Ukrainian Conflict

[Haak]

Originally Posted by konart

1. There was no occupation. Technically Russia has the right to host up to 25000 soldiers there.

It was an occupation. Russian forces took over buildings and effectively took over the government.

2. There were international monitors.

They were certainly international. XP

3. Two different "yes" on it. Yes for Russia and yes for Russia.

Fixed for accuracy.

4. 100% out of 80% that voted, not the 100% from the entire Crimea population

Because that makes a difference doesn't?

You should really stop this wishful thinking for once.

Lol.

And as was said earlier - you can't accuse anyone in a crime when you have no proof, no matter how obvious it can be

The validity of a referendum is not innocent until proven guilty. That's why we have monitors in the first place. Referendums have to adhere to certain standards to be considered legitimate. Referendums have to adhere to certain standards to be considered referendums.

[Wigwams]

Putin wont u-turn on this issue i think. NATO should just build all those missle defense systems, and emphasizing every single opportunity that its for iran and not russia. totally believable.

[risingstar3110]

To be honest, I didn't see this development coming. I thought Russia will just use Crimea as bargaining chip to force the new Ukraine government into accepting a more pro-Russia stands.


It's over btw. EU's response was too slow and weak to deter Russia from annexing Crimea. Now as the Russia already done it, there is little financial and political reasons from EU to punish Russia. I will expect Russia started doing back door deal with each major EU nations (foremost Germany) to slowly normalise the situation, and before we know it it will be in the back page like Kosovo.

Nothing Ukraine can do now but militarily intervene. And without NATO back-up, that's gonna be suicidal. They can of course exchange sovereign right for NATO or US military base to set up on Ukraine soil. But will EU or US prepare to escalate the situation to that degree? Maybe Russia can offer some support for American next involvement in Middle East in exchange for turning blind eyes?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by konart

1. There was no occupation. Technically Russia has the right to host up to 25000 soldiers there.

INSIDE their bases, with movements outside allowed only after agreements w/ Ukraine’s government, nowhere in their agreement was a provision for the Russian troops to surround, lay siege, and take over government buildings

2. There were international monitors.

What, from Russia?

3. Two different "yes" on it. Yes for Ukraine and yes for Russia.

Please, stop trying to insult the intelligence of everyone here, it was for Russia now, or for Russia 5 minutes later.

4. 100% out of 80% that voted, not the 100% from the entire Crimea population

Which not only require that 100% of the ethnic Russian population voted for it (which they aren’t), but also that half of the ethnic Ukrainian and Tartar population also voted for it

You should really stop this wishful thinking for once.

You should really stop trying to whitewash it, you’re approaching the level of Putin’s “These are not the Russian troops you’re looking for!”

And as was said earlier - you can't accuse anyone in a crime when you have no proof, no matter how obvious it can be

...what? are you serious? Do you even have any concept of how the legal system in most civilized country works?
You’re essentially saying that you can take someone into a barn, execute him, then burn the whole place down with hundreds of people watching and knowing exactly what’s going on, but you can’t be accused of murder since no one personally saw you kill the guy inside the barn -_-

[risingstar3110]

Guys let's don't go too personal on it.


I don't think the referendum was rigged. It was just extremely biased, and more on "how do you want to formalise us joining Russia" than "should we join Russia".


Le's be honest, we will still call foul on referendum and none of the Western government will accept it even if they were done properly with international observant. Don't let the 95% approval get the spotlight. The disagreement was not on how it was carried out, but on whether something like this referendum is allowed to happen in the first place.

[Slayerx]

One thing I would highlight is the 2010 presidential election. In that election Yanukovych ran as centarilist; he supportted Russia while at the same time promising to work towards joining the EU. His opponent was strictly on the EU side and was against Russia. With this dynamic Yanukovych won a slim majority in ukraine. In Crimea in particular, he carried about 70% of the vote. 70% sided with the Centarilist and 30% sided with the anti-russian. If Russia really did enjoy 97% support in crimea, then shouldn't Yanukovych have carried a much larger portion of the vote, while the anti-russian antelope would get a much smaller piece?

Frankly I think it just highlights how obviously ridiculous the results are with a high turn out. With such a high turn out the ballot should have probably more closely reflected the results from 2010 election since both in a way could be simplified as do you prefer relations with Russia or the EU? And keep in mind, Yanukovych ran as centrailist, not anti-EU, so that would skew the results somewhat. Seems like it would be more believable that Russian annexation would have at most 60% support in a referendum with such a high turn out.

It's over btw. EU's response was too slow and weak to deter Russia from annexing Crimea. Now as the Russia already done it, there is little financial and political reasons from EU to punish Russia. I will expect Russia started doing back door deal with each major EU nations (foremost Germany) to slowly normalise the situation, and before we know it it will be in the back page like Kosovo.

There is reason to do so, to keep Putin from trying again... He could still work to take another piece of Ukraine if he wanted, or their are other countries he can try to annex. He claims he doesn't want to take anymore of ukraine, but he also claimed he wasn't aiming to annex Crimea. A harsh response would help discourage a repeat of this debacle.

[GreyZone]

This sounds like the former German Democratic Republic ("East Germany") doing elections. 95% of votes for the Socialist Unity Party of Germany...

It is so obvious, I really don't understand how some people still try to deny it... Russia seems always to "help", first in Georgia and now in Crimea...

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

That brings us back to the first point that I was making, people who focus on various details of this referendum are more in denial than grasping the overall picture.

It's one thing to say "this is what happened" and accept that Crimea will pretty much be Russian for now on. It's another thing to actually support this kind of invasion just because of the "political game" being played.

If Putin were so sure that Crimea really wanted to break off from Ukraine and join Russia, why not just ask them in the first place? These aren't just "various details", these are actual legal problems. Now we'll never know how many people didn't actually want to join Russia since they were never given a choice. The Russian government is essentially telling us to believe, without an actual referendum, that their takeover was totally legit. Very likely it's true that, given the choice, the Crimeans would vote to join Russia. But the point of democratic process is to demonstrate that this is a fact and not some assumption.

Ultimately, Putin wanted to take Crimea whether the people there wanted him to or not. This means the move was an aggressive invasion. Things being as they are, he could have sent in officially-marked Russian troops announcing "we're here to make you part of Russia", and the result would be much the same as what actually happened, because the referendum is meaningless. It's like putting see-through clothes on a woman; just because she's technically wearing something doesn't mean it isn't indecent exposure.

Assumptions are very dangerous in addition to unfair— the assumption that Iraq had WMDs, the assumption that the Vietnamese had attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, the assumption that there must be a certain percentage of "counterrevolutionaries" and "capitalists" inside the ranks of a certain ruling party. All these and many more such assumptions, which their inventors said were totally true and claimed as "facts on the ground", ended with hundreds of thousands or millions dead. I don't think what Putin is doing now will end the same way, but the way he is acting shows that he expects the world to accept his assumptions rather than demonstrable evidence. Internationally and historically this is a bad habit and should be opposed whenever it happens, not brushed off as "political games".

[MrTerrorist]

Ukraine officer 'killed in attack on Crimea base'

War anyone?

[LeoXiao]

Funny, Putin claimed that "not a single shot had been fired". I suppose that guy dying is just a "detail" and pointing it out means we are in denial.

[Blaat]

Guys, seriously there are plenty of historical precedence of ridiculously one sided referendum or election results.

As for irregularity on twitter it was reported that a non-Crimean resident Russian journalist was allowed to vote, along with children, the ballet box was transparent but the votes weren't in envelopes (so no voter secrecy) and there is a picture of a guy carrying a ballet box from door to door to get more people to vote.

Furthermore as pointed out the result doesn't match up with the previous presidential election nor does it match up with the distribution of ethnic groups census from 2001 .

So what now? Nothing really anschluss is done and dusted, Ukraine doesn't have the capabilities to go to war with Russia and win it (it will be another Georgia). This is another stab to the post-war international order if treaties with the US, Russia and China isn't enough to respect your sovereignty what will? Well the answer is rather simple: nuclear weapons, and I bet a lot of Ukrainians wish they never signed the Budapest Memorandum.

[Nachtwandler]

Russia is still better than our current government. To bad they are not interested in taking Eastern Ukraine too.

[AntonKutovoi]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Ukraine officer 'killed in attack on Crimea base'

War anyone?

Oh, look, they "forgot" to mention that there's three people were shot from opposing sides, and shooting was from the same place
http://www.c-inform.info/news/id/1137

[konart]

Originally Posted by kyp275

What, from Russia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean..._2014#Monitors

Finland, Serbia, Spain (Catalonia) and other countries. I can continue this discussion and give a full list tomorrow if anyone still interested.

there is a picture of a guy carrying a ballet box from door to door to get more people to vote.

Don't know about other countries, but it's common way for people to vote at their home in Russia and Ukraine if it's hard to move for them (elderly) and in some other situations

[Ithekro]

In this part of California, the ballot boxes are distributed to centralized locations within communities. I don't know the exact numbers, but each one is for a relatively small area based on the number of people. I think were I live they have two sets of boxes that meet at the border between the areas, but it only serves people for about maybe five square miles from its location. Three thousand people I suppose per polling site.




So we are going to have to change our maps of Europe again?
Republic of Crimea
and
Sevastopol

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

If Putin were so sure that Crimea really wanted to break off from Ukraine and join Russia, why not just ask them in the first place? These aren't just "various details", these are actual legal problems. Now we'll never know how many people didn't actually want to join Russia since they were never given a choice. The Russian government is essentially telling us to believe, without an actual referendum, that their takeover was totally legit. Very likely it's true that, given the choice, the Crimeans would vote to join Russia. But the point of democratic process is to demonstrate that this is a fact and not some assumption.

As I said earlier, if the Russian army did not came to Crimea, then the Ukraine one certainly will. Am I wrong?

In the end, the idealistic presumptions that you are trying to argue for a "democratic" process will never ever exist. If fact, without the presence of the polite people, any referendum will result in Maiden #2, in the sense that violence will reign, and groups not happy with the referendum result will simply ignore it going into protest. These factions will be backed by the west, "money to support the democratic institutions". Do you agree that this is more likely the course of events?

I understand people want true democracy. Then why play double standard? Why not scrutinise every party involved in this business? When confronted with the question whether the current government in Kiev hired the snipers, the answer is "there is no hard evidence, let it go" despite facts like same type of bullets . Did they find any hard evidence that the referendum is rigged? Or it is more of speculation on the numbers? Why not "let it go" this time?

[Hitenma]

For the people who cry about "true democracy", let me ask you one question:
If the votes had had no problem whatsoever, would the West (and you) have happily recognized the result and let Crimea join Russia?
Or will you go to find another thing to protest?

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by Hitenma

How did it fail?
Because some random guys in the internet don't like it?

Because:

1: Rather then having an actual referendum which included the option to reject independence and annexation and instead choose to maintain the status quo, the options given were a Milton's Fork in which the end result would be the same. Thus invalidating the referendum.

It was essentially asking "Are we going to do this the easy way? Or the hard way?"

In which case it is not offering a legitimate choice.

2: Because while it is plausible that the people of Crimea might want to join Russia, there is no plausible way that 97% of them want to. I would say the same to a vote that claimed 97% don't want to join Russia. The plausible range is between 40% and 65% of the people of Crimea want to join Russia. (This is based on the Russian percentage of the population ~60% and the percentage that voted to join Russia last time they had this question 20 years ago ~40% or so).

It's simply a mathematical impossibility for 80% of the people to vote and 97% want to join Russia. Thus the conclusion that the official results are lies, and if Russia would have won with the true results then why are they lying?

Actually my guess is that Russia might have won legitimately, but it would have been a very close vote and they didn't want to take chances.

Doesn't change the fact that this vote tells us nothing about what the people of Crimea actually want. We are all just guessing because Russia is presenting fraudulent numbers.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Nothing Ukraine can do now but militarily intervene. And without NATO back-up, that's gonna be suicidal. They can of course exchange sovereign right for NATO or US military base to set up on Ukraine soil. But will EU or US prepare to escalate the situation to that degree? Maybe Russia can offer some support for American next involvement in Middle East in exchange for turning blind eyes?

Ukraine could cut off power to Crimea. Not sure that would be wise at this point, but Ukraine does have some leverage still.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Sackett

2: Because while it is plausible that the people of Crimea might want to join Russia, there is no plausible way that 97% of them want to. I would say the same to a vote that claimed 97% don't want to join Russia. The plausible range is between 40% and 65% of the people of Crimea want to join Russia. (This is based on the Russian percentage of the population ~60% and the percentage that voted to join Russia last time they had this question 20 years ago ~40% or so).

It's simply a mathematical impossibility for 80% of the people to vote and 97% want to join Russia. Thus the conclusion that the official results are lies, and if Russia would have won with the true results then why are they lying?

Actually my guess is that Russia might have won legitimately, but it would have been a very close vote and they didn't want to take chances.

Actually it's totally possible for a turn out of 97% support. Just think, if you only have 2 options a) make Crimea an independent nation, which will either see it annexed by a bloody conflict between Russia or Ukrainie, b) join Russia. Then the obvious options will be to vote for joining Russia right way. The 97% in this case make perfect sense


What does not make sense that most people failed to point at is the 80% who turned up to vote. As pointed out above, the only way for people to express their distaste on joining Russia is boycotting the Referendum. You will expect if only Russian ethnic supported the annexation, then the number turned up would be approximate 60% (with 40% boycotting) not 80%.

But the reason which i said this referendum was not rigged but extremely biased was because the presence of neutral voters, which in US consist of probably roughly 20%. I expect in less political developing nations, this number could be even greater, 40-50%. Remember this referendum was set up as: go to vote = Yes, boycott =No. So if the Crimea authority can get all those neutral voters to go to the poll, they will get all of the neutral votes



In that sense, even under close Western investigation, won't surprise me if there will be no voting foul. Because the Referendum was set up for landslide Russia's victory and results showed just that

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

As I said earlier, if the Russian army did not came to Crimea, then the Ukraine one certainly will. Am I wrong?

Considering how Ukraine made no move at all against Crimea before the Russian troops showed up and there is no evidence that they would have... yes there is nothing to really support the argument that Ukraine would have sent in troops. Heck Considering Ukraine has bases in Crimea, there troops already WERE there, but did nothing against the militias. Really the idea that Ukraine would have done anything at all against the russian's within their country is nothing but Putin propaganda

The next Ukraine government WILL be more ukrainian, but not because of any kind of corruption, but because the russian parties just lost a big chunk of their supporters with Crimea. The former president would have never even come close to winning if not for Crimea.