Ukrainian Conflict

[Der Langrisser]

Here's the targets of EU sanctions, from the EU Official Journal.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...16:0021:EN:PDF

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I find all these nitpicking of number (85% or 92% ) is merely a form of denial because people refuse to recognized the irrefutable fact on the ground: that the MAJORITY of Crimean people are ethnic Russian and they voted to be with Russia.

In the end the numbers are irrelevant. New Mexico isn't going to be allowed to secede from the US just because much of the population is ethnically Mexican. They are part of the country and if they want to be able to secede, this should be done with the country as a whole making the decision. Not some rigged only one option, local election orchestrated by extremists and Putin with guns, violence, and intimidation involved in the process.

Whether it is the US or anyone else, this election is rightfully not recognized by the international community as anything close to legitimate.

[LeoXiao]

If you don't realize that there being no "rejoin Ukraine" option means that this whole vote is a sham, then you fail at understanding democracy.

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by konart

I do believe my relatives there (I'm half ukrainian with relatives in Poltava and Saky (Crimea)). But I wasn't talking about strict numbers. I was talking about majority. 60% or 90% - doesn't really matter in this case, does it?

Ofcourse it does. Its a question of determining the legitamcy of the vote. If the vote was rigged, then We will never know if the referendum actually DID have 60% support... not to mention that I would find that making such a HUGE decision on a slim majority of the population to be absurd, since the 60% would be dragging the other 40% where they don't want to go. For a referendum like that, I personally wouldn't accept anything less by overwhelming broad support.

Yes Crimea is 60% russian, but being 60% russian, an being 60% in favor of joining russia are two completely different things. If Putin can't get 100% support in his own country, why would he get 100% support somewhere else?

Originally Posted by Hitenma

What will happen then?
Soldiers drag people out of their houses and force them to vote at gunpoint?

They don't need to force people to vote, just keep people from voting against the measure and then inflate the numbers. The presense of Pro-russian Militia in the government buildings and streets alone sends a chilling effect for anyone who would want to voice agianst the measure. Crimea also shut down opposition media, only allowing the pro-russian media to help keep voters uniformed.

If that's the case, will adding a NO option make any difference?

Yes it does. Like I said before, the only things that matter in an election is the number of "yes" and "no" votes. If you do not vote, then you didn't actually vote "no"; you voted "i don't care". Elections often don't care about turn out, just which vote had the majority. Without a "no" vote, there is literally no way to oppose the ballot measure.

[konart]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

The poll results were as expected...

Didn't follow the news past few days, any words on how Russia plan to deal with this situation? Annex Crimea, or simply just recognise Crimea as a independent nation like Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

It all started with Kosovo, it seems

We already have recognized them as an independent state. Next move... we will know in 14 hours

[Goldy24]

I hope it will be solved peacefully.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Goldy24

I hope it will be solved peacefully.

This time it'll probably be peaceful. I'm worried about what Russia or another well armed/nuclear power might try and "liberate" next.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

In the end the numbers are irrelevant. New Mexico isn't going to be allowed to secede from the US just because much of the population is ethnically Mexican. They are part of the country and if they want to be able to secede, this should be done with the country as a whole making the decision.

Well, Québec can. In the case of US though, the president will simply says "No", even if there's majority support across the entire country, such as Texas, where the leftists don't care about Texas leaving, and the rightists respects the right to secede out of their respect for the Confederacy.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Well, Québec can.

Based on the demographics, the only people who are still going with separatism are the old ones who were at the heart of the movement in the 1970s and 1980s, and perhaps some of their offspring. Except for them, no one gives a shit about seceding anymore.

That's why I usually say that the older frustrated Quebecois should hurry up and kick the bucket so the movement dies along with it.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

If you don't realize that there being no "rejoin Ukraine" option means that this whole vote is a sham, then you fail at understanding democracy.

LOL. Feel free to explain to this third world person which of the following is democratic:
(a) Protesters overthrow a democratically elected president and install a new government which only represents like half of the nation. That's certainly not democratic. Why does the west support that government?

(b) Military coups overthrow another democratically elected president. Again, why does the west back this coup in Egypt?

(c) I don't recall many Gulf nations being anywhere near democracy. The western nations are in the same bed with them because?

It feels to me that "democracy" has been a word which is used by the US-lead west on international stage whenever it is convenient.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

LOL. Feel free to explain to this third world person which of the following is democratic:
(a) Protesters overthrow a democratically elected president and install a new government which only represents like half of the nation. That's certainly not democratic. Why does the west support that government?

(b) Military coups overthrow another democratically elected president. Again, why does the west back this coup in Egypt?

(c) I don't recall many Gulf nations being anywhere near democracy. The western nations are in the same bed with them because?

It feels to me that "democracy" has been a word which is used by the US-lead west on international stage whenever it is convenient.

You are not offering any proof that the referendum is legitimate. You are merely pointing out that you don't think it matters.

The fact that you don't think it matters, is the reason we can't take any of this seriously. If democracy is just a sham to you, then you can't use the referendum as any kind of justification. You can't have it both ways.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are not offering any proof that the referendum is legitimate. You are merely pointing out that you don't think it matters.

The fact that you don't think it matters, is the reason we can't take any of this seriously. If democracy is just a sham to you, then you can't use the referendum as any kind of justification. You can't have it both ways.

I am interested in this whole thing purely from a geopolitical point of view. If you read a few pages back, you'll notice that I am the first one who predict that Crimea is effectively gone the moment the polite people showed up. By the way, if the Russia troops did not come, then the Ukraine ones will as soon as power is consolidated in Kiev. The strategic location of Crimea demands it.

As for all this debate about democracy, it is more of amusement why people apply great scrutiny on the referendum but failed to do so on many other fronts, for example, the current government in Kiev.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

LOL. Feel free to explain to this third world person which of the following is democratic:
(a) Protesters overthrow a democratically elected president and install a new government which only represents like half of the nation. That's certainly not democratic. Why does the west support that government?

Because the democratically elected president became increasingly corrupt and undemocratic even to his own party and the new government promised elections and are thus far complying.

(b) Military coups overthrow another democratically elected president. Again, why does the west back this coup in Egypt?

Because they're arseholes. But the last time I checked, another country's hypocrisy doesn't magically make this situation okay nor is it even remotely relevant to the discussion of how legitimate the Crimean referendum is.

(c) I don't recall many Gulf nations being anywhere near democracy. The western nations are in the same bed with them because?

Again, trying to evade the issue by pointing out irrelevant flaws in other countries does you no favours. This is classic Propaganda 101: Always divert focus away from yourself by attacking your opponent (Tu Quoque).

It feels to me that "democracy" has been a word which is used by the US-lead west on international stage whenever it is convenient.

...And you're falling for it...

It's Russia that created this farce of a referendum and are using it to justify their own positions and actions. They're the ones using democracy out of convenience here.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

LOL. Feel free to explain to this third world person which of the following is democratic:
(a) Protesters overthrow a democratically elected president and install a new government which only represents like half of the nation. That's certainly not democratic. Why does the west support that government?

(b) Military coups overthrow another democratically elected president. Again, why does the west back this coup in Egypt?

(c) I don't recall many Gulf nations being anywhere near democracy. The western nations are in the same bed with them because?

It feels to me that "democracy" has been a word which is used by the US-lead west on international stage whenever it is convenient.

What does "the west" have to do with anything? Are you implying that nobody in "the west" has a right to say anything about the situation because of some so-called bias? Isn't that prejudiced?

And yes, we all realize that Ukrainian politics are full of corruption. Doesn't make the referendum in Crimea any more valid. What part of "there are only two annexation options on the ballot" do you not understand?

[Fireminer]

So, we all know how it happens in Crimea. But how about other area like Donesk? They are protesting for referendum.

And well, this quite something: The Crimea of Russia's imagination

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by konart

It wouldn't be short term loss when Ukraine is in NATO

There has been no serious attempt to get Ukraine to join NATO.

There has been some talk about Ukraine joining the EU.

Different things.

Additionally the idea of Ukraine joining the EU with the problems the EU is already happening? Not likely. There are also a host of requirements to join the EU. Turkey is closer to meeting them then Ukraine. Ukraine would be decades away at the earliest.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"Would NATO start WW3 to defend Poland?"

That's the question. You know, like asking if Austria is worth defending when WW2 started.

The Polish clearly don't want to risk the possibility that NATO would sacrifice them to save the planet. Appeasement happens; Poland remembered all too well how that worked when the Allies needed Stalin's help. When it comes to the crunch the Polish has no one but themselves to count on.

Actually... WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany... and then did nothing while Germany conquered Poland.

So... on the question of starting WWII to save Poland the answer was: "Well, okay, but not in a way that will meaningfully protect Poland."

Hence, the conclusion that Poland best not be too certain about help in the case of WWIII

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I find all these nitpicking of number (85% or 92% ) is merely a form of denial because people refuse to recognized the irrefutable fact on the ground: that the MAJORITY of Crimean people are ethnic Russian and they voted to be with Russia.

You mean the Morton's Fork referendum?

Question, do you want to:

A) Join Russia?

B) Become Independent, and then join Russia?

Now granted, Crimea is majority Russian, unlike all the other Ukrainian territories. It's entirely plausible that 50% to 60% might actually want to join Russia. But the numbers being presented are obviously false, which then begs the question: If the legitimate vote would have been in favor of joining Russia then why are they making up numbers?

Also relevant is that there was a referendum on independence several years ago, and the majority back then voted to remain part of Ukraine. Now it's plausible that they might have changed their minds, but the facts of military invasion, a meaningless referendum (only one choice), and blatantly false numbers - well I just don't think this referendum has much credibility.

Originally Posted by Slayerx

Yes, its the combination of high turn out with high "yes" votes that make it suspicious. 80% turn out is not unrealistic, though it is the highest you can usually expect. But people do not think overwlehmingly alike, so when you get such high turnout you usually get more even results. The opposite is true for low turnout; if the turn out is low, its not really a surprise to see A LOT of "Yes" votes, since the low turnout implies that many who were against the measure did not see a point to voting or didn't care. 80% turn out with 60% in favor would be believable; 50% turn out with 95% in favor would be believable; But 80% turn out with 97% in favor? Its essentially a statistical impossibility... and that's not even counting the fact that 40% of Crimea's population have no reason to be in favor of the ballot.

Well put.

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

LOL. Feel free to explain to this third world person which of the following is democratic:
(a) Protesters overthrow a democratically elected president and install a new government which only represents like half of the nation. That's certainly not democratic. Why does the west support that government?

First, Democratically speaking, the president was thrown out via a vote in the parliament that included even his own party; the Parliament itself is a democratically elected body of the people. However, the move violated their constitution since Parliament does not officially have that power. So I would say that the coup is more of a contitutional violation, than a democractic violation. If for instance the constitution DID give the legislature the right to remove the president, then there would be no problem with such an action. In a sense, the constitution is sorta a check against democracy, since not every decision should bend to the fleeting whims of the democratic public; basically there are times when you DON'T want majority to rule.

Second, Control over the situation was lost; The opposition could not keep the protesters under control, and the president waited too long to make compromises. Parliament had enough ammo for impeachment, but the process would have taken months and some quick action was needed to end the chaos. Should they go through the impeachment process and allow protestors to keep going? Should they use military force to crack down? All ugly out comes. Simply put, it was a dirty solution but it was the only solution.

Third, the former president's party still hold seats in parliament, so they continue to represent that half of the country(this includes crimea itself)... After the president's ouster, the government made no move against the ethnic Russian's; the idea that they were in any kind of danger like Putin and the radical pro-russians keep saying is pretty much nonsense... This is unlike kosovo which actually WAS in danger by its government. Many secessionist focus only on their referendum, not the reasons why they felt they need it.

Forth, the current government in is only an interim government, a temporary ruling body to keep things running during the transition; new elections are scheduled for May where a new leader will be chosen by vote.

(b) Military coups overthrow another democratically elected president. Again, why does the west back this coup in Egypt?

They didn't really... Western countries called it a coup, deals were cut and tensions have been high ever since. Relations have not quite normalized

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Sackett

Actually... WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany... and then did nothing while Germany conquered Poland.

So... on the question of starting WWII to save Poland the answer was: "Well, okay, but not in a way that will meaningfully protect Poland.

Hence, the conclusion that Poland best not be to certain about help in the case3 of WWIII

That is not the whole story though. Soviets attacked poland as well and much later on, after Germany was defeated, they refused to give the land back that they gained by doing a pincer attack together with the Germans. Later on Stalin even used his agreements with Hitler as an argument to annex everything on the russian side of the "Hitler-Stalin-Border". And since the soviets were actually part of the "allied" later on, it basically made any alliance that poland had with the allied before void.

So this is what the polish may think:
"Back then the West didn't help because they needed Stalin's help (if they would have helped at all). Now they won't help because they need Putin's gas.

[Sackett]

Anime warned us this was coming.

Truly, anime knows all.

[Fireminer]

Someone make that video possible to watch in Vietnam!