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
(Ukraine) Crimea- historically Russian ...
Options
Comments
-
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.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
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 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 coupProtesters never stormed the Kiev parliament. You made the claim and it is 100% false
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 The same parliament that voted to recognise Russian's official status then promptly rescinded its own decision.The parliament voted to depose Viktor Yanukovych. The democratically elected parliament!
I eagerly await details of just how the Ukrainian parliament has been working these past few weeks and who is really making the decisions.
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.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.0 -
-
If anyone has a historical claim on Crimea its Turkey. Russia has no historical claim whatsoever to region.0
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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 here0 -
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 secessionrockonollie wrote: »Have you seen the two choices?0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.Kiev has a right to a vote without the interference of foreign soldiers masquerading as local militia
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?
They made clear that they - and pretty much everyone else - believe that the pro-Russian cause is highly popular on the peninsulaAnyway the Crimean authorities have zero respect for the upcoming vote. They announced the outcome a week ago.0 -
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.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.
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.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?
And this is why the Crimean regional government was emboldened to announce the illegal referendum in the first place.They made clear that they - and pretty much everyone else - believe that the pro-Russian cause is highly popular on the peninsula0 -
Clearly that is no longer the case, de facto and soon to be de jure.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
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
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.There would be no referendum today but for the virtual annexation of Crimea by Moscow
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
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.And this is why the Crimean regional government was emboldened to announce the illegal referendum in the first place.
Nations have the right to self-determination. All the convenient legal niceties in the world do not change that.0 -
This certainly looks to be the case. How the European Union and the United States react is what we are all watching.Clearly that is no longer the case, de facto and soon to be de jure.
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.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
Precisely.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 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).The absence of such intervention would have emboldened the Kiev government to crack down and outlaw any such plebiscite.
This is contrary to the Ukrainian constitution.That is, to spell it out, the Crimean right to national self-determination can only be expressed with international support.
Whatever designs the people of Crimea have on secession can only legally done according to the Ukrainian constitution.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
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.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.
Crimea is not a nation.Nations have the right to self-determination. All the convenient legal niceties in the world do not change that.0 -
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.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.
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 nationstate but certainly a nation.Crimea is not a nation.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its disturbing how many Russians in Crimea genuinely equate the Ukrainian government with Nazism. As if Nazism is really going to exist in the government of an aspiring EU member state.
0 -
The Soviet Union imploded because Communism doesn't work. Its constituent republics were under the thumb of Moscow and the grip was lost when the country failed.In which case someone should probably tell the Baltic states, plus the Ukraine and Central Asian republics that they should rejoin the Soviet Union. After all, the opinion of "all Soviet citizens" was pretty clear in that case. In particular, the Ukrainian declaration of independence in 1991 was unilateral.
According to the UK constitution, that country is not a true democracy but a representative one and the will of the people is expressed in parliament which did sign a treaty with what was to become the Irish Free State.Similarly, Ireland should rejoin the UK ...
The people of Kosovo had a moral right to resist the tyranny of Serb nationalism and intolerance. Sometimes a case can be made for secession when prolonging a union serves to oppress citizens.Kosovo must recognise Serbian suzerainty
The Americans were big enough and far enough away to be independent of a tyrannical monarchy and their republican revolution became an inspiration to others.and the United States had better rename itself the 'Thirteen Colonies'. Plus many more.
Only when the minority are being oppressed.All of which make clear that nations have the right to determine their own futures without regard to the wishes of the dominant partner/party.
A case could have been and was made for Irish Home Rule.That is, Ireland had the right to determine its own course without the agreement of England (which had attempted to prevent this via the use of force).
Back in the days of monarchy, when the King of Scotland became the King of England, a united kingdom was a relatively easy development and the ending of the union need not be contentious either.Similarly, the independence of Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland and not the remainder of the UK.
Crimea is not a nation in the same sense as Scotland is with its own language, legal system, and traditions.It is an Autonomous Republic within the Ukraine, a status akin to the constituent countries of the UK. It is not a nationstate but certainly a nation.
Really, attempts to generalize from the particular circumstances of Ukraine today to places and events remote in location and circumstances, sometimes in a world which had greatly changed, will not help us understand how the current problems in Ukraine can be wisely solved.0 -
Which is only relevant to the question of self-determination insofar as it gave these nations motivation to break away. It has no bearing on the legal right of them to do so.The Soviet Union imploded because Communism doesn't work. Its constituent republics were under the thumb of Moscow and the grip was lost when the country failed
And I've addressed this in posts above. The right to self-determination is not conditional on oppression or violence.The people of Kosovo had a moral right to resist the tyranny of Serb nationalism and intolerance. Sometimes a case can be made for secession when prolonging a union serves to oppress citizens.
Oh, so now the right to self-determination is dependent on:The Americans were big enough and far enough away to be independent of a tyrannical monarchy and their republican revolution became an inspiration to others- Communism
- Violence
- Size
- Distance from the metropole
Why don't we just sum it up to the one condition that actually matters here: national self-determination is good unless it's sponsored by Russia. Because all that's on display above is a ridiculous level of double standards
Which is something entirely different. Are you suggesting that the Irish independence movement - ie those who fought the British Empire in the name of an independent Ireland - were entirely illegitimate until their success was recognised by British government? That is, until British constitutional niceties had been met then it was not possible or desirable to agitate for an independent Ireland?A case could have been and was made for Irish Home Rule.
Crimea possesses a distinct language, parliament, judicial system and set of customs/traditions to the rest of the Ukraine. It is recognised by Kiev as a republic. It ticks all the right boxes for classification as a nation.Crimea is not a nation in the same sense as Scotland is with its own language, legal system, and traditions.
Hmmmm. you insist that Crimeans would have to claim independence (ie not join Russia) to be a nation; then you point out examples of nations that exist within nationstates. I suggest that you revisit your logic.robp wrote:Crimean isn't a nation. If it was they would identify as Crimean not Russian.
Agreed. It's a pity that Kiev would never agree to such a process. Which is what I've been harping on about in those posts of mine that you seem determined not to readScotland is good example of how this process should work0 -
Irish legal sovereignty came with a mutual agreement with Britain, not with violence. There is no sign of such an agreement with Kiev.Which is something entirely different. Are you suggesting that the Irish independence movement - ie those who fought the British Empire in the name of an independent Ireland - were entirely illegitimate until their success was recognised by British government? That is, until British constitutional niceties had been met then it was not possible or desirable to agitate for an independent Ireland?
Crimean Russian is not a distinct language or dialect from Russian. Crimean Russian culture is no different to typical Russian culture. Furthermore Russian is a secondary language of all of Ukraine.Crimea possesses a distinct language, parliament, judicial system and set of customs/traditions to the rest of the Ukraine. It is recognised by Kiev as a republic. It ticks all the right boxes for classification as a nation.
Different nation can exist in one country but being an autonomous region does not verify that a nation exits. Can you honestly tell me that the autonomous region of Madrid is a nation? Crimea doesn't have to have independence to be nation but it does need some sort of cultural unity factor. Ask one of these Russians in Crimea do they view Crimea as a nation. Of course they don't.Hmmmm. you insist that Crimeans would have to claim independence (ie not join Russia) to be a nation; then you point out examples of nations that exist within nationstates. I suggest that you revisit your logic.
You don't know that. A makey-up prediction is not a fact and even if it was fact a means is not justified by an end.Agreed. It's a pity that Kiev would never agree to such a process. Which is what I've been harping on about in those posts of mine that you seem determined not to read0 -
The USSR failed and its law broke-down. The subservient so-called republics had no union to belong to.Which is only relevant to the question of self-determination insofar as it gave these nations motivation to break away. It has no bearing on the legal right of them to do so.
In a proper democracy which respects the rights of all citizens, there is no need for self-determination of people to have independence as a prerequisite.And I've addressed this in posts above. The right to self-determination is not conditional on oppression or violence.
Various factors can interfere with a people's right to self-determination.Oh, so now the right to self-determination is dependent on:- Communism
- Violence
- Size
- Distance from the metropole
There are other ways of achieving goals other than violence.... Are you suggesting that the Irish independence movement - ie those who fought the British Empire in the name of an independent Ireland - were entirely illegitimate until their success was recognised by British government?
There are both peaceful and violent ways to agitate.That is, until British constitutional niceties had been met then it was not possible or desirable to agitate for an independent Ireland?
No, they speak mostly Russian after a successful plantation there.Crimea possesses a distinct language, parliament, judicial system and set of customs/traditions to the rest of the Ukraine.
Crimea is not a republic no more that The People's Republic of China.It is recognised by Kiev as a republic.
Nope, it doesn't.It ticks all the right boxes for classification as a nation.0 -
You're sort of missing those years in which a certain IRA was at war with a British government that refused to recognise it or Irish independence. London's acknowledgement of the latter was wrung from it by armed struggle. Similarly Serbia still refuses to recognise the Republic of Kosovo, yet this has not stopped numerous others doing so.Irish legal sovereignty came with a mutual agreement with Britain, not with violence. There is no sign of such an agreement with Kiev.
I mean, really, this is very basic stuff we're covering here. People are either being deliberately obtuse or just exceptionally legalistic. I'm not sure that there's a difference.
Out of curiosity, what's the language of Kosovo? What is the majority ethnic composition of the Republic? Don't bother answering. The idea that each nation must be unique in itself is nonsense, a strawman.Crimean Russian is not a distinct language or dialect from Russian. Crimean Russian culture is no different to typical Russian culture. Furthermore Russian is a secondary language of all of Ukraine.
Why is Madrid relevant? Is Madrid an Autonomous Republic (note the capitals)? Are there any similarities between Madrid and the Crimea's constitutional arrangements or histories? Or have you simply latched on to the word 'autonomous'?Different nation can exist in one country but being an autonomous region does not verify that a nation exits. Can you honestly tell me that the autonomous region of Madrid is a nation?
It is quite clear that even under the pre-2014 constitution, the Crimea enjoyed wide-ranging autonomy, recognising its unique place in the Ukraine. That is not the same as Madrid (which is an inane example given that it serves as the capital) or any simple administrative boundary.
It's pretty clear that Kiev rejects any possibility of elections on the peninsula and rejects the very concept of self-determination for the Crimea. Hence their objections are founded on the insistence of the Ukraine's 'territorial integrity', ie as an inviolable territorial unit.You don't know that. A makey-up prediction is not a fact and even if it was fact a means is not justified by an end.
And anyone who believes that nationalists who came to power on an explicit anti-Russian platform would tolerate the secession of part of their nationstate to Russia is really living in cloud cuckoo land.
Except that the fact is that the Ukraine (along with the Baltic states) unilaterally declared independence before the USSR had been dissolved and while avenues were still being explored to maintain it.Popescu wrote:The USSR failed and its law broke-down. The subservient so-called republics had no union to belong to.
Hence the fact that it's called the 'right to national self-determination'. I'd draw your attention to the first word in that expression. Rights are not always exercised but they remain inalienable.In a proper democracy which respects the rights of all citizens, there is no need for self-determination of people to have independence as a prerequisite
I don't insist on a fair trial every day before breakfast but I'd like to think that should I ever come before a court of law then I'd enjoy one. Similarly, in a well-working nation (which the Ukraine today is manifestly not) there should be no need for separation in a well-run country that respects its minorities - secession is a sign of crisis. Which brings us back to the fact that the spark for this entire mess was the seizure of power by the opposition movement in Kiev and their remarkable failure to reassure the southern and eastern provinces.
Which doesn't answer my question. Is this a suggestion that you do think that those Irish revolutionaries who took up arms against Britain in the name of national independence were illegitimate and without mandate?There are other ways of achieving goals other than violence.
No, that'd be a yes. Russian is not Ukrainian, ie it is distinct.No, they speak mostly Russian after a successful plantation there
As for the plantation comment, are you advocating ethnically cleansing the Crimea of its Russian population? If not, I fail to see the relevance of centuries old demographic movements. If that was to be a determinant then we'd simply give the whole area back to the Scythians
Good. Because pretty much every country in the world recognises the People's Republic of China as an independent republic.Crimea is not a republic no more that The People's Republic of China.0 -
I thought we had come to stage where armed rebellion was frowned upon but apparently not...You're sort of missing those years in which a certain IRA was at war with a British government that refused to recognise it or Irish independence. London's acknowledgement of the latter was wrung from it by armed struggle. Similarly Serbia still refuses to recognise the Republic of Kosovo, yet this has not stopped numerous others doing so.
Madrid is an autonomous district with their own parliaments, governments, public administrations, budgets, and resources. Your just backtracking. The notion that 'Crimea Russian' is a nation is a fanciful. It has no grounds. Crimea has certain autonomy but no more then the state of California or Barcelona tc.Why is Madrid relevant? Is Madrid an Autonomous Republic (note the capitals)? Are there any similarities between Madrid and the Crimea's constitutional arrangements or histories? Or have you simply latched on to the word 'autonomous'?
Its not at all clear. Listening to rhetoric from Mariano Rajoy one would think that Catalan independence is impossible. This is political bluff, thus armed insurrection is unnecessary even if it was morally just and legal. Anyway, the current government is only interim. A new government will be elected shortly.It's pretty clear that Kiev rejects any possibility of elections on the peninsula and rejects the very concept of self-determination for the Crimea. Hence their objections are founded on the insistence of the Ukraine's 'territorial integrity', ie as an inviolable territorial unit.
This is false. they had no anti-Russian platform. Its absurd to suggest being pro-EU is automatically anti-Russian.And anyone who believes that nationalists who came to power on an explicit anti-Russian platform would tolerate the secession of part of their nationstate to Russia is really living in cloud cuckoo land.
Ukraine's declaration of Self-Determination occurred a month was voted on one moth after Russia's declaration of self-determination. It was no coup. It was an act in solidarity with what was happening in Moscow.Except that the fact is that the Ukraine (along with the Baltic states) unilaterally declared independence before the USSR had been dissolved and while avenues were still being explored to maintain it.0 -
Here is Mr. Putin's take on it, including some of his thoughts on the history of the region and beyond:
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/68890 -
-
Advertisement
-
No, you are mistaken if you imagine that there was an attempt to continue the Communist Soviet system.... Except that the fact is that the Ukraine (along with the Baltic states) unilaterally declared independence before the USSR had been dissolved and while avenues were still being explored to maintain it.
I never heard of a right to "national" self-determination.Hence the fact that it's called the 'right to national self-determination'. I'd draw your attention to the first word in that expression. Rights are not always exercised but they remain inalienable.
Please try to stay on topic.Which doesn't answer my question. Is this a suggestion that you do think that those Irish revolutionaries who took up arms against Britain in the name of national independence were illegitimate and without mandate?
Stalin ethnically cleansed Crimea of Tartars and replaced them with Russians.As for the plantation comment, are you advocating ethnically cleansing the Crimea of its Russian population? If not, I fail to see the relevance of centuries old demographic movements. If that was to be a determinant then we'd simply give the whole area back to the Scythians
Red China is, in no sense, a republic. It is a Communist state which is encouraging a new Capitalist elite class as long as they tow the politburo line. Mao must be turning in his grave.Good. Because pretty much every country in the world recognises the People's Republic of China as an independent republic.0
Advertisement