What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

View

First Up wrote: »

If it depends on a treaty between sovereign states, then hurry up with giving back Kosovo.

I haven't taken it so that point is a bit moot.

Given what happened in Kosovo happened after years of conflict and ethnce cleansing in the region, it would have been extraordinary if the local population voted to stay with Serbia.

First Up wrote: »

As for Gibraltar, Spain has long disputed the validity of that treaty

I am pretty sure Spain doesn't dispute the validity of the treaty since they aren't laying claim to Sicily, Milan, the Netherlands etc (all of which were in the treaties also). They may not like the Gibraltar situation but, presuming they refrain from violence (a reasonable assumption), it is down to peaceful persuasion.

First Up wrote: »

Europe's borders pre and post WW2 (and pre and post WW1 for that matter) look very different.

That is correct. Precisely because of the horror unleashed in that conflict - where the Nazis were supposedly initially claiming to be acting for ethnic Germans in other countries - people have tended to avoid claims based on ethnicity.

The only real exception to that up to now was in the Balkans and that unleashed more horror.

Now Russia has picked up that baton. That means ethnic Russians in other countries can be used to justify conflict (as we have seen twice now), hence many will conclude those minorities are REAL threats to their countries.

I for one do not want Europe going down that awful road again but I fear many may come to regard Russian minorities in that light and if so - as in the Balkans - an awful lot of innocent people will suffer as a result of this stupidity that has been unleashed.

First Up

As it would have been for Crimea not to vote to leave Ukraine. The point is that one unilateral referendum for secession was given a blessing and endorsed as democracy in action while the other is condemned.
Double standards, hypocricy - whatever you want to call it, it adds up chickens (or pigeons if you are the Garda Commissioner) coming home to roost.

Richard

For what it's worth, here's a screengrab of RT (Russia Today) and their "unbiased" coverage of proceedings.

gizmo555

recedite wrote: »

So by this measure, if the Isle of Man wanted to leave UK and join ROI, they should be allowed . . .

The Isle of Man isn't and never has been part of the UK.

Richard

For anyone trying to draw parallels with NI, there really aren't any, especially as the Irish government aren't mental enough to try and annex part if NI (even if they wanted to). Even at the height of the troubles and the lowest of Anglo-Irish relations they never would've tried, due in part to the mayhem that would have ensued.

Jonny7

Bravest man in Russia right now

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/journalist-questioned-after-asking-for-troops-to-liberate-russians-from-corrupt-officials/496393.html

Lemming

recedite wrote: »

comongethappy wrote: »

Not driving tanks through steets

Source for this?

How do you think all those armoured vehicles suddenly managed to surround Ukranian military bases in the Crimea? Wishfully thinking them from their supposed Garrison barracks only? Or did they just happen to drive past Ukranian bases whilst en-route from Russia during troop rotation? :rolleyes:

First Up

Richard wrote: »

For what it's worth, here's a screengrab of RT (Russia Today) and their "unbiased" coverage of proceedings.

Who said Russia Today is unbiased?

recedite

gizmo555 wrote: »

The Isle of Man isn't and never has been part of the UK.

Yes, technically correct, hence they can use it as a centre for "offshore banking" and other "tax exemption activities".
Let's say then, if the IOM wanted to remove itself from the sovereignty of The Crown, and join ROI as a republic.....

SpaceTime

The huge % turnout and huge % victory for the yes side stands out as very suspicious to me, particularly when large numbers of people said they're boycotting it.

recedite

Lemming wrote: »

armoured vehicles suddenly managed to surround Ukranian military bases in the Crimea

Jeeps and armoured personnel carriers parked outside army bases?
I thought someone said "tanks in the streets" originally.

comongethappy

recedite wrote: »

Jeeps and armoured personnel carriers parked outside army bases?
I thought someone said "tanks in the streets" originally.

There was footage of a T-80 or two outside a ukranian base.

Mostly APCs though, them tracked vehicles are hard on the roads.

comongethappy

SpaceTime wrote: »

The huge % turnout and huge % victory for the yes side stands out as very suspicious to me, particularly when large numbers of people said they're boycotting it.

To borrow from Scofflaw in the main thread:

In late 2013 there were 385,462 citizens in Sevastopol, according to the Sevastopol Statistics Service. This number included children under 18 and other people not eligible to vote. However, Mykhailo Malyshev, Chair of the Crimea Supreme Council Referendum Commission, stated that in Sevastopol alone 474,137 voters participated in the “referendum,” making Sevastopol’s voter turnout 123 percent.

Province is 58% Russian
80% Turnout
95% favouring joining Russia

Almost North Korean levels of endorsement!

djpbarry

First Up wrote: »

My point on all this is that people getting on a high horse over Crimea have very short and very selective memories and even more selective principles.

So I can’t condemn what Russia is doing in Crimea without making reference to and offering my opinion on every other instance of annexation/secession in history?

djpbarry

recedite wrote: »

The Irish "Armageddon" plan to seize Newry would not have been legit, even if militarily feasible, because while south County Down is Republican, North down is strongly Unionist. I would say the minimum size for a valid electorate is somewhere above county size. I would put it at "province" size.

An entirely arbitrary definition.

Godge

recedite wrote: »

All true, but there has to be a certain minimum size of the "region" to form a valid electorate. It has to be capable of some measure of economic independence, and have some cultural background.
An Island is something of an exception, because it can be supplied by sea and the people are physically isolated. So Gibraltar has remained culturally British, and derives income and supplies from the British navy.
Crimean peninsula is almost an island between Russia and Ukraine, although attached to Ukraine by some marshland. like Gibraltar it also has a strong naval history.

So by this measure, if the Isle of Man wanted to leave UK and join ROI, they should be allowed. But an equivalent sized town or county in Wales should not.

The Irish "Armageddon" plan to seize Newry would not have been legit, even if militarily feasible, because while south County Down is Republican, North down is strongly Unionist. I would say the minimum size for a valid electorate is somewhere above county size. I would put it at "province" size.

Gibraltar is not an island, neither is Crimea. Describing Crimea as being between Ukraine and Russia is not true either.

Your definitions are entirely arbitrary and you seem to be arguing that if it is geographically convenient that then it should be allowed.

Using Northern Ireland then, while you would be against South Down leaving the Republic, the reunification of Ulster through the annexation of Donegal by the North would be ok (subject to there being a majority in Donegal in favour following a British invasion and a British-run referendum which didn't allow for Donegal remaining part of the South). Have I got your views right?

iradzen

SpaceTime wrote: »

The huge % turnout and huge % victory for the yes side stands out as very suspicious to me, particularly when large numbers of people said they're boycotting it.

I wouldn't doubt, that this % is true, even if you'll ignore, that majority of people there are russians, and Crimea regions main income is from Russian naval base and Russian tourists, - imagine, that you have a choice- stay with a country without any real government at the moment and €0 in budget or join your powerfull neiborough, which is offering you money and stability ?

By the way russians pensions and salaries are twice bigger, that same in Ukraine and they already are offering to increase Crimean's ...
And while western media is creating scary stories about "poor" Crimean tatars, noone ever mentioned, that Tatarstan's president already came to Crimea and offered support to Crimean tatars...(Tatarstan - republic Federal subjectof Russia)

comongethappy

No doubt, Crimean people would probably be better off part of Russia.

Ukrainian economic performance since independence has been frankly terrible.

So no one is disputing the will of the majority.

However the manner of its execution looks highly dubious to say the least.

Lemming

iradzen wrote: »

I wouldn't doubt, that this % is true, even if you'll ignore, that majority of people there are russians,

What percentage of the total population are ethnic Russians? Whilst I have no doubt that they are the single largest ethnic group, are they actually the majority (as in 50.1+ %) in their own right?

comongethappy

Lemming wrote: »

What percentage of the total population are ethnic Russians? Whilst I have no doubt that they are the single largest ethnic group, are they actually the majority (as in 50.1+ %) in their own right?

Read a few posts up!

58% Russian

'Russian as a first language' is 80%+

iradzen

Lemming wrote: »

What percentage of the total population are ethnic Russians? Whilst I have no doubt that they are the single largest ethnic group, are they actually the majority (as in 50.1+ %) in their own right?

yep, Russians are definite majority in Crimea!
I actually was surprised to find out out, that there are only 60 %, I always thought - 90% ( I personally been in Crimea several times and have a friends and relatives there...so have quite a lot info from people, not from media - Crimea is now the quietest and happiest part of Ukraine)
don't forget , that loads of people over there can not even name their nationality, as then have Russian and Ukranian ancestors...
main language over there is Russian without any doubts...
to make army conflict even more complicated - there is a huge probability, that Russian and Ukranian big rank officers had been studying at the same army colleges...

Lemming

comongethappy wrote: »

Read a few posts up!

58% Russian

'Russian as a first language' is 80%+

Ah, missed that little bit tucked in underneath the attached datagraph

seamus

comongethappy wrote: »

No doubt, Crimean people would probably be better off part of Russia.

Ukrainian economic performance since independence has been frankly terrible.

So no one is disputing the will of the majority.

However the manner of its execution looks highly dubious to say the least.

This is pretty much it.

I don't think anyone disputes that if an autonomous region of any country decides to leave and become part of another, then they should be permitted to do so.

The problem is how this was executed.

- Moving Russian troops within a foreign jurisdiction under the false pretence of protecting civilians who were never in any kind of danger.
- Barricading and threatening the local (and legal) defence forces as well as blocking ports, borders and other points of entry.
- Appointing political leaders behind closed doors and outside of legal procedures (making the leaders illegitimate)
- That same leadership holding a referendum in an exceptionally short period of time, without any neutral oversight and without any option on the ballot to reject the referendum.

So not only is the referendum itself illegitimate, the entire thing is based on a series of illegal actions, any of which individually would render the ballot invalid.

There is no doubt that Putin has decided the time has come to start asserting Russian military might. The next step is his permanent installation as leader of the Russian federation under the false pretence of some global political emergency. As Russia is led by an oligarchy which effectively allows any leader to remain in power indefinitely, this is really just a solidified form of what's already the reality in Russia.

iradzen

seamus wrote: »

- Moving Russian troops within a foreign jurisdiction under the false pretence of protecting civilians who were never in any kind of danger.
- Barricading and threatening the local (and legal) defence forces as well as blocking ports, borders and other points of entry.

1. Russian military base had been in Crimea since 19** , and Putin had all the rights to protect Russian assets and citizens.

2. local defence forces had been actually pro-russian- they did not want to recognise new so-called "govermenent"...

I an pretty sure , that if Obama would be on Putin's place, he would be already bombing the Kiev...

comongethappy

Where are you from Iradzen?

iradzen

comongethappy wrote: »

Where are you from Iradzen?

born in Belarus, living in Ireland at the moment.
My father is Ukranian.

Lemming

iradzen wrote: »

2. local defence forces had been actually pro-russian

That's one way of selling it. What strikes me as odd is that in the weeks running up to the refendum, all these local defence forces were

• Remarkably well equipped. Uniformly so.
• Had vehicles with Russian number plates
• had Russian armoured vehicles with Russian number plates
• And most interesting of all; not a single patch, emblem, or local insignia was to be spotted on any of these "local defence forces" up until this weekend just past. Which says something rather interesting indeed; namely that they were all ordered to take off their identifying insignia. Which would prompt the question rather rethorical question of "why"?

comongethappy

"Those weren't russian troops.

They are locals who purchased APC's & Hind helicoptors from local shops."

Says Perma-President Putin.

iradzen

Lemming wrote: »

That's one way of selling it. What strikes me as odd is that in the weeks running up to the refendum, all these local defence forces were

• Remarkably well equipped. Uniformly so.
• Had vehicles with Russian number plates
• had Russian armoured vehicles with Russian number plates
• And most interesting of all; not a single patch, emblem, or local insignia was to be spotted on any of these "local defence forces". Which says something rather interesting indeed; namely that they were all ordered to take off their identifying insignia. Which would prompt the question rather rethorical question of "why"?

AH, sorry, I did not realise, that you meant actual "polite people in green"
Noone at any side of border has any doubts, who these people were
It does not make any difference- the main thing is- these forces had been called by Crimea's local government (Crimea had kind of autonomy) and local militia had been helping these forces and local habitans welcomed these sodiers ,and had been ( and still) very happy, because noone wanted to have problems as Kiev had (still have)...

Dannyboy83

iradzen wrote: »

born in Belarus, living in Ireland at the moment.
My father is Ukranian.

This might interest you

Ordinary Russians and Ukrainians have been betrayed by their leaders by Mikhail Shishkin

We truly are brother nations. My mother is Ukrainian, and my father is Russian. There are millions of such mixed families in both Ukraine and Russia. Where are you going to draw the line between one and the other? How are you going to cut the ties that bind?

How are going to divide up Gogol? Is he a Russian or a Ukrainian classic? We share him. We share our pride in him.

How are we going to divide up our shared shame and our shared grief – our appalling history? The annihilation of the peasantry in Russia and the Holodomor in Ukraine? There were Russians and Ukrainians among the victims and executioners. We have common enemies: ourselves.

Our terrible common past has a death grip on both nations and is not letting us move into the future.

The Maidan protests were stunning for the daring and courage of the people who came out on the square "for our freedom and yours." Most striking of all was the solidarity. I was gripped by admiration and envy. Here the Ukrainians were able to rise up and resist; they were not about to be brought to their knees.

The Putin TV anchors used their propaganda news in every possible way to create an image of Maidan's defender as the Ukrainian bumpkin from the joke: crafty, greedy, stupid, and prepared to sell himself to the devil or the west; it didn't matter which, just so he'd have his lard. A country with state television of that calibre should die of shame.

This kind of condescending attitude toward Ukrainians and the Ukrainian language has been accepted in Russia from time immemorial. The "younger brother" was loved for his cheerfulness, humour, and self-deprecation, but he remained the younger brother, and that meant he had to obey his older brother, learn from him, and try to be like him. The last few months have changed the course of history and revealed entirely different Ukrainians to Russians. The "younger brother" has turned out to be more mature than the older. Ukrainians were able to tell their embezzling government, "Gang, get out!" But we weren't.

Naturally, I'm envious.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people, all of the time!

First Up

djpbarry wrote: »

So I can’t condemn what Russia is doing in Crimea without making reference to and offering my opinion on every other instance of annexation/secession in history?

I wouldn't dream of telling you what you can or should comment on but if you apply different standards to different situations, I reserve the right to ignore your opinion.

djpbarry

First Up wrote: »

I wouldn't dream of telling you what you can or should comment on but if you apply different standards to different situations, I reserve the right to ignore your opinion.

That's not what you said though:

First Up wrote:

My point on all this is that people getting on a high horse over Crimea have very short and very selective memories and even more selective principles.

You accused everyone "on a high horse" with regard to Crimea of having double standards.

iradzen

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This might interest you

one more peace of Western anti-Putin's propaganda ...
I am living in Ireland for 13 years now, and learned not to beleive only one side of story - I am wathing BBC, CNN, ORT ( Russian propaganda ),Ukranian news and speak with actual people...

all are lying ( or saying just part of story, which is convinient for them ) - some more, some less...
so the true is somewhere in between...

Ukranian propaganda is THE WORST, honestly - they do tell their people, that EU is waiting for them, and as soon as they'll join to EU- they'll be happy and reach and free etc.
... they also telling, that all Russia is in ruines, all russians are drunk bears, that just want to suck Ukranian blood...

but in reality - Ukraine is independent for 23 years now, when USSR collapsed- they had all the resources - best land, best climate, coal, steel etc ...
but its economical growth had been much poorer, then neihboring Belarus with "dictator" Lukashenko and socialist economy...
I won't even mention Russia...
everything had been stolen, and not by Russian, not by one Yanukovi4 ( I do not protect him - he is one of theafs as well) , but by their own people, some of them are now promising "freedom and prosperity" again...

Dannyboy83

iradzen wrote: »

one more peace of Western anti-Putin's propaganda ...
I am living in Ireland for 13 years now, and learned not to beleive only one side of story - I am wathing BBC, CNN, ORT ( Russian propaganda ),Ukranian news and speak with actual people...

all are lying ( or saying just part of story, which is convinient for them ) - some more, some less...
so the true is somewhere in between...

Ukranian propaganda is THE WORST, honestly - they do tell their people, that EU is waiting for them, and as soon as they'll join to EU- they'll be happy and reach and free etc.
... they also telling, that all Russia is in ruines, all russians are drunk bears, that just want to suck Ukranian blood...

but in reality - Ukraine is independent for 23 years now, when USSR collapsed- they had all the resources - best land, best climate, coal, steel etc ...
but its economical growth had been much poorer, then neihboring Belarus with "dictator" Lukashenko and socialist economy...
I won't even mention Russia...
everything had been stolen, and not by Russian, not by one Yanukovi4 ( I do not protect him - he is one of theafs as well) , but by their own people, some of them are now promising "freedom and prosperity" again...

If you read the article fully, you'll see it's not so one sided.
It actually reiterates a lot of what you've said above (which I largely agree with)

Don't agree about Ukranian propaganda - Russian is much worse.
I don't speak Ukraianian fluently but I speak Polish and Russian, so I can pretty much figure out Ukrainian.

My family and friends who are able to watch multiple news sources such as you or I, tend to be much more balanced. (That goes for my Irish family and friends too!)

I don't blame Russian people for being so brain washed, they have no free media, so they cannot help it. It annoys the hell out of me tho.

imitation

I think one thing that struck me after speaking with Russian friends, they have no faith in their political system. Most don't like Putin, but think hes better than any alternative. Given the track record its hard to blame them.

Ultimately though, he thinks the Crimea is going to be lose - lose for everybody, the ukraine will loose a chunk of its economy. Russia will have to deal with sanctions and reintegrating a small country, hard to see it not causing stability issues. Im failing to see how its going to benefit Putin long term, seems more like giving the Ukraine and eu the two fingers.

First Up

djpbarry wrote: »

That's not what you said though:
You accused everyone "on a high horse" with regard to Crimea of having double standards.

If you can point to someone complaining about Crimea who is also exercised by Israel's constant annexation of Palestinian land or the farce that was/is Kosovo, I'll be happy to exclude them.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

If you can point to someone complaining about Crimea who is also exercised by Israel's constant annexation of Palestinian land or the farce that was/is Kosovo, I'll be happy to exclude them.

The fact that you can't conceive of someone like that is interesting. Let me ask you a different question.

Can you find someone who is exercised by the Israeli annnexation, Kosovo and who also condemns Russia?

iradzen

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't blame Russian people for being so brain washed, they have no free media, so they cannot help it. It annoys the hell out of me tho.

where did you get this info? ??
why Russians do not have free media? ? ?
they do have access to internet, satellites, radio and telephone,
they do travel all over the world, all my friends in Russian and Belarus able to go on holidays or business in Europe, and when they do - they do not close they eyes and years...

all people knows, which TV station have more censured, then other...

and if some Western media would say you, that "poor" Russian people are "brain washed", do not have access to TV, and internet is blocked- please, please do not beleive!

I dare to say, that Western people are more brainwashed, as they choose to watch only one side of story...

iradzen

imitation wrote: »

I think one thing that struck me after speaking with Russian friends, they have no faith in their political system.

Like we here adore Merkel , Ashton and Obama...;)
and do beleive, that all these Irish politicans, linked with Bankirs, only think about peoples future...;)

seamus

iradzen wrote: »

1. Russian military base had been in Crimea since 19** , and Putin had all the rights to protect Russian assets and citizens.

Which is why I used the word "within".

Plenty of countries maintain armed forces in other jurisdictions. However they do not have the authority to use those armed forces without the consent of the host nation or unless at the request of the host nation.

Moving those forces out of their barracks is effectively the exact same as invading.

Putin of course has the right to protect Russian assets and citizens. But none of these were in danger. There was no fighting in Crimea and the local defence forces had not done anything "anti-Russian". The fact that the Ukrainian forces did not attack the Russian forces for fear of civilian casualties perfectly demonstrates that the reasons for invading were invalid and without any basis.

2. local defence forces had been actually pro-russian- they did not want to recognise new so-called "govermenent"...

Irrelevant. They were still Ukrainian defence forces. Whether they were of Russian origin has no bearing.

First Up

Godge wrote: »

The fact that you can't conceive of someone like that is interesting. Let me ask you a different question.

Can you find someone who is exercised by the Israeli annnexation, Kosovo and who also condemns Russia?

Not a matter of me being able to "conceive" it. I'm just waiting to see it.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

Not a matter of me being able to "conceive" it. I'm just waiting to see it.

You are the one accusing those on the other side to you of inconsistency.

First Up wrote: »

If you can point to someone complaining about Crimea who is also exercised by Israel's constant annexation of Palestinian land or the farce that was/is Kosovo, I'll be happy to exclude them.

Yet you won't or can't find consistency on your side of the debate.

Are you a hypocrite as well, then? Do you approve of Russia's annexation yet disapprove Kosovo's independence and Israel's annexation? Where is your consistency?

Dannyboy83

iradzen wrote: »

where did you get this info? ??

How old are you?
Do you any memory of being in Russia? Any personal experience?
Or do you only remember Ireland?

iradzen wrote: »

why Russians do not have free media? ? ?

World Press Freedom Index 2014
https://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

56 Journalists Killed in Russia since 1992/Motive Confirmed

Russian Federation - 148th place in the World

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/russia-media-black-out-ahead-disputed-crimea-referendum-2014-03-14
Russia: Media black-out ahead of disputed Crimea referendum

The Russian authorities have launched a full-scale onslaught on the few remaining independent media in Russia, blocking a number of internet sites in the Russian Federation, Amnesty International said today.
"The blocking of these sites is a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression. It is an unashamed attack on those who still dare to question the Kremlin-dictated narrative by providing independent, impartial information and offer a platform for free debate,” said John Dalhuisen, Europe and Central Asia Programme Director at Amnesty International.

https://www.cpj.org/2014/03/in-crimea-more-journalists-report-attacks-obstruct.php

In Crimea, more journalists report attacks, obstruction
New York, March 18, 2014--At least six journalists have been assaulted, detained, or obstructed from reporting in the southern Ukrainian autonomous republic of Crimea in the past two days, according to news reports.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ian-free-press
In 2011, three journalists dead (including newspaper editor Khadzhimurad Kamalov, shot 14 times as he left his office). In 2010, two killed; in 2009, five more (including a young reporter from Novaya Gazeta, caught in a hail of bullets). Add four for 2008, one in 2007 and then 2006 as Anna Politkovskaya, the most famous victim of them all, is murdered. But she wouldn't forget Yevgeny Gerasimenko – found in his Saratov flat with a plastic bag pulled over his head and computer missing – and nor should we.

Two Russian journalists died in 2005, and three in both 2004 and 2003; but 2002 was a wicked year, with eight lost (including Valery Ivanov, battling editor, shot in the head) and 2001 added another victim. Putin's reign of power in 2000 began with six dead reporters and editors: a grim portent, looking back, of bad things to come.

There are other countries in the world where journalists repeatedly perish in the course of duty, to be sure: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico. And Russia has terrorists and rebellions of its own to deal with as well. But the drip, drip, drip of journalists' blood, year in and year out, crimes scantily investigated and rarely brought to any conclusion, is still deeply dismaying.

and if some Western media would say you, that "poor" Russian people are "brain washed", do not have access to TV, and internet is blocked- please, please do not beleive!

No Western Media have convinced me.

I have formed this opinion based on my experience, and my Russian friends and family. Chysty Russki

(For non-Russian readers, chysty russki means 'clean Russian'. Clean Russian or White Russian or Full Russian are terms which Russians, particularly the older generation, use to refer to ethnic Russians who come from Russia, e.g. My partner's grandmother is from Smolensk, she would refer to herself as Clean Russian, while her husband, who was a Russian Ukranian from Poltava, was not )

I dare to say, that Western people are more brainwashed, as they choose to watch only one side of story...

But yet the fact that Putin's approval rating is at an all time high undermines your idea, doesn't it?

First Up

Godge wrote: »

You are the one accusing those on the other side to you of inconsistency.



Yet you won't or can't find consistency on your side of the debate.

Are you a hypocrite as well, then? Do you approve of Russia's annexation yet disapprove Kosovo's independence and Israel's annexation? Where is your consistency?

Russia hasn't "annexed" Crimea. Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine. The nub of the matter is whether or not it was entitled to do so. If you don't believe it was, then it is inconsistent to recognise Kosovo's right to vote to secede from Serbia. Of the two, Crimea has much the stronger case - having been "gifted" to Ukraine only sixty years ago, whereas Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia for centuries.

I don't think it is a good idea for states to dis-integrate into ever smaller entities in order to placate or accommodate some offended ethnicity. Kosovo is a basket case and will always be one as an independent country. Having seceded from Ukraine, it makes eminent sense for Crimea to join (or re-join) the Russian Federation. Russia has accepted its application and is on firm enough ground ethnically, historically and geographically. (Politically is another matter.)

At the time of Kosovo's secession, I was one of many people who expressed concerns that it was setting a highly dangerous precedent across the former Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc and elsewhere. There is a myriad of other scenarios - Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Checnya, Republika Srpska, Transniestra, Kaliningrad, Nagorno Karabakh, Northern Cyprus to mention but a few. Some are legacies of WW1 or WW2, others are part of the detritus of the break up of the USSR and of Yugoslavia. None are simple; some have already come back to haunt and Crimea is just the latest.

I am not in favour of unilateral secession, but I am contemptuous of those whose opinion of it depends more on who is seceding from who than on principle.

As for Israel, that is just colonialism disguised as something else. But it goes on every day.

recedite

Godge wrote: »

Using Northern Ireland then, while you would be against South Down (join)ing the Republic, the reunification of Ulster through the annexation of Donegal by the North would be ok (subject to there being a majority in Donegal in favour following a British invasion and a British-run referendum which didn't allow for Donegal remaining part of the South). Have I got your views right?

If the British held an all-Ulster referendum, including Donegal, the result might well be in favour of joining ROI. But anyway, I would not be in favour of them trying to change the status of something as small as a single county. The entity that would be up for change is the six counties; NI. At the moment the majority there are happy with the status quo.

Where are people getting this idea that Crimeans had no option in the referendum to remain a part of Ukraine? Don't tell me from Fox news

Crimea has essentially been a Free State operating under Ukrainian sovereignty since 1991 and the break up of the USSR. This meant having their own parliament and taxation, but Ukrainian army and foreign policy.
Their parliament did try for a declaration of full independence in 1992 but were forced to rescind it by Kiev, inserting a new sentence into this constitution that clarified that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

The referendum offered two choices;

Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

View

recedite wrote: »

The referendum offered two choices;

Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

There was no status quo option as can be seen above hence the referendum - even were it recognised by Ukraine - is not valid.

A single territory acting on its own does NOT have the right to force the rest of a country to alter its constitution - in this case back to the 92 constitution - nor does it have the right to operate under a seperate constitution to the rest of a country.

In the above question, the only issue is how much constitutional change you favour not do you want it - it is akin to a member of a mafia punishment crew asking you if you'd prefer your arm or your leg broken.

alaimacerc

seamus wrote: »

I don't think anyone disputes that if an autonomous region of any country decides to leave and become part of another, then they should be permitted to do so.

I'm not sure if you just mean anyone in this thread, but in facts lots of people dispute this. David Cameron, the Chinese Politburo, and all points in between... (Maybe that's not such a long distance.) Also bear in mind that "autonomy" is not something with an absolute, universal definition. Nor is it an intrinsic property of of the region in question: such status can be removed at the will of the "parent" sovereign entity. Witness what was happening in this instance.

The problem is how this was executed.

No shortage of problems there, granted.

However, to flip it around: if you were a Crimean "ethnic Russian" (or indeed an irredentist Russian nationalist elsewhere in the Federation (hi, Vlad!)), the option of "sit on your hands and see how things work out 'post mob-driven, fascist-led, Western-backed coup'" doesn't necessarily look like it's free of problems, either.

alaimacerc

View wrote: »

There was no status quo option as can be seen above hence the referendum - even were it recognised by Ukraine - is not valid.

Well, there goes the UK Tories' plans for an in-out EU referendum on the basis of their (supposed) renegotiated terms of membership, then. Thanks for clearing that up!

While somewhat dodgy, this really doesn't seem to be to be the most pressing objection to the plebiscite. If your favoured option isn't on the ballot (and I know mine generally isn't!), you vote for the least-worst option of what remains. Had "pre-'92 autonomy" won the poll, I hardly think this would have been taken as a pretext to join Russia anyway, as some have implied. (Whether the poll itself is a meaningful exercise in the circumstances is a separate question.)

Jonny7

First Up wrote: »

Russia hasn't "annexed" Crimea.

Russia has annexed Crimea, no amount of verbal gymnastics can get around that fact

Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine.

and North Korea voted for Kim Jong Un

The circumstances of the vote are as important as the vote itself

Godge

recedite wrote: »

If the British held an all-Ulster referendum, including Donegal, the result might well be in favour of joining ROI. But anyway, I would not be in favour of them trying to change the status of something as small as a single county. The entity that would be up for change is the six counties; NI. At the moment the majority there are happy with the status quo.I]

Why? What is so special about a single county or a single province? Is this the type of figleaf that people are using to say Kosovo was wrong but Crimea was right?

We should just get rid of Andorra, Lichenstein, the Vatican City, Gibraltar and San Marino because there are bigger counties in Ireland and the UK?

Why would the six counties be the entity up for change, look at a map, joining Donegal to Northern Ireland makes geographical sense?

recedite wrote: »

Where are people getting this idea that Crimeans had no option in the referendum to remain a part of Ukraine? Don't tell me from Fox news

Crimea has essentially been a Free State operating under Ukrainian sovereignty since 1991 and the break up of the USSR. This meant having their own parliament and taxation, but Ukrainian army and foreign policy.
Their parliament did try for a declaration of full independence in 1992 but were forced to rescind it by Kiev, inserting a new sentence into this constitution that clarified that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

The referendum offered two choices;

Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

That has been done to death loads of times, why are you repeating it? There was no status quo option, there were no OSCE monitors, there was a North Korean style referendum.

I am not saying that the result would have been different, it is just not legitimate. It is a bit like having a referendum in West Belfast under the auspices of the Irish army dressed as Provos and deciding the future of Northern Ireland based on two options - independence or reunification with the South, neither of which palatable to the majority of the rest of Northern Ireland.

Have a proper democratic vote with all of the options and the consent of the rest of Ukraine. Remember Northern Ireland only has the option to reunify with the South because the rest of Britain agreed as part of the Good Friday Agreement.