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

What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

123457»

Comments

  • #302
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.
    I'm sure there's also a Six Nations effect here, too. If England win the rugby, we have to put up with hearing about it for the next year, and they're intolerably smug and entirely insufferable. If the French do, then for all that the English will say the French are waaaay more arrogant winners than they are, it's largely "off the radar" for those of us In These Islands.

    (Those of you with no interest in sports, or who live in a media bubble in which the UK TV and newspapers don't intrude at all, please discard this analogy.)


  • #303
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I'm sure there's also a Six Nations effect here, too. If England win the rugby, we have to put up with hearing about it for the next year, and they're intolerably smug and entirely insufferable. If the French do, then for all that the English will say the French are waaaay more arrogant winners than they are, it's largely "off the radar" for those of us In These Islands.

    (Those of you with no interest in sports, or who live in a media bubble in which the UK TV and newspapers don't intrude at all, please discard this analogy.)

    I guess this was what I was saying, only you put it more colorfully.

    Everyone frames their foreign policy (and domestic) in moral terms. We don't get front page news usually of Swedens response to Russian aggression, even though they most certainly have one. We don't get Swiss movies where the Swiss guy saves the day and we don't care if Uzbekistan's leader boils people alive. Like I said though, it's an illusion, one that only makes me roll my eyes when people actually base all their politics on it. Even if it WERE true, it would be a piss poor reason to support aggression in other cases. Can you imagine a worse reason than "The things that third party says ANNOY me, so I'm throwing the second party under the bus and cheering on the first".


  • #304
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Is 'June' 1992 on the ballot paper? In any language?

    Recedite has been unable to provide a source to back up that claim.
    Can you?

    No. So the point stands.
    I think that on the contrary, you've lost track of said "point" entirely. In the message I responded to, you were going on about Ukrainian constitutional changes in 1995 and 1999 and asking if Ukraine "agreed" to such an arrangement. I corrected and informed you on these matters. Your reply veers off without regard to the actual content of what I said.

    The difference between the two 1992 unilateral "constitutions" is whether Crimea is part of Ukraine. The ballot option includes the phrase "status of Crimea as part of Ukraine". I don't see what could be clearer than that.
    Therefore, there was no Status Quo option, and therefore, no option to vote 'No'.
    Are you View's backup group? I've dealt with this point in detail, and what seems like half a dozen times by now. See this post.
    Unless you can provide evidence that June 1992 was on offer, then the debate is closed.
    Unless you can provide evidence that anyone voted, or wanted to vote, on the basis you describe, then sure, by all means! But hardly in the way you seek to imply.


  • #305
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    There are interesting parallels, though: David Cameron describing both votes as "illegal" if held without the express permission of their "parent" entity. In other words, he's consistent (at least between these whole two instances!) on the right of self-determination of "autonomous" entities: there simply isn't one.

    I think the debate here is less about how far the Crimean situation falls short of "ideal" and "democratic norms", and more about how accurate Western responses like Joe Biden's "land grab" are. Accounts that erase the context and motivation for this happening are all too common.

    Is that not the position of international law, however? We have created a system by which the state is the unit on which international and many other relations occur, that these must be to some extent stable is imperative. Were it merely possible for any group to decide among themselves that they would like there own state the obvious problems that would ensue are obvious.

    I can think of many situations where the parent nations go ahead would not be required, however they would be exceptions rather than the rule.

    For me it certainly was how far it fell short of democratic norms, but I think your right that how others reacted more from the perspective you describe, I don't think this was a good idea but I see why. Far more countries have an interest in maintaining the state as the unit at which decisions like this are made than care about how democratic or legitimate a particular referendum was. Most notably, perhaps, China.

    Do you not believe it was a land grab? I think that was part of the motivation, another was to punish the Ukrainian government for turning from their sphere and yet another was to send a message to others in the region (many of which have substantial Russian minorities) that this is a possibility.

    By and large, however, I think it is both preferential and the norm that a separation of one state from another is a decision taken in consensus with the whole nation. The problems with just a free for all are too obvious and uncontrollable - for example how big does a movement have to be for their wishes to be valid, can a single town not decide to pack up? Could an oil rich region of a poor state with a small part of the population not just leave and use the wealth for themselves? The potential for conflict and chaos is just to high for it to be up to local authorities what they would want to do in this regard.

    For me that is all secondary however in this situation as the poll was just too flawed in too many ways to be taken seriously. If that were not the case I would have reservations, for the reasons above, but would not bother even arguing with the people that support this action as I would care so little.

    And I disagree that there are "no rights" for such entities, they just cannot take the decision alone. Which makes sense given that it may have a dramatic impact on other people in the state not in the region.


  • #306
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Perhaps if your ideas were not based on wild assumptions, such as that the US is special in using moral language in foreign policy, they would not be so forgettable.

    I'm still curious if you have many examples of a country conceding the moral high ground in a situation, given that when the US claims it is seems so out of the ordinary to you?


    Using moral language, while being as down and dirty as anyone else.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    As in you see it as something that is lost, not something that is gained? I agree.

    If Bush had cancelled the Iraq war before it began no one would say "Well the US DIDNT invade Iraq, so Russia has no right to invade Crimea" or at least, none of the people claiming this is all legitimate would acknowledge it as a good argument.

    I'm still getting my head around the fact the biggest defence for all this is that the West invaded countries. They then go on to say how bad that was, usually, or imply it. Then point out the hypocrisy. That so many people can do this, including Putin and people jaws are not hitting the floor is very irritating.

    Now THAT is re-writing history!


  • #308
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Is that not the position of international law, however? We have created a system by which the state is the unit on which international and many other relations occur, that these must be to some extent stable is imperative. Were it merely possible for any group to decide among themselves that they would like there own state the obvious problems that would ensue are obvious.

    I can think of many situations where the parent nations go ahead would not be required, however they would be exceptions rather than the rule.

    For me it certainly was how far it fell short of democratic norms, but I think your right that how others reacted more from the perspective you describe, I don't think this was a good idea but I see why. Far more countries have an interest in maintaining the state as the unit at which decisions like this are made than care about how democratic or legitimate a particular referendum was. Most notably, perhaps, China.

    Do you not believe it was a land grab? I think that was part of the motivation, another was to punish the Ukrainian government for turning from their sphere and yet another was to send a message to others in the region (many of which have substantial Russian minorities) that this is a possibility.

    The problems with just a free for all are too obvious and uncontrollable - for example how big does a movement have to be for their wishes to be valid, can a single town not decide to pack up? Could an oil rich region of a poor state with a small part of the population not just leave and By and large, however, I think it is both preferential and the norm that a separation of one state from another is a decision taken in consensus with the whole nation. use the wealth for themselves? The potential for conflict and chaos is just to high for it to be up to local authorities what they would want to do in this regard.

    For me that is all secondary however in this situation as the poll was just too flawed in too many ways to be taken seriously. If that were not the case I would have reservations, for the reasons above, but would not bother even arguing with the people that support this action as I would care so little.

    And I disagree that there are "no rights" for such entities, they just cannot take the decision alone. Which makes sense given that it may have a dramatic impact on other people in the state not in the region.

    I note that the language has now moved from "secession" to "invasion". Quite a bit of detail omitted there.

    So, as you seem eager to engage on the substantive issue, I offer you one more chance to comment on the contradictions that applied to western (most of) policies and actions on Kosovo and those they are now displaying on Crimea.

    Of the two, Crimea had by a considerable margin, the stronger case for secession but the response could not be more different. Compare and contrast please.


  • #309
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I think that on the contrary, you've lost track of said "point" entirely. In the message I responded to, you were going on about Ukrainian constitutional changes in 1995 and 1999 and asking if Ukraine "agreed" to such an arrangement. I corrected and informed you on these matters. Your reply veers off without regard to the actual content of what I said.

    You see this is the problem.
    People are forming opinions while exhibiting an appalling lack of understanding of the facts.

    I'll try to simplify this for you but you really must try harder.
    It's not my job to educate you.


    1. The claim was made that June 92 was the 'restore point'.
    2. That's cannot be the case, because it would require restoration of a Ukrainian constitution which no longer exists (abolished in 98).
    3. Therefore May 92 was the 'restore point' on offer, which is a unilateral declaration of independence, and didn't require any participation on the Ukranian side (and which was also the 'restore point' used in 1994)
    4. Regardless, there was no status quo option on offer. (as agreed by recedite himself)


    NB::
    That is why the following graph shows a different colour (Blue) for the 'status quo' option.
    And Green, for the new option.
    http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif


    Now I don't mind whatever infantile claims people make in the thread, people can waffle and spin to their heart's content, it's not influencing anyone anyway.
    But there are clear and undeniable facts, and they have been established, so unless someone can demonstrate that in fact June '92 was the 'restore point', (Given that I was the one who had to translate the source document from Russian to English for you - I can confirm you will not be able to do that.) then I won't be bothering to comment further on the various 'opinion(s)' in this thread.


    The difference between the two 1992 unilateral "constitutions" is whether Crimea is part of Ukraine. The ballot option includes the phrase "status of Crimea as part of Ukraine". I don't see what could be clearer than that.

    No it's not.
    Yet again, you are factually incorrect, and forming opinions based on fallacies.

    Here is the fact
    i)5 May 1992 - parliament declared Crimea independent
    ii) 6 May 1992 - new sentence into constitution - declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

    ii) In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]

    Can it be made any clearer to you?

    May 92 = Independence (and read Recedite's post where he correctly equated it to 'External Association', Devalera style)
    June 92 = Autonomy

    If you can demonstrate this to be factually incorrect - please, be my guest.
    But no more 'opinion', thanks.
    Are you View's backup group?
    :rolleyes:
    Comments such as that do not belong in an adult discussion.
    Attack the post, not the poster, eh?
    I've dealt with this point in detail, and what seems like half a dozen times by now. See this post.
    I didn't bother to read it.
    It's just another opinion formed on a lack of understanding of the facts.
    It's of no consequence to anyone.
    Unless you can provide evidence that anyone voted, or wanted to vote, on the basis you describe, then sure, by all means! But hardly in the way you seek to imply.

    NB:
    The reason there is no blue on the referendum graph, is because that option is not available.
    The options are I) Yellow and II) Green.

    http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif

    p.s. please save the spin on wheter it's a blue-ish green or a greeny blue, I'm not interested.


  • #310
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the Crimean parliament were asserting their full independence, ie that they were not "a part of Ukraine". But following threats from Kiev, they retrenched from that position and amended the 1992 Constitution to include the words "as a part of Ukraine". So this is a lesser status than full independence, while being the best that they thought they could "get away with" at the time.
    In a sense this is very similar to the treaty that Michael Collins signed with the British; not a full independent republic, but an autonomous free state. A practical solution that allows for peace, and might lead to something more in time, if that is what the people want, going forward.

    It is plain from the wording on the ballot paper that was the restore point on offer. The text specifically included the words "a part of Ukraine".


  • #311
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the Crimean parliament were asserting their full independence, ie that they were not "a part of Ukraine". But following threats from Kiev, they retrenched from that position and amended the 1992 Constitution to include the words "as a part of Ukraine". So this is a lesser status than full independence, while being the best that they thought they could "get away with" at the time.
    In a sense this is very similar to the treaty that Michael Collins signed with the British; not a full independent republic, but an autonomous free state. A practical solution that allows for peace, and might lead to something more in time, if that is what the people want, going forward.

    Agree.
    It is plain from the wording on the ballot paper that was the restore point on offer. The text specifically included the words "a part of Ukraine".


    Incorrect.
    i)5 May 1992 - parliament declared Crimea independent
    ii) 6 May 1992 - new sentence into constitution - declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

    ii) In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Would you agree that the restore point lies between these two;
    ii) 6 May 1992 - new sentence into constitution - declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

    ii) In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]

    Crimea as an autonomous republic within Ukraine. Having less independence than they originally wanted, but more than Kiev really wanted to give them.


  • #313
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    This is a fine legal debate lads but is anyone really suggesting that many (or any) of the 96% voters who opted for joining Russia would have voted otherwise if the wording on the alternative "restore point" had been different?


  • #314
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    No, but its important to establish that the voters did have an alternative.
    They could have voted for some (admittedly difficult to pin down exactly because the goalposts were always shifting) "autonomous state within Ukraine". It was not a "yes and yes" referendum for "join Russia".


  • #315
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    recedite wrote: »
    No, but its important to establish that the voters did have an alternative.
    They could have voted for some (admittedly difficult to pin down exactly because the goalposts were always shifting) "autonomous state within Ukraine". It was not a "yes and yes" referendum for "join Russia".

    That is pretty obvious and using the ballot's wording to de-legitimise the whole referendum is a bit desperate in my view. It can be argued that holding the vote at that time was overly hasty but the main criticism seems to be that having a referendum at all was wrong.
    That can be debated but when you get that sort of overwhelming expression in one direction, you can't claim to be a democrat and refuse to take it into account.
    Crimea's very existence as part of Ukraine is so recent and so questionable in how it came about that, with everything else that has happened, a plebescite looks to me to be absolutely justified.


  • #316
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    Would you agree that the restore point lies between these two;


    Crimea as an autonomous republic within Ukraine. Having less independence than they originally wanted, but more than Kiev really wanted to give them.

    No I wouldn't.

    You're asking me to interpret the ballot in a way that suits your desire.
    I'm only interested in what the actual verifiable truth is, despite having a greater vested interest in a benign Russian portrayal than any other individual participating in this thread.

    I'm not sure that constitutional law works in the same fashion as Windows XP, with restore points and so on.
    But even if it did, that would have invalidated the June 92 constitution anyway, since Crimea reverted to the May 92 constitution in 1994, thereby destroying the June 92 restore point.

    Crimea has twice offered to revert to the May 92 constitution and NEVER offered to revert to the June 92 constituion.

    The May 92 Constitution does not require a Ukrainian counterpart.
    The June 92 Constitution does (which no longer exists).

    Aside from the fact that this ambiguity was clearly and deliberately built into the ballot sheet (and consequently violates OSCE standards), the supporting evidence where both the Crimean Junta and the accompanying Referendum propaganda depicted their Ukrainian counterparts as fascists, completely eliminates the notion that the Status quo was either considered or on offer, by the Crimean Junta.


  • #317
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    First Up wrote: »
    That is pretty obvious and using the ballot's wording to de-legitimise the whole referendum is a bit desperate in my view.

    You don't realise it has a legal definition?
    In Constitutional Law, statutes that contain ambiguous language are void for vagueness. The language of such laws is considered so obscure and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine from a reading what the law purports to command or prohibit. This statutory ambiguity deprives a person of the notice requirement of Due Process of Law, and, therefore, renders the statute unconstitutional.

    And precedent:
    Clarity Act

    The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question.
    Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.



    First Up wrote: »
    It can be argued that holding the vote at that time was overly hasty but the main criticism seems to be that having a referendum at all was wrong.

    I've already made it clear that I'm in favour of Crimea's democratic right to reunify with Russia, provided the referendum is legal and democratic.

    Russia suffered 31 terrorist atrocities last year.
    In my view it's naive to assume that territorial aggrandizement which subverts the legal & democratic process, will not produce a similar outcome which we have seen the world over (including on this island), not to mention the fact that Russia has fought 2 internationally publicized wars against separatists in the last 2 decades.
    First Up wrote: »
    That can be debated but when you get that sort of overwhelming expression in one direction, you can't claim to be a democrat and refuse to take it into account.

    C'mon, that fallacy didn't even require thought to refute:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26483940
    North Korea's Kim Jong-un in 'unanimous poll win'
    First Up wrote: »
    Crimea's very existence as part of Ukraine is so recent and so questionable in how it came about that, with everything else that has happened, a plebescite looks to me to be absolutely justified.

    I agree with you, as does most of the rest of the world.
    But a legal and democratic one - that's the catch;)


  • #318
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    So if I follow your argument, you agree that the Crimeans should decide and you don't strongly dispute that a majority favours re-joining Russia. You just don't like how the recent referendum was conducted.
    OK - for the sake of argument let's start from there, apportioning blame a you see fit. So what do you propose happens now?


  • #319
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    First Up wrote: »
    So if I follow your argument, you agree that the Crimeans should decide
    Yes
    and you don't strongly dispute that a majority favours re-joining Russia.
    I think it's a strong majority, my guess is 70%
    You just don't like how the recent referendum was conducted.
    Precisely.
    And the Realpolitik is that this is the only issue which concerns the rest of the CIS (who have started building up their armies) , or the EU (who have too much to lose).

    The US have their own agenda, but if it's above board, then there is nothing they can say.
    OK - for the sake of argument let's start from there, apportioning blame a you see fit. So what do you propose happens now?

    Rerun the referendum.
    Clear and unambiguous choices.
    No Russian troops at the border, No Western Troops at the border. Bring in the UN if nec.
    OCSE monitor the referendum.

    If Crimea chooses to join Russia (which it will), then Russia cancels the Ukrainian gas debt in return for the assets it forfeits.

    Russia keeps Crimea and doesn't interfere with the rest of Eastern Ukraine.


  • #320
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Yes


    I think it's a strong majority, my guess is 70%


    Precisely.
    And the Realpolitik is that this is the only issue which concerns the rest of the CIS (who have started building up their armies) , or the EU (who have too much to lose).

    The US have their own agenda, but if it's above board, then there is nothing they can say.



    Rerun the referendum.
    Clear and unambiguous choices.
    No Russian troops at the border, No Western Troops at the border. Bring in the UN if nec.
    OCSE monitor the referendum.

    If Crimea chooses to join Russia (which it will), then Russia cancels the Ukrainian gas debt in return for the assets it forfeits.

    Russia keeps Crimea and doesn't interfere with the rest of Eastern Ukraine.

    That wouldn't be a bad outcome. It would be nice if the showboating, contrived outrage and macho strutting (on all sides) could subside to allow it to happen.


  • #321
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Clarity Act

    The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question.

    Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

    The problem is that you have used common law examples for a civil law problem. The Clarity Act is a common law statute and the conta proferentem rule is a common law doctrine...Russia and all of the post-Soviet space ascribe to civil law, not common law.
    Russia suffered 31 terrorist atrocities last year.
    In my view it's naive to assume that territorial aggrandizement which subverts the legal & democratic process, will not produce a similar outcome which we have seen the world over (including on this island), not to mention the fact that Russia has fought 2 internationally publicized wars against separatists in the last 2 decades.

    The second war was arguably fought mostly against wahhabis, but I agree with your assessment of the first Chechen war.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Crimea has twice offered to revert to the May 92 constitution and NEVER offered to revert to the June 92 constituion.

    The May 92 Constitution does not require a Ukrainian counterpart.
    The June 92 Constitution does (which no longer exists).
    I haven't heard of any second Crimean Constitution in 1992. Have you any info on this June constitution? I think the "compromise agreement" reached in June was more about what Crimea couldn't do than what it could do. A constitution is all about what you can do.

    BTW the speed of implementing the recent referendum was not necessarily a bad thing. The situation where two sets of troops were in a stand-off (Ukrainian and Russian) could not continue for long. The Russians needed a democratic mandate from the people before they could assume command of those military bases. Its not like a normal election where the previous administration just carries on as normal until the new one takes over.


  • #323
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    I note that the language has now moved from "secession" to "invasion". Quite a bit of detail omitted there.

    You don't think it was both? What is foreign troops entering another soverign nation en mass without that nations consent other than an invasion? The referendum was too flawed for the following annexation to be anything but from a legal perspective.
    First Up wrote: »
    So, as you seem eager to engage on the substantive issue, I offer you one more chance to comment on the contradictions that applied to western (most of) policies and actions on Kosovo and those they are now displaying on Crimea.

    I believe everyone has engaged with this dozens of times. If you still think of it as a major issue, or a valid reason for your own hypocrisy or Russia's actions then so be it, I don't really care and am sick of saying the same thing to receive the same inane response.
    First Up wrote: »
    Of the two, Crimea had by a considerable margin, the stronger case for secession but the response could not be more different. Compare and contrast please.

    You seem to believe so, the majority of those that do not use RT to get their daily dose of "the facts" or blindly follow the Kremlin line (one and the same?) disagree.


  • #324
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    This is a fine legal debate lads but is anyone really suggesting that many (or any) of the 96% voters who opted for joining Russia would have voted otherwise if the wording on the alternative "restore point" had been different?

    That they did not have a clear alternative, along with the many other issues with the vote, including the fact we have no independent way of even confirming that figure makes the numbers who voted one way or another in it irrelevant. The same can be said for many "elections" all over the world. You can play all you want with guesses how people might have voted in N Korea might have voted had they a clear and obvious choice, free press and freedom from threat but because those things are or are not present when they should be the fact that 99% of people voted for a particular party candidate becomes irrelevant because the vote is so very flawed to begin with. The same applies here.

    I'm curious if anyone sees all this as legitimate who has a "normal" view of the West - ie not convinced it is an evil conglomeration that must be stopped, a great force for destruction in the world that is often first in line to condemn almost any action taken by them?

    Because I have the distinct feeling that, like so many other international issues people with this position on this situation are taking the position because of their broader ideology - the individual facts of the case are only there to be played with and/or ignored, that they would support it is a forgone conclusion from the crisis' outset, everything that happens is merely slotted into the pre fabricated narrative.


  • #325
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Clarity Act

    The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question.

    Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

    The problem is that you have used common law examples for a civil law problem. The Clarity Act is a common law statute and the conta proferentem rule is a common law doctrine...Russia and all of the post-Soviet space ascribe to civil law, not common law.



    The second war was arguably fought mostly against wahhabis, but I agree with your assessment of the first Chechen war.

    From a legal perspective you are obviously right, but would you not agree that from a logical and even moral perspective the massive ambiguity massively damages the validity of the vote, and is just another nail in it's coffin? Or, at the very least, raises yet another question along with the host of others?


  • #326
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    You don't think it was both? What is foreign troops entering another soverign nation en mass without that nations consent other than an invasion? The referendum was too flawed for the following annexation to be anything but from a legal perspective.



    I believe everyone has engaged with this dozens of times. If you still think of it as a major issue, or a valid reason for your own hypocrisy or Russia's actions then so be it, I don't really care and am sick of saying the same thing to receive the same inane response.



    You seem to believe so, the majority of those that do not use RT to get their daily dose of "the facts" or blindly follow the Kremlin line (one and the same?) disagree.

    You haven't said a word about Kosovo anywhere. You are still welcome to explain why that secession was right and Crimea's isn't. You might be sick of me asking the question but you certainly can't be sick of answering it.


  • #327
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    That is pretty obvious and using the ballot's wording to de-legitimise the whole referendum is a bit desperate in my view. It can be argued that holding the vote at that time was overly hasty but the main criticism seems to be that having a referendum at all was wrong.
    That can be debated but when you get that sort of overwhelming expression in one direction, you can't claim to be a democrat and refuse to take it into account.
    Crimea's very existence as part of Ukraine is so recent and so questionable in how it came about that, with everything else that has happened, a plebescite looks to me to be absolutely justified.

    Not from many people here, anyway, but you may be correct for the basis of the argument on the international stage (ie that it should not be held at all without Ukrainian gov consent). But here I have only seen people call the actual handling of the polling being massively questioned - for many it being so flawed as to be well into the "near worthless" territory.

    Again, democracy requires far more than being able to tick a box for the vast majority of people.

    There are many outstanding arguments over territory left as a hang over from both the Soviet Union and (an enormous amount) from European colonialism. From a broader perspective this quick invasion-quick poll- quick annexation sets an awful precedent with how to deal with them all. It is a near miracle this has not become a blood bath already.


  • #328
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    You haven't said a word about Kosovo anywhere. You are still welcome to explain why that secession was right and Crimea's isn't. You might be sick of me asking the question but you certainly can't be sick of answering it.

    You only asked me there. Previously you made vague references to Western hypocrisy. So, no, I think your confused. Of course, before I answer, why would your hypocrisy or Russia's be any less obvious if they are so similar, as you claim, and they support one but not the other? Even Putin made this laughable mistake in his speech - stating how similar the situations were and that the West were hypocritical for supporting Kosovo but not Crimea, all the whilst doing THE EXACT SAME THING. People actually cheered. Intellectually pathetic.

    To answer your question I don't really have a position on it, I didn't follow it enough at the time or now. But as I've stated above for me the question was not whether or not people can ultimately vote on their regions future more were the systems and atmosphere in place that allows the decision to be made in a democratic fashion (again, democracy is about more than ticking a box).


  • #329
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    You only asked me there. Previously you made vague references to Western hypocrisy. So, no, I think your confused. Of course, before I answer, why would your hypocrisy or Russia's be any less obvious if they are so similar, as you claim, and they support one but not the other? Even Putin made this laughable mistake in his speech - stating how similar the situations were and that the West were hypocritical for supporting Kosovo but not Crimea, all the whilst doing THE EXACT SAME THING. People actually cheered. Intellectually pathetic.

    To answer your question I don't really have a position on it, I didn't follow it enough at the time or now. But as I've stated above for me the question was not whether or not people can ultimately vote on their regions future more were the systems and atmosphere in place that allows the decision to be made in a democratic fashion (again, democracy is about more than ticking a box).

    I mentioned Kosovo in my first post in this forum and frequently since. It is a legitimate question, no matter who asks it, why Kosovo's secession from Serbia should be endorsed and supported militarily, while Crimea's is condemned. It is reasonable to condemn both but not just one of them. If your argument is based on moral values, then you need to be able to apply them consistently. Saying you didn't follow it is not an argument.


  • #330
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    I haven't heard of any second Crimean Constitution in 1992. Have you any info on this June constitution?

    I'm not aware of a 2nd constitution.

    The BBC have referred to the original constitution in May, then an amended constitution in June. (See 'Second Option')
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797
    This was also my understanding of it.
    I think the "compromise agreement" reached in June was more about what Crimea couldn't do than what it could do. A constitution is all about what you can do.

    A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.
    It's not binary.
    See: the 8th amendment of the Irish constitution.

    BTW the speed of implementing the recent referendum was not necessarily a bad thing. The situation where two sets of troops were in a stand-off (Ukrainian and Russian) could not continue for long. The Russians needed a democratic mandate from the people before they could assume command of those military bases. Its not like a normal election where the previous administration just carries on as normal until the new one takes over.

    The Ukraine asked the UN to assist in establishing Crimea as a demilitarized zone.


    A similar situation existed between Kosovo and Serbia. I'm sure you're already aware of the Cherry picking in the Russian media with regard to Kosovo.

    In any case, I'm speculating, but I'm doubtful there would have been any bloodshed as the Ukranians have withdrawn from all positions under threat from opposition forces in order to avoid bloodshed.

    Even The Tatars were also ordered to stop protesting against the referendum by the Ukrainian government, as it was feared they would fuel propaganda in the Russian Media.
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303795904579431290464167718
    an estimated 100 Crimean Tatars who follow the puritanical, militant branch of Islam common to adherents of al Qaeda are currently fighting in Syria, according to Mairbek Vatchegayev, a Paris-based analyst from the Jamestown Foundation in Washington.

    Mr. Dzhemilev said about a dozen of them have offered their services to the Tatar leadership, known as the majlis, to defend against the Russian occupiers.

    , groups are setting up encrypted communication lines in case a quick evacuation—or guerrilla action—become necessary to prevent another "surgun"—the Tatar word for the Soviet-era ethnic-cleansing of their community.

    Crimean Tatars say they have also been victim to an increasing number of attacks, including firebombings of mosques and Tatar-owned businesses as well as the desecration of Tatar monuments and graves.

    Some of these attacks were organized openly by Crimea's nationalist party called Russia Unity, according to local and national human-rights organizations. The leader of the party, Sergei Aksyonov, was named Crimean prime minister last week after Russian forces seized control of the peninsula.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    I mentioned Kosovo in my first post in this forum and frequently since. It is a legitimate question, no matter who asks it, why Kosovo's secession from Serbia should be endorsed and supported militarily, while Crimea's is condemned. It is reasonable to condemn both but not just one of them. If your argument is based on moral values, then you need to be able to apply them consistently. Saying you didn't follow it is not an argument.

    Sure, but you implied you had asked the question of me many times before. You had not. I don't usually read the many posts someone made before when addressing a single one.

    Given that one of the few things I know about Kosovo's separation is that it's people were directly targeted for murder by the Serbian authorities I'm not exactly seeing why they must be treated identically given that even with my parse knowledge I'm aware of that massive difference, and that things inevitably become even more different as complexity is introduced I would not doubt there are many other.

    It's not? I'm afraid it is, you can have a position on pretty much anything without having a position on every single event in the past that is similar. Given that you do not know about every war, do you find your position on Iraq's validity has any less weight, especially given that the values I used to judge the situation I have made entirely clear.

    Given that even if what you say is true, that the two cases are almost identical and therefore everyone should take the same position on both or have their position be completely invalidated (a strange presumption, given that there really is no international affair that countries would say "well this is similar to a previous situation, so we will take the same tack regardless of national interests) would, regardless of which side is "correct", be applicable to both parties involved in this case equally and therefore a moot point.

    What is your ultimate point, regardless? Say the West and Russia decide what constitutes a valid succession based upon the particular details of a given case, why is this important to your position?


  • #332
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    The Tatars were also ordered to stop protesting[/URL] against the referendum by the Ukrainian government, as it was feared they would fuel propaganda in the Russian Media.

    After skimming RT a few times to get the official Kremlin line (or the line they would like people to believe) on various issues I'd say this was entirely pointless - they don't need an event to create their propaganda, if nothing is happening outright speculation and editorializing is more than enough. Given their target audience desperately WANTS to believe what they say, it's all that is needed.


  • #333
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    SamHarris wrote: »
    After skimming RT a few times to get the official Kremlin line (or the line they would like people to believe) on various issues I'd say this was entirely pointless - they don't need an event to create their propaganda, if nothing is happening outright speculation and editorializing is more than enough. Given their target audience desperately WANTS to believe what they say, it's all that is needed.

    Too true, unfortunately.
    Andrei Zubov, a professor at a top Moscow university linked to the diplomatic service, wrote a column in the respected Vedomosti newspaper on Saturday comparing Putin's potential annexation of Crimea with the Anschluss of Austria and Nazi Germany in 1938.

    On Tuesday, he said the university had fired him for the comparison.


  • #334
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Sure, but you implied you had asked the question of me many times before. You had not. I don't usually read the many posts someone made before when addressing a single one.

    Given that one of the few things I know about Kosovo's separation is that it's people were directly targeted for murder by the Serbian authorities I'm not exactly seeing why they must be treated identically given that even with my parse knowledge I'm aware of that massive difference, and that things inevitably become even more different as complexity is introduced I would not doubt there are many other.

    It's not? I'm afraid it is, you can have a position on pretty much anything without having a position on every single event in the past that is similar. Given that you do not know about every war, do you find your position on Iraq's validity has any less weight, especially given that the values I used to judge the situation I have made entirely clear.

    Given that even if what you say is true, that the two cases are almost identical and therefore everyone should take the same position on both or have their position be completely invalidated (a strange presumption, given that there really is no international affair that countries would say "well this is similar to a previous situation, so we will take the same tack regardless of national interests) would, regardless of which side is "correct", be applicable to both parties involved in this case equally and therefore a moot point.

    What is your ultimate point, regardless? Say the West and Russia decide what constitutes a valid succession based upon the particular details of a given case, why is this important to your position?

    I suggested a while back that you read my posts more carefully before jumping to conclusions about what I'm saying or where I'm coming from. You could still do that.

    The people who were first targeted for murder in Kosovo were the police and Serbs who were driven in their thousands from ethnic areas and now live as IDPs in enclaves north of the Ibar River or in Serbia proper. I described that in earlier posts too. This was done by the KLA - a criminal outfit posing as freedom fighters and abetted by freelance jihadists (and armed with weapons looted from Albanian stores). The Serb military response was over the top but even NATO acknowledge that the KLA started it.

    I've outlined my ultimate point several times previously. Feel free to read it.


  • #335
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    SamHarris wrote: »
    From a legal perspective you are obviously right, but would you not agree that from a logical and even moral perspective the massive ambiguity massively damages the validity of the vote, and is just another nail in it's coffin? Or, at the very least, raises yet another question along with the host of others?

    Maybe it is immoral. I would consider it immoral if, indeed, it were a serious violation intended to trick people. But I was simply correcting that the cited examples were common law examples from a different jurisdiction. They might serve a persuasive purpose, though. Nevertheless, I'm not well-versed enough on civil law (never mind Russian/Ukrainian law) to know if it has a "void by vagueness" clause. Even then, what law would apply here? Russian? Ukrainian? Crimean?

    As I've said before, the Crimeans have every right to rejoin Russia if they desire as such. As long as its done with the consent of the majority, that's grand.

    In my opinion, Crimea would be better off in Russia. Money would pour in and restore Crimea to its old touristic glory, which would be good for Crimeans and Russian tourists.

    But this armed occupation is offensive to international law and previously concluded agreements. Its an obviously cynical geopolitical ploy by Moscow. Moscow has been going about this crisis just sticking middle fingers up in all directions.

    (Regarding RT, the propaganda it has been spewing out is absurd but it is not surprising considering their coverage of the South Ossetian war)

    Nevertheless, some sanctions will be placed, some symbolic diplomatic rebukes will be made...then the crisis will de-escalate and those sanctions and diplomatic rebukes will be reversed because nobody in the west wants a bitter and hostile Russia and this delicate moment of time.
    Andrei Zubov, a professor at a top Moscow university linked to the diplomatic service, wrote a column in the respected Vedomosti newspaper on Saturday comparing Putin's potential annexation of Crimea with the Anschluss of Austria and Nazi Germany in 1938.

    On Tuesday, he said the university had fired him for the comparison.

    That's likely because the comparison he made is frankly offensive.


  • #336
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    I'm not aware of a 2nd constitution.
    Well then, how can you say Option 2 on the ballot paper was unclear, or that there was no option to remain within Ukraine. The option referred to the restoration of "the 1992 constitution... under Ukraine".
    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    The Ukraine asked the UN to assist in establishing Crimea as a demilitarized zone.
    Its a bit rich asking that now, after the people have voted to join the RF, and Russian troops have replaced Ukrainian troops in the barracks.

    Its a pity they didn't think of doing that earlier, before when the whole thing escalated. In an ideal world, the referendum would have been held under UN auspices. But that could not have happened because;

    a) Ukraine would not have ceded sovereignty by handing control to the UN.

    b)The UN is powerless because of the 5 permanent (and undemocratic) members of the Security Council. Obama vetoes any UN proposal that might benefit Putin, and Putin vetoes anything that might be advantageous to Obama.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    Well then, how can you say Option 2 on the ballot paper was unclear, or that there was no option to remain within Ukraine. The option referred to the restoration of "the 1992 constitution... under Ukraine".

    Because they're one constitution...

    May is the original version
    June is the amended version

    The DeValera constitution has been amended 33 times...

    If you ask someone to restore the Devalera constitution, how does one determine which of the 33 iterations you prefer?

    If you ask to restore the Collins constitution, it's unambiguous in that you don't mean the Devalera constitution.

    This is starting to get silly and I feel it's well beyond the point of straw grasping at this stage.

    Thanks for the civilised debate tho, it was interesting.


  • #338
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Because they're one constitution...

    May is the original version
    June is the amended version

    The DeValera constitution has been amended 33 times...

    If you ask someone to restore the Devalera constitution, how does one determine which of the 33 iterations you prefer?
    If they said the 1937 De Valera Constitution, that would narrow it down.
    If there was a referendum here tomorrow, and the choice was for either;
    a) Rejoin the UK
    b) Restore the Republic under the 1937 Constitution
    Its fair to say there is no status quo option, but you can't truthfully say both options are to join UK.

    Also, the 1992 Crimean Constitution existed in two main forms; the original one of 5th May just after their declaration of independence and the amended one of 6th May (under duress) which inserted the declaration that Crimea was a part of Ukraine. The wording on the 2014 ballot paper only matches the second one.
    Further negotiations in June 1992 downgraded the constitution and rendered it irrelevant. Nobody thinks this option was on the 2014 ballot paper. But if it was, it is even more pro-Ukrainian than the 6th May Constitution.


  • #339
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    If they said the 1937 De Valera Constitution, that would narrow it down.
    If there was a referendum here tomorrow, and the choice was for either;
    a) Rejoin the UK
    b) Restore the Republic under the 1937 Constitution
    Its fair to say there is no status quo option, but you can't truthfully say both options are to join UK.

    Also, the 1992 Crimean Constitution existed in two main forms; the original one of 5th May just after their declaration of independence and the amended one of 6th May (under duress) which inserted the declaration that Crimea was a part of Ukraine. The wording on the 2014 ballot paper only matches the second one.
    Further negotiations in June 1992 downgraded the constitution and rendered it irrelevant. Nobody thinks this option was on the 2014 ballot paper. But if it was, it is even more pro-Ukrainian than the 6th May Constitution.

    Well then we are at last in agreement.
    May was the restore point, not June as you argued previously.

    The implication then being that the Crimean junta can then unilaterally rejoin Russia without plebiscite.


  • #340
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Rerun the referendum.
    Clear and unambiguous choices.
    No Russian troops at the border, No Western Troops at the border. Bring in the UN if nec.
    OCSE monitor the referendum.
    I don't see either side agreeing to that anytime soon, because Russia would reject it on the basis of "what we have, we hold", and the Kyivan side and cheerleaders would reject it as being "illegal" on any such terms. But in the longer run, it might be a way to "de-freeze" it as a conflict (and maybe even to resolve others in the same category).
    If Crimea chooses to join Russia (which it will), then Russia cancels the Ukrainian gas debt in return for the assets it forfeits.
    I'm not sure there's any generally agreed way of account "assets" in such cases as against "liabilities" (pensioners whose stipend's now being increased, etc), but such would be not-illogical bargaining chips, at least.


  • #341
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    You see this is the problem.
    People are forming opinions while exhibiting an appalling lack of understanding of the facts.

    I'll try to simplify this for you but you really must try harder.
    It's not my job to educate you.

    And much, much more in the same vein, then followed by:
    :rolleyes:
    Comments such as that do not belong in an adult discussion.
    Attack the post, not the poster, eh?
    Tell you what, maybe make at least a half-hearted attempt at following your own advice, before presuming to offer it (at all, much less half so stridently) to others? Just an idea. Off-Topic Ad Homs for Relevance and Politeness isn't a great ticket to be standing on.

    The few parts of your post that weren't Mere Abuse were arguing against points, once again, entirely unrelated to anything I said (whether they were related to anything recedite said is besides the point). I'll spare the thread going through your entire post to point-for-point it as one, the other, or indeed both.
    (Given that I was the one who had to translate the source document from Russian to English for you - I can confirm you will not be able to do that.)
    Eh, not given, because not what happened. My browser history tells me I'd sorted to the obvious recourse of "google it" long before recedite even asked this. Perhaps you're simply not quite able to get the concept that recedite and I are distinct entities, and that baiting and switching between things one of us said and what the other might think doesn't make any sense whatsoever? And is a very annoying way to argue, to boot.
    I didn't bother to read it.
    It's just another opinion formed on a lack of understanding of the facts.
    It's of no consequence to anyone.
    Well, that's helpful, isn't it. Refusing to read something and expressing a dogmatic opinion on it. Good job I merely linked to a rational exposition for you to ignore, rather than wasting any additional effort for you to similarly toss aside with great force (if no actual thought).
    http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif
    I presume when I referred you to 538's piece on Crimean opinion poll analysis you just tossed that on the "didn't read it" pile too.

    As (unlike View, say) you appear to believe that the "posterior probable opinion" in Crimea likely is in favour of union of Russia, what truly mystifies me is why you're so insistent on this point. (Though equally, to those that believe otherwise, if Russia "fixed" the referendum, I likewise don't really see the urgency in arguing they "fixed it twice", through mandating the outcome and defrauding or coercing the vote.) Yes, it's fairly dodgy, as I said about a week ago. But it's at best a secondary issue, and more realistically, one that's made entirely result by the actual (or at least "apparent") result.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Is that not the position of international law, however? We have created a system by which the state is the unit on which international and many other relations occur, that these must be to some extent stable is imperative. Were it merely possible for any group to decide among themselves that they would like there own state the obvious problems that would ensue are obvious.
    It depends how seriously you take the concept of "international law", ultimately. Lacking "international police force, judge, jury", it's pretty thin substance. What you describe is the "received norm", but the frequency when it comes to brass tacks, (self-)exceptions are made makes it hard to credit as a genuine universal principle.
    I can think of many situations where the parent nations go ahead would not be required, however they would be exceptions rather than the rule.
    Are you talking about where that power has already been explicitly ceded to the sub-unit by its parent, or are you saying this is where the state is deemed (by its "peers", or some thereof) to no longer be "legitimate"?
    For me it certainly was how far it fell short of democratic norms, but I think your right that how others reacted more from the perspective you describe, I don't think this was a good idea but I see why. Far more countries have an interest in maintaining the state as the unit at which decisions like this are made than care about how democratic or legitimate a particular referendum was. Most notably, perhaps, China.
    Of course: international law essentially resembles a bunch of iron-age clans, squabbling with each other, agreeing to respect each other's prerogatives and integrity, and observing that to the extent that it suits them, all the while fecking away each other's cattle when no-one is looking. (I recommend the Kinsella translation.) It's axiomatic in the "club of sovereign states" that recognition of the rights of the sovereign state is, at least notionally, paramount.
    Do you not believe it was a land grab? I think that was part of the motivation, another was to punish the Ukrainian government for turning from their sphere and yet another was to send a message to others in the region (many of which have substantial Russian minorities) that this is a possibility.
    I think if you're Putin, you largely see it as redressing a historic wrong and assorted slights to the more recent position of Russia, and something that goes down very well at home with "the electoral base". (He does have occasional elections at home to "fix", too, after all.) If you're a pro-Russian Crimean, you're likely driven mostly by a mixture of fear and resentment over the shenanigans in Kyiv, and "never waste a crisis" opportunity to take an option that political realities hadn't really left on the table.
    By and large, however, I think it is both preferential and the norm that a separation of one state from another is a decision taken in consensus with the whole nation. The problems with just a free for all are too obvious and uncontrollable - for example how big does a movement have to be for their wishes to be valid, can a single town not decide to pack up? Could an oil rich region of a poor state with a small part of the population not just leave and use the wealth for themselves? The potential for conflict and chaos is just to high for it to be up to local authorities what they would want to do in this regard.
    I'm sure I've already said, but it definitely bears repeating: I'm not arguing for an absolute right of self-determination. I think it should be acknowledged as a legitimate aspiration, but as a putative right, it and territorial integrity are utterly at odds, and politicians are all-too-eager to obfuscate that, the better to argue for the one, or the other, essentially arbitrarily. Or more to the point, from what's at best a self-centred "values" bias, or at worst a nakedly self-interested geopolitical one.

    Crimea's history and geography does argue to me that its claim on self-determination is at least towards the upper end of the plausibility and legitimacy scales. Hence I think it's at least important to unpick the various arguments that variously a) Crimea is an autonomous territory so "obviously" has such a right, but this vote was fundamentally fraudulent and does not reflect any "true preference" of the peninsula's populace, b) as above, but Russia "framed a guilty man", and accidentally got the right result, which should nonetheless be invalidated on that basis, and c) Crimea can hush and do what Kyiv tells it. This thread has seen a mixture of all three, but the trend of western "diplomacy" has been largely one of c), but using elements of the narratives of a) and b) as "distracting colour".


  • #343
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    And much, much more in the same vein, then followed by:


    Tell you what, maybe make at least a half-hearted attempt at following your own advice, before presuming to offer it (at all, much less half so stridently) to others? Just an idea. Off-Topic Ad Homs for Relevance and Politeness isn't a great ticket to be standing on.

    The few parts of your post that weren't Mere Abuse were arguing against points, once again, entirely unrelated to anything I said (whether they were related to anything recedite said is besides the point). I'll spare the thread going through your entire post to point-for-point it as one, the other, or indeed both.


    Eh, not given, because not what happened. My browser history tells me I'd sorted to the obvious recourse of "google it" long before recedite even asked this. Perhaps you're simply not quite able to get the concept that recedite and I are distinct entities, and that baiting and switching between things one of us said and what the other might think doesn't make any sense whatsoever? And is a very annoying way to argue, to boot.


    Well, that's helpful, isn't it. Refusing to read something and expressing a dogmatic opinion on it. Good job I merely linked to a rational exposition for you to ignore, rather than wasting any additional effort for you to similarly toss aside with great force (if no actual thought).


    I presume when I referred you to 538's piece on Crimean opinion poll analysis you just tossed that on the "didn't read it" pile too.

    As (unlike View, say) you appear to believe that the "posterior probable opinion" in Crimea likely is in favour of union of Russia, what truly mystifies me is why you're so insistent on this point. (Though equally, to those that believe otherwise, if Russia "fixed" the referendum, I likewise don't really see the urgency in arguing they "fixed it twice", through mandating the outcome and defrauding or coercing the vote.) Yes, it's fairly dodgy, as I said about a week ago. But it's at best a secondary issue, and more realistically, one that's made entirely result by the actual (or at least "apparent") result.

    Yawn...
    I've already made it clear I wants facts and not opinion/hysterics, so my apologies but I'm going to toss the above in the 'Not for reading' pile.

    When you're less flustered, read the preceding page of debate:

    Recedite conceded that May 92 was the position on offer.
    Nothing further can be factually established after that, just speculation and conjecture as to what the Crimean Junta would have done with that power.

    Since there are no more facts to be discussed, I bid you Adieu!.
    I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

    Abraham Lincoln

    /thread


  • #344
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Yawn...
    Recedite conceded that May 92 was the position on offer.
    Nothing further can be factually established after that, just speculation and conjecture as to what the Crimean Junta would have done with that power.
    Since there are no more facts to be discussed, I bid you Adieu!.
    /thread
    I don't mind you having the last word, but you can't go out making false claims about me.
    My position all along was that the restore point on offer was the period 6th May to early June 1992. Not the 1998 Constitution, and not some June 1992 Constitution, both of which were your ideas.

    During the period in question, the Declaration of Independence had just been withdrawn (under duress), and an amendment to the constitution has just affirmed that Crimea was "a part of Ukraine".


    Here's what you said;
    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    May is the original version
    June is the amended version

    The DeValera constitution has been amended 33 times....
    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    The May 92 Constitution does not require a Ukrainian counterpart.
    The June 92 Constitution does (which no longer exists).

    Aside from the fact that this ambiguity was clearly and deliberately built into the ballot sheet ....... by the Crimean Junta.

    I said all along that the Crimean Parliament (not "junta") could have subsequently recommended further integration with RF, or equally they could have opted for more integration with Ukraine (unlikely the people would have wanted it though) Here's what I said;
    recedite wrote: »
    Under the 1992 constitution, they would have had the freedom to;
    a) Remain as an autonomous region within Ukraine
    b) Integrate with Ukraine (what you correctly call the current "status quo"while agreeing it has not been the status quo for very long)
    c) Integrate with Russia

    What makes you think "local govt." would go against the wishes of the people? To exercise either b) or c) above they would need to either have another referendum, or have a vote by elected representatives in the Parliament.
    Some democratic countries such as Ireland, hold a lot of referendums. Others such as the UK, just go with their elected representatives.
    But either way, its a democratic mandate.

    And now, I bid you adieu and thanks for the discussion.


  • #345
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    I don't mind you having the last word, but you can't go out making false claims about me.
    My position all along was that the restore point on offer was the period 6th May to early June 1992.
    :rolleyes:
    A word of advice - if you're going to use selective quoting to try misrepresent me/create a strawman, then don't explicitly state your position throughout the thread ;)
    (I have quoted linked post numbers for verification)
    recedite wrote:
    215
    If we can just focus in on that period in June 1992, which is the "restore point" offered to the people in this recent referendum.
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    229
    Do you have a source for that?

    I don't understand how it would be possible to restore the June '92 arrangement...Ukraine has operated on a new constitution since 12th June 1999. That Ukrainian constitution was abolished on the 17th March '95.

    And yet again:
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    Is 'June' 1992 on the ballot paper? In any language?

    Recedite has been unable to provide a source to back up that claim.
    Can you?

    No. So the point stands.

    May 1992, independence, was on offer.
    309
    I then had to break it down into baby steps:
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    1. The claim was made that June 92 was the 'restore point'.
    2. That's cannot be the case, because it would require restoration of a Ukrainian constitution which no longer exists (abolished in 98).
    3. Therefore May 92 was the 'restore point' on offer, which is a unilateral declaration of independence, and didn't require any participation on the Ukranian side (and which was also the 'restore point' used in 1994)
    4. Regardless, there was no status quo option on offer. (as agreed by recedite himself)

    You again asserted June
    recedite wrote:
    310
    It is plain from the wording on the ballot paper that was the restore point on offer. The text specifically included the words "a part of Ukraine".

    Again, I had to correct you, this time with nice colours:
    311
    i)5 May 1992 - parliament declared Crimea independent
    ii) 6 May 1992 - new sentence into constitution - declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

    ii) In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]

    You then proceeded to ask me to 'agree' that the restore point was between these two (which was the least possible option btw)
    recedite wrote:
    312
    Would you agree that the restore point lies between these two;

    And here I explain that it cannot be the June constitution since it requires a Ukrainian counterpart:
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    316
    No I wouldn't.

    You're asking me to interpret the ballot in a way that suits your desire.

    Crimea has twice offered to revert to the May 92 constitution and NEVER offered to revert to the June 92 constituion.

    The May 92 Constitution does not require a Ukrainian counterpart.
    The June 92 Constitution does (which no longer exists).

    Then came the very silly and entirely predictable attempt at pretending there were 2 constitutions
    recedite wrote:
    322
    I haven't heard of any second Crimean Constitution in 1992. Have you any info on this June constitution?

    I even had to provide a link for you where even the BBC stated that this what what made the referendum so ambigious
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    330
    I'm not aware of a 2nd constitution.

    The BBC have referred to the original constitution in May, then an amended constitution in June. (See 'Second Option')
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797
    This was also my understanding of it.

    The final grasping of straws, which utterly ignored the point I reiterated over and over concerning ambiguity.
    recedite wrote:
    336
    Well then, how can you say Option 2 on the ballot paper was unclear, or that there was no option to remain within Ukraine. The option referred to the restoration of "the 1992 constitution... under Ukraine".

    I had to explain they're different iterations of the same constitution, :rolleyes:
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    337
    Because they're one constitution...

    May is the original version
    June is the amended version

    This is starting to get silly and I feel it's well beyond the point of straw grasping at this stage.

    Finally you realised you couldn't spin it any further
    recedite wrote:
    338

    Further negotiations in June 1992 downgraded the constitution and rendered it irrelevant. Nobody thinks this option was on the 2014 ballot paper.
    recedite wrote:
    215
    If we can just focus in on that period in June 1992, which is the "restore point" offered to the people in this recent referendum.

    And I correctly stated you had argued June throughout the thread
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    339
    Well then we are at last in agreement.
    May was the restore point, not June as you argued previously.


    p.s.
    Here is where you introduced the 1998 constitution:
    recedite wrote:
    144
    There have been a few constitutions in recent years, so the latest one is actually the 1998 one. Check it out here. So in a way, there is no actual status quo, the whole situation has been in a state of flux since the break up of the USSR.

    And here I had to correct you (twice)
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    118
    I think you misread.

    The option was not to return to the 1998 constitution, it was to return to the 1992 constitution.

    And yet again:
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    186
    You're assuming that Option 2 offers membership of Ukraine under the 98 constitution (the status quo).
    Unfortunately, it explicitly says part of the Ukraine under the 92 constitution.

    And now I bid you adieu and I rest my case :)

    p.s.
    Here was where I stated your concluding position (my position) at the outset of the thread
    dannyboy83 wrote:
    107
    The 1992 constitution was drafted after the USSR imploded.
    It gave (& would give) Crimea the option to decide which path to choose, including joining Russia.
    That constitution was replaced in 1995.

    So
    Option 1.
    Join Russia outright

    Option 2.
    Become independent, then have the Crimean Junta join Russia (unless you figure they were going to re-join the 'Ukrainian fascists')

    Option 3.
    Remain part of the Ukraine Nyevozmozna tovarish


  • #346
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »

    Option 3.
    Remain part of the Ukraine     Nyevozmozna tovarish
    What?


  • #347
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What?

    means 'Impossible Comrade'


  • #348
    BrendanHughes1
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭BrendanHughes1


    comongethappy wrote: »
    The equivalence you are trying to draw is not valid.

    1) Kosovo voted to become independent, not simply join another nation.

    2) the level of violence & killing of Kosovan ethnic Albanians was horrifying.
    There was no campaign of state violence against ethnic-Russian or Russian speakers in Crimea prior to the Russian invasion.

    Neither of those reasons make it illegitimate it just means the circumstances were different.


  • #349
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,984 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Hmmm before he answers I'm curious is invading another state a shameful episode or does it really depend :rolleyes: ?



    Why are you asking me this question, when the answer is self-evident from my previous post? enough with the deflection tactics, just because America is guilty of wrongdoing, does not just justify Russian transgressions. Why do you always seek to excuse Russian wrongdoing. Oh wait it's the other way around;)


  • #350
    hundert
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭hundert


    omg so much BS on the first pages that I had to register.

    People writing there was no option to remain a part of Ukraine on the referendum ballots...

    There were two options (1) Join Russia (2) Remain a part of Ukraine. You misinformed trolls.

    The fake polls that were posted here are just as ridiculous. The polls form years 2010 2012 2013 show that only 12% wanted to stay in Ukraine. TWELVE PERCENT. The other 68% wanted to join Russia and 20% were undecided.

    You people are SO brainwashed it's unbelievable. IQ 53...


Advertisement