Kromagv0 writes:
"The BBC is reporting that the Crimea parliament is seeking to join the Russian Federation. The interim Ukrainian government is stating that this move is unconstitutional. If the Russian government approves the request the citizens of the Crimea region will be allowed to vote on the issue in the 16 March referendum."
[ED Note: This is no doubt being widely reported. However, we have some community members here with ties to the region and more still with highly informed perspectives. Discussion is what sets us apart.]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Crimea Seeks to Join Russian Federation
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 62 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @07:26PM
We allowed Kosovo the independence. How is this different?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 06 2014, @07:35PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Random2 on Thursday March 06 2014, @07:51PM
The other problem is the long-term implication of such an act.
Looking at the demographics of Crimea [wikipedia.org], there was a rather drastic increase of citizens with Russian ethnicity in 1959, which continues to hold majority to this day.
While we can certainly 'leave things to the people living there', does this mean it's ok for a government to move a huge number of citizens into a region, wait 20-40 years, and then have the people vote to annex themselves into the original country? That idea could get rather murky very quickly, especially in governments which engage in long-term planning operations....
If only I registered 3 users earlier....
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:07PM
Like Texas and California?
I'm only half joking, I don't remember any of the specifics but I could swear both were part of mexico at one point.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:22PM
Some Mexicans in the US want to reconquer the American Southwest [wikipedia.org] by demographic change. There are also other secessionist movements in the US, [wikipedia.org] although none with demographics on their side outside of Puerto Rico [wikipedia.org].
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Random2 on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:39PM
As you may recall from your world history, Texas [wikipedia.org] and California [wikipedia.org] were forcibly taken from Mexico as part of the Mexican-American War [wikipedia.org].
My point was about a 'peaceful takeover' by use of flooding a territory with citizens with the intent to disrupt the local government and thus 'annex' it. Regardless of whether Russia actually has a plan like that in place (although they certainly could be accused of having one [wikipedia.org]), simply ignoring what is going on in Crimea could set a bad precedent.
If only I registered 3 users earlier....
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:24PM
> Texas and California were forcibly taken from Mexico
So, worse than assimilation.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:37PM
It's also ancient history. That was around the same time the Trail of Tears happened, and not much before that was the wholesale migration of European settlers into North America and the displacement and other various forced relocations of the native peoples. Don't forget, Mexico isn't exactly blameless; just like the US, that country is the result of European conquest, and was (during the Mexican-American War) run by descendants of Spaniards. (The upper classes in Mexico are still all ethnically European, and look totally "white".)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:00AM
Though it was Texas that seemed most actively involved in the moving settlers into another country, claiming to be friendly and loyal, and then when the numbers were high enough declaring independence.
Although there are differences, in that the US never sent in unmarked soldiers who took control of everything while pretending to not be there.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:20PM
Crimea was part of Russia since 1783 and until 1954 when it was transferred to Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine were the republics of the Soviet Union until 1991. There were no borders or anything, just one big unhappy country. It would be similar to if parts of Oklahoma were transferred to Texas. It wouldn't make you less American. So, essentially it was truly part of Ukraine since 1991.
Secondly, the sudden increase of Russian population was a result of Crimean Tatars being accused of collaboration with the Nazis and deported to Central Asia after the WWII. They were allowed back later. 2001 census lists the number of Crimean Tatars at 12% vs. 19% in 1939.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:42PM
It would be similar to if parts of Oklahoma were transferred to Texas. It wouldn't make you less American.
Not if Texas seceded. (Don't forget, there's been lots of secessionist sentiment in Texas, and still is, possibly more recently.)
Ukraine was part of the USSR until 1991. Maybe they're just a little ahead of us in the US, and in a few years this country will also break apart like the USSR did, with Texas and the west-coast states ditching the rest of the country. That'd make the remaining US like Russia, Texas like Ukraine, and the west-coast states like Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Now the US wants Houston back and moves troops in to seize it.
(Score: 1) by Jiro on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:43PM
The Wikipedia article for Demographics of Crimea has population listings with
1939 — 1,123,800 (49.6% Russians, 19.4% Crimean Tatars, 13.7% Ukrainians, 5.8% Jews, 4.5% Germans, 1.8% Greeks, 1.4% Bulgarians, 1.1% Armenians, 0.5% Poles)
1959 — 1,201,500 (71.4% Russians, 22.3% Ukrainians, 2.2% Jews, 0.1% Poles)
1979 — 2,135,900 (68.4% Russians, 25.6% Ukrainians, 1.1% Jews, 0.7% Crimean Tatars, 0.3% Poles, 0.2% Armenians, 0.2% Greeks)
1989 — 2,430,500 (67.1% Russians, 25.8% Ukrainians, 1.6% Crimean Tatars, 0.7% Jews, 0.3% Poles, 0.1% Greeks)
2001 — 2,401,200 (60.4% Russians, 24.0% Ukrainians, 10.2% Crimean Tatars, 1.5% Belarusians, 0.6% Tatars, 0.4% Armenians, 0.2% each of Jews, Poles, Moldovans and Azeris)
From that it looks like Tatars are not being counted as Russians and the return of the Tatars is a separate event. Furthermore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars [wikipedia.org] states that "Crimean Tatars, led by Crimean Tatar National Movement Organization,[33] were not allowed to return to Crimea from exile until the beginning of the Perestroika in the mid-1980s."
(Score: 2, Informative) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:03AM
Ukraine was a part of the USSR, but not a part of Russia.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Zanothis on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:24PM
Additionally, considering that the Crimean Peninsula was a part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic until 1954, I'm not particularly surprised by these percentages.
Had Russia intended to have Crimea for itself, the simple long-term solution would have simply been to not give the peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in the first place. This seems like a considerably more recent development than "20-40 years."
The real issue that gets raised if this is allowed is: "Is it acceptable to invade a sovereign nation, occupy the invaded territory and have the subjugated peoples vote to be annexed by the invading nation?" The answer really should be "No," but I don't think Putin is actually capable of thinking of anything other than expanding his nation's territory.
I think we'll be seeing many references to Poland in the near future. Also, I think I just made myself lose the discussion via Godwin's Law.
The source for a large portion of the information is here [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:22PM
Poland is already more than a little concerned. I have business associates there, who speak about this.
They do worry about the eastern provinces of Poland which historically [wikipedia.org] were heavily Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Russian.
Their overall demographics have changed, and now days those various ethnic Russians are a pretty small minority [wikipedia.org]. They are however, still mostly concentrated in the east, which means if Crimea is prized away from Ukraine, the useful idiots in the east can start demonstrating for re-uniting with their roots, giving Russia another excuse.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:14AM
A lot of the worry comes from heavy rhetoric from Russia that is strongly opposed to any western leanings. They consider the orange revolution and rose revolution to be bad things to be prevented, whereas the west sees those as democracy trying to take root. Some Russian politicians will even accuse their opponents of being "orange".
So of course this causes concern for former Soviet bloc countries or former Soviet republics that have made significant moves towards the west.
A problem with eastern Ukraine though is that most of the Russian speakers are in the cities but rural people are more Ukrainian speakers, and it's not nearly as uniform as the voting maps might indicate. It's relatively easy to grab awa Crimea because of geography, but it would be much more difficult for Russia to try to take parts of eastern Ukraine with a long porous border.
(Score: 1) by glyph on Friday March 07 2014, @12:03AM
Policy changes. If Putin was in charge in 1954 do you think Russia would have given up Crimea?
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:06AM
It was given to Ukraine by Kruschev who was half Ukrainian. Overall though Crimea has changed hands a lot and is best considered as region of it's own; it made sense for it to be an autonomous region in Ukraine, but if Russia takes it back I doubt they will grant it autonomy.
(Score: 1) by Geotti on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:41PM
Well, even without the boost the percentage of Russian to Ukrainean population stayed largely the same. ~35 to ~40 %.
They do seem to make some money through tourism apparently [google.com], judging by the amount of google results, so maybe they should just become an independent state? As long as they rent their bases to Russia they'll have an additional cash cow [diploweb.com] (as well as implied protection):
They, of course, need only a fraction of gas Ukraine uses, but it's probably still a pretty nice deal. (And they get to keep the cash instead of sending it to Kiev.)
(Score: 1) by joekiser on Thursday March 06 2014, @11:04PM
The Free State Project is doing exactly that in New Hampshire.
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday March 07 2014, @12:03AM
"The Free State Project does not promote secession." [freestateproject.org] It's also not a project of the Federal government, so it's a bit different from forcible transfer.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 07 2014, @02:32AM
The Crimean Peninsula has only been "Ukrainian" since 1954. Prior to that, the Crimea has variously belonged to Greece, Rome, Turkey, the Russian Empire, the USSR, and more. Prior to the USSR, the largest demographic in the Crimea were Tatars.
According to your own demographics chart, since 1939, there have never been more than about 25% population of Ukrainians.
A reasonable summary of Crimea's history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea [wikipedia.org]
So, if half of the people living there are actually Russian, and 1/4 of the people are Ukrainian, the other 1/4 are made up of a large number of small minorities - this idea of "self determination" quite likely dictates that Crimea actually DOES want to be part of Russia!
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @03:49AM
Hey, are we talking about the independent Republic of Texas here?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday March 06 2014, @07:55PM
Dude. That was seriously harsh. What did California ever do to you?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:25PM
You are more likely to see France surrender to California!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:36PM
As the vast majority of population is ethnic Russians (close to 60%) and seem to actually want Crimea to join Russia, I doubt the validity can be questioned. The outcome would likely be the same with or without the military present.
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:19AM
Do you count that as a "vast" majority, or only a majority? What about the 40% who don't want to be Russian? They'll probably end up being seen as traitors if they become Russian, and there would be a lot of relocation.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by kebes on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:54PM
On the other hand, in reality you will never end up with unanimity in such opinions. So what one is really saying is that a subset of the people within a region want to break off from the main country. This still seems like a valid democratic option in some sense, as it enacts the will of the majority. But then real, functional democracies have various checks and balances to protect the rights of minorities, and to guard against the tyranny of the majority. In other words: what about the fate of all those people living in the region who do not want to have the land their home is standing on suddenly handed from one government to another?
To make this more concrete, take the example of the Province of Quebec in Canada; this province has long argued that their predominantly-French culture is distinct from Canada as a whole. They have thus attempted on more than one occasion to secede from Canada. So far these referendums have failed; but let's say one succeeded. In such a case, would it not be equally fair for a sub-region of Quebec to have a referendum to vote on seceding from Quebec (and re-integrating into Canada, say). In this example, the substantial English-speaking population of Montreal were in fact asking this very question.
One can take this to an absurd extreme, where progressively smaller sub-regions are given the option to vote on their fate... In which case you are effectively allowing each and every person to decide which country they want to be a part of. Obviously this is unworkable. Geographic borders are a matter of many historical accidents; they are in some sense arbitrary. But they are also very much real when it comes to intelligently administering and governing.
I'm not making an explicit argument here. I believe in general the will of the people should be enacted; including if their will is to secede. However one must have safeguards to protect minorities, and to prevent such massive changes from taking place without due time and process.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:11PM
In fact, a number of Quebec First Nations have stated that they will do just that in the event of Quebec seperating from Canada.
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:22AM
There was the solution about minorities used during the Yugoslavian break up; just force them to pack up and leave, or leave without packing up first. Many of those who defend the ethnic cleansing even today use much of the same rhetoric about self determination of a people.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:01PM
Although this now lowers the Russian population of Ukraine to such a point that it is unlikely there will be another ethnically-Russian President anytime soon. The now-ousted President Viktor Yanukovych won the office with under 50% of the vote, and only a margin of under 3.5% [bbc.co.uk] in 2010. This demographic change may stabilize Ukrainian politics, which have been highly contentious for a decade. [wikipedia.org]
Of course, if the now-dominant Ukrainians oppress the remaining Russians who are largely dominant themselves in Ukraine's remaining eastern parts, anything is possible.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by emg on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:42PM
In this case, Crimea would get to escape from the talons of the EU.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mrbluze on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:37PM
This is different and the same: Western powers, through provocation (see story leaked phone call by Estonian prime minister on snipers picking off protesters), caused a coup/revolution in Ukraine that has hurt Russia's fundamental economic and geopolitical interests. The response of Russia is actually pretty measured, which is to reoccupy the areas that are most important to it. Why has the West provoked this? It may be that the US/Nato are feeling ready for a greater war with Russia/China, it may be as revenge for failing to take Syria. Either way the majority of us are being played for fools to once again fight someone else's war.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 1) by tibman on Friday March 07 2014, @02:25AM
The snipers did not cause the riots. They also shot everyone, not any one specific group. The former prime minister of Ukraine was a crook and the people were pissed. This was long before those snipers shot anyone and by the timeline the prime minister had already stepped down. Where are you getting information that any western power was involved? The majority of the rioters were pro-EU. That doesn't mean that any EU organization caused a coup. Then you throw China in there for some reason. How is China related to Ukraine? Who failed to take Syria? Who is getting conned into fighting someone else's war?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by mrbluze on Friday March 07 2014, @02:43AM
China has sided with Russia in this matter. The Syrian conflict has been described as a proxy war multiple times, regarding the snipers this is the controversy in that they not from the pro-Russian side. You can get all of this info easily if you read widely. If you think revolutions or coups like this just happen spontaneously then it's not worth discussing further. If there is a war then it's NATO which is everybody, unless you don't know anyone who belongs to the armed forces.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 1) by tibman on Friday March 07 2014, @03:04AM
How could Russia not profit from instability in Ukraine? They literally are carving out a huge chunk of Ukraine because of it. Seems like the snipers contributed to that. The fact is that nobody knows exactly who the snipers work for or represent. That doesn't mean we can't speculate. But it does mean we can't use that speculation as facts to push our desired viewpoint.
Your China comment still does not make sense. It may be that the US/Nato are feeling ready for a greater war with Russia/China.. That makes it sound like the US(or NATO) are doing something when in-fact you said it was China that did something. They sided with Russia (i'm guessing that means they are for Russia taking the Crimea region back). As far as i can tell the US has done nothing but talk and make phone calls. Russia has invaded. There's no need to speculate too much further than that. I doubt Syria matters in Ukraine's affairs.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by mrbluze on Friday March 07 2014, @03:56AM
Syria matters in Russia's affairs, Ukraine matters in Russia's affairs, in particular its military presence there. Russia matters in US/NATO's affairs. Russia loses from the current instability because it lost its puppet president and now there is a western puppet in its place. Russia's plan to maintain influence over the areas it once annexed is being thwarted. As for China the fact that it sides with Russia in this is a way of telling people where its allegiance lies. I am hoping you are able to see a bigger picture.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @10:53AM
China may just be validating the tactic of taking territory for ethnic reasons. In East Siberia, you can find more ethnic Chinese than Russians. The region is a market for China, buying natural resources and selling back exports. China may wish to make that virtual colony a real colony, and who would Russia be to complain.
(Score: 1) by tibman on Friday March 07 2014, @02:26PM
hah, now that would be interesting.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:31AM
The Estonian PM was discussing some theories that had been floating around in Kiev (ie, conspiracy theories or otherwise). He did not promote those idea, there is nothing provactive about it, and has expressed concern at the ease of misinterpretation when taken out of context.
But since Estonia is pro-Western, and Putin has already shown a very large dislike of Estonia in the past, it's no doubt that this comment is being played up big in the pro-Putin circles.
(Score: 1) by mrbluze on Friday March 07 2014, @04:53AM
Yep I agree it is being spun that way, but it also fits with who would (and did) benefit from the situation spilling over and toppling the government. I should stress I am not taking sides, but try to have a healthy distrust of all concerned.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 1) by akinliat on Thursday March 06 2014, @11:50PM
Well, for starters, there was no whisper of secession until a few days ago -- right around the time that the Russians invaded -- sorry, unknown heavily armed forces with no identification appeared out of thin air. In fact, there was no real evidence of any ethnic tension, other than a propsed law making Ukrainian the only official language in the country. Even that was quickly dropped once people started to protest (not just ethnic Russians, BTW).
The simple fact of the matter is that the narrative of an oppressed ethnic minority seeking Russian protection has been fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth by the Kremlin.
In part this is due to deep-seated Russian fears of invasion from hostile neighbors. In part, it's due to Russian delusions of grandeur -- Russia is effectively a third-world state with a first-world self-image. And finally, it's due, in no small part, to the fact that the country is run by a narcissistic moron -- think George W. Bush without any checks and balances and without a hostile media.
If there were any truth to the Russian narrative, you would expect that the fear of "fascist oppression" would have led to at least some ethnic Russians to flee eastern Ukraine. This article [politico.com], though, written by a Muscovite freelance journalist, points out that:
In a funny way, this whole mess just makes me feel old. When I was a kid, the Russians were the scary monster under the bed, complete with mushroom clouds and nuclear winter. Now, as an adult, it seems that they're just dust bunnies, after all.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday March 06 2014, @07:54PM
Khrushchev's son, Ukrainian on his mothers's side, says this is a bad idea [voanews.com]. But then it has his father that gave Crimea to Ukraine. (At that time Crimea was not so heavily populated by Russians. They all moved there because it is the "Florida of Russia" and wealthy Russians moved in in droves.
Absent the meddling of Russian forces, they would have learned to get along, just like all the other split ethnicity countries in the region. I suspect there is no hope for that now, and a highly suspect election is bound to take place with Russian troops guarding the polling places.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:14PM
That's a nice whitewash of the Soviet internal forcible transfers of people, including Crimean Tatars [wikipedia.org] which was done at such a scale it makes the Trail of Tears [wikipedia.org] look almost pleasant.
How many decades or centuries back should we revert these changes? 1707? [wikipedia.org] 1833? [wikipedia.org] 1918? [wikipedia.org] 1967? [wikipedia.org]
Or should we let this stand since the majority of the current popular in Crimea is Russian [wikipedia.org] now? It would have been preferable the people of Crimea had the legal right to a vote of secession, without Russian troops present, rather than just a natural, moral right.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by daver!west!fmc on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:03PM
This makes me look forward to news reports about the activities of Crimean Man. Seriously, though, what gets it this designation: the weather, the beaches, the big bugs, the low taxes? I'm thinking it's not the rockets.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Bob the Super Hamste on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:41PM
For those who are wondering what series of events lead to this the BBC has this article [bbc.com]. Scroll to the bottom and work your way up to get to the present. Seem reasonably factual but presents the pro western side of the story.
Learn to take care of your vehicle [blogspot.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Geotti on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:56PM
Here's [rt.com] the Russian narrative. Combining both sheds a light at what's really going on.
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @04:56AM
It's also very clear just from that article, that Crimea is under occupation by a foreign power. The picture at the top shows unmarked soldiers blockading a Ukrainian base. In other words, whoever they are, wink wink, they are not there to assist or protect any Russian citizens. Maybe they're just more of the local mobs running amok but it is unlikely (one told a BBC Russian service reporter that they'd meet again in Moscow). It's probably clear to everyone that yes these are real Russian soldiers acting under official orders. Hand waving about military agreements is ridiculous because no agreements were signed allowing Russians soldiers to go anywhere they like and to blockade Ukrainian military bases or to block the harbors.
Then not far down in the article note that the Russian foreign minister is angry that Ukraine is not allowing Russian citizens to cross the border. Well duh. The country is being occupied by a foreign power, which almost everyone would consider to be a hostile act, so preventing entry from citizens of that foreign power is a very logical thing.
As for RT itself, it's a mouthpiece for the Kremlin by many accounts. I'll trust an amalgam of various western news services; sure some of them may be in the pay of some politicians but they can't all be.
(Score: 1) by Geotti on Friday March 07 2014, @06:25AM
Well, I wouldn't believe that, just remember what happened during the NSA scandal, all shared the same script as they do now. Most are mouthpieces of Washington in one way or the other, IMHO.
So I find the antipode of RT quite refreshing. They actually seem to have some valid points, which the western press apparently (conveniently) ignores (e.g. the phone call of Estonian foreign minister with the Catherine Ashton, EU foreign policy chief about evidence that the snipers at Maidan were shooting at both sides and funded by the (former) opposition that is currently in power.)
You realize how much they're all lying, when you're actually in any of the hotspots and then come back and turn on TV to hear them tell a completely different picture of what *you* have seen with your own eyes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @06:37AM
Saw the foreign minister thing on the BBC I think.
(Score: 1) by Bob the Super Hamste on Friday March 07 2014, @01:08PM
Thanks for the good counterpoint. I didn't know where to look to find one and would have loved to include it in with what I provided.
Learn to take care of your vehicle [blogspot.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Thursday March 06 2014, @08:51PM
OK, so the people of Ukraine ousted their president because they did not like his policies. Great... Yeah!... Power to the people... but now the prime minister says that Crimea can't leave, because that would be unconstitutional. WTF!? You have already thrown your laws out the window once, why not a second time? Now the fact that there are non-russian-local-security-defence-forces-that-pro bably-are-russian troops occupying the region, and that the vote to succeed is scheduled 10 days out, not leaving much time for public debate, have me doubting the validity of this action. But hey, why should they be allowed to do this?
(Score: 1) by bugamn on Friday March 07 2014, @03:13AM
I think they ousted the president within the laws, so they haven't thrown th laws out of the the window.
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @05:04AM
It's not entirely clear that the president was "ousted" or that it was done outside the law. The president left unexpectedly by many accounts, which seems logical given the way the wind was blowing. After he left there was a vote in parliament and the opposition gained the upper hand, mostly because several in the pro-Yanukovych side had been abandoning him in recent days. The most recent constitution was heavily biased to giving most power to the president, and its adoption had been greeted with skepticism from the start with rumors of vote tampering (Yanukovych has had these voting irregularities follow him throughout his career). The constitution they reverted to gave more power to parliament. The "coup" claim is from Yanukovych who really can't be trusted to be forthright here.
There were no "mobs" that invaded the parliament in Kiev. However in the Crimea there are indeed mobs that have been taking over government buildings. So the existing politicians left or became more pro-Russian than they had seemed previously, a logical move given the way the wind is blowing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Dachannien on Friday March 07 2014, @05:28AM
Policies such as having dozens of protesters shot dead in the street by snipers?
(Score: 0) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:59PM
Let me point out at first I am not at all supportive of the Russian Federation having done what it did.
I am not dead certain but for the invaders not to mark their uniforms with insignia may be a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I know for sure that failing to wear a uniform at all is a War Crime; for that reason the younger Bush was, strictly speaking, correct about the Taliban and friends being unlawful combatants.
If one captures a uniformed soldier, the Conventions require one to treat that prisoner humanely then return him home at the end of the war. But if they wear no uniform, one is free to execute them; they don't even have a right to a trial.
HOWEVER!
I feel very, very strongly that every sovereign nation has the inalienable right to territorial self-defense. It is for that reason that actually I am quite sympathetic to the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs. If the US doesn't want the Iranians and North Koreans to vaporize their enemies, then the US should get rid of it's own nukes, or at least get them out of South Korea and the Persian Gulf.
My Dad was in the Navy you know. He never told me when he was alive, but I found out on the White Sands Missile Range website, that the Talos antiaircraft missile that he used to use to shoot down North Vietnamese jets with, could be armed with nuclear weapons.
More or less if there's an incoming bear bomber, you fire one Talos at it, and every Commie nuclear bomber in the general vicinity gets vaporized. A US Air Force pilot once referred to the nuclear antiaircraft missile his plane carried during the Cuban Missile Crisis as "The stupidest weapon ever invented".
Anyway...
A historic strategic obstacle for Russia, for as long as the Slavic people have known how to paddle canoes, is that on the north, it's above the artic circle, on the west and south, its borders do not open to the sea. To the east, say Vladivostok, the water freezes over during winter so they have to use icebreakers to provide for their naval defense.
Now I'm not saying that Putin was in the right to seize Sebastopol. The Russian Federation ALREADY was leasing I think two Naval bases in Crimea. They really did not need to invade.
Honestly I don't have a clue what possessed the Russians to do what they did. Of course they sensed a power vacuum and figured it was now or never. But now we've embargoed all their top government and military officials. Frankly I hope the US, the EU, Japan, Israel, everyone that is friendly both to Ukraine and to the West, freezes their assets in bank accounts.
Don't for a minute believe that wealthy Russians keep their savings in Russian bank accounts. As they said during Vietnam, "Get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow".
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by glyph on Friday March 07 2014, @12:14AM
That is only if the captured enemy is wearing YOUR uniform. You can't just execute irregulars.
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday March 07 2014, @01:54AM
Some United States citizens of German heritage turned up on a beach in New York State during World War II. They were all quickly rounded up by the authorities. While they were all NAZIs, they were all quite clueless.
I honestly don't have a clue but do speculate they came to spy on the Manhattan Project.
The NAZIs were working on The Bomb too, the only reason they didn't vaporize London, Moscow, New York and Washington DC was because some Norwegian refugees were inserted back into norway than applied some plastique to the Norsk Hydro Heavy Water plant. When Adolf tried to make off with his inventory, they proceeded to sink a fully-loaded passenger ferry into a big lake.
There were two, maybe three dozen of these German spies. The were rounded up, I understand, the very same day that a German sub delivered them to the New York beach.
Controversial to this very day, is that Commander-in-Chief Frankling Delano Roosevelt had them all executed. I don't think they got any manner of trial.
The NAZIs for the most part observed the conventions, as the Conventions were the result of all the wars between the British Empire, Napoleon, all the German Principalities, and the Russians. Allied POWs weren't exactly treated humanely, they were near-death from starvation by the time they were liberated, but at least most of them were survived.
But for an American OSS agent to turn up in Berlin without the proper credentials, and the Schutzstaffeln would inject air into his arteries with a hypodermic needle.
While the North Vietnamese did torture american POWs in the Hanoi Hilton, they did so in such a way that only rarely did permanent injury result, for the most part forcing them to sit in awkward positions, in complete silence, while tightly bound with ropes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @02:49AM
They got a military trial, which was appealed up to the Supreme Court (ex parte Quirin).
(Score: 1) by darinbob on Friday March 07 2014, @05:09AM
Spies? Some of these unmarked uniform soldiers (whom everyone knows are Russian regular military) have stopped journalists and accused them of being spies. It's a very weird situation. If Russia declares war then it's all simple and clear, but this semi-incognito occupation is bizarre. My guess is that they are really there to embolden the local militias and cossacks.
(Score: 1) by mad on Friday March 07 2014, @08:21AM
Long game. With the base in Syria looking like it might not be available, and with the lease expiring in 2042 for the Crimean base, Russia looks like they might not have any base in the Black Sea/Mediterranean Sea from 2042. And that lease won't be renewed, 'cause Ukraine will have joined the EU by then.
I don't know how much of the events in Crimea were planned years ago, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Russians had the basic idea ten years ago, or more. With the Syrian civil war, they would really have been getting things prepared, and suddenly, opportunity!
But, they might have just been making shit up as they go along. Who knows?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @11:08AM
Russia wants Ukraine in the Eurasian Union. The three countries in the Eurasian Union, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia are not very free and do not want their citizens getting ideas about freedom and democracy from Ukrainians. The Russians are trying to make Ukraine enter the Eurasian Union as a dictatorship.