Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday March 31 2022, @12:32PM   Printer-friendly

Finland's Spy Service Warns of Russian Interference, Attacks:

Finland must brace for Russian interference and hybrid attacks as it weighs whether to join the NATO military alliance, the security services warned on Tuesday.

The Nordic nation shares a 1,340-kilometre (830-mile) border with Russia and has remained militarily non-aligned since the end of World War II to avoid provoking its eastern neighbour.

[...] "The whole of Finnish society must be vigilant towards Russian attempts to influence Finnish decision-making regarding the NATO question," Antti Pelttari, head of the Finnish security services Supo, said.

Releasing its updated terrorism threat report, Supo on Tuesday highlighted the danger of "widespread Russian interference and illegal surveillance," but kept the national terror threat at level two, or "elevated", on a scale of four.

[...] Finland has previously been subject to so-called hybrid tactics from Moscow, such as repeated airspace incursions, or the release in 2016 of 1,700 migrants across the Finnish border.

Earlier this month the transport authority Traficom said it had received "numerous" reports from aircraft of GPS interference in eastern Finland, but was unable to identify the source of the interference.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 31 2022, @03:38PM (40 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @03:38PM (#1233738) Journal

    Can't speak for AC above, but I don't know of anyone who takes Russian propaganda at face value.

    I think that I can name some people who take US/NATO/EU/UK propaganda at face value though. Khallow, for instance, who insists that in the past ~20 years, Ukraine has been entirely innocent, and has done nothing whatsoever to provoke Russia.

    Finland, on the other hand, has actually remained neutral, and has done nothing to provoke that Russian bear.

    Trying to cut through all the propaganda from both sides, it's obvious that Russia has been weakened by the war in Ukraine. How much it has been weakened is very much open to debate, but they've lost some of their military power. The likelihood that Russia is considering another invasion is pretty damned low. Finland is a tough nut to crack, even if Russia were at full strength, with good morale.

    It's up to Finland to decide if they are going to end their neutrality, but I can't see that they'll gain much from it. Russia isn't invading them in any near future, or mid future scenario you might imagine. 150 years from now, who knows? NATO may no longer exist then, and the whole world may have been turned upside down. 150 years from now, it may be Finland that is invading Russia.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:06PM (39 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:06PM (#1233750) Journal

    Khallow, for instance, who insists that in the past ~20 years, Ukraine has been entirely innocent, and has done nothing whatsoever to provoke Russia.

    Indeed. And I'm right too. Let's start with your dishonest use of language. "Provoke" is a very nebulous word. For example, my president saying something rude about Putin is a provocation. So is my president nuking Moscow. We wouldn't expect war in the first case, but we would expect a serious nuclear war in the second.

    And that's where the provoke narrative breaks down. No one came up with a serious reason for war. And that's why the warmongering NATO narrative isn't working either. Every neighbor sees that Russia won't have any trouble manufacturing a pretext for invasion because Russia just did it with Ukraine.

    The only thing that can stop that is military containment. And NATO is the only game in town for that.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:20PM (38 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:20PM (#1233754) Journal

      Tell us about the North Crimea canal.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:21PM (37 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:21PM (#1233755) Journal
        What about it?
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:53PM (36 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @04:53PM (#1233764) Journal

          I take that to mean that you are simply ignorant? Or you're refusing to answer? That canal is a crucial part of the the Russian war effort.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:28PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:28PM (#1233775) Journal
            Again what about it? I was asking about those alleged provocations not Russian strategic valuations.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @08:40PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @08:40PM (#1233817)

              Amazing! All the Russian shills saying "whatabout" in one place! Fascinating!

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday March 31 2022, @07:02PM (32 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @07:02PM (#1233798) Journal

            You seem to be overlooking 2014? The Crimea ISN'T Russian by right despite anything that they may claim.

            Suggesting that they now had to got to war to maintain the water supplies to Crimea which isn't theirs anyway is a bit rich. If there isn't enough water for them they could have always given it back and gone home again.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 31 2022, @09:49PM (31 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @09:49PM (#1233839) Journal

              That is one point of view. Another point of view might be that Kruschev never had any right to just give away Crimea. Or, if he were going to give it away, maybe he should have given it to the people it was taken from. An alternative and related point of view is, Russia (or the USSR) built the Crimean peninsula and the military bases. All agreements recognized the fact that the bases are critical to Russian security. Then, Ukraine starts talking about joining the EU and NATO. Right or wrong, Russia decided that Ukraine is NOT going to take their military bases to NATO.

              As for the canal, specifically, the UN has said that it is illegal to cut off the water supply. Restricting the water supply might be legal, depending on how the decision is made, but cutting off the water supply was illegal.

              I'm surprised that you don't (or won't) see that there are more than one side to the story. I don't expect you to take Russia's side, but you should see that they have a side.

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday March 31 2022, @10:35PM (7 children)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @10:35PM (#1233853) Journal

                I don't consider that they have a 'side' that justifies the war that they are currently waging on innocent civilians. Why flatten Mariupol if they want the port for themselves? It is simply terrorizing the population in the hope that they convince their government to surrender. It is also covered by numerous UN laws but of course you know that.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 31 2022, @11:15PM (6 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @11:15PM (#1233864) Journal

                  It has long been known that Russia will destroy what they can't take. They would be happy to take all of Ukraine. If they can't take it, they'll be happy to see Ukraine neutral. If they can't see Ukraine neutral, they'll be almost as happy to just destroy Ukraine. It all goes toward denying the use of Ukraine assets by NATO.

                  I'm a bit curious whether any Ukraine cities hosted US/UK/NATO naval ships in recent years. If Mariupol, for example, allowed a US Navy ship to dock for a few nights of liberty, that would create a lot of resentment in Russia. Or, to a lesser degree, allowing US flagged ships into port for commercial purposes. Remember that the USSR put all kinds of ships into foreign ports for nefarious purposes, from trawlers, to cruise ships, to all other sorts of vessels.

                  Again, though, Russia has been banging on the theme of preventing NATO camping on Russian borders since before the coup. And, we just ignore their complaints, warnings, and threats. We can't pretend that the invasion just came out of the blue. That isn't to say that the invasion is either right or wrong, but it is saying that we've been warned.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @01:14AM (5 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @01:14AM (#1233895) Journal

                    It has long been known that Russia will destroy what they can't take.

                    No need to go any further. That's why NATO has made so much headway and why Ukraine isn't going to give Russia anything it doesn't have to. Because Russia will destroy what it can't take - unless you keep it from doing that.

                    If Mariupol, for example, allowed a US Navy ship to dock for a few nights of liberty, that would create a lot of resentment in Russia.

                    So what? At some point, you just have to realize that Putin can generate a lot of resentment trivially. He's got a great propaganda machine. There's no point to tiptoeing around the bear.

                    Again, though, Russia has been banging on the theme of preventing NATO camping on Russian borders since before the coup. And, we just ignore their complaints, warnings, and threats.

                    So what? Perhaps we should step that up to color revolutions [wikipedia.org] in Russia? Certainly would be a good time for it.

                    We can't pretend that the invasion just came out of the blue.

                    Again, where's the evidence that NATO's expansion made the invasion more likely? I say instead that it made it less likely. 2014 probably would have been a whole lot more bloody, if Putin didn't have to worry about NATO. And funny how Putin waited till the US's ignominious defeat in Afghanistan before acting.

                    So needless to say, I'm not buying the NATO narrative as the reason for the invasion.

                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @01:17AM (4 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @01:17AM (#1233897) Journal

                      I say instead that it made it less likely.

                      Uh-huh. Look around, and smell the coffee.

                      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 01 2022, @06:50AM

                        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @06:50AM (#1233956) Journal

                        That it happened does not support your premise that it was NATO that made it more likely. Putin himself has said that he wants to restore the extent of Russia's control and influence to cold war days despite those former Soviet Union countries having chosen a different future. They weren't forced to join NATO - they simply chose the path of democracy rather than be subjugated again.

                      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @11:10AM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @11:10AM (#1233992)

                        Runaway - I'd like to hear some logical arguments from you instead silly attempts at logic based on clearly incomplete knowledge of history.

                        I have lived in Finland, and have talked to enough people who have either fought in the Winter and Continuation wars and/or lived through Finlandization.
                        Your comments convince me beyond any semblace of a doubt that you have never spoken to anyone who fought in either of those wars nor anyone who lived through Finlandization.

                        Here's what happened, the simple enough for even Runaway to follow.

                        1: USSR decided the Finnish border was to close to st. Peterburg for their liking.
                        2: USSR tried offering Finland some land near Myrmansk in trade for territory much more valuable in the south. Like any independant country with a Spine Finland said Hell no, we will not trade valualble territory for useless territory that can't grow anythhing but forest, en not much of even that.
                        3: USSR attacked Finland, and just like in Ukraine, they proved USSR military was unable to deal with Finnish military on equal footing. Just look at the casualties.
                        4: Russia started targeting Finnish civilians, murdered them indiscriminatel to try and pressure the Finnish government to surrender as military they were failing. Approx 10 Russian military deaths for each Finnish soldier killed.

                        Now we go to present day Finland.
                        Since the end of Finlandization most Finns were convinced, like you, that you can avoid major issues if you slavishly obey the foreign policy from Moscow.
                        Since Russia proved that they do not stick to the deals they make, like their agreement, signed by PUTIN HIMSELF when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons that Russia would never invade Ukraine ... Russia invaded and now both Finland an Sweden will be joining NATO ASAP. This is because PUTINS RUSSIA breaks every deal they make, and NATO does not fight along with non member states if invaded, only provide weapons.
                        So Finland and other non-NATO countries bordering Russia see their fears confirmed, and are 1000% sure they cannot trust Putins Russia not to invade even if they signed a contract. They all want Nato to fight with them, not just provide weapons.
                        The inevitable result will be a Russian Nato border from Norway, via Finland down to the Black sea, probably with Ukraine included.

                        I would very much appreciate you educating yourself about an issue before you spout FUD on the matter.

                        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @02:19PM (1 child)

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @02:19PM (#1234027) Journal

                          You are correct, I've never talked to any soldiers or former soldiers from Finland who kicked Russian ass. Somehow, my travels never took be to your part of the world. The nearest I ever got to Finland, was Copenhagen (or Kobenhavn) for a couple days of liberty.

                          Your points are maybe valid, but there are differences. How long has Finland been a neutral country? Compare that to Ukraine. If Ukraine had almost a century of dedication to neutrality, then Russia's attitude might be different, do you think?

                          Also, Finland doesn't hold possession of Russia's only warm water naval port, which would have been handed over for NATO use, right on Russia's door step. Drawing parallels between Finland and Ukraine only goes so far.

                          As for Finland joining NATO, if you're going to make that leap, you had best do it quickly. Dithering for years will invite Russia to step up it's interference. Make the decision within a couple months, send the diplomats to make it happen, and join within six months. A year is too long to dither over it. You can see how that worked in Ukraine.

                          It is also worth noting that we don't see a lot of Russian expansion. In Ukraine, we see Russia trying to keep what they consider theirs. Right or wrong, Russia sees Crimea as theirs. They took it back, and now they taken back the water supply that makes Crimea a viable base of operations. Go ahead, make the point again that Russia ceded Crimea - but you've not convinced the Russians. They've taken back Crimea, and the water supply that the Soviet built to supply Crimea. Denying them that control isn't up for debate. NATO isn't going to war over Ukraine, and Ukraine isn't going to take all of that back on their own.

                          I'll remind you that since the first man picked up the first stick and sharpened it, world affairs have not been determined by right and wrong. Being a Finn, and knowing your history, you know that might makes right. That's the way it always has been.

                          Again, if you're going to join NATO, do it quickly. Fortune favors the bold, and crushes the undecided.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @12:33AM (22 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @12:33AM (#1233883) Journal

                Another point of view might be that Kruschev never had any right to just give away Crimea.

                This point of view is just dumb. The USSR had 25 years to reverse that decision - after Khrushchev had been removed from power. Then they signed a treaty acknowledging those boundaries in the mid 1990s. 20 years later Putin annexes the Crimea after his puppet gets booted and there's blowback. If the Ukraine was still a Russian puppet, you can bet good money that there wouldn't be anyone contesting Ukrainian ownership of the Crimea.

                As for the canal, specifically, the UN has said that it is illegal to cut off the water supply. Restricting the water supply might be legal, depending on how the decision is made, but cutting off the water supply was illegal.

                I keep reading that the UN Monitoring Mission in the Ukraine has repeatedly said that it is Russia's responsibility to provide water for the Crimea - not Ukraine's, and that the Crimea has adequate water resources for the people living there.

                This makes sense. Where in the laws of war is it the obligation of a defender to provide resources for an occupying army, especially when that army can do it themselves?

                I'm surprised that you don't (or won't) see that there are more than one side to the story. I don't expect you to take Russia's side, but you should see that they have a side.

                I see the points of view and the ever multiplying sides of the story alright. I just don't give them the time of day. This is just like the viewpoint of a criminal caught in the act. They generate all kinds of rationalizations, changing their story frequently, and such when they get in trouble. You quickly realize that sides of the story are irrelevant, even in the rare cases where they are genuine, because a lot of people have similar stories, but don't engage in similar harmful activities.

                What really matters is consequences. That we can provide or choose not to. My take is that Russia's actions are so dire, that we need to provide as much negative consequences as we can, short of nuclear war. This is not the actions of a superpower addressing provocations, but the regrowing of an empire by conquest.

                I suppose my view is that we have a golden opportunity to make the world an astoundingly wonderful place, for a century or more. But that depends on harm from a variety of sources being neutralized, managed, or contained. Russia threatens that future because it's a corrupt kleptocracy that's now trying to grow its way militarily out of the problems Russia caused for itself. Enough of that and I can shelve that future.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @01:15AM (11 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @01:15AM (#1233896) Journal

                  I suppose my view is that we have a golden opportunity to make the world an astoundingly wonderful place, for a century or more.

                  Not while the US is electing presidents and congress critters who profit from the Military Industrial Complex. All wars are good, if you're making money from them.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @03:35AM (10 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @03:35AM (#1233933) Journal
                    I think there's room for flawed countries in the future. But who can afford the "take or destroy" countries in the long run?
                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @04:18AM (9 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @04:18AM (#1233945) Journal

                      You're probably correct. The world can't afford us.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @12:52PM (8 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @12:52PM (#1234003) Journal
                        There's that whataboutism again. But since it's fine for Russia to invade its neighbor for all those weak reasons you listed in past few weeks, then I'm just not feeling your complaint about "us".
                        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @01:49PM (7 children)

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @01:49PM (#1234018) Journal

                          If you were a Columbian, you might understand my point.

                          • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @02:00PM (6 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @02:00PM (#1234020) Journal
                            And if you were a Ukrainian, you might understand my point, right?
                            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @02:32PM (5 children)

                              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @02:32PM (#1234038) Journal

                              Ahhh, but - I do understand Ukraine's point of view. It would do nobody any good for me to argue Ukraine's point of view here, would it? The membership is almost unanimous in understanding and arguing for Ukraine's point of view. I would rather spend my time trying to make some of you understand that the popular point of view is not the only one.

                              So, Russia is an Indian-giver. Hmmmm - I'm thinking here. Where did that term come from? Probably has nothing to do with the fact that the US gave to the Indians again and again, and always took back everything they gave. It's almost like Russia and the US are kindred spirits, huh?

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @03:34PM (4 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @03:34PM (#1234056) Journal
                                And so do I understand your point of view as well as the rest. The problem is that many of those viewpoints are toxic and very divergent from reality. Presently, Russia is burning through its active troops at such a rate, that it'll run out of army somewhere around five years. Reality will break that viewpoint.

                                So I don't respect the Putin viewpoint or expect it to stick around for long.

                                And let's face it. This isn't about viewpoints, it's about making excuses long enough for Russia to get what it wants. This has been the playbook for Russia/USSR since the end of the Second World War.
                                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @06:06PM (3 children)

                                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @06:06PM (#1234095) Journal

                                  So I don't respect the Putin viewpoint or expect it to stick around for long.

                                  And, that's the reason for the invasion. No one respects Russia.

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @07:16PM

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @07:16PM (#1234125)

                                    Why does no one respect Russia?

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:34PM

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:34PM (#1234141)

                                    Russia, we respect. Putin - not so much.

                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @11:12PM

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @11:12PM (#1234228) Journal
                                    Maybe this reality impact will alter that viewpoint enough that they'll figure some other way to deal with lack of respect.
                • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday April 01 2022, @02:44AM (9 children)

                  by legont (4179) on Friday April 01 2022, @02:44AM (#1233923)

                  Let's not forget that during referendum about being in the USSR Ukrainians rejected separation by 70-80% margin. The whole Ukraine is a separate country thing is illegal.

                  --
                  "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
                  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @03:29AM (6 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @03:29AM (#1233931) Journal

                    that during referendum about being in the USSR Ukrainians rejected separation by 70-80% margin

                    So this was a referendum during the days of the USSR? Sounds like a waste of time to consider.

                    Also consider how much fight is in the Ukraine today, sounds like it's not a 70-80% margin any more, even if we were to optimistically assume that this alleged referendum reflected actual voter will.

                    The whole Ukraine is a separate country thing is illegal.

                    Russia signed a treaty acknowledging the sovereignty of Ukraine. So we're out of laws that would be relevant to your claim.

                    • (Score: 2) by legont on Saturday April 02 2022, @02:58AM (1 child)

                      by legont (4179) on Saturday April 02 2022, @02:58AM (#1234293)

                      So this was a referendum during the days of the USSR? Sounds like a waste of time to consider.

                      This referendum was run by Yeltsin. He "considered" it and dissolved the USSR anyway against the will of the People.

                      --
                      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
                      • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Saturday April 02 2022, @03:22PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 02 2022, @03:22PM (#1234357) Journal
                        Let's look at the wording [wikipedia.org]:

                        Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?

                        The question might be missing something in translation, but the USSR never was this. Voters would have been voting on continuing/renewing a USSR that never existed in the first place! And given how much trouble Russia has had since with those rights and freedom of individuals, I think continuing the USSR would have been a dire mistake and contrary to the wish displayed in that referendum. Yeltsin made the right call.

                        After all, this displays a big problem of the USSR, the political dominance of Russia which had a firm majority of the population of the USSR (my bet is that this was by design back in the day to insure that the USSR couldn't be swayed by a non-Russian faction). It reminds me of the Wiemar Republic which had a similar instability in the Free State of Prussia (which IIRC had two thirds of the population of the Wiemar Republic). Failings of the single large state become failings of the entire country.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 03 2022, @02:38AM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 03 2022, @02:38AM (#1234494)

                      I hate to say it, but you are falling for a standard troll tactic. They provide a kernel of truth to obfuscate the lie. If you want to know what Ukraine thought about being part of the USSR, then you should really look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum [wikipedia.org] But that obviously paints a completely different picture of what the Ukrainian people wanted.

                      • (Score: 2) by legont on Sunday April 03 2022, @07:18PM (2 children)

                        by legont (4179) on Sunday April 03 2022, @07:18PM (#1234607)

                        This article is 100% fake. You can easily see it as there are no links to the official results of the vote.
                        This one does have such a link. Feel free to research it yourself

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum [wikipedia.org]

                        --
                        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 04 2022, @02:58AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 04 2022, @02:58AM (#1234669) Journal
                          That's a different referendum.
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04 2022, @05:23AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04 2022, @05:23AM (#1234686)

                          100% fake. LOL. The citations there are as official as any you'd find in your blessed wikipedia article.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @04:29AM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 01 2022, @04:29AM (#1233948) Journal

                    Times do change. One or more of my great . . . greats would have called it treason to rebel against the English crown. And, one or more of my great . . . greats would have also considered it treason to rebel against the French crown. Ditto the Austro-Hungarian empire. Need I go on? Today's reality can't be expected to conform to any of our forebear's wishes. And, there's no telling what our own descendants are going to do with the world 150 years from now.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 03 2022, @02:45PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 03 2022, @02:45PM (#1234577) Journal
                    legont, an AC [soylentnews.org] brought this to my attention:

                    A referendum on the Act of Declaration of Independence was held in Ukraine on 1 December 1991.[1] An overwhelming majority of 92.3% of voters approved the declaration of independence made by the Verkhovna Rada on 24 August 1991.

                    For those counting, it's less than 8% "rejecting" separation. An order of magnitude error is quite significant, wouldn't you say?