(Ukraine) Crimea- historically Russian ...

jonniebgood1 · 03-03-2014 8:24pm #1

The current developments in Ukraine seem to be bringing about accusations that Russia has no interest in the Crimean region. Whether they should be there or not is a political issue but the answer must be related to the history of the region. The history of the 2 is intertwined making the current outrage of American and UK foreign spokespeople questionable. The overall piece in link by David Ignatius is worth reading.

1783: Russia annexed Crimea.

1853: The Crimean War began, lasting three years. Russia lost to an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and Sardinia. Crimea remained part of Russia.

1917: Crimea briefly became a sovereign state before becoming a base for the White Army of anti-Bolshevik forces in the Russian War.

1921: The peninsula, now called the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, became part of the Soviet Union.

1942: Nazi Germany took control of Crimea.

1944: Joesph Stalin forcibly deported all Muslim Tatars, a group of 300,000 who had lived on the peninsula for centuries, due to members’ alleged cooperation with Germany during World War II. Many returned to Crimea in the 1980s and 1990s.

1945: After World War II, the autonomous Soviet republic was dissolved and Crimea became a province of the Soviet Union called the Crimean Oblast.

1954: Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev transferred the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine. It’s often reported that it was a gesture of goodwill from Khrushchev, who had Ukrainian roots.

1991: The Soviet Union collapsed. Many expected President Boris Yeltsin, the new president of the Russian Federation, to take Crimea for Russia. But he didn’t bring it up during negotiations with Ukraine.

1997: Ukraine and Russia signed a treaty that allowed Russia to keep its fleet in Sevastopol. The agreement’s since been extended, so the fleet is set to remain there until at least 2042.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/02/david-ignatius/historical-claim-shows-why-crimea-matters-russia/

Judgement Day · 03-03-2014 11:26pm

There's no arguing against the fact that the Ukraine (Crimea) is historically linked to Russia and, if the same scenario was playing out in Mexico or Canada, the USA would take a dim view of Russia trying stick its oar in. I don't like Putin as he is a crypto-fascist but the West (EU/NATO and the US) have virtually isolated the rump of the USSR (Russia) and have brought about the present crisis. It would have made more sense to make overtures to Russia regarding EU membership than the Ukraine - not that either option makes sense. The ever expanding EU 'project' has been out of control for years now and is in danger of bringing about the exact opposite of its original goal of keeping the peace on the continent of Europe.

The old saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" has never been truer and the similarities with both the beginnings of WW.I. and WW.II. are frighteningly obvious. If Putin isn't faced down now, what will happen if he comes calling on other former parts of the Soviet Empire - including some EU member states? He can't be faced down with military threats and all that's left is to threaten serious economic sanctions. Whatever happens, there's no reason for the West to be drawn into a domestic Russian/Ukrainian war.

Sorry for dragging the thread way off topic.

robp · 04-03-2014 1:48am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The current developments in Ukraine seem to be bringing about accusations that Russia has no interest in the Crimean region. Whether they should be there or not is a political issue but the answer must be related to the history of the region. The history of the 2 is intertwined making the current outrage of American and UK foreign spokespeople questionable. The overall piece in link by David Ignatius is worth reading.

This is a very poor argument. If we follow your logic we would have to state that all of Ukraine belongs to Russia. Most of their modern history was under Russian rule. Ukraine was only very briefly independent after WWI and again in 1991. Regarding Crimea, Russia has as much precedent for ruling the area as they do Poland. Crimea was always dominated by the Tatars. As the brutally predicated natives they must have a disproportionate say in the future of the area and they are firmly pro-Ukrainian.

Ukraine's territory is not controversial. They have not grabbed Russian land. In fact Russia firmly committed to respecting Ukraine's sovereignty in past agreements.

robp · 04-03-2014 1:55am

Judgement Day wrote: »

The old saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" has never been truer and the similarities with both the beginnings of WW.I. and WW.II. are frighteningly obvious. If Putin isn't faced down now, what will happen if he comes calling on other former parts of the Soviet Empire - including some EU member states? He can't be faced down with military threats and all that's left is to threaten serious economic sanctions. Whatever happens, there's no reason for the West to be drawn into a domestic Russian/Ukrainian war.

Sorry for dragging the thread way off topic.

Remember, Ukraine is the only nation ever to give up nuclear weapons. They only did on the assurance of their sovereignty. Thus the West owes Ukraine full military support.

feargale · 04-03-2014 2:06am

Whatever about Crimea, there are some clowns involved in the Kiev coup d'etat. One of their first acts was to revoke a law which gave the Russian language equal status with Ukrainian. Both languages are spoken by roughly the same number of people in Ukraine. Those nutters have made alot of trouble for thenselves,

robp · 04-03-2014 2:11am

feargale wrote: »

Whatever about Crimea, there are some clowns involved in the Kiev coup d'etat. One of their first acts was to revoke a law which gave the Russian language equal status with Ukrainian. Both languages are spoken by roughly the same number of people in Ukraine. Those nutters have made alot of trouble for thenselves,

I am not saying that this change was a good idea but this is untrue. Ukrainian has more then twice the speakers of Russian (67% to 30%). I see flaws in their leadership but they are not fascists or ultra-nationalists.

riffmongous · 04-03-2014 4:34am

Well looking at that timeline starting in 1783 it might certainly look russian, but up until 1897 Tartars were still the majority ethnic group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Ethnic_groups

If Crimea looks russian today it's because it was made russian, much like the soviets and tsars tried to do in other areas (through deportations, discrimination, colonisation and convienient famines). If the current russian government wants to make claims based on historical reasons then they should be tempered by this knowledge. Ultimately of course it should come down to the current population to decide their future by referendum and within the standards of international law. But it shouldn't happen in a climate of Russian aggression and with russian troops on each street corner (99.7% again anyone?)

jonniebgood1 · 04-03-2014 8:32am

robp wrote: »

Remember, Ukraine is the only nation ever to give up nuclear weapons. They only did on the assurance of their sovereignty. Thus the West owes Ukraine full military support.

This is such a typical western opinion. They border Russia so surely as a neighbour it is they, rather than the west wwho benefits from the nuclear disarming on their doorstep.

robp · 04-03-2014 9:40am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is such a typical western opinion. They border Russia so surely as a neighbour it is they, rather than the west wwho benefits from the nuclear disarming on their doorstep.

Well of course Russia benefited from disarmament. They can annex the Ukrainians with impunity.

This recent attack makes a mockery of Russia's past promises to Ukraine.

jonniebgood1 · 04-03-2014 8:53pm

robp wrote: »

I am not saying that this change was a good idea but this is untrue. Ukrainian has more then twice the speakers of Russian (67% to 30%). I see flaws in their leadership but they are not fascists or ultra-nationalists.

30% is a significant minority to be slighted.

Very little is known of some elements of the new Ukraine leadership- what makes you state what they are not?
There is a natural fear in Ukraine over right wing views for obvious historical reasons.

robp · 04-03-2014 10:19pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

30% is a significant minority to be slighted.

Its only in 2012 that Russian got this official status. its a very controversial topic in the country and there is no consensus on whether to allow it or not.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Very little is known of some elements of the new Ukraine leadership- what makes you state what they are not?
There is a natural fear in Ukraine over right wing views for obvious historical reasons.

In the 2012 Russian presidential election the communist party earned 17.2% of the vote. Now most people would see that as profound lunacy. Madness so profound that it is a danger to Russia actually. So does mean the US has a right to declare its self a peace keeper and take over, of course not.

jonniebgood1 · 05-03-2014 9:08am

robp wrote: »

Its only in 2012 that Russian got this official status. its a very controversial topic in the country and there is no consensus on whether to allow it or not.

In the 2012 Russian presidential election the communist party earned 17.2% of the vote. Now most people would see that as profound lunacy. Madness so profound that it is a danger to Russia actually. So does mean the US has a right to declare its self a peace keeper and take over, of course not.

There were a lot of sectors of the communist ussr that functioned quite well. Perhaps better than now. This is why the communist party still gets significant support. It only seems like lunacy on the surface with the presented view of communism taken as being the whole story. Although the theory you suggest sounds a bit like Afghanistan in a way. I don't like who's in charge so I should take over from them.

robp · 05-03-2014 9:38am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There were a lot of sectors of the communist ussr that functioned quite well. Perhaps better than now. This is why the communist party still gets significant support. It only seems like lunacy on the surface with the presented view of communism taken as being the whole story. Although the theory you suggest sounds a bit like Afghanistan in a way. I don't like who's in charge so I should take over from them.

The same could be said of the Third Reich. The USSR was no better then any fascist regime.

The invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN. There was legitimacy as it was done correctly through the UN and the old Afghan government which was exiled in 1996. If Ukraine needs peace keepers let them come from Poland, Romania or Turkey. Countries that have no historical conflicts with Ukraine. Russia will never be able to be a neutral peacekeeper.

Reekwind · 05-03-2014 1:47pm

riffmongous wrote: »

If Crimea looks russian today it's because it was made russian, much like the soviets and tsars tried to do in other areas (through deportations, discrimination, colonisation and convienient famines)

And you could point to a similar process in every state today. Nationstates are, almost by definition, artificial creations and the process by which they're made is often unpleasant.

Ultimately of course it should come down to the current population to decide their future by referendum and within the standards of international law. But it shouldn't happen in a climate of Russian aggression and with russian troops on each street corner (99.7% again anyone?)

The counterpoint is of course to ask in what scenario would such a vote be possible? Certainly the Kiev government has not (AFAIK) even accepted the possibility of permitting self-determination to the people of Crimea. Particularly not when it contains such right-wing nationalist elements.

Ultimately when you precipitate the collapse of a central government and encourage the seizure of regional governments by revolutionary activists then you can't really complain when one of those new regional bodies declares its intention to secede. And all Putin's hay-making shouldn't hide the fact that the impetus for this intervention came from the Crimea.

robp wrote:

The same could be said of the Third Reich. The USSR was no better then any fascist regime.

That is quantifiably and qualitatively false. I'm happy to discuss the myriad differences between the two in another thread but let me say here that the equation of the USSR to the Third Reich reveals a deep ignorance of both.

In the 2012 Russian presidential election the communist party earned 17.2% of the vote. Now most people would see that as profound lunacy. Madness so profound that it is a danger to Russia actually. So does mean the US has a right to declare its self a peace keeper and take over, of course not.

And if that vote had taken place in an area that the US considered a sphere of influence? That is, if a Communist influenced movement had seized or come to power in, let's say, Latin America. How would the US respond to that?

This is of course a rhetorical question. There are decades worth of examples as to how the US would react in such a situation

Manach · 05-03-2014 2:08pm

Personally I've some measure of sympathy, as their sovereignity was violated under international law, for Ukraine. But to be fair the Russians (both the State & ethnic group) have a long, complex historical relationship in that region. This stretches back centuries and involves struggles with Mongols, Poles, Swedes and most recently Germans. Having read accounts of WWII and the decade preceding it under Soviet mis-management, a best solution would be one involving dialogue and leave the armed means of the 20th Cent. behind in that region.

robp · 05-03-2014 4:32pm

Reekwind wrote: »

And you could point to a similar process in every state today. Nationstates are, almost by definition, artificial creations and the process by which they're made is often unpleasant.

The counterpoint is of course to ask in what scenario would such a vote be possible? Certainly the Kiev government has not (AFAIK) even accepted the possibility of permitting self-determination to the people of Crimea. Particularly not when it contains such right-wing nationalist elements.

Ultimately when you precipitate the collapse of a central government and encourage the seizure of regional governments by revolutionary activists then you can't really complain when one of those new regional bodies declares its intention to secede. And all Putin's hay-making shouldn't hide the fact that the impetus for this intervention came from the Crimea.

This is not self determination. If it was they would not have brought in Russian troops. It was not even a slick take over. The whole process was a transparent Russian coup. The letter which which Viktor Yanukovych supposedly invited Russian troops was dated days after the first Russian troops came in. Putin claims that the troops are locally created self-defence units but this belies the Russian military number plates on their vehicles.

There is no problem with pro Russian people protesting and demanding political representation but there is not justification in arranging for a foreign country to size territory.

Reekwind wrote: »

That is quantifiably and qualitatively false. I'm happy to discuss the myriad differences between the two in another thread but let me say here that the equation of the USSR to the Third Reich reveals a deep ignorance of both.

You might argue the USSR had 'better intentions' but the loss of life, the sum of human suffering and the economic damage was no less than the Third Reich. From a purely economic perspective, Central Europe has mostly recovered. While I am not sure, Russia has recovered from the communism at all. Compare East and West Germany. As a whole Germany may be thriving but the eastern cities have unemployment levels near Ireland.

Reekwind wrote: »

And if that vote had taken place in an area that the US considered a sphere of influence? That is, if a Communist influenced movement had seized or come to power in, let's say, Latin America. How would the US respond to that?

This is of course a rhetorical question. There are decades worth of examples as to how the US would react in such a situation

One of the most common line of defence for this Russian intervention seems to be that since the US has done dodgy intervention in the past its alright when Russia does it in the present. Logically this makes no sense. One mistake does not justify another. US foreign policy is not uncontroversial.

jonniebgood1 · 05-03-2014 4:50pm

robp wrote: »

One of the most common line of defence for this Russian intervention seems to be that since the US has done dodgy intervention in the past its alright when Russia does it in the present. Logically this makes no sense. One mistake does not justify another. US foreign policy is not uncontroversial.

The reason this 'line of defence' is being quoted to you is that your position is roughly in line with that of the US (widely summarised as Western point of view). As you state it is not a good reason of justification, but it can be used quite legitimately to destruct the stated threats/ opinions of many nations towards Russian actions in Crimea. i.e. US & UK. By doing this it reduces the validity of any real opposition to the Russian actions- regardless of whether you agree with this it has appeared quite widely in international commentary and discussion with the result being less pressure on Russia than might otherwise have been the case.

robp · 05-03-2014 4:56pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The reason this 'line of defence' is being quoted to you is that your position is roughly in line with that of the US (widely summarised as Western point of view). As you state it is not a good reason of justification, but it can be used quite legitimately to destruct the stated threats/ opinions of many nations towards Russian actions in Crimea. i.e. US & UK. By doing this it reduces the validity of any real opposition to the Russian actions- regardless of whether you agree with this it has appeared quite widely in international commentary and discussion with the result being less pressure on Russia than might otherwise have been the case.

The US is shouting the loudest. While traditionally the Germans are the most silent about Russia. Germany was not part of Iraq invasion team. Dependence on Russian fossil fuel is a huge factor in how vocal each nation is.

jonniebgood1 · 05-03-2014 5:28pm

robp wrote: »

The US is shouting the loudest. While traditionally the Germans are the most silent about Russia. Germany was not part of Iraq invasion team. Dependence on Russian fossil fuel is a huge factor in how vocal each nation is.

Agreed. The US is not even in the top 10 trading partners of Russia so it is easier for its government to suggest economic sanctions. The EU as a whole is more reliant on Russia.
There are historic reasons (as well as economic) why Germany will be reticent in terms of threats against Russia.

Cork boy 55 · 05-03-2014 5:58pm

funfact

The first major invasion of Russian of enter Crimea in 1737 was commanded by an Irishman Count Peter Lacy during the Russo-Turkish War 1735-1739

The Lacy Army (already 40,000 men strong) marched into the Crimea the same month, inflicting a number of defeats on the Army of the Crimean Khan and capturing Karasubazar. However, Lacy and his troops had to leave the Crimea due to lack of supplies. The Crimean campaign of 1736 ended in Russian withdrawal into Ukraine, after an estimated 30,000 deaths, only 2,000 died in battle and the rest of hunger, famine and disease

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War,_1735-1739

Count Peter von Lacy, or Pyotr Petrovich Lacy (Russian: Пётр Петрович Ласси), as he was known in Russia (26 September 1678 – bef. 11 May 1751), was one of the most successful Russian imperial commanders before Rumyantsev and Suvorov. During a military career that spanned half a century, he professed to have been present at a total of 31 campaigns, 18 battles, and 18 sieges. He died at Riga, of which he for many years served as governor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lacy

riffmongous · 05-03-2014 6:25pm

Reekwind wrote: »

And you could point to a similar process in every state today. Nationstates are, almost by definition, artificial creations and the process by which they're made is often unpleasant.

I'm not sure if you are making a point relating to the crimea being historically russian here since you didnt quote my full sentence.

The counterpoint is of course to ask in what scenario would such a vote be possible? Certainly the Kiev government has not (AFAIK) even accepted the possibility of permitting self-determination to the people of Crimea. Particularly not when it contains such right-wing nationalist elements.

Well for starters a scenario that doesn't involve Russian soldiers controlling important installations and 'self-defence' militias blockading access to the parliament building.

feargale · 05-03-2014 11:30pm

robp wrote: »

If Ukraine needs peace keepers let them come from Poland, Romania or Turkey. Countries that have no historical conflicts with Ukraine. Russia will never be able to be a neutral peacekeeper.

Poland and Turkey carry huge historical baggage in Ukraine.

feargale · 05-03-2014 11:47pm

robp wrote: »

One of the most common line of defence for this Russian intervention seems to be that since the US has done dodgy intervention in the past its alright when Russia does it in the present. Logically this makes no sense. One mistake does not justify another. US foreign policy is not uncontroversial.

Mistakes? MISTAKES? Like slavery, Hawaii, Puerto Rico (google the Ponce massacre ) Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973?
The past? THE PAST? When USA did it yesterday it's the past. When others did it 50 years ago it's the present.
Oops! The CIA could intercept this post. Their mistake in doing so or my mistake in posting? Ah no, all that Snowden stuff is in the past.

robp · 06-03-2014 12:25am

feargale wrote: »

Poland and Turkey carry huge historical baggage in Ukraine.

Fair enough but there are many countries that could be chosen instead. I picked those names randomly.

feargale wrote: »

Mistakes? MISTAKES? Like slavery, Hawaii, Puerto Rico (google the Ponce massacre ) Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973?
The past? THE PAST? When USA did it yesterday it's the past. When others did it 50 years ago it's the present.
Oops! The CIA could intercept this post. Their mistake in doing so or my mistake in posting? Ah no, all that Snowden stuff is in the past.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you think Snowden is being treated badly read how Russia dealt with Sergei Magnitsky

riffmongous · 06-03-2014 12:36am

robp wrote: »

One of the most common line of defence for this Russian intervention seems to be that since the US has done dodgy intervention in the past its alright when Russia does it in the present. Logically this makes no sense. One mistake does not justify another. US foreign policy is not uncontroversial.

Indeed, the actions of the US are constantly being dragged into the discussions here on boards and no doubt elsewhere too, as if anyone who is against the russians is automatically some US apologist. It's fine if it's to cite describe a precedent in a similar situation, or in the context of international law, but too often it's well the US does this, that and the other, why cant the russians? :rolleyes:

feargale · 06-03-2014 1:17am

robp wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you think Snowden is being treated badly read how Russia dealt with Sergei Magnitsky

You will search long and hard to find me expressing a word of approval of Putin or the Soviets. The fact remains that a very shady bunch have taken over in Kiev contrary to the constitution. Yanukovitch behaved badly towards dissenters, but he was elected from the opposition, a position that couldn't give him an enormous opportunity to rig it. Having turned the coup into a linguistic/ethnic divide, the usurpers are now confronted with the distinct possibility of losing Crimea, a possibility that scarcely existed until now and which they have needlessly stirred. As a commentator pointed out on radio a few days ago, Putin has never been known to back down. The most sensible post here is Manach's. Ukrainians must face dialogue and compromise, or alternatively partition. That fool van Rompuy hasn't helped by coming out last week to say that Ukraine's place is with the EU. That is for the Ukrainian people to decide, not for mischievous potentates of an organisation with questionable democratic credentials. He has hyped it up. But even the EU deserved better than the US ambassador's arrogant and contemptious "f-- the EU."

jonniebgood1 · 06-03-2014 8:32am

riffmongous wrote: »

Indeed, the actions of the US are constantly being dragged into the discussions here on boards and no doubt elsewhere too, as if anyone who is against the russians is automatically some US apologist. It's fine if it's to cite describe a precedent in a similar situation, or in the context of international law, but too often it's well the US does this, that and the other, why cant the russians? :rolleyes:

As already stated in this thread the us are the loudest in opposition to Russia hence their hypocrisy is relevant to the discussion. It might not be right but they are relevant.

Reekwind · 06-03-2014 9:10am

robp wrote: »

This is not self determination. If it was they would not have brought in Russian troops

Why not? Simple question. What does an appeal to a foreign power have to do with self-determination? Is Kosovo's declaration of independence not valid because the West provided military support?

Would the Crimean cause be more valid if there were no Russians present and Kiev had to forcibly put down a revolt?

It was not even a slick take over. The whole process was a transparent Russian coup. The letter which which Viktor Yanukovych supposedly invited Russian troops was dated days after the first Russian troops came in. Putin claims that the troops are locally created self-defence units but this belies the Russian military number plates on their vehicles.

Yanukovych is an irrelevancy in the Crimea. Of far more relevance was the fact that Crimea and its parliament had effectively slipped from Kiev's control from 24 Feb; that is, before airports were taken and military bases seized. The key point was parliament's election of Aksyonov as Prime Minister.

Now in truth these actions were little different from the changes at regional level happening across the country – administrative buildings stormed and new local authorities established. But in the Crimea the new government looked abroad for support and found a willing listener.

You might argue the USSR had 'better intentions' but the loss of life, the sum of human suffering and the economic damage was no less than the Third Reich

I'm not sure what part of my previous post you didn't understand, I thought it was pretty unequivocal. Let me reiterate: this is not about "better intentions" but that your statement that "the sum of human suffering and the economic damage was no less than the Third Reich" is entirely false. I'm happy to go into detail on this but it's not a discussion for this thread.

What is relevant is the strange persistence of this equating of the Third Reich and USSR (as if one was as bad as the other) at the same time (ie over the past two decades) as academic estimates as to deaths under Stalin (to take the most obvious indicator) tumble. It shows that the popular imagination is fuelled as much by an age old paranoia as to the Russian threat as much as any rational evaluation. In any dilemma Russia is treated not as a regional power acting to protect its interests but as an inherently malign and expansionary force with Putin as a new Hitler.

One of the most common line of defence for this Russian intervention seems to be that since the US has done dodgy intervention in the past its alright when Russia does it in the present. Logically this makes no sense. One mistake does not justify another. US foreign policy is not uncontroversial.

Agreed. It does however make a mockery of both US protests and the idea that there is some form of impeccable and objective set of international laws that govern how states act

riffmongous wrote:

Well for starters a scenario that doesn't involve Russian soldiers controlling important installations and 'self-defence' militias blockading access to the parliament building.

Which would be a scenario in which Kiev controls the peninsula and doesn't permit any elects at all? You can't have your cake and eat it.

But really, is there any doubt at all that the Crimea would vote in favour of secession from the Ukraine? It's more or less the one certainty in this whole affair.

And, incidentally, with regards the "self-defence militias", do you put inverted commas around the opposition militias that seized control other cities? What about those armed and camouflaged militias that stormed the parliament in Kiev?

robp · 06-03-2014 11:03am

Reekwind wrote: »

Why not? Simple question. What does an appeal to a foreign power have to do with self-determination? Is Kosovo's declaration of independence not valid because the West provided military support?

Would the Crimean cause be more valid if there were no Russians present and Kiev had to forcibly put down a revolt?

It would far more valid if Russia didn't interfere.

Reekwind wrote: »

Yanukovych is an irrelevancy in the Crimea. Of far more relevance was the fact that Crimea and its parliament had effectively slipped from Kiev's control from 24 Feb; that is, before airports were taken and military bases seized. The key point was parliament's election of Aksyonov as Prime Minister.

In Kiev there were months of sustained peaceful protests. They were a follow on from the 2008 revolution. In Crimea there was no popular uprising. Armed gunmen sized control.

Reekwind wrote: »

Now in truth these actions were little different from the changes at regional level happening across the country – administrative buildings stormed and new local authorities established. But in the Crimea the new government looked abroad for support and found a willing listener.

I'm not sure what part of my previous post you didn't understand, I thought it was pretty unequivocal. Let me reiterate: this is not about "better intentions" but that your statement that "the sum of human suffering and the economic damage was no less than the Third Reich" is entirely false. I'm happy to go into detail on this but it's not a discussion for this thread.

What is relevant is the strange persistence of this equating of the Third Reich and USSR (as if one was as bad as the other) at the same time (ie over the past two decades) as academic estimates as to deaths under Stalin (to take the most obvious indicator) tumble. It shows that the popular imagination is fuelled as much by an age old paranoia as to the Russian threat as much as any rational evaluation. In any dilemma Russia is treated not as a regional power acting to protect its interests but as an inherently malign and expansionary force with Putin as a new Hitler.

You mean Putin as the new Stalin. It would help if these pro Russian people gave up their Stalin statues. Even in the last 3 or 4 years now statues have been erected to this monster in Ukaine, easily one of the worst tyrants of modern history.

Reekwind wrote: »

Agreed. It does however make a mockery of both US protests and the idea that there is some form of impeccable and objective set of international laws that govern how states act

Which would be a scenario in which Kiev controls the peninsula and doesn't permit any elects at all? You can't have your cake and eat it.

But really, is there any doubt at all that the Crimea would vote in favour of secession from the Ukraine? It's more or less the one certainty in this whole affair.

And, incidentally, with regards the "self-defence militias", do you put inverted commas around the opposition militias that seized control other cities? What about those armed and camouflaged militias that stormed the parliament in Kiev?

You don't know what happened in Ukraine at all. The Kiev parliament was never stormed. On the 22th the parliament voted to impeach Yanukovych. On the same day protestors stormed some presidential buildings without resistance as the police guarding had been recalled back to their home towns. The protesters supported the parliament.

What happened in Crimea was very different. A small number of gunman (60) sized the building in Simferopol. As soon as the guman had control Russian soldiers were all over Crimea. This was probably all pre arranged. People on the ground feel the so called self defence militias are all men imported in from Russia. In Kiev there was up to 800,000 protesters. Furthermore there is no concrete evidence that those gunmen in Crimea have a majority support of locals. Russians may be a majority but many support Ukraine not Moscow. The other groups the Tatars and the local Ukrainians are very much against unity with Moscow.

Reekwind · 06-03-2014 11:34am

robp wrote: »

It would far more valid is Russian didn't interfere

You haven't answered my question. Why would it be more valid? How does Russian intervention detract from self-determination in a way that Western intervention didn't in Kosovo? What do foreigners have to do with the Crimea wanting to secede?

In Kiev there were months of sustained peaceful protests. They were a follow on from the 2008 revolution. In Crimea there was no popular uprising. Armed gunmen sized control.

I assume you mean the 2004 revolution? That is, the effort of a decade ago that ultimately saw Yanukovych elected back in?

You mean Putin as the new Stalin. It would help if these pro Russian people gave up their Stalin statues. Even in the last 3 or 4 years now statues have been erected to this monster in Ukaine, easily one of the worst tyrants of modern history.

Which demonstrates nothing but the depth of attachment that many Crimeans feel for Russia.

Really. It has absolutely no relevance to this thread or the point I made. But that's the sort of hyperbole that typifies a strand of anti-Russian thinking. Putin is the new Stalin or the new Hitler and he has some secret masterplan to restore the USSR. That sort of unfounded nonsense is more at home in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

You don't know what happened in Ukraine at all. The Kiev parliament was never stormed

Yeah, it's funny how armed militias 'guard' the parliament in Kiev yet 'storm' the parliament in Simferopol. Tell me, which parliament is pictured below?

In Kiev there was up to 800,000 protesters

In Kiev there were hundreds of thousands protesting against a central government. In Crimea there was no longer a central government to protest against.

I've already said this above: the secession of Crimea is only on the table because of the near-complete collapse of the Ukrainian state apparatus. It is the same collapse that has allowed regional government buildings to be seized across the country - how many monster protest rallies were needed to seize control of Rivne or Poltava? The only difference between these and Crimea is that the latter is not aligned to the former opposition movement.

So I find it highly disingenuous to be moaning about "armed gunmen" or "militias" in the Crimea while applauding the same in Kiev. Let's try to name the city again:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDs4iapTLp_y3s3tPY9X-2Q-Aq4ohCSteUPSreddpWw3mrlKIYVg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDs4iapTLp_y3s3tPY9X-2Q-Aq4ohCSteUPSreddpWw3mrlKIYVg

Furthermore there is no concrete evidence that those gunmen in Crimea have a majority support of locals. Russians may be a majority but many support Ukraine not Moscow

This is fantasy land stuff. Every major news organisation has reported that the Russian soldiers have been largely welcomed by the Russian population in Crimea. Are we going to start suggesting that the BBC et al are now pro-Russian mouthpieces?

But ideally it'd be nice if there could be free and fair elections. Someone should have told that to the opposition leaders when they decided to step outside parliamentary politics and depose a government from the street

robp · 06-03-2014 12:52pm

Reekwind wrote: »

You haven't answered my question. Why would it be more valid? How does Russian intervention detract from self-determination in a way that Western intervention didn't in Kosovo? What do foreigners have to do with the Crimea wanting to secede?

Well for a start Vladimir Putin strongly opposed the secession of Kosovo from Serbia and Russia voted against military intervention. Unlike the people of Kosovo there has been no violence against ethnic Russians in Crimea.

Reekwind wrote: »

I assume you mean the 2004 revolution? That is, the effort of a decade ago that ultimately saw Yanukovych elected back in?

Which demonstrates nothing but the depth of attachment that many Crimeans feel for Russia.

Really. It has absolutely no relevance to this thread or the point I made. But that's the sort of hyperbole that typifies a strand of anti-Russian thinking. Putin is the new Stalin or the new Hitler and he has some secret masterplan to restore the USSR. That sort of unfounded nonsense is more at home in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

Yeah, it's funny how armed militias 'guard' the parliament in Kiev yet 'storm' the parliament in Simferopol. Tell me, which parliament is pictured below?

Protesters never stormed the Kiev parliament. You made the claim and it is 100% false. Now you

Reekwind wrote: »

In Kiev there were hundreds of thousands protesting against a central government. In Crimea there was no longer a central government to protest against.

I've already said this above: the secession of Crimea is only on the table because of the near-complete collapse of the Ukrainian state apparatus. It is the same collapse that has allowed regional government buildings to be seized across the country - how many monster protest rallies were needed to seize control of Rivne or Poltava? The only difference between these and Crimea is that the latter is not aligned to the former opposition movement.

So I find it highly disingenuous to be moaning about "armed gunmen" or "militias" in the Crimea while applauding the same in Kiev. Let's try to name the city again:

This is fantasy land stuff. Every major news organisation has reported that the Russian soldiers have been largely welcomed by the Russian population in Crimea. Are we going to start suggesting that the BBC et al are now pro-Russian mouthpieces?

But ideally it'd be nice if there could be free and fair elections. Someone should have told that to the opposition leaders when they decided to step outside parliamentary politics and depose a government from the street

The parliament voted to depose Viktor Yanukovych. The democratically elected parliament! Every news organisation also reported pro Ukrainian demonstrations in the Crimea. They have also reported human chains erected to prevent the Russian military attacking the Ukrainian military outposts in the Crimea. The Russian Federation controls Crimea and indeed has some popular support but it remains to be seen if the majority of Crimeans support them.

Reekwind · 07-03-2014 4:24pm

robp wrote: »

Well for a start Vladimir Putin strongly opposed the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. Unlike the people of Kosovo there has been no violence against ethnic Russians in Crimea

What do I care what Putin thinks? I supported the right of Kosovo to secede and I support the right of Crimea to secede. That's the right of self-determination. You can't say that this group deserves it and that group doesn't - which, to be fair, is something that Russia warned when the US recognised Kosovo's UDI.

Nor do I believe that this right to self-determination is conditional on violence, ie that it is impossible to peacefully secede. Violence is, unfortunately, a product of a country's borders but not inevitable. If it were then we should be telling the Baltic states to get back into a union with Russia. Ironic, no?

But then I wonder what the reaction of the nationalists in Kiev would be if Russia had chosen not to back the Crimean move towards independence. Do you believe that they would have allowed a vote on secession? Of course not – they are ideologically opposed to any idea of self-determination that would weaken their glorious Ukrainian nation

Protesters never stormed the Kiev parliament. You made the claim and it is 100% false

Protesters are in control of the Kiev parliament building. That is not in question. Yet I don't see anyone questioning whether that hinders the democratic government there. Yet when protesters take control of the parliament building in Crimea then suddenly it's a Russia coup

The parliament voted to depose Viktor Yanukovych. The democratically elected parliament!

The same parliament that had supported him and voted him the anti-protest laws in the first place. The same parliament that voted to recognise Russian's official status then promptly rescinded its own decision.

I eagerly await details of just how the Ukrainian parliament has been working these past few weeks and who is really making the decisions.

Every news organisation also reported pro Ukrainian demonstrations in the Crimea. They have also reported human chains erected to prevent the Russian military attacking the Ukrainian military outposts in the Crimea. The Russian Federation controls Crimea and indeed has some popular support but it remains to be seen if the majority of Crimeans support them.

If there is one certainty that can be divined from this mess of rumours and propaganda it's that the majority of the Crimea's population support the Russian occupation. And hey, at least they'll actually get some semblance of a vote on their future – something that Kiev would have automatically ruled out.

feargale · 07-03-2014 10:40pm

Reekwind wrote: »

What do I care what Putin thinks? I supported the right of Kosovo to secede and I support the right of Crimea to secede. That's the right of self-determination. You can't say that this group deserves it and that group doesn't.

Chechnya? Dagestan?

robp · 08-03-2014 2:36am

If anyone has a historical claim on Crimea its Turkey. Russia has no historical claim whatsoever to region.

feargale · 08-03-2014 2:48am

robp wrote: »

If anyone has a historical claim on Crimea its Turkey.

Oh jaypers whisht! Shtoppp! :eek:

jonniebgood1 · 08-03-2014 8:32am

robp wrote: »

If anyone has a historical claim on Crimea its Turkey. Russia has no historical claim whatsoever to region.

Come on. This is simply untrue, the quoted comment belittles your previous more intelligent posts.

Reekwind · 08-03-2014 10:24am

feargale wrote: »

Chechnya? Dagestan?

Yes

Ipso · 08-03-2014 7:44pm

robp wrote: »

If anyone has a historical claim on Crimea its Turkey. Russia has no historical claim whatsoever to region.

Weren't the Mongols there before the benevolent Russians?

robp · 09-03-2014 4:28pm

Ipso wrote: »

Weren't the Mongols there before the benevolent Russians?

For a brief period. The Tatars ruled for hundreds of years under the Crimean Khanate. Russian involvement only begins about 230 years ago when it took control of Crimea and all of Ukraine. In my opinion Russian's only claim to sovereign is the Russian population there. Yet, Russian majorities exist in pockets all across Eurasia in many different countries from Estonia to Kazakhstan. What makes them different?

Snickers Man · 14-03-2014 4:35pm

Do we want to settle this problem in Ukraine, or do we want to use it as leverage to squeeze Russia into insignificance? Or at least to try to do so.

There is a huge strategic element to this problem. Russia needs a major sea port and naval base on the Black Sea. Currently, that is in place in Sebastopol in the Crimea. If they lose that, they are in trouble. To maintain that, they will encourage instability in the Ukraine and paint themselves as protectors of the pro-Russian minority.

Is this solvable at a strategic level? Sure it is. If all the major powers said "Look, you can have your navy in Sebastopol, you can have free and agreed access to and from the rest of Russia, you can maintain a reasonable garrison there in return for which you guarantee Ukrainian independence and not to interfere in Ukrainian domestic affairs", then it's feasible.

But what if the west wants to play hard ball and say, a la George C Scott's character in Dr Strangelove. "We got a chance here to catch these Commie bastards with their pants down" and try to force Russia out of Sepastopol altogether, then you are going to get a distinctly tepid return to the Cold War, with the potential for it to heat up significantly.

Remember the song of the Victorian era by the music hall performer The Great McDermott (real name Johnny Farrell)? "We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do.....the Russians shall not have Constantinople"

Keeping the Russian Navy out of the Mediterranean was one thing; forcing them out of the Black Sea is quite another. They will fight to maintain that. Or will encourage their Crimean proxies to do so.

That has simply to be faced. And if Ukrainians feel that a deal with the Russian Navy is an "infringement of their sovereignty" then I'm afraid they will just have to be told, politely at first and forcefully otherwise that they just have to suck it up.

Otherwise there will be a war.

Simples, said the Meerkat.

rockonollie · 14-03-2014 9:41pm

Reekwind wrote: »

If there is one certainty that can be divined from this mess of rumours and propaganda it's that the majority of the Crimea's population support the Russian occupation. And hey, at least they'll actually get some semblance of a vote on their future – something that Kiev would have automatically ruled out.

Have you seen the two choices?......the vote is being set up to force the pro-Ukrainian people of the region out of Crimea...

There are 2 options on the ballot, become a member of the Russian federation, or become an independent state.....the people aren't being given the option to remain part of Ukraine, so how's that any different than if the parliament in Ukraine made the decision for them? The pro-Russian powers controlling Crimea have made the decision for the people, they're just using a sham referendum to try and give themselves some legitimacy.

jonniebgood1 · 14-03-2014 10:17pm

rockonollie wrote: »

Have you seen the two choices?......the vote is being set up to force the pro-Ukrainian people of the region out of Crimea...

There are 2 options on the ballot, become a member of the Russian federation, or become an independent state.....the people aren't being given the option to remain part of Ukraine, so how's that any different than if the parliament in Ukraine made the decision for them? The pro-Russian powers controlling Crimea have made the decision for the people, they're just using a sham referendum to try and give themselves some legitimacy.

Not quite. Some media outlets carry a biased report of this as per quoted comment.

The BBC has a clear explanation of the ballot paper here

Reekwind · 15-03-2014 6:53pm

rockonollie wrote: »

Have you seen the two choices?

Whereas Kiev would have provided no choice. It's an unfortunate reality that such a vote on self-determination (which is a right of the people of Crimea) is only possible under Russian aegis. That shouldn't detract from the fact that every indicator suggests that the majority of the population favours secession

robp · 15-03-2014 11:50pm

Reekwind wrote: »

Whereas Kiev would have provided no choice. It's an unfortunate reality that such a vote on self-determination (which is a right of the people of Crimea) is only possible under Russian aegis. That shouldn't detract from the fact that every indicator suggests that the majority of the population favours secession

Kiev has a right to a vote without the interference of foreign soldiers masquerading as local militia. Anyway the Crimean authorities have zero respect for the upcoming vote. They announced the outcome a week ago.

Popescu · 16-03-2014 3:29am

Five days before voting day the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) chair, Switzerland's Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter, declared the referendum as illegal under Ukrainian law and because of that the OSCE will not send observers.

Reekwind · 16-03-2014 9:40am

robp wrote: »

Kiev has a right to a vote without the interference of foreign soldiers masquerading as local militia

This isn't Kiev - this is Crimea. A Kiev government, particularly not a nationalist one, would never have allowed the people of Crimea such a vote.

But, hey, maybe it would be better for Crimea to vote on independence from the Ukraine if anti-independence Ukrainian soldiers were patrolling the streets, right?

Anyway the Crimean authorities have zero respect for the upcoming vote. They announced the outcome a week ago.

They made clear that they - and pretty much everyone else - believe that the pro-Russian cause is highly popular on the peninsula

Popescu · 16-03-2014 10:01am

Reekwind wrote: »

This isn't Kiev - this is Crimea. A Kiev government, particularly not a nationalist one, would never have allowed the people of Crimea such a vote.

Crimea is Kiev in the sense that it is part of the country which has Kiev as its capital, much as we would use the term "Moscow" to represent the government of Russia (i.e. Putin) or how Washington D.C. is responsible for Texas.

Reekwind wrote: »

But, hey, maybe it would be better for Crimea to vote on independence from the Ukraine if anti-independence Ukrainian soldiers were patrolling the streets, right?

There would be no referendum today but for the virtual annexation of Crimea by Moscow. Everyone knows the silent troops were Russian although the Kremlin continues to claim that all its forces in Crimea are in their bases.

Reekwind wrote: »

They made clear that they - and pretty much everyone else - believe that the pro-Russian cause is highly popular on the peninsula

And this is why the Crimean regional government was emboldened to announce the illegal referendum in the first place.

Reekwind · 16-03-2014 10:17am

Popescu wrote: »

Crimea is Kiev in the sense that it is part of the country which has Kiev as its capital, much as we would use the term "Moscow" to represent the government of Russia (i.e. Putin) or how Washington D.C. is responsible for Texas

Clearly that is no longer the case, de facto and soon to be de jure.

But even then ropb's post makes little sense. "'The Ukraine' has a right to a vote without the interference of foreign soldiers masquerading as local militia"? As I explain below, and above, the reality is that there would be no vote if the Kiev government had its way

There would be no referendum today but for the virtual annexation of Crimea by Moscow

Yeah, that was my point. It was Russian intervention that has created an environment in which the people of Crimea can vote on their future. The absence of such intervention would have emboldened the Kiev government to crack down and outlaw any such plebiscite. That is, to spell it out, the Crimean right to national self-determination can only be expressed with international support.

Now ideally it would be a multi-national UN force overseeing the elections but unfortunately the Western powers decided to throw their toys out of the pram rather than suggest a constructive way in which to hinder Russian posturing while facilitating Crimea's right to self-determination

And this is why the Crimean regional government was emboldened to announce the illegal referendum in the first place.

I love this notion of an "illegal referendum". The idea that all of Ukraine need vote on the independence of a region is itself mad. It's like insisting that England should have had a veto on Irish independence or that the incompatibility of Kosovo's secession should be voided because it's incompatible with the Serbian constitution or that all Britons should be allowed vote in the Scottish referendum. It's ridiculous.

Nations have the right to self-determination. All the convenient legal niceties in the world do not change that.

Popescu · 16-03-2014 10:53am

Reekwind wrote: »

Clearly that is no longer the case, de facto and soon to be de jure.

This certainly looks to be the case. How the European Union and the United States react is what we are all watching.

Reekwind wrote: »

But even then ropb's post makes little sense. "'The Ukraine' has a right to a vote without the interference of foreign soldiers masquerading as local militia"? As I explain below, and above, the reality is that there would be no vote if the Kiev government had its way

This is not disputed. The vote is against Ukraine law and the intervention of Russian troops is serving no purpose except to enlarge Russian hegemony by invading a neighboring country. Putin knows this and it is the reason for the farcical attempt to claim that Russian troops were only in their bases. It is a classic case of divide and rule, provoking regional pro-Russian elements to secede from Ukraine and join with them.

Reekwind wrote: »

Yeah, that was my point. It was Russian intervention that has created an environment in which the people of Crimea can vote on their future.

Precisely.

Reekwind wrote: »

The absence of such intervention would have emboldened the Kiev government to crack down and outlaw any such plebiscite.

The Ukrainian government has already done this as has the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the UN Security Council with one dissenting vote (Russia).

Reekwind wrote: »

That is, to spell it out, the Crimean right to national self-determination can only be expressed with international support.

This is contrary to the Ukrainian constitution.

Reekwind wrote: »

Now ideally it would be a multi-national UN force overseeing the elections but unfortunately the Western powers decided to throw their toys out of the pram rather than suggest a constructive way in which to hinder Russian posturing while facilitating Crimea's right to self-determination

Whatever designs the people of Crimea have on secession can only legally done according to the Ukrainian constitution.

Reekwind wrote: »

I love this notion of an "illegal referendum". The idea that all of Ukraine need vote on the independence of a region is itself mad. It's like insisting that England should have had a veto on Irish independence or that the incompatibility of Kosovo's secession should be voided because it's incompatible with the Serbian constitution or that all Britons should be allowed vote in the Scottish referendum. It's ridiculous.

Nevertheless, it is the law which can be changed if the people of Ukraine choose to amend their constitution. It cannot be sensible for all and any region to secede from a country without all the citizens having a say.

Reekwind wrote: »

Nations have the right to self-determination. All the convenient legal niceties in the world do not change that.

Crimea is not a nation.

Reekwind · 16-03-2014 11:37am

Popescu wrote: »

Whatever designs the people of Crimea have on secession can only legally done according to the Ukrainian constitution.

Nevertheless, it is the law which can be changed if the people of Ukraine choose to amend their constitution. It cannot be sensible for all and any region to secede from a country without all the citizens having a say.

In which case someone should probably tell the Baltic states, plus the Ukraine and Central Asian republics that they should rejoin the Soviet Union. After all, the opinion of "all [Soviet] citizens" was pretty clear in that case. In particular, the Ukrainian declaration of independence in 1991 was unilateral. Similarly, Ireland should rejoin the UK, Kosovo must recognise Serbian suzerainty and the United States had better rename itself the 'Thirteen Colonies'. Plus many more.

All of which make clear that nations have the right to determine their own futures without regard to the wishes of the dominant partner/party. That is, Ireland had the right to determine its own course without the agreement of England (which had attempted to prevent this via the use of force). Similarly, the independence of Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland and not the remainder of the UK.

Crimea is not a nation.

It is an Autonomous Republic within the Ukraine, a status akin to the constituent countries of the UK. It is not a nationstate but certainly a nation.

robp · 16-03-2014 12:21pm

Reekwind wrote: »

In which case someone should probably tell the Baltic states, plus the Ukraine and Central Asian republics that they should rejoin the Soviet Union. After all, the opinion of "all [Soviet] citizens" was pretty clear in that case. In particular, the Ukrainian declaration of independence in 1991 was unilateral. Similarly, Ireland should rejoin the UK, Kosovo must recognise Serbian suzerainty and the United States had better rename itself the 'Thirteen Colonies'. Plus many more.

All of which make clear that nations have the right to determine their own futures without regard to the wishes of the dominant partner/party. That is, Ireland had the right to determine its own course without the agreement of England (which had attempted to prevent this via the use of force). Similarly, the independence of Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland and not the remainder of the UK.

It is an Autonomous Republic within the Ukraine, a status akin to the constituent countries of the UK. It is not a nation state but certainly a nation.

Crimean isn't a nation. If it was they would identify as Crimean not Russian.

Chechnya, Tibet, Wales etc are nations. Automous administration regions are not automatically nations but some are if there is an ethnic basis. By your logic Spain is composed of 17 nations. There are few nations in Spain like Basque, Catalan, Galician but not 17.
Scotland is good example of how this process should work. Voting behind the barrel of a gun like what is happening in Crimea is wrong.

(Ukraine) Crimea- historically Russian ...

Comments