Ukraine burns

[Rostere]

 

 

Rostere, you will have to do better research on native population of Crimean and why there is much more Russians now. And please dont call what Russians did there 'resettlement' few milions of people died in concentration camps during these 'resettlements'

 

Sure, we can call it "ethnic cleansing" or even a petty genocide if you want, but that is really a red herring - it is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. The native population of Crimea were not ethnic Ukrainians but Crimean Tatars, as I have said. They are not related ethnically with Ukrainians. They speak a Turkic language. It's a completely different people. They don't belong in Ukraine any more than India belongs in England. The end line of that is that it leaves Ukraine with no serious claim on Crimea, since the only reason Crimea belonged to Ukraine in the first place is that Khrushchev happened to draw the border that way during some crayon session in the Kremlin.

 

Let them have a referendum on independence and we'll see what they think. Like I wrote, the provisional government has already begun wooing them for their support.

 

1. Well it surly is not irrelevant - I suppose you are not from post soviet country so you cant probably understand

2. what left there of Tatars feels as part of Ukraine, definetely not part of Russia (but becasue they are not mayority there after Stalin reign you probably dont know about it but a lot of people still remeber how their fathers where deported to concentration camps by Stain - at least most of his statues where torn down during that revolution (at least something positive happend there)

 

Nevertheless, in the current situation about 60% of the population in Crimea self-identify as Russians. Indications point towards that Crimean Tatars (about 10% of the current population) are generally more friendly towards being a part of Ukraine than being a part of Russia. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if a majority of Crimeans would be for complete independence. But I guess only a referendum can settle that dispute?

 

 

But this is fundamentally a question of how many people support secession, and on what grounds. I think there are several parts of Europe which have some reasonable claim for independence: Basque Country, Catalonia

 

I guess you'd have to clarify what you mean by "reasonable", but pending that, the comment is off the mark in my experience. Catalonia, where the push for independence is more politically solid, is mostly "meh" about the issue, as illustrated by the low turnout of the unofficial town "referendums" conducted in the past five years or so. They will only rally to the independence cause if somebody makes a point of telling them that they do not actually have a right to be independent. In the Basque Country, actual independentism is more a politicized topic that parties love to trump up than an actual issue for people (Euskera is a difficult language and is still very much minoritary). Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for giving people the political freedom to secede—something that is not present in the current Spanish Constitution—but you should not mistake the propaganda efforts of a bunch of loud-mouthed corrupt buffoons for the actual will of the people.

 

Exactly - but I was talking about regions which would have a right to secede if they wanted to. As you said, it is in the end a matter of holding a referendum. If a minority wants a secession that is not enough. Just because certain regions would have a right to secede does not mean I would want them to, I often think rather the opposite.

 

The case of Crimea is interesting because the majority of Crimeans are Russians, who still somehow due to the arbitrariness of authoritarian leaders of old have ended up in Ukraine. Since there is a lot of political tension between Russia and the EU, which Ukrainians want to align with, I think that an entirely independent Crimea would greatly help to defuse the situation and also stabilize the Ukrainian democracy.

[Rostere]

 

If Russia subjects Crimea to a military regime against their will, then that would be awful - but not them allowing the Crimeans a chance at independence. These are two different things.

Who established what Crimea wants? was there any vote, attempts to resolve the situation, or any kind of international forum to assess the situation? Because it looks like more Russian single minded self interests aggression like in Georgia.

 

No, there has not been a referendum yet. But if only the Western powers could get their **** together, they could stop this pointless argument over a territory that is fundamentally not Ukrainian, and see to it that an internationally observed and legitimate referendum takes place. That would be in everyone's best interest.

 

 

 

Crimea has never been part of Ukraine until the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, himself a half-Ukrainian, gave it to Ukraine. Crimean Russians shouldn't go back to Russia from Ukraine because Crimea is not a natural part of Ukraine any more than Brittany belongs to the UK or Poland to Germany.

First of all he didn't gave it to "Ukraine" but he made adjustments to districts within the soviet union which Ukraine was part of. Russia has no more claims to either districts of former Soviet union, then imperialist UK to any of its colonies or Germany to territories of Nazi Germany.(even if they have a nice German majority) Otherwise tomorrow they can decides to invade Belarus for example.

 

Sigh. This entire paragraph above is just an entire misconception.

 

Russia has no inherent legitimate claim on former administrative divisions of the USSR. That is not what I'm saying. In fact, that is pretty much the opposite to what I'm saying. Take a look at the maps here and here, take a deep breath and think. What if the Soviet Union controlled your country and gave away control of it to Ukraine for no reason?

 

Of course the UK has no legitimate claim on India - India is not British, it's simple as that. But do they have a legitimate claim on the Falkland Islands? Yes, in my opinion they might have, since the British have lived there as far back as people can remember anyone living there. It's down to holding a referendum among the Falklanders. Of course the Falklands can also opt for independence - that is their right, but there is no reason for an adjacent country - with hardly no connection at all to them other than geographical adjacency - to claim control over them. Exchange the Falklands for Crimea and Argentina for Ukraine and you've got a rough equivalent of the current situation.

 

Now what if the entire Europe had been part of the USSR, with the constituent union republics having roughly the borders of their predecessors. Then, out of the blue Khrushchev decides that Brittany should be a part of the British SSR, and Crimea should be a part of the Ukrainian SSR. Said and done, but fast forward 50 years and the USSR has disintegrated. For some reason the Brits will not relinquish control over Brittany (even though it's hardly British) and Ukraine won't relinquish control over Crimea (even though it's hardly Ukrainian). It's not Russia which hinges it's claims on the arbitrary USSR partition of control, it's Ukraine. Crimea is today in every respect an UKRAINIAN colony, not a Russian one (of course, the Crimean Tatars would have it that both of these sides are guilty of imperialism, even though at that point of the discussion we are back in the 18th century).

 

Of course Putin has his own motives in this, but I couldn't care less if he did all this for the glory of the giant spaghetti monster when we can give independence to a country which should never have been Ukrainian to begin with, if it was not for the arbitrariness of Khrushchev. And if the Crimeans want to be part of Russia, let them be that, although I highly doubt it will happen.

 

 

Sure, we can call it "ethnic cleansing" or even a petty genocide if you want, but that is really a red herring - it is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. The native population of Crimea were not ethnic Ukrainians but Crimean Tatars, as I have said. They are not related ethnically with Ukrainians.

True, but they support Ukrainie, in fact they have been the major force in pro-Ukrainian against separatism in recent Crimean protest.

 

They are instinctively sceptical towards Russia because of what happened under Stalin. But the provisional pro-independence government has promised to set aside money to resettle Crimean Tatars from Uzbekistan. I'm not talking about Crimea forcibly being subjected to Russian military rule - me and every other forum member except one are probably against that. A referendum is the only thing which could settle this dispute.

[obyknven]

 

Ukrainian nationalists must be justified as Nuremberg trial was fabricated - Ukraine to UN

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_04/Ukrainian-nationalists-must-be-justified-as-Nuremberg-trial-was-fabricated-Ukraine-to-UN-3549/

 

Cool. Ukrainian  ambassador say to UNN what Nuremberg trial is fake.

 It's official modern Ukrainian ideology - deny Nazi crimes and Holocaust. Add to this ban to left parties and left ideology, Add to this Neo-nazi leaders in current Ukrainian government.  Add to this terror campaign against members of left movements. 

 

Now look how Western governments support this Nazi scum. No-no, they say everything is normal in Ukraine, democracy blah-blah.

 

It's just disgusting.  

[obyknven]

In case of economical sanctions Russia stop return  credits to US banks. Please, please do this. Also Russia in this case begin use Chinese moneys for market trade instead of dollars.  

Profit! 

[Nepenthe]

So, am I the only one who finds the above armchair imperialism of divvying countries up according to your random perceptions more than a little disturbing? Well, a lot of people thought the Munich agreement was a good idea, too...

 

Otherwise, I posit Rostere as the "Chamberlain of the Obsidian Order"...

Edited March 4, 2014 by Nepenthe

[obyknven]

Moar info

 

Arms, 400 kilos of explosives seized from Kiev radicals on Crimean border
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8bc_1393868862#xxGkC2O4t33ldw2F.99

Kievan terrorism.

 

Video, blocked Ukrainian base, looks peaceful.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b69_1393853040

 

As i say before Russians don't impressed by threats. Ukrainians too, these soldiers refuse to surrender, respect to them. IRL not Russians not Ukrainians don't want war. It's only Kievan and US politicians try escalate conflict - violence and blood in their interests only.

http://vimeo.com/88102944

[Tagaziel]

An interesting point of view I read a few moments ago is that Crimea has no chance whatsoever to survive as an independent nation. If it breaks away from Ukraine, it will become a puppet of whomever supplies gas, electricity, hell, even fresh water and food. Said puppet master would also be responsible for its well being, since Ukraine would likely embargo Crimean goods.

[Sarex]

An interesting point of view I read a few moments ago is that Crimea has no chance whatsoever to survive as an independent nation. If it breaks away from Ukraine, it will become a puppet of whomever supplies gas, electricity, hell, even fresh water and food. Said puppet master would also be responsible for its well being, since Ukraine would likely embargo Crimean goods.

 

If it declares independence from Ukraine it will be much better off, as Ukraine is facing hardship no matter how the situation turns out for them. Could you link the article you read, as I find what you said dubious at best.

[obyknven]

I Just leave this insider info here.  True ruler of Ukraine  is US ambassador. All presidents, parlaments and other political forces  obey to him. Absolutely not important who is Ukrainian president, or what party win the election. It's explain US butthurt from Russian actions.

 

 

 Also "funny video" - people of Ukraine don't want fight against Russia, but Ukrainian politican promise execution for them.

http://youtu.be/5lS4WmqCP1Q

[obyknven]

Ukrainian provocation.  They try provoke clashes with Crimean selfdefence.

http://youtu.be/gFbx23fQoDM

 

Washington Kiev want escalation of conflict. Peaceful solution not needed for them.

[Monte Carlo]

I think we need to give Peace a chance.

[obyknven]

Lol! Ful video of provocation.

http://youtu.be/DzsZ_aDSGBY

Now understand, they are too drunk

[213374U]

So, am I the only one who finds the above armchair imperialism of divvying countries up according to your random perceptions more than a little disturbing? Well, a lot of people thought the Munich agreement was a good idea, too...

 

Otherwise, I posit Rostere as the "Chamberlain of the Obsidian Order"...

 

I'm now regretting making the comparison to the Munich Agreement. I made it in the sense that the west may end up just handing the land to Russia because the alternative is unthinkable and the original owner doesn't have enough political clout to resist on her own. The similarities end there. Of course, I should have foreseen that any references to Hitler's foreign policy would immediately trigger the atavistic fears of Nazi military expansionism given shape by hindsight and dilute any factual value that a comparison could have.

 

What exactly do you find unacceptable about asking the people of Crimea what would they prefer? Let's assume a OSCE-supervised polling scenario, here. Because otherwise, the alternative would have to be putting Yanukovych back in power and going by the terms established in the agreement that was to end the Maidan protests, until elections were held no later than december. You cannot have only one side abide by "international law".

 

Also, reminder that WWII was precipitated by the Allies' snap-border redrawing after WWI as much as it was by Hitler's personal insanity/delusions/egomania. Hitler was aware that his initial demands made sense from a historical and ethnic point of view and played that and the reluctance of the Allies to go for a rematch to obtain a huge initial edge. This is in relation to your comment about "divvying countries up according to random perceptions". It's A-OK when we do it (border drawing in Africa), but not when anyone else does, unless it's to our advantage somehow.

 

(can I be the "Powerhungry Demagogue of the Obsidian Order"?)

[Chilloutman]

Ehm no, Hitler wanted Sudety because there where many bunkers and strongholds (defense line) which can slow his progress in east europe, but because UK and France dont hold up their part of deal Czechoslovakia give up as we would not stand a chance against Germany alone for too long and then we would be persecuted much more, shame if UK and France hold up their part of deal there should not be 2WW, its similiar to situation in Ukraine now, they have treaties which are now broken by Russia, and if West doesnt action they just sold them out again as they done it with Czechoslovakia before

[Nepenthe]

 

 

So, am I the only one who finds the above armchair imperialism of divvying countries up according to your random perceptions more than a little disturbing? Well, a lot of people thought the Munich agreement was a good idea, too...

 

Otherwise, I posit Rostere as the "Chamberlain of the Obsidian Order"...

I'm now regretting making the comparison to the Munich Agreement. I made it in the sense that the west may end up just handing the land to Russia because the alternative is unthinkable and the original owner doesn't have enough political clout to resist on her own. The similarities end there. Of course, I should have foreseen that any references to Hitler's foreign policy would immediately trigger the atavistic fears of Nazi military expansionism given shape by hindsight and dilute any factual value that a comparison could have.

 

What exactly do you find unacceptable about asking the people of Crimea what would they prefer? Let's assume a OSCE-supervised polling scenario, here. Because otherwise, the alternative would have to be putting Yanukovych back in power and going by the terms established in the agreement that was to end the Maidan protests, until elections were held no later than december. You cannot have only one side abide by "international law".

 

Also, reminder that WWII was precipitated by the Allies' snap-border redrawing after WWI as much as it was by Hitler's personal insanity/delusions/egomania. Hitler was aware that his initial demands made sense from a historical and ethnic point of view and played that and the reluctance of the Allies to go for a rematch to obtain a huge initial edge. This is in relation to your comment about "divvying countries up according to random perceptions". It's A-OK when we do it (border drawing in Africa), but not when anyone else does, unless it's to our advantage somehow.

 

(can I be the "Powerhungry Demagogue of the Obsidian Order"?)

Let's look back to where I was talking about the Crimeans and the right to self-determination... Right I wasn't. I was talking about the people happy to pull a Chamberlain and let Vlad get his way. By definition, the people of Czec^H^H^HCrimea don't need to be asked their opinion by the appeasers, after all, they don't have to live where the borders get moved around a little...

 

Not sure where I posited that drawing borders in Africa is acceptable, either. I'm sure there are valid counterpoints to my views, but you've spectacularly failed to put forward any by attempting to paint my views as hypocritical and/or inconsistent...

Edited March 4, 2014 by Nepenthe

[Gorgon]

You will notice that the provocateurs seem to be armed with flags and cameras. In fact would it not be more reasonable to call the Russian occupation a 'provocation'.

[Mor]

Ukrainian provocation.  They try provoke clashes with Crimean selfdefence.

[youtube clip]

Washington Kiev want escalation of conflict. Peaceful solution not needed for them.

Soviet era Pravda("Truth"/Propaganda)... Russia who instead of trying to help Ukraine resolve its issue, or look for peaceful resolution, amassing troops on its borders, deployed armed men within another sovereign state, put up checkpoints and threaten to shoot the citizen of that country for attempting to move call it a provocation.

 

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mor

[obyknven]

U.S. Readying Russia Sanctions Within Days, Kerry Aides Say.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/u-s-readying-russia-sanctions-within-days-kerry-aides-say-1-.html?cmpid=yhoo

Too much vodka in Ukraine

[obyknven]

You will notice that the provocateurs seem to be armed with flags and cameras. In fact would it not be more reasonable to call the Russian occupation a 'provocation'.

What wrong? All military objects on Crimean territory under control of Crimean people now. Crimean selfdefence defend this property, but Ukrainians try make provocations. Guards do everythig right. Do you think crowd can go into any military base in Europe without permission and guards don't begin shoting in this situation? If yes - you are too naive.

[obyknven]

 

Soviet era Pravda("Truth"/Propaganda)... Russia who instead of trying to help Ukraine resolve its issue, or look for peaceful resolution, amassing troops on its borders, deployed armed men within another sovereign state, put up checkpoints and threaten to shoot the citizen of that country for attempting to move call it a provocation.

Hippie detected.

[213374U]

Let's look back to where I was talking about the Crimeans and the right to self-determination... Right I wasn't. I was talking about the people happy to pull a Chamberlain and let Vlad get his way. By definition, the people of Czec^H^H^HCrimea don't need to be asked their opinion by the appeasers, after all, they don't have to live where the borders get moved around a little...

Not sure where I posited that drawing borders in Africa is acceptable, either. I'm sure there are valid counterpoints to my views, but you've spectacularly failed to put forward any by attempting to paint my views as hypocritical and/or inconsistent...

 

Uh-huh. You were addressing some unspecified "above" arguments. The post above yours (until oby's posts were approved and appeared magically in between) was dealing specifically with Crimean self-determination. That you spin the issue to disregard the opinions of Crimeans to make it exclusively about Vlad getting his way, does not mean the matter in question is actually about that. Who are "the people" happy to pull a Chamberlain? Because Rostere has explicitly mentioned a referendum, i.e. very much not a Chamberlain scenario. Quote them directly and get your hands dirty instead of burning down strawmen with passive-aggresive remarks.

 

I wasn't trying to paint you as a hypocrite before, but come think of it, you can be a hypocrite by inaction, or rather, by selective action. So there.

[Rostere]

An interesting point of view I read a few moments ago is that Crimea has no chance whatsoever to survive as an independent nation. If it breaks away from Ukraine, it will become a puppet of whomever supplies gas, electricity, hell, even fresh water and food. Said puppet master would also be responsible for its well being, since Ukraine would likely embargo Crimean goods.

 

LOL, you know, that can really be said of any nation. There are a lot of countries which are way smaller than Crimea would be but are still viable. Estonia and Latvia were my previous examples. Don't we have any Estonians on this forum? I'm sure they can vouch for their nation being viably independent.

 

So, am I the only one who finds the above armchair imperialism of divvying countries up according to your random perceptions more than a little disturbing? Well, a lot of people thought the Munich agreement was a good idea, too...

 

Otherwise, I posit Rostere as the "Chamberlain of the Obsidian Order"...

 

I concede that "Armchair" is a very apt prefix. "Imperialism" though? "Armchair anti-imperialism" would be much more fitting, considering I'm promoting autonomy and de-colonialization, not the other way around.

 

It's also not "random perceptions" - ethnicity has been the basis of nationhood since the dawn of the modern republic. No matter how much we wish it wasn't that way (trust me, I really do), ethnicity is already a dividing line - in Ukrainian politics also. Do you know why the heck Africa and the Middle East are such cluster****s with wars going on all the time? It's because during the time of imperialism, Western colonial powers drew the borders with basis in what was aesthetically pleasing on the maps, not with regards to which peoples lived where. That is why big distinct cultures such as the Kurds still lack their own nation, and certain nations seems to be plagued with perpetual civil wars. In a similar fashion, Crimea became Ukrainian during the time of Soviet imperialism.

 

Chamberlain has got a lot of flak for all the wrong reasons. The British diplomats offered the Germans the solution of a plebiscite on the fate of the Sudetenland, which in my mind is a completely fair solution. Then Hitler went ahead and grabbed the Sudetenland anyway - which is not that different in the end, since the Nazis had a lot of support there (the largest percentage of support in any German-speaking territory), and the population were mostly German as well. That's not that unfair. The Munich agreement was not that awful in itself (you can quote me on that) - the real catastrophe was the completely unmotivated Nazi occupation of Czech Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. At that point, Chamberlain should have known that war was inevitable, and indeed also utterly necessary. The analogy today would be if Putin invaded and occupied Western Ukraine. Sadly, the Munich agreement has become a symbol of appeasement when in reality the real mistake was the British unpreparedness for war and half-hearted efforts in playing out Italy and the USSR against Germany.

 

Chamberlain was entirely mistaken in his method of negotiation. A diplomat should have a carrot in one hand, and a whip (or an atomic bomb) in the other. If we look at Britain's military preparations, Chamberlain was essentially bluffing all the time during his negotiations with Hitler. You can't negotiate if you have no whip and your counterpart is free to take the carrot by himself. Hitler had Von Manstein's (and Guderian's) ingenious plan for the victory over France. What plan did Chamberlain have for a complete and utter victory over Germany in the case of war? "If you want peace, prepare for war". It's very telling now in hindsight that even when war was declared, France and Britain sat around doing nothing under Chamberlain's leadership. If they had been ready to implement a "reverse" version of von Manstein's plan, Germany would have been annihilated with large parts of it's army in Poland. If France had put all the money invested in the Maginot Line on tanks and tactical bombers instead, the Allies would have had a mighty whip in the negotiations. Sadly, you can't threaten someone with a fortress (do as I say or I'll lock myself up in my castle!). Similarly, Western armies today should be organized after the principle that offence is the best defence. And I say that as the most peace-loving person you can find - you can't make war in a "peaceful" or defensive way, you can only ever win in the same fashion that your enemy would win over you. That is also what counts when you make the threat of war in diplomacy. There are of course also economic-diplomatic ways to ensure peace by economic integration, but that is a preventive measure - you can't work on that when your enemy is already hostile.

[Chilloutman]

You cant call for independece because you became mayority in some part fo sovereign country, that way half of south europe would be part of some African state or independent state, half of countries in Russian federation would be independed etc...

[obyknven]

Russian anonymus uncover truth about Maidan shoting. Sadly you must known Russian language for understand.

http://youtu.be/AtDYdRydcuM

Black ops shoot into police and crowd.

[Malcador]

Heh, Putin now saying no Russian forces in Crimea.