The Ukraine thingy


Off-Topic Discussions

751 to 800 of 2,002 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

Ilja wrote:


When the prime minister says they want to perform a major ethnic cleansing using nuclear weapons, yeah, that's a pretty good reason to act.

And you really think the PM was serious in saying that? That a national leader would seriously envision using nuclear weapons for such a purpose?


Gallo wrote:
such action was justified.

Chechen Republic was allowed a referendum.Basically the same situation.

.
.
.
AND TIMOSHENKO IS NOT A PRIME MINISTER!
Thank gods for that.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Ilja wrote:


When the prime minister
Thank god she's not.Just an ex-con ATM.

Oh. You're right. That was a pretty big misunderstanding of me >.<. She's been prime minister before, though, right?

Quote:


Or use troops that are already there.
Or THREAT to use troops that are already there.
Hmm.Actually,at the very least using blockships was NOT the SDF operation.
It required veeeery specific skills,and access to the fleet reserve.

Lets be honest here, whether it can be proven in court or not, we both know that russia sent troops. There's no point in denying that with claims about "it isn't impossible they didn't" or "the proof isn't strong enough". It is strong enough for a political discussion.

Gallo wrote:
That a national leader would seriously envision using nuclear weapons for such a purpose?

Though I have been corrected on her position now, does it really surprise you that someone who allies with full-blown heiling neonazis would do something like that?

I mean sure, they obviously wouldn't use actual nuclear weapons, but there's no point acting as if ethnic cleansing of russians in ukraine isn't a possibility with a neonazi government.

If this had been say, Putin, saying something similar about ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea, would you have waved it away as easily then?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Quote:

Or use troops that are already there.

Or THREAT to use troops that are already there.
Hmm.Actually,at the very least using blockships was NOT the SDF operation.
It required veeeery specific skills,and access to the fleet reserve.
Lets be honest here, whether it can be proven in court or not, we both know that russia sent troops. There's no point in denying that with claims about "it isn't impossible they didn't" or "the proof isn't strong enough". It is strong enough for a political discussion.

Especially since Putin has admitted that the troops in question were Russian, despite denying it at the time.

Of course, he now insists Russian troops aren't involved in the uprisings in eastern Ukraine. Which may well be true, but his denials aren't particularly convincing.


thejeff wrote:


Especially since Putin has admitted that the troops in question were Russian, despite denying it at the time.
Of course, he now insists Russian troops aren't involved in the uprisings in eastern Ukraine. Which may well be true, but his denials aren't particularly convincing.

They could have just been russian spies, not troops.

Gotta love lawful evil...


Ilja wrote:


Oh. You're right. That was a pretty big misunderstanding of me >.<. She's been prime minister before, though, right?

Yes.Actually,she's kinda responsible for resolution of gas negotiations of 2009.That negotiations,in the end,sunk the country.

Ilja wrote:


Lets be honest here, whether it can be proven in court or not, we both know that russia sent troops. There's no point in denying that with claims about "it isn't impossible they didn't" or "the proof isn't strong enough". It is strong enough for a political discussion.

Yep.At the VERY least they armed SDF and commanded the whole operation.

Which is the same thing.And even i didn't believe that)
But then rules of the game are that every great power can do whatever it wants if it is willing to suffer the consequences.
thejeff wrote:


Especially since Putin has admitted that the troops in question were Russian

No he didn't.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


They could have just been russian spies, not troops.

And risk the whole operation?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Especially since Putin has admitted that the troops in question were Russian
No he didn't.

It's been widely reported.

AP wrote:

At the same time, he recognized for the first time that soldiers in unmarked uniforms -- dubbed "little green men" -- who swept Ukraine's Black Sea region of Crimea, laying the ground for its annexation by Moscow last month, were Russian troops.

Putin, who previously said the troops were part of local self-defense forces, said the Russian soldiers' presence was necessary to protect the local population from armed radicals and to ensure the holding of a referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of its residents voted for seceding from Ukraine and joining Russia.


thejeff wrote:


It's been widely reported.

They really should fire their russian translators.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's been widely reported.
They really should fire their russian translators.

Can you provide a link to a better translation? What did he say that was mistranslated?

Has he complained about the translation, since it's been pretty consistently reported. I'm sure he's aware of it.


thejeff wrote:
What did he say that was mistranslated?

"Our forces has been behind the backs of SDF".You can interpret that phrase a million different ways.His press-secretary,for example,said that at the moment of question forces has not yet been deployed,and that they appear only on day of referendum specifically to provide security during it.

Actually i remember Putin's speech somewhere during march in which he said that"our forces will stand behind the backs of Crimea's people".
But then,fully arming SDF is not deploying forces,apparently.
And neither is providing C3.


Quote:
And risk the whole operation?

Dude's denying 10,000 russian troops with tanks taking over crimea because the troops took 15 minutes to take off their badges , you don't think he can deny a thousand plain clothed kgb guys running around with some laptops and some cash?


BigNorseWolf wrote:

a thousand plain clothed kgb guys

Russia is not THAT big.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
And risk the whole operation?

Dude's denying 10,000 russian troops with tanks taking over crimea because the troops took 15 minutes to take off their badges , you don't think he can deny a thousand plain clothed kgb guys running around with some laptops and some cash?

Hmm... I find it more unlikely for a few reason.

1. The troops in Crimea clearly weren't locals. It's pretty obvious they had to come from somewhere, which was probably russia.
2. On the other hand, the smaller groups in eastern Ukraine seems to at least have a large degree of local support - it's kind of needed to do the stuff they've done without it turning into a bloodbath. I'm not so sure that support or cooperation would have existed if they were all foreign troops. At the very least, it seems like info would have spread about it.

I'm not saying it can't be, it could very well be, but it doesn't seem that likely, at least not to me. Though of course, I'm not that knowledgable about either military tactics or russia.


Ilja wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
And risk the whole operation?

Dude's denying 10,000 russian troops with tanks taking over crimea because the troops took 15 minutes to take off their badges , you don't think he can deny a thousand plain clothed kgb guys running around with some laptops and some cash?

Hmm... I find it more unlikely for a few reason.

1. The troops in Crimea clearly weren't locals. It's pretty obvious they had to come from somewhere, which was probably russia.
2. On the other hand, the smaller groups in eastern Ukraine seems to at least have a large degree of local support - it's kind of needed to do the stuff they've done without it turning into a bloodbath. I'm not so sure that support or cooperation would have existed if they were all foreign troops. At the very least, it seems like info would have spread about it.

I'm not saying it can't be, it could very well be, but it doesn't seem that likely, at least not to me. Though of course, I'm not that knowledgable about either military tactics or russia.

I'd agree from what little I've seen. There doesn't seem to be the evidence of actual Russian military involvement that there was from the start in Crimea.

OTOH, that doesn't mean there aren't Russian "advisors" on the scene, working with the local groups. I'd be shocked if there weren't.


thejeff wrote:


OTOH, that doesn't mean there aren't Russian "advisors" on the scene, working with the local groups. I'd be shocked if there weren't.

Oh, absolutely.


Source: 'Massive and unprecedented' attack targets al Qaeda in Yemen

Democracy Now! is reporting three to six civilian deaths thus far, but admits "details are unclear".

Am still finding American liberals' and Obama apologists' being outraged at The Ukraine Thingy laughably contemptible.


Aaaand civil war goes hot.Sadly.For lack of reliable reports,
Musical Interlude!
upd:Novoshakhtinsk,russian side of the border,same time


Doesn't seem so silly now does it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

Doesn't seem so silly now does it?

How is Russia a threat to the US? The US is and has been pressing NATO eastward since the fall of the Berlin Wall despite numerous promises not to do so. Even assuming that what I just said is untrue (and it is not) Russia annexing Crimea is a regional issue which poses no threat to the US, despite the corporate media's attempt to beat the drums of war.


Why the recent plane buzzing with England and other countries? If you are trying to intimidate them i would think there would be a less dangerous way. If one of these pilots gets trigger happy or there is a crash wouldnt this esculate even further.


Dennis Harry wrote:


How is Russia a threat to the US?

Think Russia five years from now,absorbed Ukrainian aerospace,shipbuilding

,military industry,all of it's natural resources and ten million population.
This,of course,can't be allowed to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dennis Harry wrote:
pres man wrote:

Doesn't seem so silly now does it?

How is Russia a threat to the US? The US is and has been pressing NATO eastward since the fall of the Berlin Wall despite numerous promises not to do so. Even assuming that what I just said is untrue (and it is not) Russia annexing Crimea is a regional issue which poses no threat to the US, despite the corporate media's attempt to beat the drums of war.

Grabbing territory from other countries is not stabilizing behavior. Behavior like that specifically leads to more instability in an area. Next up, others areas in Eastern Ukraine. Followed by all of Ukraine. After that Moldova, Belarus, ...

There is a reason why former Soviet blok countries are getting a bit nervous with Russia's behavior with grabbing territory from sovereign countries, because it has happened before.


pres man wrote:
Followed by all of Ukraine. After that Moldova, Belarus,

Why?Because,you see,10m pop with manufacturing bases is one thing,but 40m with the same bases is other.What's the point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Dennis Harry wrote:
pres man wrote:

Doesn't seem so silly now does it?

How is Russia a threat to the US? The US is and has been pressing NATO eastward since the fall of the Berlin Wall despite numerous promises not to do so. Even assuming that what I just said is untrue (and it is not) Russia annexing Crimea is a regional issue which poses no threat to the US, despite the corporate media's attempt to beat the drums of war.

Grabbing territory from other countries is not stabilizing behavior. Behavior like that specifically leads to more instability in an area. Next up, others areas in Eastern Ukraine. Followed by all of Ukraine. After that Moldova, Belarus, ...

There is a reason why former Soviet blok countries are getting a bit nervous with Russia's behavior with grabbing territory from sovereign countries, because it has happened before.

Invading sovereign nations is not stabilizing behavior either yet the US continues to do so. Most recent example, the US was a stone's throw away from bombing Syria to "save the children", I did not realize that bombing people was the best way to save them.

The biggest threat to the US is its own desire for global hegemony.

Russia has made it pretty clear that the Ukraine is considered a buffer state between it and NATO. I don't see Russia annexing Moldova, Belarus etc.

Whatever the truth of tensions in eastern Ukraine between pro and anti Russian forces, it was exacerbated by the US seeking a coup in Ukraine. Do a bit of research, there are plenty of sources for this being fact.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Dennis Harry wrote:


How is Russia a threat to the US?

Think Russia five years from now,absorbed Ukrainian aerospace,shipbuilding

,military industry,all of it's natural resources and ten million population.
This,of course,can't be allowed to happen.

Russia did not seem all that eager to annex the Crimea or any of the Ukraine until destabilizing actions by the US.

Russia is reacting to what the US is doing. Putin saw an opportunity and took it, partially because he has his own delusions of grandeur and partially because that last thing he wants to see is NATO right next door to him any more so than it already is.

Now I don't think Vlad the Hammer is some sort of hero, he is a KGB thug but then politicians in most countries are just thugs and criminals who have landed on the "right" side of the law.


Quote:
Russia did not seem all that eager to annex the Crimea or any of the Ukraine until destabilizing actions by the US.

There was no need to. Russia's puppet dictator was on the throne, that's just as good as controlling the Ukraine and Crimea. The dictator is out, so now they need some way of controlling the peninsula.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Russia did not seem all that eager to annex the Crimea or any of the Ukraine until destabilizing actions by the US.
There was no need to. Russia's puppet dictator was on the throne, that's just as good as controlling the Ukraine and Crimea. The dictator is out, so now they need some way of controlling the peninsula.

Well, for all his flaws, Yanukovich was elected - unlike the current nato-imposed junta. How that affects one's status as a "dictator" is of course questionable, but let's not act as if there's Ukraine is any more democratic now than before.

Also, I think it's interesting how short a distance there is between being semi-pro-russia and being "Russia's puppet" compared to how incredibly far there seems to be between being a government actually installed by the US being a "US puppet" (such as the iraq government, or Pinochet, or Saddam, or the ukrainian junta).


Dennis Harry wrote:
Putin saw an opportunity and took it, partially because

it's the right thing to do.You see the opportunity-you act.Crimea will pay for itself in the first year,southeast Ukraine is very profitable after modernization(to say nothing of gas pipeline),rest of Ukraine is money sink.Belarus works better as ally than a province,because

social security,wages and stuff.Moldova....ogodswhoevenneedsit?
You know who else can pay for itself if annexed in continental europe?
France.
Germany.
GL trying to invade them...again,russians!
And,of course,whole point of reunification is the will of populace.Or else guerilla warfare and sabotage.


Ilja wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Russia did not seem all that eager to annex the Crimea or any of the Ukraine until destabilizing actions by the US.
There was no need to. Russia's puppet dictator was on the throne, that's just as good as controlling the Ukraine and Crimea. The dictator is out, so now they need some way of controlling the peninsula.

Well, for all his flaws, Yanukovich was elected - unlike the current nato-imposed junta. How that affects one's status as a "dictator" is of course questionable, but let's not act as if there's Ukraine is any more democratic now than before.

Also, I think it's interesting how short a distance there is between being semi-pro-russia and being "Russia's puppet" compared to how incredibly far there seems to be between being a government actually installed by the US being a "US puppet" (such as the iraq government, or Pinochet, or Saddam, or the ukrainian junta).

I would respond but it looks like Ilja covered what I would have said pretty thoroughly!


Ilja wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Russia did not seem all that eager to annex the Crimea or any of the Ukraine until destabilizing actions by the US.
There was no need to. Russia's puppet dictator was on the throne, that's just as good as controlling the Ukraine and Crimea. The dictator is out, so now they need some way of controlling the peninsula.
Well, for all his flaws, Yanukovich was elected - unlike the current nato-imposed junta. How that affects one's status as a "dictator" is of course questionable, but let's not act as if there's Ukraine is any more democratic now than before.

Just for the record, there are elections scheduled for just about a month from now.

Normally a "junta" is a military dictatorship. I don't believe the current group is particularly tied to the military. As I understand it they're politicians not generals.
Nor is quickly scheduling elections a normal characteristic of juntas.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the elections actually occur on schedule or whether they are even as free and fair as previous previous Ukrainian elections, but characterization of the current leadership as a junta doesn't seem accurate.

Nor does the characterization of Yanukovich as a dictator, for the matter. Corrupt, Kleptocrat, oligarch, puppet? But dictator doesn't really seem to apply.


thejeff wrote:
just for the record, there are elections scheduled for just about a month from now.

Unconstitutional.

thejeff wrote:
as free and fair as previous Ukrainian elections,

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Yanukovich himself,as i understand,tried to do one more or less simple thing.Wrestle control of the country from oligarchs.By himself becoming biggest one,yes.
He is by no means a puppet,his actions actually make sense.But,of course,he didn't supress the revolt and now he's basically retired in Russia.
Why he tried it?
Because Ukraine headed full-speed to bankrupcy for at least his presidential term,but probably longer.
To do anything in this situation you need more or less full control.
Change of constitution,anyone?


thejeff wrote:
Just for the record, there are elections scheduled for just about a month from now.

I don't think the potential existence of future elections has any bearing on whether the current government has any kind of democratic legitimacy. I mean, even if they DO hold elections, that doesn't really mean what they did was not an unconstitutional coup d'etat against the elected president, nor that the first thing they did was to cut off russian speakers from any information, thus drastically lowering their options to partake in any upcoming elections.

Furthermore, I don't think the existence of elections alone mean it's notably more democratic. I'm not saying Ukraine has been a democratic paradise, but it seems the elections before have been at least decently "fair" (as far as fair elections are even a thing // regards, the anarchist). Considering how the current regime has kidnapped pro-russian protestors and is putting in military against pro-russian civilians (even if they are considered criminal civilians that's a pretty unusual and remarkable thing to do), I have a hard time trusting a promise of fair elections. They've had that promise in Egypt since the arab spring, and the current president is still the one chosen by the military, unless I've missed something (which isn't impossible by any means).

Quote:


Normally a "junta" is a military dictatorship. I don't believe the current group is particularly tied to the military. As I understand it they're politicians not generals.

That's a fair point - I guess I misused the term; I blame English not being my native language and my language specifying "military junta" when talking about a military junta. It's often used more loosely here, synonymously with "regime" though with more of a connotation of being taken by force rather than, say, being hereditary. But you're right; "authoritarian coup-regime" seems more specific and correct.

Quote:


Nor is quickly scheduling elections a normal characteristic of juntas.

Scheduling elections doesn't really matter. Egypt's military junta (which is/was clearly a junta) did so almost immediately, but due to various ifs and buts the sitting president is still the one they put in place, AFAIK. Holding fair elections without the threat of violence does. When the government let armed neonazi thugs attack protests, and then escort the thugs to safety, there's not going to be a fair election (and yes, that goes for the pro-russian parts as well).

(I know you specified we'll still see if the elections occur, and I agree with that, but even if elections do occur I'm very critical of the result).


Referendum elections were being scheduled by Yanukovich either this year or next year prior to the coup. I doubt the collective group which sought to overthrow a democratically elected leader (whether a Russian puppet or not) which is holding these elections now will be all that concerned about ensuring that "the people" choose who they believe will best represent them.

Of course, that is pretty much the case in any country, US included. However, here I think it is even less likely to happen, especially if what Ilja said regarding the cut off of Russian speakers from meaningful participation is true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Just for the record, there are elections scheduled for just about a month from now.

I don't think the potential existence of future elections has any bearing on whether the current government has any kind of democratic legitimacy. I mean, even if they DO hold elections, that doesn't really mean what they did was not an unconstitutional coup d'etat against the elected president, nor that the first thing they did was to cut off russian speakers from any information, thus drastically lowering their options to partake in any upcoming elections.

Furthermore, I don't think the existence of elections alone mean it's notably more democratic. I'm not saying Ukraine has been a democratic paradise, but it seems the elections before have been at least decently "fair" (as far as fair elections are even a thing // regards, the anarchist). Considering how the current regime has kidnapped pro-russian protestors and is putting in military against pro-russian civilians (even if they are considered criminal civilians that's a pretty unusual and remarkable thing to do), I have a hard time trusting a promise of fair elections. They've had that promise in Egypt since the arab spring, and the current president is still the one chosen by the military, unless I've missed something (which isn't impossible by any means).

Quote:


Normally a "junta" is a military dictatorship. I don't believe the current group is particularly tied to the military. As I understand it they're politicians not generals.

That's a fair point - I guess I misused the term; I blame English not being my native language and my language specifying "military junta" when talking about a military junta. It's often used more loosely here, synonymously with "regime" though with more of a connotation of being taken by force rather than, say, being hereditary. But you're right; "authoritarian coup-regime" seems more specific and correct.

Quote:


Nor is quickly scheduling elections a normal characteristic of juntas.
...

I did specify both "we'll see if they occur and if they're free and fair."

Egypt's military apparatus was closely tied to the Mubarak regime and maintained control through the transition and afterwards. As I understand it, the current Ukrainian government lacks the military ties and the powerbase and history that the Egyptian military has. I doubt they'll be able to maintain the same kindof control over an elected president as in Egypt.
Which doesn't mean there will be free and fair elections or that the outcome won't be worse, but I'd expect the new leader to be more dominant than the current "junta" will be.

It's not just the military part that I object to and I understand that you consider them illegitimate, but even "regime" implies more permanence than I think the situation warrants. If the election falls through and the current group retains power, then it would be. If the elections are fixed, then the term would be proper for whoever takes power.

As far as military use against civilians: these are armed civilians who've taken over government buildings and even entire cities. That's not really civiliansor even criminals, but rebels. There are very few governments who wouldn't use the military against them. Unless they could be handled with police. This isn't an early Arab Spring matter of using military against unarmed, peaceful protestors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
just for the record, there are elections scheduled for just about a month from now.

Unconstitutional.

thejeff wrote:
as free and fair as previous Ukrainian elections,

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Yanukovich himself,as i understand,tried to do one more or less simple thing.Wrestle control of the country from oligarchs.By himself becoming biggest one,yes.
He is by no means a puppet,his actions actually make sense.But,of course,he didn't supress the revolt and now he's basically retired in Russia.
Why he tried it?
Because Ukraine headed full-speed to bankrupcy for at least his presidential term,but probably longer.
To do anything in this situation you need more or less full control.
Change of constitution,anyone?

See that's the difference here. For all your talk of "Unconstitutional" and how Yanukovich was elected and the current government is illegitimate, you think the only way to handle a crisis is to switch to a strong man "full control" government. Which makes you happy with Putin, I'm sure.


thejeff wrote:

]See that's the difference here.

There is.Yanukovich not only did not came to power as a result of a coup,he actually was the target of it TWICE!

He used more or less legitimate means to accomplish his goals.
This is okay in my book.He also secured two deals with Russia which actually could save Ukraine from becoming a failed state.This is also okay
in my book.

Liberty's Edge

Jeff, when will you learn?

The US = evil criminal imperialists subjugating the poor and downtrodden Russians in Ukraine under a fascist regime, Russia = good law-abiding democrats coming to their brethren's rescue and reclaiming lands stolen from them during the break up of the USSR that had always been there's since the end of WWI time immemorial.

RT tells us so.

Liberty's Edge

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:

]See that's the difference here.

There is.Yanukovich not only did not came to power as a result of a coup,he actually was the target of it TWICE!

He used more or less legitimate means to accomplish his goals.
This is okay in my book.He also secured two deals with Russia which actually could save Ukraine from becoming a failed state.This is also okay
in my book.

Being Putin's sock puppet didn't hurt either, did it?


Unconstitutional?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Please.

The whole Crimea vote was unconstitutional. People who support that piece of waste as legitimate

Spoiler:
[You may vote (a) leave Ukraine or (b) join Russia, sorry you can't vote (c) stay with Ukraine. Also Russian troops at voting place will make sure you are not "confused" on what to vote for]

don't get to use words like unconstitutional.


pres man wrote:

(a) leave Ukraine

Pants on fire.

Seriously,what's the point of lying about easily verifiable fact?
Krensky wrote:


Being Putin's sock puppet

Do you have,idk,ANYTHING to back up that statement?Of course NOW he's basically a tool,but was he during his term?


Yeah, I too would like to know how rejecting an IMF deal that required increasing fuel costs for Ukrainian households made Yanukovych Putin's sock puppet.

Also, Citizen K(e)rensky, I know you had to leave Russia at the end of WWI, but Crimea became part of Russia at the end of the--wait for it--Crimean War between the Tsarist and Ottoman Empires.

EDIT: Doublechecked that, and actually, wikipedia claims Russia annexed Crimea in 1783 at the end of the war between Catherine the Great and Crimean Khanate. Huh.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yeah, I too would like to know how rejecting an IMF deal that required increasing fuel costs for Ukrainian households made Yanukovych Putin's sock puppet.

Also, Citizen K(e)rensky, I know you had to leave Russia at the end of WWI, but Crimea became part of Russia at the end of the--wait for it--Crimean War between the Tsarist and Ottoman Empires.

EDIT: Doublechecked that, and actually, wikipedia claims Russia annexed Crimea in 1783 at the end of the war between Catherine the Great and Crimean Khanate. Huh.

I would like to present to you Founder of Sevastopol

TLDR:
Foma Fomich McKenzie,russian rear-admiral.Also native scotsman.Possibly highlander.Immortalized in McKenzie Mountains


Pres man is right about the referendum. It was a farce: would you like to a. Join us now or b. Join us later. Those appear to be the exact same choices.

Comrade Anklebiter I certainly agree with your sentiments re the IMF, a despicable organization which requires countries to punish the downtrodden to enrich outside corporate interests. No leader who is not corrupt would agree with such terms.


Dennis Harry wrote:
Pres man is right about the referendum. It was a farce: would you like to a. Join us now or b. Join us later.

That's a lie.

a)join russia or b)revert to last legal constitution AND REMAIN WITH UKRAINE.Here.In three languages,including Crimean Tatar
Can't anybody check their facts? Exept Quandary.He's good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I'm not going to make an argument for the legitimacy of the Crimean referendum, some back story might be apropos.

1991: Crimeans attempt to have a referendum; was banned by Ukrainian government

1992: Another attempt at a referendum was similarly declared illegal by Ukraine

1994: Another attempt at a referendum for greater autonomy within Ukraine; Kiev intervened to downgrade referendum to a consultative vote, then banned it altogher. Vote went ahead anyway and 83% voted for dual Ukrainian/Russian citizenship

1995: Crimean deputies threaten to hold another referendum; Kiev annulled Crimea's constitution, abolished its presidency and began criminal proceedings against Crimean president, Yuri Meshkov

1996: New Ukrainian constitution abolished any further possibility on Crimean self-determination by requiring a nation-wide referendum for any Ukrainian border changes.

My understanding of the most recent referendum wasn't that it was a choice between join Russia now or join Russia later, but rather, join Russia or restore 1991 constitution providing for autonomy within Ukraine.

---

Ninja'd


Neither of which was "Keep things the way they are" option.

The "last legal constitution", from right after the USSR breakup, gave Crimea enough freedom to set its own foreign policy anyway.

And by the way, if that was the "last legal constitution", implying the current Ukrainian constitution was illegitimate, why does it matter so much that the impeachment of Yanukovych was unconstitutional?

Constitutions and process and even referenda only matter when you can use them to attain your goals, right?


thejeff wrote:


Constitutions and process and even referenda only matter

if you have enough power and will to enforce it.

thejeff wrote:
Neither of which was "Keep things the way they are" option.

But option was there.Turnout less than...err...half?

Said tatars,for example,could easily sabotage the whole show.
But nooo.
Mad Dollarz.
Rehabilitation.Even more mad dollarz.
thejeff wrote:
implying the current Ukrainian constitution was illegitimate

Constitution is legitimate.Abolishing Crimean constitution wasn't.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Constitutions and process and even referenda only matter

if you have enough power and will to enforce it.

Or if you can legitimize your position by accusing your opponents of not following it.


thejeff wrote:


Or if you can legitimize your position by accusing your opponents of not following it.

I never said that inconstitutional is wrong.Ukrainian "government"don't care about it either and that's not stopping US and EU from supporting it.

But it IS inconstitutional,and that's potential problem.Especially in case of these"presidential elections"


having trouble finding this: what percentage of the post revolution ukranian congress are the same people as the pre revolution ukranian congress?

751 to 800 of 2,002 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Ukraine thingy All Messageboards