Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

recedite · 12-03-2014 12:28am #1

robindch wrote: »

Well, a few weeks later and Putin is still playing politics while his army continues its takeover of Crimea.

Tell us again, why is "the west" so against a referendum in Crimea, but a referendum in Scotland is a sign of "true democracy" for the UK? I don't think the English will get to vote on Scottish sovereignty either?
Fair play to the Russians for keeping the peace there so effectively in the meantime. If only the UN could/would do that in these situations.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-03-2014 1:29am

Jernal wrote: »

libertarian arguments.

No, Mark said less crazy reasons.

recedite wrote: »

Tell us again, why is "the west" so against a referendum in Crimea, but a referendum in Scotland is a sign of "true democracy" for the UK?

No external power is putting a gun to the UK's head, that's why.

recedite · 12-03-2014 10:29am

ninja900 wrote: »

No external power is putting a gun to the UK's head, that's why.

An external peacekeeping power is just what is needed, and if the UN won't step up to the mark...
Don't forget Ireland's first Dail wanted independence, the UK said no, and no external power intervened to force their hand. The situation led to war.

Obliq · 12-03-2014 10:46am

recedite wrote: »

Tell us again, why is "the west" so against a referendum in Crimea, but a referendum in Scotland is a sign of "true democracy" for the UK? I don't think the English will get to vote on Scottish sovereignty either?
Fair play to the Russians for keeping the peace there so effectively in the meantime. If only the UN could/would do that in these situations.

recedite wrote: »

An external peacekeeping power is just what is needed, and if the UN won't step up to the mark...
Don't forget Ireland's first Dail wanted independence, the UK said no, and no external power intervened to force their hand. The situation led to war.

You have a point alright - I heard the Russian ambassador to Ireland speaking about just that, last week. For all that he had to say "Russian troops? I see no Russian troops - just random, and possibly Ukrainian troops with no insignia", he made some decent appeals for balance regarding the way the world views this.

I'm in two minds about this, as I am with the Palestine/Israel situation. I don't live there, I'm not from there and I am far too cynical about the bull**** we're fed to call any of it true. All I know is, the war of independence here was so incredibly and personally divisive, but it was OURS. Let anyone from anywhere else in the world know better than us about the complexities of those times and I'm up in arms, even though I don't understand it all myself. I feel I can't do anything but sit on the fence about this particular conflict/"peacekeeping" as I can't begin to understand the complexities of it.

robindch · 12-03-2014 11:16am

recedite wrote: »

Tell us again, why is "the west" so against a referendum in Crimea, but a referendum in Scotland is a sign of "true democracy" for the UK? I don't think the English will get to vote on Scottish sovereignty either?

Good question. Different situations - Scotland is currently ruled (mostly) from London and London has permitted a referendum, in accordance with London law, to go ahead in Scotland on independence from London. Kiev, which rules Crimea, has explicitly said that Crimea cannot hold a referendum on independence - under the Ukrainian constitution, any secession must be put to the whole nation, and not to just one region.

There are also legitimate concerns about the reliability of any Crimean referendum - Putin is a well-known ballot-rigger, as are local strong-men (I'll spare you the details; suffice it to say that some of the ballot-rigging means are actually quite clever while some are not), the Tatars have said that they'll abstain from voting and the OSCE has been banned from observing the referendum. None of these concerns really apply to a Stottish referendum.

recedite wrote: »

Fair play to the Russians for keeping the peace there so effectively in the meantime.

The place was peaceful until the Russian Army arrived - Putin is now seeking to provoke a conflict so that he can "legitimately" send in his army without having to dress up to pretend they're local, self-organized militia. Putin has also started handing out Russian passports in Crimea (previously, people had Ukrainian passports) - the object here is to conjure a Russian population into existence which will then need "protection" by the army. Both of these actions are explicitly prohibited under international law. All of that said though, the Ukrainians have put up so little defense at this point, and the response by the EU and the US is so weak and ineffectual, that the annexation by Russia of a major region of Ukraine is a fait-accompli by now and Putin has won, at least for the time being.

The question now is whether Putin will do nothing, or whether, buoyed up by this success (apparently around 70% of Russians approve), he'll invade the east of Ukraine under the same pretext, or whether invade other neighbouring countries with substantial Russian-speaking populations, or whether he'll just sit on his winnings for a few years until the next election is due.

robindch · 12-03-2014 11:21am

Obliq wrote: »

[...] he made some decent appeals for balance regarding the way the world views this.

It's a little rich for the Russians to want balance. In Russia, the majority of the media are state-controlled directly or indirectly and the Kievan authorities are portrayed as neo-Nazis and the {Russian army}|{local, self-organized militias wearing Russian army uniforms with the Russian bit obscured, holding Russian army weapons and driving around in Russian army vehicles registered to the, uh, Russian army} are portrayed as brave defenders of a persecuted minority.

Obliq · 12-03-2014 11:35am

robindch wrote: »

It's a little rich for the Russians to want balance. In Russia, the majority of the media are state-controlled directly or indirectly and the Kievan authorities are portrayed as neo-Nazis and the {Russian army}|{local, self-organized militias wearing Russian army uniforms with the Russian bit obscured, holding Russian army weapons and driving around in Russian army vehicles registered to the, uh, Russian army} are portrayed as brave defenders of a persecuted minority.

Yes, true, but I did take the point that it was unconstitutional how the former president had to flee and the new government take over. I read that very interesting letter you posted here from the Ukrainian Jewish leaders and I certainly don't trust anything that comes out of Putin's mouth or media. I'm too badly informed to call this one, but I do have to say that this invasion rather pales in comparison to the unlovely US throwing their considerable weight around the globe the way they have. Putin is despicable, that is unquestionable, but I'm not sure why this is seen as so much worse than the unsanctioned US tactics historically?

robindch · 12-03-2014 11:56am

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, true, but I did take the point that it was unconstitutional how the former president had to flee and the new government take over.

It was a little more subtle than that, but not much.

On the 18th Feb Yanokovich pulled some kind of parliamentary trick under which the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, was not allowed to vote on whether to return to the 2004 version of a 1996 constitution. Yanukovich had brought in deeply unpopular constitutional amendments in 2010 which granted him almost dictatorial powers. The parliamentary vote was almost certain to have passed, as Yanukovich had little or no support in parliament at that point, his own party having largely abandoned him. On hearing of the trick, protesters took to the street and rioted; Yanukovich deployed snipers against them the following two days, perhaps 100 were killed, including a small number of berkut (riot police); negotiations proceeded regardless and by Thursday, an agreement had been signed by Yanukovich with most of the protesters; one group of protesters (Pravii Sektor, a far-right group) refused to sign and said they'd remove Yanukovich by force. That evening Yanukovich fled. The following day, the parliament voted to return to the 2004 constitution and legal authorities issued an arrest warrent for Yanukovich. The parliament then voted in a rainbow coalition from all parties (including some unpleasant ones), and called elections at end of May. Russia has said that it does not recognise
the current administration (correctly voted in by the Rada), nor will it respect the results of the forthcoming election.

You could argue that the threat by Pravii Sektor to remove Yanukovich and Yanukovich's his disappearance deligitimized the vote on Friday, the following day, but I think it's stretching it a little. Especially when one considers the snipers the previous two days, as well as Yanukovich's dictatorial abuses of power. Yanukovich was essentially out of control and running Ukraine as a murderous personal fiefdom and people do have a right to defend themselves.

The ambassador no doubt also glossed over the fact that the Russian Army has invaded a peaceful neighbour on a fictitious pretext - a far greater abuse of military power than the mildly questionable legality of events in Kiev.

Obliq wrote: »

[...] this invasion rather pales in comparison to the unlovely US [...]

Yes, the US invasion of Iraq was far worse and everybody knows it and the US has been trying to untangle itself there for many years at this point. However, I wouldn't let one be distracted by what is effectively an irrelevant point (albeit one which is repeated ad nauseam by the Russians) - the Russian Army has clearly invaded Ukraine and is about to declare that Crimea belongs to Russia. An act which violates multiple international treaties, large amount of international law as well as the laws and constitution of Ukraine. If the ambassador worried about those violations as much as he worried about Yanukovich's disappearance, he may take a different view of events.

Obliq · 12-03-2014 12:05pm

Thanks Robin. Am a bit clearer about it all now. Didn't take the ambassador at face-value at all, but I did struggle with those points, cheers.

robindch · 12-03-2014 12:15pm

Obliq wrote: »

[...] I did struggle with those points [...]

Wouldn't blame you at all - it's complicated enough for those of us that were following events quite closely. Can't imagine what everybody else must think.

BTW, the Russian Ambassador, Maxim Peshkov, will be talking about Crimea in front of the Dail's Justice Committee today at 1430, in Committee Room 1 at Leinster House. The live streams (flash + iOS) are here:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/watchlisten/live-flashplayer/committeeroom1/
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/watchlisten/live-appleiphone/

robindch · 12-03-2014 12:25pm

robindch wrote: »

[...] On hearing of the trick, protesters took to the street and rioted [...]

Just one thing about that rioting which I haven't seen reported all that much -- during the five days previously in Kiev, I'd seen just one person openly supporting the government. Everybody else, and I really do mean everybody, supported the protesters, though I grant I was in the vicinity of Maidan for most of that time, which wasn't the wisest place for pro-government supporters to loiter.

Once the rioting started in earnest on the Tuesday, Pravii Sektor were the guys up front in skimasks chucking cobble stones at the riot police. But the weirdest thing was that there were all kinds of people prising the cobbles up from the pavement and stacking them up for PS - not many people under perhaps the age of 20, but every other possible kind of citizen - men in pinstripes, women in fur coats, little old ladies, old men, just ordinary people all working away quietly and methodically. And one bag-piper as well. Oddly.

The idea that the government was overthrown by a small gang of unrepresentative neo-nazis who have now taken over the government of Ukraine is -- like just about everything put about by Putin's intensely manipulative state-controlled media -- entirely false.

Brian Shanahan · 12-03-2014 1:35pm

recedite wrote: »

Tell us again, why is "the west" so against a referendum in Crimea, but a referendum in Scotland is a sign of "true democracy" for the UK? I don't think the English will get to vote on Scottish sovereignty either?
Fair play to the Russians for keeping the peace there so effectively in the meantime. If only the UN could/would do that in these situations.

The reason why there is a ruckus over the Crimea "referendum" is simply because unless it's wholly run independently of Russia it will be rigged (think of the situation in the Ukraine today as being analogous to that of Sudetenland in 1938 and you'll have a good idea). And it's easy to keep the peace in an area where there is no violence, a situation which is extant in the Crimea.

The main reasons that Putin is going into the Crimea has nothing to do with ethnic Russians living there, but firstly to shore up his power back home (either by humbling an independent Ukrainian government, or forcing his puppet Yanukovich back into power) and secondly to continue his eventual goal of restoring the territorial settlement in the east that existed prior to 1914, i.e. to restore Russian borders to a large extent as they existed under the Czarist regime. Human rights have no validity to him, and a lot of ethnic Russians (even in the Crimea) don't want anything to do with Putin's Russia.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-03-2014 2:58pm

recedite wrote: »

An external peacekeeping power is just what is needed, and if the UN won't step up to the mark...

:rolleyes: The UN can do nothing because Russia has a Security Council veto.

Sulla Felix · 12-03-2014 3:16pm

ninja900 wrote: »

:rolleyes: The UN can do nothing because Russia has a Security Council veto.

One of the many reasons Irelands neutral stance is morally bankrupt.

recedite · 12-03-2014 5:12pm

ninja900 wrote: »

:rolleyes: The UN can do nothing because Russia has a Security Council veto.

I think the Russians would have been happy enough for UN troops to secure Crimea until after the referendum. The Nato powers would have been the ones to veto it.

As most Crimeans identify with Russia and not Ukraine, there is no need for Putin to rig the referendum even if he was inclined to. The Crimeans have asked for official OSCE observers to cover the referendum. They sent home some OSCE military observers who arrived uninvited. Allowing people in Kiev to vote on Crimean independence would be ridiculous. Kiev is as far away as Istanbul, why not give the Turks a say in it as well?

Did anyone see the two Ukrainean delegates who were in Dublin during the week? The Ex- heavyweight boxer and the Gas Princess. This is the reason she wants to be in govt, specifically the energy ministry. She's a Europhile alright, the more euros the better €€€€€€€€€€ As much of a crook as Yanukovych was.

As for the snipers, the jury is still out. There are plenty suspects, not to mention the foreign mercenaries operating in Kiev.

Brian Shanahan · 12-03-2014 5:29pm

recedite wrote: »

I think the Russians would have been happy enough for UN troops to secure Crimea until after the referendum. The Nato powers would have been the ones to veto it.

To be honest, Russia would have been as happy to get the UN involved as Italy were when the LoN slapped their (highly ineffective) sanctions on them after invading Ethiopia.

And at the moment (aside from Iraq) everything Nato does is under the full auspices of the UN, they're currently being very particular about legality in Nato.

robindch · 12-03-2014 5:52pm

recedite wrote: »

I think the Russians would have been happy enough for UN troops to secure Crimea until after the referendum.

There was no need to secure anything. Crimea was largely fine before the Russian army showed up.

recedite wrote: »

As most Crimeans identify with Russia and not Ukraine, there is no need for Putin to rig the referendum even if he was inclined to.

You're assuming that the majority of Crimeans would have voted according to their primary language or their or their parents' birthplace, as opposed to their nationality. I don't have the data to hand, but I believe there was a poll carried out in Crimea in early February which showed that an large majority of Crimeans wished to remain part of Ukraine and not join Russia. With the demonization of Kiev by Russia generally that's taken place in Crimea, those results are likely to have changed substantially, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that the change was fairly done.

recedite wrote: »

Allowing people in Kiev to vote on Crimean independence would be ridiculous.

The Crimeans have asked for official OSCE observers to cover the referendum. They sent home some OSCE military observers who arrived uninvited.

It's as ridiculous as having London vote on whether Scotland can have a referendum on its independence. That's the law. And fairly similar restrictions are in place in most countries to block secessionist movements of one kind or another.

Another way of looking at it -- if you voted for your house to become independent of Ireland, would you expect your vote to be respected?

recedite · 12-03-2014 10:38pm

My house does not have two million people living in it. Also its not geographically distinct, whereas Crimea is basically an island located between Russia and Ukraine, although attached to Ukraine by some marshland.

Here's the 2001 census data; 58% people identified as Russian, 24 % as Ukrainian and 12 % Tatar. The census was held under Ukrainean control, so you can't say it was rigged in favour of the Russians.

The first thing the new govt. in Kiev did was to remove all Russian language from govt. websites and remove its status as an official second language. What follows on from that is a crackdown on the culture and an official "legal" reason to force the schools in Russian speaking areas to make the kids there start speaking Ukrainean.

I reckon this will be seen as their biggest mistake. If you want to hold a country together, you have to treat the different cultures with equal respect, like Canada did.

As for the troops on the ground there, who knows what orders the Ukrainean troops were getting from Kiev recently, they could have been told to seize govt. buildings from local civilian officials. That would have resulted in a civil war. Everyone was better off if they were confined to barracks.
Moscow has a longstanding agreement to have 25,000 troops there. Its estimated there are now about 30,000 but mostly the original ones are still in their bases.

These extra 5000 odd troops without insignia are interesting. If I was in Putin's shoes, I would have gathered up volunteers from around the Russian army, anyone with a Crimean or Ukrainean background. Give them a badge with "Crimean Defence Forces" on it and tell them not to sew it on until after the referendum. That way you have a fully trained local army, all ready to take instructions from a new Crimean govt. with a legitimate democratic mandate.
In the unlikely event that the referendum is defeated, disband the volunteer Crimean troops, and hey presto, Putin only has the 25,000 official Russian troops as per the original agreement.

recedite · 12-03-2014 11:13pm

robindch wrote: »

It's as ridiculous as having London vote on whether Scotland can have a referendum on its independence. That's the law. And fairly similar restrictions are in place in most countries to block secessionist movements..

In that case the American Declaration of Independence must be an illegal document, so the USA is not legit. And as Ireland was declared a Republic without permission from London, we are not legit either. What happens in reality in these cases is that if and when the secessionist country succeeds, by military or political means in establishing its independence, then the former ruling power writes a new law retrospectively "giving" them their independence. But only after it's already achieved on the ground.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-03-2014 1:08am

recedite wrote: »

As most Crimeans identify with Russia and not Ukraine, there is no need for Putin to rig the referendum even if he was inclined to.

Speaking a language of a neighbouring country does not equate to a desire for seperatism from one's existing country.*
A desire for seperatism does not equate with a desire for domination or annexation by Russia, a far larger and more powerful neighbour.
A desire for domination or annexation by Russia does not equate with a desire for domination or annexation by Putin's Russia.

* We'd be in rather an interesting position if it did, wouldn't we?

robindch · 13-03-2014 10:58am

recedite wrote: »

The first thing the new govt. in Kiev did was to remove all Russian language from govt. websites and remove its status as an official second language.

So far as I recall, the Rada voted that at the behest of a right-wing party, but the legislation was vetoed by the interim president. Despite the veto, the vote certainly did hand state-sponsored Russian media the propaganda coup, and the pretext, it was looking for.

recedite wrote: »

If you want to hold a country together, you have to treat the different cultures with equal respect, like Canada did.

While I entirely agree with you, I'm at a loss to understand why you're taking the Russian side in this -- Russia is one of the most xenophobic nations on Earth and state-sponsored media is filled with flag-waving rhetoric and as much nationalist and anti-EU, anti-US propaganda as you could wish for. Think Fox News times in Cyrillic. Instead of its recent history as a holiday destination for Ukrainians, Russians and a few hardened westerners, Crimea under Russia is likely to become another "frozen conflict" zone like Transnistra, South Ossettia and Abkhazia - weird islands of backward-looking state-sponsored paranoia.

recedite wrote: »

As for the troops on the ground there, who knows what orders the Ukrainean troops were getting from Kiev recently, they could have been told to seize govt. buildings from local civilian officials. That would have resulted in a civil war. Everyone was better off if they were confined to barracks. Moscow has a longstanding agreement to have 25,000 troops there. Its estimated there are now about 30,000 but mostly the original ones are still in their bases.

Again, I'm at a loss to understand your position here. Russia launched a military invasion of Crimea and this Ukrainian region is now fully occupied by Russian troops. Ukrainians, in order not to "provoke" the Russian army into bloody retaliation rather wisely decided to do nothing to stop the invasion, but an invasion it remains and Russian troops are still in control. The question at the moment is whether Putin's army will invade east Ukraine too on a pretext as fictitious as the one under which his army invaded Crimea.

recedite · 13-03-2014 11:48am

I'm taking the Crimean side in this, and if the people in Crimea welcome the protection of Russian troops, and then go on to vote democratically to join the Russian Federation, then that is their business.
Its a significant achievement by Putin that the situation is being managed with no loss of life, which fact contrasts with the various foreign misadventures of the NATO and "Coalition" powers.

robindch · 13-03-2014 12:04pm

Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, gave an interview on the Beeb yesterday which I thought summarized quite well the elements of the crisis that he talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvuWHEU9dVY

robindch · 13-03-2014 12:07pm

recedite wrote: »

I'm taking the Crimean side in this, and if the people in Crimea welcome the protection of Russian troops, and then go on to vote democratically to join the Russian Federation, then that is their business.

Some do welcome Russian troops, but many -- Tatars for example -- are justifiably frightened of them. The vote is unlike to be fair either for the reasons I mentioned earlier - vote-riggging by the Russians, voter intimidation and certain types of voters (again, Tatars at least) ignoring the vote.

recedite wrote: »

Its a significant achievement by Putin that the situation is being managed with no loss of life [....]

I'm shocked that you view the unprovoked military invasion of a weak, peaceful country (and a former ally) on foot of a transparently false pretext, and in violation of multiple treaties and large swathes of international law, by a deceitful, vicious, homophobic, corrupt maniac as a "significant achievement".

Brian Shanahan · 13-03-2014 3:17pm

recedite wrote: »

I'm taking the Crimean side in this.

No you're not, for the simple fact that you don't know the Crimean position in this mess (neither do I for that matter). What you're actually doing is taking the Russian position, and assuming (because of cultural and linguistic similarities between Russia and Crimea and their shared history) that the Russian position is the Crimean position.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-03-2014 9:50pm

If what's happening in Crimea is democracy, I'm the next pope.

robindch · 14-03-2014 1:29am

recedite wrote: »

I'm taking the Crimean side in this, and if the people in Crimea welcome the protection of Russian troops, and then go on to vote democratically to join the Russian Federation, then that is their business.

Forgot to mention - the ballot paper itself is rigged too since the question being put to the electorate is as follows:

You support joining Crimea with Russia with the rights of a subject of the Russian Federation?
You support the restoration of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

The problem being that (a) the second option has two actions, not one, and (b) 1992 saw two Crimean constitutions - the first of which declared that Crimea is an independent state, and the second of which declares that Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The ballot paper doesn't specify which of the two 1992 constitutions is being referred to and I believe that the text of the ballot is compatible with both. Neither does the ballot paper have an option to preserve things as they are now. And finally, it's a little unfair to hold a referendum on the future of a region, when that country has recently been invaded and occupied by its neighbours, when the referendum is being held against the express wishes of the national parliament, when many countries have declared that they'll ignore the results one way or the other, and especially, when the Crimean parliament decided to hold it ten days after announcing it and with virtually no opportunity for mature, stable debate. What we're seeing here is a shotgun referendum.

The ballot paper is written in Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar:

recedite · 14-03-2014 1:24pm

ninja900 wrote: »

Speaking a language of a neighbouring country does not equate to a desire for seperatism from one's existing country.
* We'd be in rather an interesting position if it did, wouldn't we?

Of course it doesn't. You raise an interesting parallel though. What if De Valera had taken away the status of English as an official national language within weeks of declaring a Republic here?
Only Gaelgeoirs could apply for state jobs, all the police and army would be Gaelgeoirs, only Gaelscoileanna would be eligible for state funding. You could be arrested by one of these Gaelgeoir Gardai on some trumped up charge, only explained to you in Irish, then be tried and sentenced through Irish, all without having a clue what was going on.
Even if Dev had personally liked that idea, he was far too clever to try to implement it. Unlike the knuckleheads in the NATO backed "Fatherland" party of Ukrainian nationalists who now control Kiev.
Spare a thought for how people in Eastern Ukraine are feeling right now.
Also it is only 70 years since the the nazis marched into western Ukraine and were greeted with flower garlands by most locals. Such was their popularity that they were able to raise an entire division of Waffen SS troops there for use against "the bolsheviks" in the east. And they were urged on in this crusade by their religious clerics.

It is also known that there were plenty of people walking around Dublin at that time wearing swastika badges, so we should be thankful here rather than judgmental.
All the same, it takes a long time for those kind of wounds to heal.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

you don't know the Crimean position in this mess (neither do I for that matter).

I don't claim to know it all, but I have my principles, and those principles say that the land belongs to the people who live there.
I apply the same principle to Crimea as I apply to Scotland, N.Ireland, Palestine or anywhere else. Let the people vote themselves. There is an assumption that the referendum will be rigged which is mere propaganda.

robindch wrote: »

Forgot to mention - the ballot paper itself is rigged too since the question being put to the electorate is as follows:
You support joining Crimea with Russia with the rights of a subject of the Russian Federation?

You support the restoration of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

The problem being that (a) the second option has two actions, not one, and (b) 1992 saw two Crimean constitutions - the first of which declared that Crimea is an independent state, and the second of which declares that Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The ballot paper doesn't specify which of the two 1992 constitutions is being referred to...

Have they not included the wording "and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine" in the referendum specifically to clarify that they mean the second 1992 constitution? That's how I would read it anyway.

Just because you don't like certain other things Putin has done does not mean anything he does is wrong.

robindch · 14-03-2014 2:11pm

recedite wrote: »

Even if Dev had personally liked that idea, he was far too clever to try to implement it. Unlike the knuckleheads in the NATO backed "Fatherland" party of Ukrainian nationalists who now control Kiev.

The interim government is a rainbow coalition.

recedite wrote: »

Let the people vote themselves. There is an assumption that the referendum will be rigged which is mere propaganda.

I've no problem with a legal vote. That's how things are done. What you don't do is invade a country, cause the kind of civil strife that you claim to be invading to prevent, then call an illegal snap referendum while you're occupying the country.

recedite wrote: »

Have they not included the wording "and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine" in the referendum specifically to clarify that they mean the second 1992 constitution? That's how I would read it anyway.

As above, I believe it can be read as supporting either of the two 1992 constitutions. While the more obvious reading is the second, it would not surprise me to hear on Monday morning, that they applied the earlier one instead. Not that there is any realistic chance that this is going to happen. The vote is almost certain to be rigged; voters are almost certain to be intimidated or otherwise disenfranchised. Putin isn't going to allow an election to run without controlling the result.

recedite wrote: »

Just because you don't like certain other things Putin has done does not mean anything he does is wrong.

I've yet to become aware of anything that Putin has done that is honorable or fair or decent and his conduct over this invasion is no different. If you can think of something decent he's done, please let me know

Btw, here's an interesting eye-witness account of recent weeks in Ukraine:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n06/james-meek/putins-counter-revolution

recedite · 14-03-2014 3:10pm

robindch wrote: »

The vote is almost certain to be rigged; voters are almost certain to be intimidated or otherwise disenfranchised...

Ok this is the mantra being put about by Nato among others.
At the same time nobody thinks the people in Crimea would actually vote to remain in Ukraine in the current circumstances, where nationalist extremists have gained the upper hand.

Look at this logically;
Putin knows the referendum will go his way. There is no need to rig a result when you already have an overwhelming majority. He also knows that immediately afterwards, Nato countries will try to discredit the result.

It is in Putin's interest to hold the vote as transparently as possible, and to hold it under international supervision. That way nobody can claim the result is illegitimate.
Hence the request to OSCE and the Council of Europe for observers.
This is the last thing Nato wants, so it comes as no surprise that the request is denied, and barely mentioned in the western media.

The pretext that Crimea must get "permission" from Kiev to hold the referendum is piece of legalistic BS. As I already pointed out, sovereignty of a country is always to be decided by the people who live there. Secessionist declarations are nearly always claimed to be illegal by the former ruling powers.

Here's 7 reasons to like Putin.

oscarBravo · 14-03-2014 3:20pm

recedite wrote: »

The pretext that Crimea must get "permission" from Kiev to hold the referendum is piece of legalistic BS. As I already pointed out, sovereignty of a country is always to be decided by the people who live there. Secessionist declarations are nearly always claimed to be illegal by the former ruling powers.

So if Cork voted to secede from Ireland, the rest of the country should have no say in the matter?

Pherekydes · 14-03-2014 3:36pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if Cork voted to secede from Ireland, the rest of the country should have no say in the matter?

Wouldn't the rest vote overwhelmingly in favour of secession? :pac:

oscarBravo · 14-03-2014 4:40pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Wouldn't the rest vote overwhelmingly in favour of secession? :pac:

Quite likely, but we should at least be asked.

Genghiz Cohen · 14-03-2014 5:08pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if Cork voted to secede from Ireland, the rest of the country should have no say in the matter?

If only... They'd have my vote!

endacl · 14-03-2014 6:26pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if Cork voted to secede from Ireland, the rest of the country should have no say in the matter?

Are they still in?!? You'd never know it to talk to them...

Turtwig · 14-03-2014 6:28pm

A better example would be if Irish troops invaded a Catholic dominated part of Northern Ireland. Held a referendum and that referendum declared that geographic location was now part of the Irish Republic.

Brian Shanahan · 14-03-2014 7:44pm

recedite wrote: »

I don't claim to know it all, but I have my principles, and those principles say that the land belongs to the people who live there.
I apply the same principle to Crimea as I apply to Scotland, N.Ireland, Palestine or anywhere else. Let the people vote themselves. There is an assumption that the referendum will be rigged which is mere propaganda.

Fine then, apply it. Write to the Russian ambassador expressing your shock and outrage at his country's illegal and highly Nazi occupation of a foreign country, and also at the rigged and blatantly falacious "referendum" his president is ordering to be carried out in order to put the slightest veneer of repsectability on the invasion.

Brian Shanahan · 14-03-2014 8:12pm

recedite wrote: »

Look at this logically;
Putin knows the referendum will go his way. There is no need to rig a result when you already have an overwhelming majority. He also knows that immediately afterwards, Nato countries will try to discredit the result.

That's not looking at it logically. That's looking at it in justification of a preferred outcome, viz. that the only logical and moral outcome is that Putin get's his way.

Richard · 14-03-2014 9:35pm

recedite wrote: »

Of course it doesn't. You raise an interesting parallel though. What if De Valera had taken away the status of English as an official national language within weeks of declaring a Republic here?

It wouldn't have happened, at the very least because there wouldn't have been enough decent Irish speakers to run the country alone.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-03-2014 9:50pm

Irish was a requirement for entry into the civil service until the late 70s.

Sulla Felix · 14-03-2014 10:23pm

I'm surprised they're even bothering with the paper thin covering of attempted legitimacy they're aiming for. They really don't need to. The west took a military response off the table. Putin isn't afraid of economic sanctions because 1) they're not fit for purpose and 2) they'll provide ample fuel for further nationalistic torch lighting.

Turtwig · 14-03-2014 10:29pm

Even if Russia were severely hurt by sanctions and the EU only marginally hurt it's the power of the citizens that decide the outcome. Put simply, Putin can squash any unrest with an iron fist, whereas in the EU any little grievances to our lives and its citizens would protest like mad. Crucially EU Politicians would likely cede to their demands. Russia has all the cards here. Putin's game is a little disconcerting but it can't be stopped without massive conflict either. What Putin want's Putin gets. Unless the West is willing to ensure some hardship to its way of life.

recedite · 14-03-2014 11:18pm

Jernal wrote: »

A better example would be if Irish troops invaded a Catholic dominated part of Northern Ireland. Held a referendum and that referendum declared that geographic location was now part of the Irish Republic.

That was actually on the agenda at one time. Exercise Armageddon.
Would you have objected to that as a matter of principle?
Or just because it was unworkable, the Irish army being a rubbish army at the time. I think it was predicted that they would have lasted 5 or 6 hours before the backlash.

robindch · 16-03-2014 1:54pm

recedite wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

The vote is almost certain to be rigged; voters are almost certain to be intimidated or otherwise disenfranchised.

Ok this is the mantra being put about by Nato among others.

The BBC has reported a few interesting tit-bits on its live feed:

Kiev hasn't provided Crimea with the voters' register, so Crimea is cobbling together its own one from sources unknown.
Ethnic Tatars appear to be boycotting the vote entirely.
The OCSE is not observing the election, as is virtually nobody else. Even the Russian parliament has managed to send eight observers.
Unlike constitutional plebiscites in most countries, this vote appears to be open to anybody, even holders of Russian passports.
The Russian military has seized a Ukrainian village north of Crimea in order to "to protect a gas distribution station from "terrorist attacks"".
There seems to have been an online voting website, but it's offline at the moment.
As an aside, although Russia is encouraging the secession of Crimea from Ukraine, within Russia itself, encouraging secession is a serious criminal offence.
The Russian Navy are throwing grenades into the water near Ukrainian navy ships and the grounds around a Ukrainian marine base has been mined

robindch · 18-03-2014 1:23pm

recedite wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

The vote is almost certain to be rigged; voters are almost certain to be intimidated or otherwise disenfranchised.

Ok this is the mantra being put about by Nato among others.

The Crimean authorities announce that 474,137 (1,724,563 - 1,250,426, message at 0:00) votes were cast in Sevastopol, a city which at the end of 2013, was reported by Crimean authorities to have 385,462 people of voting age. NTV reported a different total vote count of 1,524,563.

If the earlier figure is the right one, then that indicates that Sevastopol produced around 25% more votes that it had voters.

recedite · 18-03-2014 1:48pm

robindch wrote: »

If the earlier figure is the right one, then that indicates that Sevastopol produced around 25% more votes that it had voters.

Well there are various possibilities, people may have moved back to Crimea from other parts for reasons of personal security and political affiliation. For example a large proportion of the Berkut police went there.
As an analogy, it is historical fact that the protestant population in what is now Republic of Ireland suffered a drastic reduction in numbers in 1922 with many relocating to N. Ireland or Britain. You may say these political migrants have no right to vote, but that is a subjective opinion. IMO long term residency should not be a prerequisite to voting rights in such a situation.

Apart from that, is anyone seriously suggesting that the vote could have gone any other way? Even without counting the votes of refugees, you would be looking at maybe 80% majority instead of 96.6%? Either way it is an overwhelming democratic majority. You are clutching at straws in pursuing this line of argument.

If you believe the Crimeans do not have the right to self determination, and that the referendum is illegal because it was held without the permission of the nationalist govt. in Kiev, then by all means argue that point.

Brian Shanahan · 18-03-2014 4:52pm

recedite wrote: »

Well there are various possibilities, people may have moved back to Crimea from other parts for reasons of personal security and political affiliation. For example a large proportion of the Berkut police went there.
As an analogy, it is historical fact that the protestant population in what is now Republic of Ireland suffered a drastic reduction in numbers in 1922 with many relocating to N. Ireland or Britain. You may say these political migrants have no right to vote, but that is a subjective opinion. IMO long term residency should not be a prerequisite to voting rights in such a situation.

Apart from that, is anyone seriously suggesting that the vote could have gone any other way? Even without counting the votes of refugees, you would be looking at maybe 80% majority instead of 96.6%? Either way it is an overwhelming democratic majority. You are clutching at straws in pursuing this line of argument.

If you believe the Crimeans do not have the right to self determination, and that the referendum is illegal because it was held without the permission of the nationalist govt. in Kiev, then by all means argue that point.

Or we take the 99.999999999% probability at face value, somebody was stuffing ballots, and the boxes from which the votes were counted were filld before the "referendum" happened.

Seriously, who with any knowledge of demographics would believe that a city in an area wracked with tensions and the possibility of violence on a mass scale would put an extra 1/4 on its population in three months? Its not credible.

robindch · 18-03-2014 5:02pm

recedite wrote: »

Well there are various possibilities, people may have moved back to Crimea from other parts for reasons of personal security and political affiliation. For example a large proportion of the Berkut police went there.

It is possible that some Berkut escaped there after the massacre in Maidan for which they were largely responsible. I don't think, however, that there were 90,000 of them.

recedite wrote: »

Apart from that, is anyone seriously suggesting that the vote could have gone any other way? Even without counting the votes of refugees, you would be looking at maybe 80% majority instead of 96.6%?

And if you remove from your 80% figure, the 25-30% or so of ethnic Ukrainians some or all of who may have boycotted the election, plus the 10-15% of Tatars who almost certainly did boycott it, you're potentially down to as little as 35% approval.

recedite wrote: »

Either way it is an overwhelming democratic majority.

Nope, it's not - see above. And that's not allowing for corruption in the collation and counting process which was generally unmonitored. I've quoted evidence above from the Crimeans themselves which shows that there may be as many as 200,000 votes "missing".

recedite wrote: »

If you believe the Crimeans do not have the right to self determination, and that the referendum is illegal because it was held without the permission of the nationalist govt. in Kiev, then by all means argue that point.

I am in general favour of self-determination and there's a process by which this can be done via the Ukrainian constitution - the entire country gets to vote on the proposal which seems fair enough to me.

What the Russians can't do, however, is -- on the process side -- manufacture a manifestly false pretext against a weak, potentially unstable country, then invade it, then deny they've invaded it, spread around on their own propaganda channels the most dreadful load of offensive nonsense imaginable, then at gunpoint, appoint their own man in charge of the regional legislature, have him push through a snap, illegal and unfair (status quo was not an option) referendum which was almost certainly rigged and which almost nobody recognises, then spend a day or two as an independent country. And then -- on the result side -- discard any future ability to self-determine by becoming a federal republic within a country which will never allow another referendum.

recedite · 19-03-2014 12:09am

robindch wrote: »

..discard any future ability to self-determine by becoming a federal republic within a country which will never allow another referendum.

I agree with this last point, but the Maidan crowd had their chance to unify Ukraine and they blew it with their uber-nationalistic rhetoric. They pushed Crimea (and possibly the eastern regions) into Putin's embrace, from which the Crimeans may eventually find they cannot escape. Withdrawing the status of Russian as an official language was particularly stupid.

In fairness we did the same 100 years ago, we had our chance and we blew it. John Redmond may well have had the ability to create a united Ireland in the long term, but after 1916 the attitude of the people polarized, North and South.

There is an interesting psychological flaw in peoples minds which causes moderates to back extremists when the chips are down. The fear of extremists in the opposite camp gaining control drives people much more than the desire to see moderates in their own camp gain power. You can see it in N. Ireland politics all the time; the average citizen is a moderate, yet SF and the DUP get most of the votes.
Moderates think that if they vote for extremists on their own side, that will counter-balance the extremists on the other side. But it always leads to grief... the hazards of the belief.

Sulla Felix · 19-03-2014 12:25am

robindch wrote: »

What the Russians can't do, however, is -- on the process side -- manufacture a manifestly false pretext against a weak, potentially unstable country, then invade it, then deny they've invaded it, spread around on their own propaganda channels the most dreadful load of offensive nonsense imaginable, then at gunpoint, appoint their own man in charge of the regional legislature, have him push through a snap, illegal and unfair (status quo was not an option) referendum which was almost certainly rigged and which almost nobody recognises, then spend a day or two as an independent country. And then -- on the result side -- discard any future ability to self-determine by becoming a federal republic within a country which will never allow another referendum.

But they can. They are. There's nothing stopping them. The west has taken the military option off the table. The EU can't impose any meaningful sanctions, not unless someone magics up a 100bn m3 of natural gas a year in the medium to long term. The US probably will especially with the '08 china/russia bond talks still bugging the shít out of the hawks but they'll be less effective without the EU backing them up.

robindch · 19-03-2014 3:06pm

Sulla Felix wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

What the Russians can't do, however, is -- on the process side -- manufacture a manifestly false pretext against a weak, potentially unstable country, then invade it, then deny they've invaded it, spread around on their own propaganda channels the most dreadful load of offensive nonsense imaginable, then at gunpoint, appoint their own man in charge of the regional legislature, have him push through a snap, illegal and unfair (status quo was not an option) referendum which was almost certainly rigged and which almost nobody recognises, then spend a day or two as an independent country. And then -- on the result side -- discard any future ability to self-determine by becoming a federal republic within a country which will never allow another referendum.

But they can. They are. There's nothing stopping them.

Should have been clearer -- they can't do the things I've listed and still expect to be believed again any time soon.

Perhaps the most beautiful part of Ukraine has been stolen at gunpoint by a rich, aggressive country, from a poor, peaceful one. My feelings for the conduct of the Russian state (never all that good) have sunk a long way beneath contempt.

Sadly, the theft has divided the ex-pat Russian community too and those of us with links to it. The majority are against it -- having access to media not controlled by Putin -- but a significant minority have joined with his crude, hooting jingoism, much to the disgust of everybody else. One friend of mine has had some very silent breakfast with his missus, while another has said as well that Russian speakers now distinguish themselves by nation and affiliation, when they never did that before.

The Wars of the Yugoslav Secession were nasty affairs and Putin's open encouragement of Russian ethnic nationalism, backed by military force, is the very last thing that this unstable, divided continent needs.

Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

Comments