Ukraine Redux

[Mor]

So Ukraine government have been doing what most federal governments do. As for Crimea can you be more specific as to the actions they took in recent years, you mentioned some votes? how about polls, discussion, appeals to UN, legal advice or any other mesure that would be considered substantial on the global map i.e. not just another excuse that Russia is waving while going with its illegal "Anschluss" of Crimea?

 

-----

 

Also: Crimean parliament formally applies to join Russia - So I guess my analysis in the previous post was wrong.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Mor

[Sarex]

Infrastructure is important for sustained operations, of which the campaign was successful in crippling. This is the essence of using air power as a maneuver element that embodied the AirLand battle concept; striking at command and control, logistics centers, bridges, and all the elements needed for high level operations. If Milosevics forces attempted to assemble in force to decisively defeat the KLA then they would have been hammered back to the Stoneage. He likely knew this situation was not sustainable and he soon sought a diplomatic out for his predicament.

 

Dude, stop please, you are embarrassing your self. The bombing started with military objectives and it lasted for a couple of months, only after it proved infective did they start going for the infrastructure. They were trying to force Milosevic's hand, by making the life of Serbian civilians unbearable.

 

"If Milosevics forces attempted to assemble in force to decisively defeat the KLA then they would have been hammered back to the Stoneage"

 

Wow, you really don't know anything. The KLA was defeated, our forses were on the border with Albania, where the KLA along with the Albanian army was trying to force their way through, which they had no success with.

 

****************************************************************************************************************************

 

More like "the evidence supporting your story is flimsy".

 

Oh, how so?

 

 

Really? I'd say Serbia has much interest there.

And you are right - people who are interested can see.

 

Not as much as Croatia, considering they sued us.

 

 

Serbia supremacy sites are anything but reliable.

 

Where did I quote them?

 

 

Dude...I'm talking about the war in Croatia.

How the frak can you claim Croatia barely saw any of the conflict that was going on deep inside it's borders?

Until the actual NATO bombings started, you had it easy. It was your troops marching around and burning/pillaging inside another nations borders, not the other way around.

Given that no Croatian soldier ever stepped foot inside Serbia, I'd say I'd bloody damn obvious who the aggressor was.

 

Because our army also didn't go beyond the Croatian border. Serbs from the mainland were back in Serbia, Bosnian Serbs were fighting in Bosnia to defend our people, and the Serbs in Croatia as can be seen from your quotes in the post below this one, were in full retreat, so any fighting was instigated by your side.

As for the Croatian army going to Serbian mainland, well that would have been suicide because that is where our main force was.

 

Compared to the conflict in Bosnia and the NATO bombings in 1999. your country didn't see jack-****.

 

Except there's nothing obvious there.

 

Ah, but everything is obvious when the Serbs are in question?

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about given that practicly every general and political leader WAS on trial. Except...you know.. most of them were found not guilty.

 

Precisely! They had their verdict in years time if that. While ours are still in Hag and the ones that aren't are dead, with no verdicts.

 

 

Hahahaha!

 

What? If they were winning then they had absolutely no reason to bomb the Serbian mainland. But I guess this has been your level of discussion throughout the whole thread.

 

**************************************************************************************************************************

 

 

 

 

Croatian sources one and all but ok I will bite.

 

In the first paragraph you literally disproved everything you claimed up till now about operation Storm.

 

Translation of the first paragraph:

 

Milosevic: Please, 6 thousand Croats defended Vukovar for half a year, the whole first army attacked it, the airforce too, a wonder, all the might YNA had and they didn't defend Knin, which could only be accessed from 3 directions; they couldn't even defend it for 12 hours?

They didn't defend it, because according to the reports which we got from the police officers, citizens and others, as soon as the artillery preparations ended at 7 p.m., they ordered-retreat (Serbian slang was used here). According to that there was no resistance or military conflicts with the Croatian armed forces.(...)An order was passed there for everyone to leave Krajine the same day, even without making contact with the Croatian army on the biggest part of the front. If we made an idiotic decision the same day to help them, who could arrive to Knina by the evening to help them. You couldn't unblock the way to there through the rows of them which crowded the roads in their retreat together with the civilians.(...) The question is, who really made the decision for the Krajina command to leave Krajina. That decision, when they had the means to defend them selves, caused an exodus. So now that should be a reason for Yugoslavia to run there to defend those territories, from which they ran like rabbits?!

 

So now that people can read the whole paragraph what do we see? It's obvious that he was talking about the Krajina Army, everywhere he mentions there being an order he also mention that they avoided engaging the Croatian army. He even mentions that they where running with the civilians.

 

Second point, they were attacked by the Croatian army so we can see, by your sources, that the Croatian army was indeed attacking and indeed had everything to do with the mass exodus of Serbs from Croatia.

 

As for the second paragraph it doesn't disprove anything I said. Officers where preparing the evacuation of the civilians because Ustase(the Croatian army) were coming.

 

As for the rest of the quotes, they can all be brought down to: Serbian soldiers killed Serbian civilians. That makes absolutely no sense!

Firstly, the sources you quoted say them selves that they have no proofs about the deaths.

Secondly, you show no proof that Serbian solders where the ones who did that.

Thirdly, those quotes have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and are a cheap attempt to villainize the Serbs. But hey that has been your whole defense through out the discussion we had.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Sarex

[TrashMan]

 

Not as much as Croatia, considering they sued us.

 

Of course we did. The aggression was done by you.

 

 

 

 

Because our army also didn't go beyond the Croatian border. Serbs from the mainland were back in Serbia, Bosnian Serbs were fighting in Bosnia to defend our people, and the Serbs in Croatia as can be seen from your quotes in the post below this one, were in full retreat, so any fighting was instigated by your side.

 

Oh really? The RSK army was trained and supplied and was essentially CREATED by the JNA.

And of course, as soon as Croatia declared independence, you went to "help the poor, oppressed Serbs in Croatia"

No Serbian soldeirs in Croatia? You got to be kidding me. The very quote you say proves me wrong confirms it. Let me highlight it for you:

 

"Milosevic: Please, 6 thousand Croats defended Vukovar for half a year, the whole first army attacked it, the airforce too, a wonder, all the might YNA had and they didn't defend Knin, which could only be accessed from 3 directions; they couldn't even defend it for 12 hours?"

 

So a Croatian town deep in Croatia's territory is attacked by the entire army and airforce of the JNA, another Croatian town is held by the "might of the JNA army" and "The Serbian army didn't go beyond Croatian border".

 

 

Well, I guess you too follow the old Serbian proverb: "Gdje je Srpski grob, tu je srpska zemlja" (Where there is a Serbian grave, that is Serbian land)

 

 

Compared to the conflict in Bosnia and the NATO bombings in 1999. your country didn't see jack-****.

 

And the NATO bombings are jack s**** compared to what the people under Serbian boots had to suffer.

 

 

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about given that practicly every general and political leader WAS on trial. Except...you know.. most of them were found not guilty.

 

Precisely! They had their verdict in years time if that. While ours are still in Hag and the ones that aren't are dead, with no verdicts.

 

And you find it bad that they aren't proclaimed guilty?

Your side didn't want to persecute anyone and had to be practically strong armed.

Alas, the trails are notoriously slow.

 

 

 

 

What? If they were winning then they had absolutely no reason to bomb the Serbian mainland. But I guess this has been your level of discussion throughout the whole thread.

 

I was referring to your claims of Serbian army easily dominating everyone and everything. Which is funny given that they struggled everywhere.

 

And b.t.w. - there is every reason to use airstrikes even if you are winning. Mainly because it makes things easier/faster.

 

 

 

So now that people can read the whole paragraph what do we see? It's obvious that he was talking about the Krajina Army, everywhere he mentions there being an order he also mention that they avoided engaging the Croatian army. He even mentions that they where running with the civilians.

 

They said "f*** this!" and run away, forcing the civies to run away too.

 

 

 

Second point, they were attacked by the Croatian army so we can see, by your sources, that the Croatian army was indeed attacking and indeed had everything to do with the mass exodus of Serbs from Croatia.

 

Not civilians. Attacking the RSK.

We see the Exodus happened because it was ORDERED and ENFORCED.

 

 

 

As for the second paragraph it doesn't disprove anything I said. Officers where preparing the evacuation of the civilians because Ustase(the Croatian army) were coming.

 

They were inflating fears and forcing people to leave.

 

 

 

As for the rest of the quotes, they can all be brought down to: Serbian soldiers killed Serbian civilians. That makes absolutely no sense!

 

Given that history is full of people of the same nationality killing each other for various reasons, it makes perfect sense.

People who refused to leave or wanted to surrender were considered traitors by the hard-liners.

Edited March 17, 2014 by TrashMan

[Hassat Hunter]

I find it funny the whole Western community, of which democracy is the holy grail, just unanimously disregard democracy cause it doesn't suit their needs this time.

No hypocrisy here, nope!

 

Apparently democracy means "vote of the people, as long as the people vote for Western Europe and the US"

 

I can't see why we just can't give Crimea to the Russians and leave West Ukrain to boil in the hellpit they dug themselves. Let them get out of that, see what the result is, and only then re-start conversation if it's not a complete ****hole.

But nooooo, we need to give Russia sanctions, which bite us harder than it does Russia.

 

Why... WHY is Ukrain worth it making the entirety of Europe to suffer? Seriously... get your heads out of your tower EU...

They wanted this, let them have it. Let's stay out of it, and concentrate on the black hole financies and corrupt countries we already have rather than add another to the already extensive flock.

Russia wants it? Let them have it. They will only burn themselves on it.

But instead "we" want it... oh joy. *not*

 

(How I wish the EU would try to add proper economies to it, like Brittain or Switzerland. But no, all we get are more and more defunct countries like Turkey and Ukrain)

Edited March 17, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[obyknven]

Western politicians continue circus.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/03/16/canada_denounces_crimeas_socalled_referendum.html

Canada denounces Crimea’s ‘so-called referendum’
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says: “This ‘referendum’ is illegitimate, it has no legal effect, and we do not recognize its outcome.”

 

 

 

 

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/30/canada-confirms-falklands-self-determination-despite-lobbying-from-companies-operating-in-argentina

 

 

The Falklands have been under British rule and now under UK defence protection since 1833, a status quo the three thousand-plus Islanders say they want to keep. Argentina claims that when becoming independent at the beginning of the XIXth century it inherited the Malvinas from the Spanish empire.
The Canadian government supports the Islanders position and at April’s Summit of the Americas in Colombia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stymied an Argentine request to get the Falkland’s issue onto the meeting of heads of state’s concluding communiqué. […]
“The issue of Canada’s policy does not change, we support the self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands, as we do people everywhere around the world” Mr. Baird said, according to a transcript of the comments.

multiple personality disorder detected

[obyknven]

Ukrainian "prime minister" promise send all Crimeans (~ 2 000 000 ) into prison with help of EU and US.

http://youtu.be/B4PC2jM5lZI

 

[Sarex]

Of course we did. The aggression was done by you.

 

So you start burning our villages and attacking our citizens and we coming to defend are the aggressors. Funny how that works.

 

 

Oh really? The RSK army was trained and supplied and was essentially CREATED by the JNA.

And of course, as soon as Croatia declared independence, you went to "help the poor, oppressed Serbs in Croatia"

No Serbian soldeirs in Croatia? You got to be kidding me. The very quote you say proves me wrong confirms it. Let me highlight it for you:

 

"Milosevic: Please, 6 thousand Croats defended Vukovar for half a year, the whole first army attacked it, the airforce too, a wonder, all the might YNA had and they didn't defend Knin, which could only be accessed from 3 directions; they couldn't even defend it for 12 hours?"

 

So a Croatian town deep in Croatia's territory is attacked by the entire army and airforce of the JNA and "The Serbian army didn't go beyond Croatian border".

 

 

I didn't say no Serbian soldiers in Croatia, I said no YNA in Croatia. The Krajine army was by your own sources in full retreat and not engaging the Croats. As for Vukovar. Well Vukovar was a Serbian city, how can we attack our own city? Vukovar was in the time of war, spring-winter 1991., a part of SFRJ. SFRJ existed till 1992. If the war in Vukovar was from 1992. (Croatian Independence) then it would be YNA aggression in Croatia.

 

 

And the NATO bombings are jack s**** compared to what the people under Serbian boots had to suffer.

 

...

 

 

And you find it bad that they aren't proclaimed guilty?

Your side didn't want to persecute anyone and had to be practically strong armed.

Alas, the trails are notoriously slow.

 

I find it bad that there wasn't any verdict at all.

Because we knew the trials were going to be a sham, as was/is the case.

Not for your people they weren't.

 

 

I was referring to your claims of Serbian army easily dominating everyone and everything. Which is funny given that they struggled everywhere.

 

And b.t.w. - there is every reason to use airstrikes even if you are winning. Mainly because it makes things easier/faster.

 

Anyone in the Balkans yes, but when the whole western world started their war against us, of course we couldn't win. Our history is full of us beating the odds, what can you say about yours?

 

But they weren't winning, which is the point.

 

 

They said "f*** this!" and run away, forcing the civies to run away too.

 

I am using your sources, you are making stuff up. Where in Milosevic's quotes did he say that?

 

 

Not civilians. Attacking the RSK.

We see the Exodus happened because it was ORDERED and ENFORCED.

 

Where was it ordered and enforced? People were scared of the Croatian Army and they ran. Your own sources confirm that. Over 1000 civilians deaths confirm that they were right in their fears.

 

 

They were inflating fears and forcing people to leave.

 

Over 1000 deaths confirms that they weren't inflating anything. Again it makes no sense to force people to leave unless you fear for their safety.

 

 

Given that history is full of people of the same nationality killing each other for various reasons, it makes perfect sense.

People who refused to leave or wanted to surrender were considered traitors by the hard-liners.

 

Without proof that is just slander. But hey, that is pretty much your MO thus far.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Sarex

[Elerond]

Western Democracy is heavily bureaucratic, with lots of rules, regulations and double checkings, way to stop nation making any drastic decisions in anyway swiftly. It tries to stop dictatorship of majority, by using constitutional laws that are difficult to change, by using political system where power is divided to multiple parties (like for example president, cabinet and parliament, which all have power to at least delay and make other parties to rethink issue at hand) , and that come from different political backgrounds with different agendas, consisting people from all around country to make sure that any area of country have their voice heard. Addition to divided political segment there has to be court system, with multiple courts that has power to enforce or nullify laws made political system but in very heavily regulated way and there has to be police force that has ability enforce regulations and laws, addition to average citizens, towards people in political and judicial systems.

 

And large part of western democracy is western ideals which our heavily bureaucratic systems are designed to protect, although often same bureaucracy fight against, as laws of our past don't always match with our ideals, but as our system is designed to slow down any changes in our laws, which means that oversights or lack of understanding of past is often slow process to change.

 

Western democracy don't mean systems where you people vote in referendum that causes drastic changes in under month notice, in surroundings where they don't have good access to information and are pressured to feel someway or another by mobs and soldiers that don't carry national symbols with them (which mean that they would have been called terrorist if they had been in are where they didn't have most military power). And where political system is very unilateral with very little of separation of power and where there is no judicial system where citizens (that hold minority opinion) could complain that they feel that political system goes against founding principals of the land, with their referendum.

 

Western democracy is not about people ability to vote about things that government approves both ways (for example people don't refer North Korea as democracy even though people there have power to vote their government as they can only vote candidates that government approves) 

 

So in short power of majority is not western ideal, but thing that we regulate heavily so that it don't interfere with our ideals.

 

P.S. every western country have their own variation of this regulation system which we call democracy and their own variation of ideals that they try to protect although today more often than not those ideals are in harmony with each other.  

[TrashMan]

 

Of course we did. The aggression was done by you.

 

So you start burning our villages and attacking our citizens and we coming to defend are the aggressors. Funny how that works.

 

Other way around.

 

The RSK (with JNA help) attacked.

Coming in to defend was nothing but propaganda and cheap justification. You know.. kinda like Russia is doing in Ukraine.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh really? The RSK army was trained and supplied and was essentially CREATED by the JNA.

And of course, as soon as Croatia declared independence, you went to "help the poor, oppressed Serbs in Croatia"

No Serbian soldeirs in Croatia? You got to be kidding me. The very quote you say proves me wrong confirms it. Let me highlight it for you:

 

"Milosevic: Please, 6 thousand Croats defended Vukovar for half a year, the whole first army attacked it, the airforce too, a wonder, all the might YNA had and they didn't defend Knin, which could only be accessed from 3 directions; they couldn't even defend it for 12 hours?"

 

So a Croatian town deep in Croatia's territory is attacked by the entire army and airforce of the JNA and "The Serbian army didn't go beyond Croatian border".

 

 

I didn't say no Serbian soldiers in Croatia, I said no YNA in Croatia. The Krajine army was by your own sources in full retreat and not engaging the Croats. As for Vukovar. Well Vukovar was a Serbian city, how can we attack our own city? Vukovar was in the time of war, spring-winter 1991., a part of SFRJ. SFRJ existed till 1992. If the war in Vukovar was from 1992. (Croatian Independence) then it would be YNA aggression in Croatia.

 

But the JNA was in Croatia.

Knin and Vukovar are Croatian towns and always have been.

 

"Since the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, Vukovar was part of the Habsburg Monarchy, Slavonia (Transleithania after the compromise of 1867), and soon after in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, created when the Kingdom of Slavonia and the Kingdom of Croatia were merged in 1868.

In 1918, Vukovar became part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia in 1929). Between 1918 and 1922, Vukovar was administrative seat of Syrmia (Srijem) county, and between 1922 and 1929 it was the administrative seat of Syrmia oblast. Since 1929, it was part of the Sava Banovina, and beginning in 1939 it was part of the Banovina of Croatia. Between 1941 and 1944, Vukovar was part of the Independent State of Croatia. During World War II the city was bombed by the Allies. In 2008 an unexploded bomb was found in the city from this period.^[6]From 1945, it was part of the People's Republic of Croatia within new socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

 

 

 

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

 

 

"In 1990, an armed insurrection was started by Croatian Serb militias, supported by the Serbian government and paramilitary groups, who seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA began to intervene in favour of the rebellion, and conflict broke out in the eastern Croatian region of Slavonia in May 1991. In August, the JNA launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including Vukovar."

 

 

 

I find it bad that there wasn't any verdict at all.

Because we knew the trials were going to be a sham, as was/is the case.

Not for your people they weren't.

 

That's because the cases were rather simple and evidence lacking.

 

 

 

Our history is full of us beating the odds, what can you say about yours?

 

LOL. Given that you celebrate one of the biggest defeats as a victory....yeah

 

 

 

 

 

Not civilians. Attacking the RSK.

We see the Exodus happened because it was ORDERED and ENFORCED.

 

Where was it ordered and enforced? People were scared of the Croatian Army and they ran. Your own sources confirm that. Over 1000 civilians deaths confirm that they were right in their fears.

 

324, not 1000.

And being afraid and being forcefully evicted are two different things. The issue isn't being scared, since one can be scared for all the wrong reasons too.

 

 

 

Given that history is full of people of the same nationality killing each other for various reasons, it makes perfect sense.

People who refused to leave or wanted to surrender were considered traitors by the hard-liners.

 

Without proof that is just slander. But hey, that is pretty much your MO thus far.

 

Check history.

Stalin killed other Russians

Hitler killed Germans.

Americans killed Americans.

Nationalities often pale in comparison to idelological differences and party extremism.

[Sarex]

Other way around.

 

The RSK (with JNA help) attacked.

Coming in to defend was nothing but propaganda and cheap justification. You know.. kinda like Russia is doing in Ukraine.

 

Oh really the other way around, you don't say. Go read what Josip Boljkovac said. Tudjman wanted the war he attacked first because both he and Milosevic knew that Croatia had the support of the west.

 

 

But the JNA was in Croatia.

Knin and Vukovar are Croatian towns and always have been.

 

"Since the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, Vukovar was part of the Habsburg Monarchy, Slavonia (Transleithania after the compromise of 1867), and soon after in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, created when the Kingdom of Slavonia and the Kingdom of Croatia were merged in 1868.

In 1918, Vukovar became part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia in 1929). Between 1918 and 1922, Vukovar was administrative seat of Syrmia (Srijem) county, and between 1922 and 1929 it was the administrative seat of Syrmia oblast. Since 1929, it was part of the Sava Banovina, and beginning in 1939 it was part of the Banovina of Croatia. Between 1941 and 1944, Vukovar was part of the Independent State of Croatia. During World War II the city was bombed by the Allies. In 2008 an unexploded bomb was found in the city from this period.^[6]From 1945, it was part of the People's Republic of Croatia within new socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

 

 

 

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

 

 

"In 1990, an armed insurrection was started by Croatian Serb militias, supported by the Serbian government and paramilitary groups, who seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA began to intervene in favour of the rebellion, and conflict broke out in the eastern Croatian region of Slavonia in May 1991. In August, the JNA launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including Vukovar."

 

Doesn't change the fact that it was still SFRJ and that there where as much Serbian citizens in the city at the time, the army was doing it's job. There was no YNA in Croatia when it was recognized as independent. Anything before that was in the sphere of influence of YNA, because it was still SFRJ.

 

 

That's because the cases were rather simple and evidence lacking.

 

When they acquitted Naser Oric, they showed how big of a sham the Hag was. There was enough evidence to condemn them, it just didn't matter.

 

 

LOL. Given that you celebrate one of the biggest defeats as a victory....yeah

 

Oh? Please do tell. I can't wait to hear this.

 

 

324, not 1000.

And being afraid and being forcefully evicted are two different things. The issue isn't being scared, since one can be scared for all the wrong reasons too.

 

Over 1000, not 1000.

Oh so the good forces of Croatia were coming with open arms to keep the Serbs in Croatia safe...

 

 

Check history.

Stalin killed other Russians

Hitler killed Germans.

Americans killed Americans.

Nationalities often pale in comparison to idelological differences and party extremism.

 

So Croats killed Croats in the war. Well I'm glad we got that figured out.

 

All the examples you made, are dictators solidifying their rule. What reason did Milosevic have to kill Serbs in Croatia.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Sarex

[Meshugger]

I find it hilarious that 1% of the Crimeans thought of Russia as their homeland back in January 2013. Nationality is a social construct and all that, i guess. 

 

Please do tell my dear Oby on how the Russian mind works, how suspectible to whims are people who identify themselves as Russians? Are there any movies or novels by the great ones (Tarkovsky, Tolstoy, Dostojevsky) that lets the observer get an insight on this?

[obyknven]

EU and US cancel Iranian Oil embargo for EU consumers, but...

 

Iran is ready to ban oil exports to Europe......

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/07/world/meast/iran-oil-exports/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Allahu Akbar!

[Cultist]

The Italian Foreign Office has announced that the European Union sanctions against 21 Russian top officials will last for six months.

will last for six months.

last for six months.

six months.

six

This is just...

[Meshugger]

I wonder what the situation would be if Reagan and Thatcher were still around....

[Elerond]

I wonder what the situation would be if Reagan and Thatcher were still around....

 

One could also ponder if this conflict would be over now already, if UKK would be here to keep one of his sauna-evenings.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Elerond

[Valsuelm]

[Malcador]

I wonder what the situation would be if Reagan and Thatcher were still around....

 

Probably a lot more bluster. And maybe fund anti-Russian Crimeans using weapons sold to NK or something.

[Rostere]

I find it funny the whole Western community, of which democracy is the holy grail, just unanimously disregard democracy cause it doesn't suit their needs this time.

No hypocrisy here, nope!

 

Apparently democracy means "vote of the people, as long as the people vote for Western Europe and the US"

 

I can't see why we just can't give Crimea to the Russians and leave West Ukrain to boil in the hellpit they dug themselves. Let them get out of that, see what the result is, and only then re-start conversation if it's not a complete ****hole.

But nooooo, we need to give Russia sanctions, which bite us harder than it does Russia.

 

Why... WHY is Ukrain worth it making the entirety of Europe to suffer? Seriously... get your heads out of your tower EU...

They wanted this, let them have it. Let's stay out of it, and concentrate on the black hole financies and corrupt countries we already have rather than add another to the already extensive flock.

Russia wants it? Let them have it. They will only burn themselves on it.

But instead "we" want it... oh joy. *not*

 

I kind of agree with this somewhat, with the exception of sanctions biting the EU and the US harder than Russia, which is simply not true. The EU should give the Ukraine a hand when they are ready to help themselves. Crimea was never really a part of the Ukraine to begin with and they are probably better off in the long run without it.

 

Donetsk (and possibly Kharkov and Luhansk) would be way harder for Ukraine to part with feasibly though.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Rostere

[Fighter]

I find it hilarious that 1% of the Crimeans thought of Russia as their homeland back in January 2013.

 

Hm? I'm not sure I understand.

[obyknven]

Take easy guys. We have some time for relax until Ukraine don't attack Crimean republic (lol, they really planned this - they concentrate troops (tanks, artillery etc ) around Crimea, Kievan government  so crazy - prime minister is scientologist, while acting "president" is other religious sect member ).

 

Just funny pics from internets about Crimean crisis.

 

 

 

Crimean Prosecutor's fanart from Japan

 

and from Russia.

 

[Zoraptor]

So Ukraine government have been doing what most federal governments do. As for Crimea can you be more specific as to the actions they took in recent years, you mentioned some votes? how about polls, discussion, appeals to UN, legal advice or any other mesure that would be considered substantial on the global map i.e. not just another excuse that Russia is waving while going with its illegal "Anschluss" of Crimea?

 

Is there really any point, you don't exactly have a record of reading or acknowledging whatever doesn't fit your preconceived notions, per Kosovo. Nevertheless, let's run through exactly why you're wrong.

 

1) Crimea voted for independence from Ukraine twice previously, 1991, 1994. Their wishes were not respected either time

2) The Ukrainian response was to ignore the results, then disband the assembly/ constitution and abolish the post of president.

3) Ukraine wrote their constitution to make secession literally impossible

3a) art 73 "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum."

3b) art 85.29&38 (approval of constitution of Crimea by Ukraine; ability to disband assembly)

3c) art 106 presidential power to "revoke acts of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea"

4) Crimean constitution then rewritten by Kiev

5) While under Ukrainian military occupation dissenters are subject to potential prosecution under laws of treason and sedition if advocating separation or secession.

 

Or in other words, the lack of strong, apparent, recent secessionist sympathy means nothing because any secessionist sympathy are impossible under circumstances of Ukrainian occupation. Such moves would see the assembly dissolved, any attempt to alter the constitution of Crimea would see it rescinded by decree so normal democratic means are effectively impossible and even if they were allowed any approval would have to come by nationwide referendum. Kiev has already shown that they will apply legal sanctions to those who meaningfully try as well, eg the former Crimean President Yury Meshkov. Try anything like an appeal to the UN or legal advice and you run straight into the constructed problem that you're either doing so with no official capacity, or with your official capacity under threat of immediate revocation from Kiev. The recent pronouncements coming from Kiev on the matters actually illustrate the point rather well.

 

I'd be careful with the Anschluss accusations though. While much like in Austria, there's very little disputation (in fact, I haven't heard any analyst say that the overall result would be different) about what the vote result would have been even if it were methodologically perfect there is literally no evidence that Crimea has ever wanted to be part of Ukraine- the exact opposite is true, there's a lot of evidence that it didn't want to be, ever. The whole thing is predicated on Nikita Krushchev moving some meaningless lines around 60 years ago, and that is literally the entirety of the argument. No 'consent of the governed' or similar here, just the whim of someone the west would otherwise regard as a dictator to be ignored.

[Mor]

1) Crimea voted for independence from Ukraine twice previously, 1991, 1994. Their wishes were not respected either time

I specifically asked what they did in recent times. Because the initial greater independents and secession movements were common following the break of USSR(1991) and were crushed, not just in the newly formed Ukraine. That movement pretty much was suppressed back then, leading to the status qou that held to date. So I am asking again tell me something notable that they did in last decade toward independents, like in the loosely related world examples that you brought up.

 

Because I only see how Russia with their east/west mind frame decide to punish Ukraine for not siding with them, by taking away Crimea. With a lot of manufactured excuses i.e. they sent forces to defend ethnic Russians from made up upheaval on their news. They manufactured a reason for breaking their agreement with Ukraine by giving asylum to the deposed president calling him the legitimate president, and trying to build an image of nazi Ukraine. Now with illegal vote and referendums passed, it is about trying to convince that this whole think was their idea by enlightening them about what they really wanted with history.

 

Regardless, fact is that Russia violated their assurances toward Ukraine, their illegal intervention in another sovereign country bypassed international community and normal procedures and they rigged the whole thing up, no wonder there are comparisons to Anschluss.

 

I find it hilarious that 1% of the Crimeans thought of Russia as their homeland back in January 2013. Nationality is a social construct and all that, i guess.

That or propaganda(which is very similar concept to PR) is very good at "hype" building, which is why no political process should be held under such circumstances and provide for natural observers, to avoid rush decisions.

 

Btw, isn't the quality of life in Ukraine is better then in Russia?

Edited March 17, 2014 by Mor

[Rostere]

BTW, I found a more detailed linguistic map here: http://t.co/gV3UYdUZ81

[Valsuelm]

 

 propaganda(which is very similar concept to PR)

 

They are conceptually one and the same, anyone involved in 'public relations' is involved in 'propaganda' and vice versa, the only real difference is how the label is perceived. Go introduce yourself to Edward Bernays.

 

 

 

Btw, isn't the quality of life in Ukraine is better then in Russia?

 

This is of course a pretty subjective thing and dependent on where in which nation you lived. However, if you mean in the manner that most westerners do when they consider the question: the per capita GDP, then no. Russia has a far better per capita GDP than Ukraine (somewhere around double last I checked). GDP can be very misleading however. That aside and all other things considered, I'd take Russia over Ukraine in a heartbeat as a place I'd rather live, though I really wouldn't want to live in either for a variety of reasons (none of which have to do with the people or the hot women living there). I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people, they have for a long while now been used and abused by their neighbors to their west and east, suffering under corrupt leaders on the take from both the west and the east, it's just now reached a boiling point. They're between a rock and a hard place with no real light at the end of their tunnel.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

I specifically asked what they did in recent times.

And I specifically pointed out why that is not a good gauge. You ask the question that way because it will give the answer you want, I answer the question that should be asked. To take an extreme example, I could not prove that there is significant political dissent in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that there either isn't, or that people willingly support the status quo. It just means that they cannot do so overtly.

 

Because the initial greater independents and secession movements were common following the break of USSR(1991) and were crushed, not just in the newly formed Ukraine. That movement pretty much was suppressed back then, leading to the status qou that held to date. So I am asking again tell me something notable that they did in last decade toward independents, like in the loosely related world examples that you brought up.

It was not a Kosovo type situation where you had nine years of NATO occupation and preparation for independence allowing pro independence sentiment to flourish, the previous 9 years were occupation from Kiev- a Kiev where you now have Yatsenyuk talking about 'setting the earth on fire' in Crimea. That's not an attitude where you can have a reasoned debate and gradual, mutual movement towards anything whether it be autonomy, integration or separation; just dictated movement towards integration like last time. The previous leader to try and do it got prosecuted and his assembly and constitution were dissolved from Kiev. Seriously, everyone, literally everyone including Kiev has acknowledged that there is genuine and significant separatist sentiment, indeed Kiev has attempted to use its constitution to block it even when they no longer have the de facto power to. If they had the power to stop it, they clearly would have- and then you could still have safely claimed that there was still no separatist sentiment because where are the appeals to the UN etc.

 

Because I only see how Russia with their east/west mind frame

Yeah, because the Warsaw Pact still exists, whereas NATO was disbanded once the cold war ended. Whatever your views on the matter of Crimea is you have to be monumentally naive to think that the west does not have an us vs them attitude to Russia or wants Ukraine in its fold for any other primary reason than because it's a dagger at Moscow's heart. It's poor, endebted, its army and institutions are a shambles and it's riven by corruption. It has no significant natural or others resources, except a strategic position close to Moscow. Of course, this will all be dressed up in the costume of fraternal concern and uplifting of the brother hood of european nations. Let's ask Greece how those sentiments have worked out for them, a richer country which actually had less corruption...

 

They manufactured a reason for breaking their agreement with Ukraine by giving asylum to the deposed president calling him the legitimate president

Dealt with, his removal was illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. So's the referendum of course, but you cannot conveniently grant one side a free illegality but not the other just because you like one, especially when the illegality of it is retroactive relative to the original separatist referendum.

 

Regardless, fact is that Russia violated their assurances toward Ukraine, their illegal intervention in another sovereign country bypassed international community and normal procedures and they rigged the whole thing up, no wonder there are comparisons to Anschluss.

And the west violated their assurance to Russia that the break up of the WP and German reunification would not see further eastwards expansion of NATO, or over the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. Again, treaties are mutual things, can't expect only one side to obey the ones you find convenient, same as you cannot decide arbitrarily that Kosovo is a Special Case but no other case is special, or special enough, for the same treatment.