Basicly the good old west vs east, with propaganda on both sides filling the media.
This helps set a troubling precedence of only the powerful nations being safe. No wonder why South America created a union and Iran wants nuclear weapons. No one is going to defend you, except yourself.

Every country did things like these throughout history. It's just that Russia gets the most attention, because Putin. Question I have to ask you though: in light of what I said in my previous reply, do you still think Putin is "flexing his muscle to see what and how much with he can get away" or because of some other, not much more, but still more just reason?

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by NewSith

From what one can see on many levels, "less Russia" is considered to be good almost everywhere nowadays. Believe an english-speaking Russian on that one. And EU and US do care about Russia having too much presence close enough to central Europe.

Less america has also become something many people prefer, even in the west. Of course nations want less of any meddling superpower in their life.
They would care if it was even remotely realistic for Russia to take Ukraine as a whole. It's not and thus I don't see why EU and the US would overly care about Ukraine losing Crimea. The EU just wants peace so trade can continue. The talks between the US and Russia certainly remind me of the Cold War, although I think it's more of neither side wanting to look weak while also making the other look weak.
I think Russia is far more concerned about Ukraine becoming part of the EU or even worse NATO; because of the missile defence shield.

Originally Posted by NewSith

Your response seems somewhat dodgy. I mean, you are NOT denying what I said about EU, while you do justify the bashing of Russia. Just a reminder - many people remember 08.08.08, and Russian actions ARE still viewed as agressive, yet I rarely hear anyone defining shelling the unevacuated city of Tskhinvali (by Georgia) as aggressive. People tend to use this word with wrong pretext nowadays and that only adds to confusion.

And I don't even want to play an anti-US hand here by mentioning some Arab countries and US involvment with them. Especially since you mention them youself.

Why is that dodgy? Do I have to pick sides? No, of course not. The EU has just stood on the side lines hoping for a peaceful solution, one where they Russian relationship turns hostile.
Russia is still in the wrong here, legally and argueably also morally. Just like the US has been in the wrong in conflicts that they've had in recent time.
Georgian–Ossetian conflict isn't the same thing and it's also not about how nations conduct themselves during war. There are rather few countries that can claim any moral high ground when it comes to that.
Thankfully things have just been tense between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Although the soldiers on each side certainly don't seem to have anything at all against each other.

Originally Posted by NewSith

He's just trying to show that Russia has strength. Why? Because he believes that finding a solution that negatively effects Russian image, will cause his old Cold War nemeses to crush his country under "evil capitalistic boot heels". Same way the US old guard (and you yourself apparently) expect Putin to start repressing everyone he can and threatening to "launch nuclear missiles left and right to bring comunism to the globe". That's exactly what I meant by conservative thinking ruining US-Russia relations.

Although I do think that Putin is a smart man and if he turns victorious in Crimean standoff, he will make it his final victory and leave the presidential post with new elections. Believe it or not but I voted for Putin, all that while I strongly disagree with many of his decisions. One can agree on him being tyrannical, "bullying" and greedy, but none can deny that he has Will and Brains. And as I like to tell my friends - I would much rather see a "strong thief" as our president, rather than a pure-hearted and honest person, that sadly happens to be an idiot.

Finding a solution that negatively effects Russian image?
Interesting view, since Putin was the one who meddled with Ukraine. Had he stayed out then he would never have had to worry about Russia losing face to the world, by that I mean just keeping to the Russian owned bases and technically out of Ukraine.
Although, it could be argued that the former president Yanukovych forced Putin's hand by fleeing to Russia.
Could be that Putin wants to show the west that they can still defend their borders, that they don't want EU/NATO influence right beside them (Because of the missile defence shield, which is still one of THE dumbest decisions that the US has ever made).
Could be that he wants to show that Russia is still a force to be reckoned with.
Might just be Putin being Putin. As simplistic as that sounds.
Why on earth would you label me as soneone who thinks Putin would ever threaten with nuclear war? I'm no conservative. Putin wanting to regain some of Russia's former glory =/= wanting to spread communism to the world. That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever since Russia isn't a communist nation anymore. Me stating that I think that Putin is an old communist at heart =/= Russia has become a communist nation again.
Putin may be many things, but he's not stupid and has always come of as being pragmatic. I never take official propaganda statements to heart, whether they are from the west or east.

Could very well be that he wants this to be his final moment of glory, I hadn't considered that.
Only an idiot would deny that Putin is a smart and wilful person. He knows what he's doing, even if I do think it's bordering on a reckless gamble. Considering what could possibly happen because of this whole debacle.
I agree that one good thing about Putin is that you know exactly what to expect from him. Where as Obama has shown himself as being two-faced, again not counting propaganda which would make most politicians two-faced. I respect certain things about Putin while I basicly have no respect for Obama.

Originally Posted by NewSith

Every country did things like these throughout history. It's just that Russia gets the most attention, because Putin. Question I have to ask you though: in light of what I said in my previous reply, do you still think Putin is "flexing his muscle to see what and how much with he can get away" or because of some other, not much more, but still more just reason?

Indeed and one would think that leaders would have learned from history by now. Only one result has ever come from making everyone around you an enemy. Of course one can't blame countries in Eastern Europe, among others, for acting apprehensive in the face of possible Russia expansion. The USSR is certainly still fresh enough in many peoples memories, even if it would be impossible for it to resurface.
Seeing Putin as a pragmatic man, yes I still think he's currently trying to get what he can i.e. Crimea while also ending this peacefully. Why he went in to begin with? Could certainly be because he wants to do what he can to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU, and possibly even NATO, which I absolutely wouldn't fault him for.
Could be that he considers Crimea to be of strategic importance in case Ukraine became part of the west. Perhaps he simply saw a chance and took it.
I have a lot of thoughts about why Putin did this, but without studying the man I wouldn't be able to give a real answer.
So a short and simplistic answer would be: Yes, I do think he's trying to get what he can, pound his chest as hard as he can to appear as strong as he can in the face of the west.

Funny thing is that currently both Russia and the US are trying to bribe Ukraine to come over to their side, if only in spirit.
I do think the dumbest thing the west could do now is actually institute sanctions against Russia. Would harm everyone financially and it would force the Russia to become more chummy with China.

[Sonny]

EDIT: Population of Crimea as of 2001 for those who are interested: http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/res...onality/Crimea

Originally Posted by NewSith

What I want say is - if you have any opinion about Crimea, please realise these things:

• Crimea is not just "Mainly Russian", it's nearly purely Russian, from the standpoint of allegiances and population, despite what media keeps on saying.
• The only real reason Europe and the US wants Russia out of there is the simple fact that there is the only place where Russian navy has access to water that never freezes (and "suffering integrity of the Ukrane" has nothing to do with all that). No Crimea for Russia - no Russian fleet in winter. New Ukranian government is obviously anti-Russian, so...
• European Union blaming Russia for its actions is the same European Union that stood by idly, promising "sanctions" and "solutions", when protesters and ukranian police were pulling triggers with live ammo at each other.
• Western Media likes to portrait Putin as the Russian version of Hitler. Western Media likes to bash on Russia in general, but that's all because of politicians being old and conservative and still believing that opposite side wants to conquer the world... And I'm not saying politicians of only one side are faulty.
• Main point: Russia isn't invading anything. Same way if Quebec decided to violently overthrow Canadian government, the US would send troops to protect english-speaking citizens.

PS Sorry, had to pour it out somewhere. Tired of listening bullshit.

OK, so (apologies if I overlap the debate with ChipMhazard):

Nice picture, but I'm not sure it really proves anything. Some people will be happy that the Russians are there, I'm sure there are some that aren't.

Main point first: Russia has sent military forces into another sovereign state without permission. This is the definition of an invasion. They made no attempt to negotiate with the new Ukrainian government, or appeal to international bodies to protect the safety of Russian nationals in Crimea (which I think is not a believable worry in this case, but that's a separate argument; where is the evidence that Russian nationals were in imminent danger from the new government?).

Negotiations or appeals to international bodies could have easily resolved this dispute peacefully. But no, Putin decided to go straight for military action. Russia has contravened international law and invaded another sovereign state. For me, it's no surprise that the international community is so shocked.

1. So, 'nearly purely' Russian. Crimea has a population of ~12% Tatars that I guess are generally unhappy with the Russian military marching in. Plus there must be a number of Crimean Ukrainians who aren't happy with a foreign military in their country (I have no idea how many). So their views and rights are being completely ignored here. So, the rights of the minority are trampled due to the majority?

Regardless, Ukraine is still a sovereign state. Even if it were 100% Russian, they can't justify walking into another country. If they do without permission, that's a military invasion.

2. Well, I think negotiation between the Ukrainian and Russian governments could have ironed out this difficulty, no? Why resort immediately to armed invasion?

3. I don't know how this contributes to the argument.

4. I don't think the majority of media is representing Putin as Hitler. I've seen a couple of reports saying that but it doesn't represent majority opinion. I think the majority of anti-Russian sentiment in the media these last few weeks has been due to the incredible actions of Russia that contravene international law.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Sonny

OK, so (apologies if I overlap the debate with ChipMhazard)

Always welcome to join in the debate, the more the merrier

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

(Translation: Upper side - American peacekeepers.
Lower side - Russian occupants)

Two can play that game.

[Figment]

http://www.rada.crimea.ua/textdoc/ru/6/act/1702pr.pdf

Btw NewSith, could you point out the options on this voting card that allows Crimea to stay part of Ukraine (or even integrate into Ukraine further)?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

http://www.rada.crimea.ua/textdoc/ru/6/act/1702pr.pdf

Btw NewSith, could you point out the options on this voting card that allows Crimea to stay part of Ukraine (or even integrate into Ukraine further)?

Literal translation (formatting not kept):

Appendix 1
Of by-law by Verhovnaya Rada
Of Autonomous Republic of Crimea
6th of March 2014 number 1702-6/14

Bullet-in
For voting at inter-Crimean referendum on march 16th

Use any symbol inside either square to mark your vote

1) Are you for Crimea rejoining Russian Federation on account of it becoming federal unit of Russian Federation?

2) Are you for restoring the 1992's Crimean constitution and acknowledging Crimea as part of Ukraine?

Bullet-in with both or neither option selected is considered invalid.

Bullet-in to be printed sized 210x150 on white paper.

[Figment]

Thanks for the translation.

Why the reference to the 1992 consitution?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

Thanks for the translation.

Why the reference to the 1992 consitution?

It's the constitution that made Crimea semi-autonomous. Has been a subject to amendments ever since.

PS ALthough the original one implied the existence of Crimean president.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

It's the constitution that made Crimea semi-autonomous. Has been a subject to amendments ever since.

PS ALthough the original one implied the existence of Crimean president.

So basically... whatever is voted, the Crimeans gain greater independence? There is no voting option to retain the status quo? :|


That's biased as hell.

No wonder the Tartars (and probably the Ukrainians) will boycot this fixed referendum, their prefered options for either the 1998 situation or status quo isn't granted. You're not supporting this referendum to take place (this way) are you NewSith?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

You're not supporting this referendum to take place (this way) are you NewSith?

I do not intend to say anything, because that constitution mention can be interpreted rather vaguely.

[Figment]

Well, let's put it this way, I just saw footage of an election booth being set up: two separate boxes for the votes, TRANSPARANT, so the booth itself becomes pointless: everyone will know what you voted.

[Figment]

The ballot paper for the contest, which was published by parliament, disclosed that Crimean voters will be given two options: either immediate “reunification” with Russia, or adopting the “1992 constitution” — which gives parliament the power to vote to join Russia.

Hmmm...