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

sparkling sea wrote: »

I know Russia had agreed to Crimea being part of the Ukraine but I haven't a clue which party in all this is more at fault, Russia or Ukraine (and the west).
One thing is for sure people are being silenced by all sides, and its very difficult to gauge what most people in Crimea actually want

Fault depends on perspective.
I consider myself a neutral observer and see fault on both sides.

I condemned Bush/USA for this "With Us or against us" behaviour during the Iraq invasion, and the American dupes.
It now has to be applied equally to Russia and the Russian dupes.
I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't.

The difficulty is not figuring out who is more at fault, it's getting the Russians to acknowledge any share of the fault.

Russians believe they can cancel out the aggressive seizure of Crimea by comparing it to the American seizure of Iraq, while the rest of the world (except Belarus) looks at both cases and says "No, actually one doesn't justify the other - in fact, they're both unjustifiable".

recedite wrote: »

I suggested that the minimum size of a secessionist territory should be around the size of a "province" and definitely bigger than a county, and with some extra latitude being given to small islands. Someone said this was "arbitrary" but in fact having a definition is the opposite to arbitrary.

No it isn’t – a definition can be entirely arbitrary. For example, international borders are defined, but they’re entirely arbitrary.

djpbarry wrote: »

You say that like such an individual would be difficult to find?
No, some Crimeans voted to secede from Russia, in the midst of a Russian occupation.

As I say, I'm waiting for such a person to identify themself. You tell me if that will be difficult our not.

The vote to secede was pretty overwhelming and I've not seen anyone seriously claim that it did not reflect the majority sentiment. Crimea was in Russia for hundreds of years and in Ukraine for sixty. It was gifted to Ukraine when both countries were part of the Soviet Union, not as a transfer to an independent sovereign state. It has been an autonomous region of Ukraine in recognition of it's distinct heritage, language and orientation.
The disputing of the referendum is over whether it should have taken place, not of the result.

First Up wrote: »

The significance of this seems to have been missed - or glossed over. Ukraine had eighteen recognised regional languages - everything from German to Yiddish. To remove Russian - the mother tongue of 20% of the total population and of 60% of the population of Crimea can only be interpreted as vindictive hostility by the Kiev government. It was a serious mistake.

I believe the measure abolished all regional language recognition.

View wrote: »

Well the obvious point that you ignore is that the Tories are proposing this for AFTER the next election, hence, the UK are free to opt for the status quo by electing another party to power. The people of Crimea did not have such an option and they could have had it since Ukraine is holding parliamentary elections on May 25th (which will be monitored by the OCSE).

Obvious if you're cherry-picking your rationalisations wherever they can be had, perhaps. Governments (that one included) do things they didn't put into their manifestos, and they do also offer "no option of the status quo" referenda. Are you really going to say "nah, no analogy or comparability whatsoever unless the two happen simultaneously"?

If the number of people voting "yes for union with Russia" is remotely representative (and I stress "if"), it's in any event pretty moot what other options were or were not on the ballot

No that isn't the case. Normal dmocratic procedure is to secure majority support for proposals and then seek to effect democratic change accordingly. As the Ukrianian constitution can be changed by parliamentary vote (and indeed regularly is), changing it would be more straightforward than changing ours for instance.

As before, this is simply saying "if Ukraine wants to know Crimea's opinion, it'll give it to them". Is there some lack of clarity about what self-determination means, here?

As such, it is a case of "Crimean self-determination could and should have happened in some slightly different manner" if standard democratic procedures were followed in free and fair elections, not one where the area is dominated by "unidentified" military personnel driving "local" military vehicles with Reg plates from Moscow (which is as about as close to Crimea as Gibraltar is to us).

Again, if you're going to deny the legitimacy of any unilateral Crimea vote to determine its status (and that's expressly what you, the EU, and the US are all saying, let's be clear), harping on about what the nasty ol' Rooskies did (whether to "facilitate" this, or to "fix" it, depending on your point of view) is just a besides-the-point guilt by association exercise.

recedite wrote: »

An honest referendum can only really have two choices, otherwise the vote could easily be manipulated by being splitting the anti side into numerous choices.

There's no difficulty with multi-option referenda in principle, as long as they use single transferable votes, rather than "first past the post". (i.e. you ask people to rank "status quo", "1992 constitution", and "union with Russia" in order of preference, then you eliminate the least popular alternative in the first round, and transfer its second prefs to the remaining two.)

More straightforward and providing better clarity to hold separate referenda on each measure, though. At worst, two at the same time; better, sequentially.

View wrote: »

There is no cherry picking there. In a democracy a referendum always has to have a status quo option to be valid - if the electorate can't reject an option to change then they don't have a democratic choice about whether or not they want to change.




Only on your side - most people don't regard a ballot with a forced choice about which change you want as being democratic, much less allow for self-determination.







There is no guilt by association there, it is just clear guilt.

The only reason to rush a vote as happened is the Ukrianian elections scheduled for May 25th (and due to be monitored by the OCSE) might not produce a pro-Russia majority in Crimea. Hence the rush to a "join Russia or let the parliament vote for you to join Russia" referendum.

For a Crimean election not to produce a pro Russian outcome would fly in the face of demographics and of every election in Crimea (parliamentary and presidential) held since Ukraine's independence.

First Up wrote: »

For a Crimean election not to produce a pro Russian outcome would fly in the face of demographics and of every election in Crimea (parliamentary and presidential) held since Ukraine's independence.

Well, there would have been no problem in securing a majority on May 25th and/or holding a referendum to Council of Europe standards then, would there?
And no need for the "unidentified" military personnel driving non-Ukrianian registered military vehicles for that matter.

As it is, the diagram on p7 of this thread would appear to show a little over 20% of the people surveyed favoured joining Russia a year ago.

As the SNP is finding in Scotland turning an overall majority in an election to a majority in a referendum is tough work - but, I guess they forgot to produce the yes or yes ballots.

View wrote: »

There is no cherry picking there. In a democracy a referendum always has to have a status quo option to be valid - if the electorate can't reject an option to change then they don't have a democratic choice about whether or not they want to change.

Only on your side - most people don't regard a ballot with a forced choice about which change you want as being democratic, much less allow for self-determination.

It's fruitless to argue that the lack of a "true" status quo option invalidates the path to remaining in Ukraine that was on offer, and that wasn't voted for. But that evidently isn't going to stop you repeatedly asserting it anyway, it seems.

There is no guilt by association there, it is just clear guilt.

Which procedural guilt you're determined to spread all over any possible Crimean self-determination: hence the "by association" part.

The only reason to rush a vote as happened is the Ukrianian elections scheduled for May 25th (and due to be monitored by the OCSE) might not produce a pro-Russia majority in Crimea. Hence the rush to a "join Russia or let the parliament vote for you to join Russia" referendum.

You're missing the point suspiciously systematically. At what point in your "wait until Ukraine decides what to do with Crimea" scenario and timeline does any form of Crimean self-determination happen? If you just cut to the "it doesn't, and I don't care" chase, it'll save us a lot of time, I think.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

How old are you?
Do you any memory of being in Russia? Any personal experience?

No Western Media have convinced me.

I have formed this opinion based on my experience, and my Russian friends and family. Chysty Russki

Loads of personal experience,-:)- I was born and raised in USSR , not Russia ... and I had been living in Belarus, Moscow and I had been visiting Ukraine and Crimea quite often...
and I do know for sure, that all the stories about Russian "occupation" and Crimean people afraid to vote under Kalashnikov's- complete bull****... excuse my french...

It looks, like western people do not realise, how connected is Russian and Ukranian economy at the moment, and if Ukraine won't keep good relationships with Russia- they are in deep troubles...
Meantime, Russia will survive without Ukraine easily...
millions of Ukranians are working in Russia, and their families are depend on their salaries...
Did you see any ukraians goods in your shops here? No.
They only can sell their products in Russia...
Ukraine is trying to seat on 2 chairs for more then 20 years now - they have cheap discounted gas and huge market in Russia and at the same time they are barking on it - do you think it is normal?

It was Ukranian government, who put Ukraninans in this situation- not Putin.
and I personally and loads of my russian-ukranian-belarussian friends are happy, that Putin took Crimea back- at least people over there will have chance to get back to normality...
young people in Ukraine, especially on the West brain washed- they do beleive, that they'll join EU and will get jobs and good salaries strait away.
Would you beleive in this?
I can see 50 % of young unenployed Spaniards happy meeting Ukranian jobseekers.

iradzen wrote: »

if Ukraine won't keep good relationships with Russia- they are in deep troubles...

So they have a choice of being poor or being poor and ****ed by Moscow?

This may be why many want closer ties and deals with the EU.

First Up wrote: »

It was a referendum, not an election. What does "sham" mean?

Sham - not legit

It wouldn't have been a difficult process to organise a legitimate vote

First Up wrote: »

I mean in what way was it a sham or govno?
Are you saying people didn't vote as claimed?

Yes, the voter turn out was 123%

Or that they voted under duress?

Yes, the Tatars didn't vote as a result of duress.

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

Or that there was a majority that would have voted no but were afraid to?

No, there was no option to vote 'No'.
Only A) Join Russia or 92 Constitution

Or just that they shouldn't have been allowed to vote at all?

I was in favour of a legal and democratic vote, with the option for Crimea to reunite with Russia.

Evidently - that did not happen.

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's fruitless to argue that the lack of a "true" status quo option invalidates the path to remaining in Ukraine that was on offer, and that wasn't voted for. But that evidently isn't going to stop you repeatedly asserting it anyway, it seems.

When your only options are yes or yes, it isn't a democratic decision.

An option to change your constitution (in an unconstitutional manner) is NOT a status quo option.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Which procedural guilt you're determined to spread all over any possible Crimean self-determination: hence the "by association" part.

No I am not. I have no problem with proper democratic procedures such as those laid down by the Council of Europe in their "best practices" guides.

You though seem to have a real problem with the idea of properly conducted democratic decisions.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're missing the point suspiciously systematically. At what point in your "wait until Ukraine decides what to do with Crimea" scenario and timeline does any form of Crimean self-determination happen? If you just cut to the "it doesn't, and I don't care" chase, it'll save us a lot of time, I think.

Very simply, when self-determination takes place following proper democratic procedures and without the presence of large numbers of military driving around in foreign registered military vehicles.

YOU are the one who rejects that idea since you are prepared to ignore democratic norms. What part of "free and fair" upsets you so much?

First Up wrote: »

A year ago their language hadn't been de-legitimised, nor the president they elected run out of town and replaced by a government led by a party with Neo-fascist leanings.

The government is led by a political party which is allied with the European People's Party of the main Christian Democratic parties in Europe. Just how nutty left wing are you if you regard them as neo-facist?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, they could have waited and would have been better advised to do so, but it was a volatile and emotive period and decisions were taken under strained circumstances.
But the result would not be different.

With an actual No option on the ballot the result would almost certainly have been different - it is fair to assume at least one person would have voted no.

And, of course, if the decision was hasty, there is still time to participate in the election of May 25th, isn't there?

But, of course, that isn't going to happen, is it? The "free" choice is Russia or Russia.