Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
(Ukraine) Crimea- historically Russian ...
Comments
-
Its disturbing how many Russians in Crimea genuinely equate the Ukrainian government with Nazism. As if Nazism is really going to exist in the government of an aspiring EU member state.
0 -
The Soviet Union imploded because Communism doesn't work. Its constituent republics were under the thumb of Moscow and the grip was lost when the country failed.In which case someone should probably tell the Baltic states, plus the Ukraine and Central Asian republics that they should rejoin the Soviet Union. After all, the opinion of "all Soviet citizens" was pretty clear in that case. In particular, the Ukrainian declaration of independence in 1991 was unilateral.
According to the UK constitution, that country is not a true democracy but a representative one and the will of the people is expressed in parliament which did sign a treaty with what was to become the Irish Free State.Similarly, Ireland should rejoin the UK ...
The people of Kosovo had a moral right to resist the tyranny of Serb nationalism and intolerance. Sometimes a case can be made for secession when prolonging a union serves to oppress citizens.Kosovo must recognise Serbian suzerainty
The Americans were big enough and far enough away to be independent of a tyrannical monarchy and their republican revolution became an inspiration to others.and the United States had better rename itself the 'Thirteen Colonies'. Plus many more.
Only when the minority are being oppressed.All of which make clear that nations have the right to determine their own futures without regard to the wishes of the dominant partner/party.
A case could have been and was made for Irish Home Rule.That is, Ireland had the right to determine its own course without the agreement of England (which had attempted to prevent this via the use of force).
Back in the days of monarchy, when the King of Scotland became the King of England, a united kingdom was a relatively easy development and the ending of the union need not be contentious either.Similarly, the independence of Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland and not the remainder of the UK.
Crimea is not a nation in the same sense as Scotland is with its own language, legal system, and traditions.It is an Autonomous Republic within the Ukraine, a status akin to the constituent countries of the UK. It is not a nationstate but certainly a nation.
Really, attempts to generalize from the particular circumstances of Ukraine today to places and events remote in location and circumstances, sometimes in a world which had greatly changed, will not help us understand how the current problems in Ukraine can be wisely solved.0 -
Which is only relevant to the question of self-determination insofar as it gave these nations motivation to break away. It has no bearing on the legal right of them to do so.The Soviet Union imploded because Communism doesn't work. Its constituent republics were under the thumb of Moscow and the grip was lost when the country failed
And I've addressed this in posts above. The right to self-determination is not conditional on oppression or violence.The people of Kosovo had a moral right to resist the tyranny of Serb nationalism and intolerance. Sometimes a case can be made for secession when prolonging a union serves to oppress citizens.
Oh, so now the right to self-determination is dependent on:The Americans were big enough and far enough away to be independent of a tyrannical monarchy and their republican revolution became an inspiration to others- Communism
- Violence
- Size
- Distance from the metropole
Why don't we just sum it up to the one condition that actually matters here: national self-determination is good unless it's sponsored by Russia. Because all that's on display above is a ridiculous level of double standards
Which is something entirely different. Are you suggesting that the Irish independence movement - ie those who fought the British Empire in the name of an independent Ireland - were entirely illegitimate until their success was recognised by British government? That is, until British constitutional niceties had been met then it was not possible or desirable to agitate for an independent Ireland?A case could have been and was made for Irish Home Rule.
Crimea possesses a distinct language, parliament, judicial system and set of customs/traditions to the rest of the Ukraine. It is recognised by Kiev as a republic. It ticks all the right boxes for classification as a nation.Crimea is not a nation in the same sense as Scotland is with its own language, legal system, and traditions.
Hmmmm. you insist that Crimeans would have to claim independence (ie not join Russia) to be a nation; then you point out examples of nations that exist within nationstates. I suggest that you revisit your logic.robp wrote:Crimean isn't a nation. If it was they would identify as Crimean not Russian.
Agreed. It's a pity that Kiev would never agree to such a process. Which is what I've been harping on about in those posts of mine that you seem determined not to readScotland is good example of how this process should work0 -
Irish legal sovereignty came with a mutual agreement with Britain, not with violence. There is no sign of such an agreement with Kiev.Which is something entirely different. Are you suggesting that the Irish independence movement - ie those who fought the British Empire in the name of an independent Ireland - were entirely illegitimate until their success was recognised by British government? That is, until British constitutional niceties had been met then it was not possible or desirable to agitate for an independent Ireland?
Crimean Russian is not a distinct language or dialect from Russian. Crimean Russian culture is no different to typical Russian culture. Furthermore Russian is a secondary language of all of Ukraine.Crimea possesses a distinct language, parliament, judicial system and set of customs/traditions to the rest of the Ukraine. It is recognised by Kiev as a republic. It ticks all the right boxes for classification as a nation.
Different nation can exist in one country but being an autonomous region does not verify that a nation exits. Can you honestly tell me that the autonomous region of Madrid is a nation? Crimea doesn't have to have independence to be nation but it does need some sort of cultural unity factor. Ask one of these Russians in Crimea do they view Crimea as a nation. Of course they don't.Hmmmm. you insist that Crimeans would have to claim independence (ie not join Russia) to be a nation; then you point out examples of nations that exist within nationstates. I suggest that you revisit your logic.
You don't know that. A makey-up prediction is not a fact and even if it was fact a means is not justified by an end.Agreed. It's a pity that Kiev would never agree to such a process. Which is what I've been harping on about in those posts of mine that you seem determined not to read0 -
The USSR failed and its law broke-down. The subservient so-called republics had no union to belong to.Which is only relevant to the question of self-determination insofar as it gave these nations motivation to break away. It has no bearing on the legal right of them to do so.
In a proper democracy which respects the rights of all citizens, there is no need for self-determination of people to have independence as a prerequisite.And I've addressed this in posts above. The right to self-determination is not conditional on oppression or violence.
Various factors can interfere with a people's right to self-determination.Oh, so now the right to self-determination is dependent on:- Communism
- Violence
- Size
- Distance from the metropole
There are other ways of achieving goals other than violence.... Are you suggesting that the Irish independence movement - ie those who fought the British Empire in the name of an independent Ireland - were entirely illegitimate until their success was recognised by British government?
There are both peaceful and violent ways to agitate.That is, until British constitutional niceties had been met then it was not possible or desirable to agitate for an independent Ireland?
No, they speak mostly Russian after a successful plantation there.Crimea possesses a distinct language, parliament, judicial system and set of customs/traditions to the rest of the Ukraine.
Crimea is not a republic no more that The People's Republic of China.It is recognised by Kiev as a republic.
Nope, it doesn't.It ticks all the right boxes for classification as a nation.0 -
You're sort of missing those years in which a certain IRA was at war with a British government that refused to recognise it or Irish independence. London's acknowledgement of the latter was wrung from it by armed struggle. Similarly Serbia still refuses to recognise the Republic of Kosovo, yet this has not stopped numerous others doing so.Irish legal sovereignty came with a mutual agreement with Britain, not with violence. There is no sign of such an agreement with Kiev.
I mean, really, this is very basic stuff we're covering here. People are either being deliberately obtuse or just exceptionally legalistic. I'm not sure that there's a difference.
Out of curiosity, what's the language of Kosovo? What is the majority ethnic composition of the Republic? Don't bother answering. The idea that each nation must be unique in itself is nonsense, a strawman.Crimean Russian is not a distinct language or dialect from Russian. Crimean Russian culture is no different to typical Russian culture. Furthermore Russian is a secondary language of all of Ukraine.
Why is Madrid relevant? Is Madrid an Autonomous Republic (note the capitals)? Are there any similarities between Madrid and the Crimea's constitutional arrangements or histories? Or have you simply latched on to the word 'autonomous'?Different nation can exist in one country but being an autonomous region does not verify that a nation exits. Can you honestly tell me that the autonomous region of Madrid is a nation?
It is quite clear that even under the pre-2014 constitution, the Crimea enjoyed wide-ranging autonomy, recognising its unique place in the Ukraine. That is not the same as Madrid (which is an inane example given that it serves as the capital) or any simple administrative boundary.
It's pretty clear that Kiev rejects any possibility of elections on the peninsula and rejects the very concept of self-determination for the Crimea. Hence their objections are founded on the insistence of the Ukraine's 'territorial integrity', ie as an inviolable territorial unit.You don't know that. A makey-up prediction is not a fact and even if it was fact a means is not justified by an end.
And anyone who believes that nationalists who came to power on an explicit anti-Russian platform would tolerate the secession of part of their nationstate to Russia is really living in cloud cuckoo land.
Except that the fact is that the Ukraine (along with the Baltic states) unilaterally declared independence before the USSR had been dissolved and while avenues were still being explored to maintain it.Popescu wrote:The USSR failed and its law broke-down. The subservient so-called republics had no union to belong to.
Hence the fact that it's called the 'right to national self-determination'. I'd draw your attention to the first word in that expression. Rights are not always exercised but they remain inalienable.In a proper democracy which respects the rights of all citizens, there is no need for self-determination of people to have independence as a prerequisite
I don't insist on a fair trial every day before breakfast but I'd like to think that should I ever come before a court of law then I'd enjoy one. Similarly, in a well-working nation (which the Ukraine today is manifestly not) there should be no need for separation in a well-run country that respects its minorities - secession is a sign of crisis. Which brings us back to the fact that the spark for this entire mess was the seizure of power by the opposition movement in Kiev and their remarkable failure to reassure the southern and eastern provinces.
Which doesn't answer my question. Is this a suggestion that you do think that those Irish revolutionaries who took up arms against Britain in the name of national independence were illegitimate and without mandate?There are other ways of achieving goals other than violence.
No, that'd be a yes. Russian is not Ukrainian, ie it is distinct.No, they speak mostly Russian after a successful plantation there
As for the plantation comment, are you advocating ethnically cleansing the Crimea of its Russian population? If not, I fail to see the relevance of centuries old demographic movements. If that was to be a determinant then we'd simply give the whole area back to the Scythians
Good. Because pretty much every country in the world recognises the People's Republic of China as an independent republic.Crimea is not a republic no more that The People's Republic of China.0 -
I thought we had come to stage where armed rebellion was frowned upon but apparently not...You're sort of missing those years in which a certain IRA was at war with a British government that refused to recognise it or Irish independence. London's acknowledgement of the latter was wrung from it by armed struggle. Similarly Serbia still refuses to recognise the Republic of Kosovo, yet this has not stopped numerous others doing so.
Madrid is an autonomous district with their own parliaments, governments, public administrations, budgets, and resources. Your just backtracking. The notion that 'Crimea Russian' is a nation is a fanciful. It has no grounds. Crimea has certain autonomy but no more then the state of California or Barcelona tc.Why is Madrid relevant? Is Madrid an Autonomous Republic (note the capitals)? Are there any similarities between Madrid and the Crimea's constitutional arrangements or histories? Or have you simply latched on to the word 'autonomous'?
Its not at all clear. Listening to rhetoric from Mariano Rajoy one would think that Catalan independence is impossible. This is political bluff, thus armed insurrection is unnecessary even if it was morally just and legal. Anyway, the current government is only interim. A new government will be elected shortly.It's pretty clear that Kiev rejects any possibility of elections on the peninsula and rejects the very concept of self-determination for the Crimea. Hence their objections are founded on the insistence of the Ukraine's 'territorial integrity', ie as an inviolable territorial unit.
This is false. they had no anti-Russian platform. Its absurd to suggest being pro-EU is automatically anti-Russian.And anyone who believes that nationalists who came to power on an explicit anti-Russian platform would tolerate the secession of part of their nationstate to Russia is really living in cloud cuckoo land.
Ukraine's declaration of Self-Determination occurred a month was voted on one moth after Russia's declaration of self-determination. It was no coup. It was an act in solidarity with what was happening in Moscow.Except that the fact is that the Ukraine (along with the Baltic states) unilaterally declared independence before the USSR had been dissolved and while avenues were still being explored to maintain it.0 -
Here is Mr. Putin's take on it, including some of his thoughts on the history of the region and beyond:
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/68890 -
-
Advertisement
-
No, you are mistaken if you imagine that there was an attempt to continue the Communist Soviet system.... Except that the fact is that the Ukraine (along with the Baltic states) unilaterally declared independence before the USSR had been dissolved and while avenues were still being explored to maintain it.
I never heard of a right to "national" self-determination.Hence the fact that it's called the 'right to national self-determination'. I'd draw your attention to the first word in that expression. Rights are not always exercised but they remain inalienable.
Please try to stay on topic.Which doesn't answer my question. Is this a suggestion that you do think that those Irish revolutionaries who took up arms against Britain in the name of national independence were illegitimate and without mandate?
Stalin ethnically cleansed Crimea of Tartars and replaced them with Russians.As for the plantation comment, are you advocating ethnically cleansing the Crimea of its Russian population? If not, I fail to see the relevance of centuries old demographic movements. If that was to be a determinant then we'd simply give the whole area back to the Scythians
Red China is, in no sense, a republic. It is a Communist state which is encouraging a new Capitalist elite class as long as they tow the politburo line. Mao must be turning in his grave.Good. Because pretty much every country in the world recognises the People's Republic of China as an independent republic.0 -
clashburke wrote: »did South Africa not get rid of its nukes as well? (albeit by decommissioning instead of transfer)
You are right. Its also true of Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Though I don't think it changes my original point that this conflict risks encouraging nuclear weapon stock piling.0
Advertisement