bbauska wrote:What vote did Crimea have before Russian forces were in Ukraine?

It is not an issue of Language, as you said was important to the invading country. It is a matter of secession, and there was not any secession of Crimea that I found. Otherwise the issue is a matter of border incursion and invasion.

Do you need a vote before you can secede? Of what kind, and nature should that vote be? Or can a country (or part of a country) secede in a different way, legitimately?

Crimea did declare independence in 1992, but due to negotiations the proposed referendum to ratify that was cancelled. Since then there have been calls for greater autonomy and/or independence / joining Russia, but the politicians have not given them a way to vote for or against it, until the Russian intervention/invasion.

rickyp wrote:There was an article in the NY Times the other day about the difficulties Crimeans are now finding as newly minted Russians. Apparently the economy has cratered as every day life is impacted by things like the lack of imports from Ukraine, the confusion over laws and the lack of functioning banks.... There may be some buyers regret....Still they went into the bargain willingly.

'Willingly'? There was a bit of pushing, don't you think?

Basically, I'm not sure I agree with either of your positions, bbauska & rickyp.

It may be that the lack of any appetite for local resistance, and the presence of a majority of Russian speakers attached to Russia in Eastern Ukraine makes its eventually divorce from Western Ukraine inevitable.
But the Western Ukraine would certainly offer a substantial local resistance. And I doubt Putin is willing to deal with such a resistance. He wants the absorption of Eastern Ukraine to appear to be popular. And the reality is, it probably is popular. There was enough disaffection between Russian and Ukranian speakers to make this the case... and the radical language laws of the new Ukraine government exacerbated the problem .

There isn't a majority of Russians in Eastern Ukraine. Certain areas have local Russian majorities but the region as a whole is still predominantly Ukrainian. Crimea was the only part of Ukraine where Russians were in the majority.

danivon

Willingly'? There was a bit of pushing, don't you think?

When? And by whom?

Crimea did declare independence in 1992, but due to negotiations the proposed referendum to ratify that was cancelled. Since then there have been calls for greater autonomy and/or independence / joining Russia, but the politicians have not given them a way to vote for or against it, until the Russian intervention/invasion.

Aren't you providing the evidence that the Crimea was in a forced marriage of sorts?

The result of the Crimean referendum, 2014 was 97.47% for joining the Russian Federation.
Most observers thought the referendum was a fair representation of the voting. And even if there was a boycott by some minorities, previous polls indicated a 78% approval of the idea of joining Russia. And that before the events of the revolution that created much animosity along language and ethnic lines.

sass

There isn't a majority of Russians in Eastern Ukraine. Certain areas have local Russian majorities but the region as a whole is still predominantly Ukrainian. Crimea was the only part of Ukraine where Russians were in the majority.

I suppose this is true. I looked only at the most eastern regions, not at the natural border.

According to 2001 census the Russians are the largest ethnic group in Sevastopol (71.7%) and Autonomous republic of Crimea (59%), and also in some cities and raions: Donetsk (48.2%), Makiyivka (50.8%, Donetsk Oblast), Ternivka (52.9%, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast), Krasnodon (63.3%), Sverdlovsk (58.7%), Krasnodonskyi (51.7%) and Stanychno-Luhanskyi (61.1%) raions of Luhansk Oblast, Izmail (43.7%, Odessa oblast), Putyvlskyi Raion (51.6%, Sumy Oblast).[8]

But its also true that the election results favored pro-Russian parties in western Ukraine and Crimea and pro-western parties in the East. And that in Eastern Ukraine, the Russian language dominates business and culture. And that the ties to Russia in the East are very strong

As ethnic Russians constitute a significant part of the population in these largely Russophone parts of southern Ukraine (and a majority in the Crimea),[1] these territories maintain particularly strong historic ties with Russia on the human level. Thus, a stronger than elsewhere in the country pro-Russian political sentiment makes the area a more fertile ground for the radical pro-Russian movements that are not as common elsewhere in the country.

My point to Bbauska is that the problems in Ukraine are more a clash of an extreme position on culture, economic ties and language and that there are mostly internal reasons for this clash. A lack of accommodation for the Russian language and for ties to Russia economically and culturally are flash points. Greater accomodation by the majority would have avoided the current problem.
Putin is taking advantage of the situation, but had Ukraine been unified he wouldn't be able to ...

His reference to Quebec is a demonstration of how accommodations for minorities can defuse cultural clashes and political fall out. But what Ukraine did, especially after Maidan, was the opposite. Not only was the election result that was largely due to support in Eastern Ukraine thrown out, but the new government immediately brought in laws to deny the Russian speakers many rights.. Rights that the populations in Eastern Ukraine, whether ethnically Russian or not, supported.
They played into Putin's hands, by these actions...

rickyp wrote:danivon

Willingly'? There was a bit of pushing, don't you think?

When? And by whom?

Umm, a few weeks ago, by large numbers of armed men?

Crimea did declare independence in 1992, but due to negotiations the proposed referendum to ratify that was cancelled. Since then there have been calls for greater autonomy and/or independence / joining Russia, but the politicians have not given them a way to vote for or against it, until the Russian intervention/invasion.

Aren't you providing the evidence that the Crimea was in a forced marriage of sorts?

Well, it's not that simple. Because the democratically elected parliaments did not maintain a consistent position of wanting independence or transfer to Russia. They did maintain support for autonomy within Ukraine, but that is different.

The result of the Crimean referendum, 2014 was 97.47% for joining the Russian Federation.
Most observers thought the referendum was a fair representation of the voting. And even if there was a boycott by some minorities, previous polls indicated a 78% approval of the idea of joining Russia. And that before the events of the revolution that created much animosity along language and ethnic lines.

Why would the minorities have boycotted the vote? It causes me concern if they did (and I'm not sure about the veracity of polls). The Tatars claim that turnout was far lower than the 80% claimed (nearer to 32%).

You should also beware blindly equating party voting with national affiliation. The Party Of Regions is not a Russian party, and has pro-EU elements within it. It does attract support from the Russian speakers of Ukraine, but also of a lot of Ukrainians. The language thing was blown out of all proportion anyway, given that Ukrainian and Russian are very similar languages and are mutually intelligible (like Polish, Belorussian and Slovak). There is history, in that Ukrainian used to be banned, and in 2008 the city of Donetsk banned new Ukrainian speaking schools, but the change in February was really more about official language - it was not to ban Russian, but to reverse a decision not yet implemented to make Russian the second official language of the country. I think it's been overblown by Russia (and accepted by the credulous).

rickyp wrote:Fate

Oh, there is a genuine alternative: instead of trying to tutor Putin on international law, we might actually deal with him as a nationalistic dictator with territorial desires and a willingness to flout international law to get what he wants. Having that foundation, the entire approach to Russia would have been different. The approach itself is flawed--that's the point.

How do you deal with him if he is fully resistant to any of the levers you have at your disposal?
The point is that the US is not willing to go to war over Ukraine, Without that ultimate threat, Putin probably isn't going to be deterred by anything else that the West can bring to bear.
Tha'ts realistic

Let's say you're right. We're not going to war over Ukraine.

That still would not justify telling Putin you will not use military power. Nor, will it help to have the President acting as the Scolder in Chief.

The stuff below from you ; is fantasy... Its on the same level as Kerry's hopeful rhetoric, except Kerry is forced into the hopeful rhetoric because there isn't anything else available to him. Your position is more like "This never would have happened if Dick Cheney were still alive ..." And that's just BS.

Oh, so "BS" must be an abbreviation for "actual history." Was there not a "reset button?" How has that worked? Do tell. Wasn't Obama going to "restore" our reputation around the world?

Oh. I get it now: "BS" means "stuff rickyp can't refute."

Got it.

Fate

Great national leaders, even competent ones, deal with the world as it is, not as they might hope it is. If President Obama and Secretary Kerry would acknowledge the reality of the world, they might find their efforts would bear more fruit.

You criticize Kerry for his hopeful diplomacy and optimistic rhetoric. In favour of a fantasy that if someone conservative were in the same position things would turn out differently.

False. "Realism" is not "conservatism." Realists in international policy can be liberals or conservatives.

danivon

There is history, in that Ukrainian used to be banned, and in 2008 the city of Donetsk banned new Ukrainian speaking schools, but the change in February was really more about official language - it was not to ban Russian, but to reverse a decision not yet implemented to make Russian the second official language of the country. I think it's been overblown by Russia (and accepted by the credulous).

In Wikipedia they show polls that the language issue was way down the list of concerns in the first decade of this century. Therefore I agree that the issue has been blown way out of proportion and used by extremists on both sides to fan the flames of division.
But the majority, had an opportunity to defuse much of the anger and mistrust.
,

but to reverse a decision not yet implemented to make Russian the second official language of the country. I

The law also would have ended the teaching of Russian in many schools...
Mostly what it meant was a very visible form of discrimination...
There's no question that Putin has provaceteurs in the country, and that they are preying on the situation. But without the underlying problem, he'd have nothing to build upon.

fate

Let's say you're right. We're not going to war over Ukraine.

I am right.
fate

That still would not justify telling Putin you will not use military power

Holding up an empty threat accomplishes what?
That's the kind of fantasy conservative critics are engaged in... "If only Reagan were alive he'd talk to the Russians and they'd listen"
The circumstances were much different with Reagan, and the line in the sand wasn't Eastern Ukraine or the Crimea or South Ossetia.... Formerly parts of the Soviet. In fact formerly parts of Russia proper.... And areas that actually want to be part of Russia.

danivon

Why would the minorities have boycotted the vote? It causes me concern if they did (and I'm not sure about the veracity of polls). The Tatars claim that turnout was far lower than the 80% claimed (nearer to 32%)

http://darussophile.com/2014/03/five-my ... eferendum/

I've never seen anything credible about a 32% turnout. Your source?
The link above is a rejoinder to many of the claims about the Crimean referendum and aspirations not being genuine...
I think there is less evidence that the Eastern Ukraine desire to join Russia is as solid, indeed many of the pol numbers suggest its barely in the majority even now.. But as the author above suggests, there is a referendum coming in Scotland, and the support for Scottish Independence doesn't poll in the majority.

rickyp wrote:I've never seen anything credible about a 32% turnout. Your source?

It was in wikipedia, but I found this as well - http://euromaidanpr.com/2014/03/17/tata ... eferendum/

The former head of the Tatar Mejlis is casting doubt on turnout figures. Is he credible? I don't know.

rickyp wrote:The law also would have ended the teaching of Russian in many schools...

Evidence please? If the pre-existing situation was that Ukrainian was the only official language, and that there were lots of Russian-language schools and other schools teaching Russian...

and what happened was that a law to make Russian another official language was quashed...

How does it follow that it would change the status quo? I fear you are believing what RT tells you.

Danivon

. Is he credible? I don't know

From your source:

To give you an example, I spoke with friends in Bakhchysarai. They told me that at a maximum, only 30% of the people voted.

I'd say that placing much weight on his conversations with friends in Bakhchysaraj is wrong headed.
Past electoral results, and census point towards substantial support for the referendum And since the Tartars are a small minority, their boycott amounted to little. An 80% turnout could easily be achieved without Tartars.

danivon

fear you are believing what RT tells you

.
RT?
Part of the problem of course is that the nature of the media in Ukraine and Crimea is rather hysterical. And maybe some of it effects even a sceptic such as myself.
However as soon as this man ascended to a position of power, i think credence would be given by many Russophones to extreme measures...

The secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. He oversees national security for the nation having previously served as security commandant during the anti-government protests in Kiev.
Parubiy was the founder of the Social National Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.

http://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-mi ... -far-right

rickyp wrote:fate

Let's say you're right. We're not going to war over Ukraine.

I am right.

Let's just say you're an idiot.

I never said we WERE going to war or SHOULD go to war OR ought to threaten go to war. So, I was trying to set the non-issue aside. Obviously, you couldn't accept that.

fate

That still would not justify telling Putin you will not use military power

Holding up an empty threat accomplishes what?

What threat?

Again, do try to keep up. I never suggested we threaten someone.

However, it is unwise to tell a bully that you will not retaliate--even if he highly suspects you will not. What is gained? Less than nothing.

That's the kind of fantasy conservative critics are engaged in... "If only Reagan were alive he'd talk to the Russians and they'd listen"

Um, no. What conservatives are saying is that Obama has consistently portrayed himself as weak, which invites thugs like Putin to exploit the situation.

The circumstances were much different with Reagan, and the line in the sand wasn't Eastern Ukraine or the Crimea or South Ossetia.... Formerly parts of the Soviet. In fact formerly parts of Russia proper.... And areas that actually want to be part of Russia.

Gee whiz. Good info. If the conversation was Reagan v. Obama, instead of Obama's failure to view the world realistically.

fate

What conservatives are saying is that Obama has consistently portrayed himself as weak, which invites thugs like Putin to exploit the situation

Of course they do. Ignoring his record use of Drones, the intervention in LIbya, the interventions against piracy and his maintenance of the war in Afghanistan.
Some of them still portray him as a Muslim. It doesn't make it so.
But what the critics don't offer is a realistic alternative to what is being done in Ukraine.... or for that matter Syria. And when he does use force, like LIbya they holler.
barking Dogs. With ODS.

Fate

However, it is unwise to tell a bully that you will not retaliate--even if he highly suspects you will not. What is gained? Less than nothing

So the foreign policy suggestion is "Lets pretend we might do something".
Look this isn't a neighbor hood bully. Its a far more complex and potentially dangerous situation. The US has few cards, and pretending that you might play one you have no intention of using, military intervention .... doesn't make any sense.
It conditions the Russians to believe that the US won't act , when they indicate they might. It provides the Ukrainian government with the wrong information and false hope . Better they understand the true position and the genuine support they can expect so they can plan their policies accordingly.
Look what happened after the first Gulf War and Bush encouraged the Sand Arabs to raise up against Saddaam. They were encouraged by his rhetoric, and ended up deeply disappointed and many thousands dead when any material US support failed to arrive and Saddam crushed their revolt.
Ukraine is in a ;position like Finland was for years. They share a long border with Russia and need to be careful how they conduct themselves. Finland understood there were consequences and managed to exist under the shadow of the Soviet.
Ukraine needs to understand how to live next to a Russia that has even more influence over it then Finland had to deal with .... They need to be realistic. So they need to hear that the West isn't going to War ....and they need to know Putin heard it too. Elst they become too rash.
Pretending is not policy.

rickyp wrote:fate

What conservatives are saying is that Obama has consistently portrayed himself as weak, which invites thugs like Putin to exploit the situation

Of course they do. Ignoring his record use of Drones, the intervention in LIbya, the interventions against piracy and his maintenance of the war in Afghanistan.

His red line in Syria, his endless statements that "Assad's days are numbered," his unilateral removal of the missile defense, his unilateral reduction in missiles, his presiding over massive cuts to the military, his empty rhetoric re Ukraine, his preposterous statements about Al Qaida being "on the run," and on and on.

SOme of them also portray him as a Muslim. It doesn't make it so.

Name one Republican in national office to say this. It's Godwin 2.0. And, has nothing to do with what Obama has done.

But what the critics don't offer is a realistic alternative to what is being done in Ukraine.... or for that matter Syria. And when he does use force, like LIbya they hollered then.

You're an idiot. They hollered he didn't use enough force in Libya OR that we should have stayed out (as it was all for the benefit of Italy and Britain). No Republican is under obligation to announce an alternative foreign policy in Ukraine. They didn't create the problem and they can do nothing to affect the solution. But, offering Putin off-ramps and threatening him with toothless "consequences" is laughable.

barking Dogs.

That's a step up from Obama's foreign policy: the dead dog.

Fate

However, it is unwise to tell a bully that you will not retaliate--even if he highly suspects you will not. What is gained? Less than nothing

So the foreign policy suggestion is "Lets pretend we might do something".

You are, for the umpteenth time, displaying your sheer ignorance of basic English. Saying you should not reveal your cards is NOT the same as threatening to play one you don't hold.

Grow up.

Wise up.

Better yet, shut up until you do both.

Fate

They hollered he didn't use enough force in Libya OR that we should have stayed out.

Yes, Depending on the day the positions changed. As long as they could stay in direct opposition to whatever it seemed like Obama was or wasn't doing.
ODS forces those constant pretzel like convolutions...

fate

No Republican is under obligation to announce an alternative foreign policy in Ukraine.

No. And its far easier to bark from the sidelines, than actually offer what they have... Especially if they ain't got but a bare cup board.
Plays to the base and the un-inquiring media who report ad nauseum but don't actually provide information for Americans to decide. (You are always complaining about the uninformed voter aren't you?)
For instance, a poll earlier in the month showed that if Americans actuallly knew where Ukraine or Crimea was on the map, they were less likely to want American intervention. (Talk about offering uniformed opinion.)
And I'm sure that if there was an indepth education on the history of the region or a recognition of facts like the installation of neo-Nazis into the new government attitudes would also shift.
But lets just bark meaningless nonsense about Obama's appearing weak.... Because that's something the average citizen thinks is real important when it comes to putting American lives or resources on the line...
In other words, if republicans were interested in a serious policy discussion they would offer serious alternatives...

rickyp wrote:Fate

They hollered he didn't use enough force in Libya OR that we should have stayed out.

Yes, Depending on the day the positions changed.

You are showing your absolute, unvarnished ignorance. Republicans are not all agreed. Some are more isolationist (Paul). Some are more interventionist (McCain). You should try to get just a bit of info before wasting precious milliseconds posting your almost-thoughts.

As long as they could stay in direct opposition to whatever it seemed like Obama was or wasn't doing.
ODS forces those constant pretzel like convolutions...

I eagerly await you having an idea you can express.

fate

No Republican is under obligation to announce an alternative foreign policy in Ukraine.

No. And its far easier to bark from the sidelines, than actually offer what they have... Especially if they ain't got but a bare cup board. (sic)

Having only come into use since 1530, I understand why you would not be familiar with "cupboard."

Actually, as usual, you are ignorant. Republicans have put forth a suggestion. The problem, of course, is that foreign policy is not a branch of "democratic" governance.

With colleagues, Corker introduced a measure Wednesday that would offer Ukraine $100 million in direct U.S. military assistance and provide non-NATO ally status to Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. In addition, sponsors of the bill want to immediately sanction four of Russia’s largest banks, the most powerful Russian oil companies, and a Russian arms dealer.

Plays to the base and the un-inquiring media who report ad nauseum but don't actually provide information for Americans to decide. (You are always complaining about the uninformed voter aren't you?)

Really? You think the media take the GOP's side? Is that what you're implying? Or, is this just another almost-thought, poorly expressed?

For instance, a poll earlier in the month showed that if Americans actuallly (sic) knew where Ukraine or Crimea was on the map, they were less likely to want American intervention. (Talk about offering uniformed opinion.)

Who wants intervention? Not even McCain or his ilk want to send in troops.

And I'm sure that if there was an indepth (sic) education on the history of the region or a recognition of facts like the installation of neo-Nazis into the new government attitudes would also shift.

So, what is your claim? That the media are not informing the populace, who are then being driven by the incessant GOP calls for military intervention in Ukraine? If not, please do try to compose a cohesive explanation and post it here. Maybe your Mom could help--if you're willing to leave her basement and ask?

But lets just bark meaningless nonsense about Obama's appearing weak....

Or, we can ask Assad if he's nervous about the "red line," or if he's losing sleep over "his days (being) numbered." What about the Iranians? Are they shaking while trying to work on obtaining a nuclear device? Is Putin nervous about the mighty Obama? Are the Chinese listening to his pleas?

Where in the world has Obama made the US more respected or given us a stronger position?

Because that's something the average citizen thinks is real important when it comes to putting American lives or resources on the line...

Need I remind you it was Obama who was willing to put American lives on the line in . . . Syria? It was only after Kerry's gaffe that Putin seized the initiative and offered Obama a face-saving way to let Assad kill more people.

The almighty Obama.

In other words, if republicans were interested in a serious policy discussion they would offer serious alternatives...

If Obama knew what he was doing, we would not be getting our butts kicked all across the globe.