Crimea Referendum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 05:13 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Dubious of that wording and a Russian influenced referendum (which I never denied to be).

Fair enough.

(but, seriously - Russian influenced? Influenced? Rolleyes )

(17-03-2014 05:13 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I'm still not against allowing Crimea to self-determine, and I'm still hugely suspicious of the fact that I haven't seen a single Western politician advocate a fair referendum, they're all again any referendum at all. I call bullshit on that.

Because "territorial integrity" has become somewhat of an obsession since WWII. It's dumb, yes, but at no point in the last 23 years has there been much if any actual street-level agitation in Crimea. They were already substantially more autonomous than any of the oblasts.

Compare, as is easily done, to the likes of Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, or even Venetia. Most of the relevant actors would rather those pointless and ethnically tinged separatists not succeed. No one in Canada/UK/Spain/Italy has said "there's no pre-existing constitutional mechanism for secession so FUCK YOU YOU'RE STUCK WITH US". They're willing to negotiate if and when a firm and substantial majority of inhabitants of one arbitrary geographical entity decide to go play with blackjack and hookers without being part of another arbitrary geographical entity.

Anyway. Crimea had relatively free elections throughout the 90s and 2000s. At no point did secessionist or Russian-annexationist parties win more than single digit percentages of the vote. Seriously, Aksyonov, the guy installed by the Russians chosen by the Crimean Parliament as the new Prime Minister led the "Russian Unity" party to ignominious irrelevance in the last several (internationally observed and substantially free) Crimean elections.

(17-03-2014 04:05 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I don't mean in that way. I mean in a straight-up-invade-other-countries-for-'their-own-good'-and-totally-not-for-our-own-benefit way. I dunno, I think that probably ranks above what any other countries do. Even oppressive dictatorships usually only affect one country (themselves), what America does (selective use of the word 'terrorist', pretending to have the right to police the world, and possibly actively destabilising other countries for it's own benefit) affects several and could go on to affect many more.

Meh. That strikes me as a little facetious. [random example] Uganda didn't invade other countries because it couldn't. You don't think Idi Amin wouldn't have gladly done far worse if only the capability was available to him?

Given the adage "power corrupts" the United States through most of the 20th century was far less shitty than other world powers at any point in history. No one has denied that they made some cravenly self-serving moves. But "NO U" is not an argument.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
17-03-2014, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2014 06:08 PM by Chas.)
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 04:05 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Hmmm, much as I think Crimea should be allowed to self-determine I'm a little dubious of a referendum where the question apparently doesn't have an option to maintain the status-quo.

I suppose it's vaguely amusing to see probably the two most blatantly corrupt nations on the world stage (US and Russia) try and out-do each other on this. Big Grin

Two most corrupt? Maybe in your mind.

Here are the world's 10 most corrupt nations, starting with the worst:

Somalia
North Korea (tied with Somalia and Afghanistan)
Afghanistan (tied with North Korea and Somalia)
Sudan
South Sudan
Libya
Iraq
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan (tied with Uzbekistan and Syria)
Syria (tied with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-03-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 05:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Because "territorial integrity" has become somewhat of an obsession since WWII. It's dumb, yes, but at no point in the last 23 years has there been much if any actual street-level agitation in Crimea. They were already substantially more autonomous than any of the oblasts.

Compare, as is easily done, to the likes of Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, or even Venetia. Most of the relevant actors would rather those pointless and ethnically tinged separatists not succeed. No one in Canada/UK/Spain/Italy has said "there's no pre-existing constitutional mechanism for secession so FUCK YOU YOU'RE STUCK WITH US". They're willing to negotiate if and when a firm and substantial majority of inhabitants of one arbitrary geographical entity decide to go play with blackjack and hookers without being part of another arbitrary geographical entity.

Anyway. Crimea had relatively free elections throughout the 90s and 2000s. At no point did secessionist or Russian-annexationist parties win more than single digit percentages of the vote. Seriously, Aksyonov, the guy installed by the Russians chosen by the Crimean Parliament as the new Prime Minister led the "Russian Unity" party to ignominious irrelevance in the last several (internationally observed and substantially free) Crimean elections.

The people of Crimea may feel their situation has changed though. They've suddenly found themselves as part of a country that has changed direction very abruptly and, as a region with a majority of ethic Russians, there's a chance they'll lose out because of it.

Perhaps the West should advocate a cooling off period. A Russian withdrawal, no entry by Ukrainian or Western troops, and a referendum in (for example) a year's time. Again, I don't see it happening though.

I don't think this is comparable to the likes of Scotland or Catalonia because there's more at stake here. This is a full on West vs East battle for influence and control over the area.

(17-03-2014 05:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Meh. That strikes me as a little facetious. [random example] Uganda didn't invade other countries because it couldn't. You don't think Idi Amin wouldn't have gladly done far worse if only the capability was available to him?

Given the adage "power corrupts" the United States through most of the 20th century was far less shitty than other world powers at any point in history. No one has denied that they made some cravenly self-serving moves. But "NO U" is not an argument.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm quite sure that the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, and Col Gaddafi would have done far worse things if they had the power to. I'm in no way disputing that. The point is though that they didn't have the power to. Whatever the reasoning is I feel that America has done worse things for self-serving reasons that most other countries. I'm talking about actual actions as opposed to just intent.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2014, 08:32 PM
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 05:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  Two most corrupt? Maybe in your mind.

Here are the world's 10 most corrupt nations, starting with the worst:

Somalia
North Korea (tied with Somalia and Afghanistan)
Afghanistan (tied with North Korea and Somalia)
Sudan
South Sudan
Libya
Iraq
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan (tied with Uzbekistan and Syria)
Syria (tied with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)

Did you read my reply to cjlr on that?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 08:31 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  The people of Crimea may feel their situation has changed though. They've suddenly found themselves as part of a country that has changed direction very abruptly and, as a region with a majority of ethic Russians, there's a chance they'll lose out because of it.

And we'll never know what they think, because they're currently being occupied by invading Russian troops.

(17-03-2014 08:31 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Perhaps the West should advocate a cooling off period. A Russian withdrawal, no entry by Ukrainian or Western troops, and a referendum in (for example) a year's time. Again, I don't see it happening though.

That's exactly what 'the West' is advocating. Occupying troops go home. Free association and free expression restored.

Do you genuinely think - should a demonstrable and consistent majority of Crimeans vote accordingly - that a referendum would not be held? That results would not be internationally recognized? That multipartite dialoge would not ensue?

The people of Crimea were entirely free to vote for secessionist and annexationist parties any time in the last 20 years. They didn't.

The people of Crimea were entirely free to vote for secessionist and annexationist parties in the (now moot) next round of Ukrainian general elections, several months from now (note that this was given as the original date for the referendum). That will now not happen.

(17-03-2014 08:31 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I don't think this is comparable to the likes of Scotland or Catalonia because there's more at stake here. This is a full on West vs East battle for influence and control over the area.

Please let me know in what way 'the West' has 'battled' for influence in Crimea.

Please let me know why Crimea is not comparable to secessionist movements in 'the West'. Please let me know why you do not appear to hold them to the same standards of legitimacy and diplomacy.

(17-03-2014 08:31 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm quite sure that the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, and Col Gaddafi would have done far worse things if they had the power to. I'm in no way disputing that. The point is though that they didn't have the power to. Whatever the reasoning is I feel that America has done worse things for self-serving reasons that most other countries. I'm talking about actual actions as opposed to just intent.

And the actual actions of the USA are much less worse than any state of comparable international power at any point in history.

They've done some bad things. Sure. Okay. How many recently? Vietnam was 50 years ago. "NO U" is not an argument.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-03-2014, 09:43 PM
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 08:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's exactly what 'the West' is advocating. Occupying troops go home. Free association and free expression restored.

Do you genuinely think - should a demonstrable and consistent majority of Crimeans vote accordingly - that a referendum would not be held? That results would not be internationally recognized? That multipartite dialoge would not ensue?

The people of Crimea were entirely free to vote for secessionist and annexationist parties any time in the last 20 years. They didn't.

The people of Crimea were entirely free to vote for secessionist and annexationist parties in the (now moot) next round of Ukrainian general elections, several months from now (note that this was given as the original date for the referendum). That will now not happen.

That is exactly what I think will happen (the lack of a referendum that is).

It's all very well allowing them to vote for those parties when they weren't doing well. It's entirely different to allow it when they are popular. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see those parties attacked if they begun to become popular. Perhaps they would be label extremists, or neo-nazis, or even terrorists. Who knows? I'm sure attempts would be made to destabilise them and disrupt them in some way though.

(17-03-2014 08:31 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Please let me know in what way 'the West' has 'battled' for influence in Crimea.

Please let me know why Crimea is not comparable to secessionist movements in 'the West'. Please let me know why you do not appear to hold them to the same standards of legitimacy and diplomacy.

I do hold the same standards. I think they should all be able to self-determine, or none of them should. I don't have enough knowledge to choose a particular side, I'm merely asking why the UK and US are all pro self-determination in cases that suit them (Falklands) but against it in others.

How has the West battled for influence in Crimea? Ukraine's problems began when their President rejected closer ties with the EU in favour of closer ties with Russia. Even if Western countries didn't directly try to destabilise his Government for that (not commenting either way there) they were very quick to condemn him for trying to end protests that had clearly got out of hand. They were also very quick to recognise the new Government which was made up of mainly pro-Western countries. I can imagine that if the situation had been reversed they would have been quick to label the protesters as 'terrorists' and offer the President every support (just as I'm sure Russia's actions who have been reversed in such a situation, I am not saying they aren't equally hypocritical).

(17-03-2014 08:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And the actual actions of the USA are much less worse than any state of comparable international power at any point in history.

They've done some bad things. Sure. Okay. How many recently? Vietnam was 50 years ago. "NO U" is not an argument.

Other countries have done worse? So? The restriction of information and the general world views during history meant that other powers had more scope to do fucked up shit. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna call out a country that's doing slightly less fucked up shit nowadays.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 09:43 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  That is exactly what I think will happen (the lack of a referendum that is).

It's all very well allowing them to vote for those parties when they weren't doing well. It's entirely different to allow it when they are popular. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see those parties attacked if they begun to become popular. Perhaps they would be label extremists, or neo-nazis, or even terrorists. Who knows? I'm sure attempts would be made to destabilise them and disrupt them in some way though.

wut

That's incoherent and literally unfalsifiable.

D'you realize that?

"lol conspiracy" is not an answer.

(17-03-2014 09:43 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I do hold the same standards. I think they should all be able to self-determine, or none of them should. I don't have enough knowledge to choose a particular side, I'm merely asking why the UK and US are all pro self-determination in cases that suit them (Falklands) but against it in others.

And you still cannot apparently recognize the difference between the referenda in the Falklands - the first of which was held after the foreign invasion was sent home - and the referendum in Crimea?

If the Falklanders had "voted" to join Argentina while being occupied by the Argentine army would you be so asinine as to call that "self-determination"?

(17-03-2014 09:43 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  How has the West battled for influence in Crimea? Ukraine's problems began when their President rejected closer ties with the EU in favour of closer ties with Russia.

The president vetoed a unanimous act of the parliament.

Said act (to establish better ties with the EU) would have done nothing to decrease ties to Russia.

(17-03-2014 09:43 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Even if Western countries didn't directly try to destabilise his Government for that (not commenting either way there) ...

Is that another way of saying "I can't possibly demonstrate that they were but don't want to entirely abandon the innuendo"?

(17-03-2014 09:43 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  ... they were very quick to condemn him for trying to end protests that had clearly got out of hand.

I don't endorse mob rule either.

But have you tried playing devil's advocate to yourself? You do not seem to have given very much thought to what you've said. At what point does opening fire on public demonstrations become justified? At what point does firing on rioters become justified? At what point does taking to the streets against a government which opened fire on protestors become justified?

The sane response would have been to wait for the scheduled elections in May and send international observers accordingly. Y'know - democracy?

(17-03-2014 09:43 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  They were also very quick to recognise the new Government which was made up of mainly pro-Western countries. I can imagine that if the situation had been reversed they would have been quick to label the protesters as 'terrorists' and offer the President every support (just as I'm sure Russia's actions who have been reversed in such a situation, I am not saying they aren't equally hypocritical).

If you acknowledge the corruption and hypocrisy of Russian actions then what the hell point were you making in the first place?

Because, no, "NO U" is not an argument, and the farce we're watching unfold in Crimea has fuck all to do with self-determination, no matter how many times you tell yourself that.

(17-03-2014 09:43 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Other countries have done worse? So? The restriction of information and the general world views during history meant that other powers had more scope to do fucked up shit. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna call out a country that's doing slightly less fucked up shit nowadays.

Well, then, today's your lucky day. I'll give you the name of a country that's doing wayw more fucked up shit than the United States right now:
Russia.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2014, 10:32 PM
RE: Crimea Referendum
(17-03-2014 08:32 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(17-03-2014 05:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  Two most corrupt? Maybe in your mind.

Here are the world's 10 most corrupt nations, starting with the worst:

Somalia
North Korea (tied with Somalia and Afghanistan)
Afghanistan (tied with North Korea and Somalia)
Sudan
South Sudan
Libya
Iraq
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan (tied with Uzbekistan and Syria)
Syria (tied with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)

Did you read my reply to cjlr on that?

I have now. If that was what you meant, maybe you should have said so the first time.

Just remember, at the end of WWII, the U.S. was the largest industrial country in the world, with the largest military, and it was the only atomic power. Every country was at its mercy.

It could have imposed a Pax Americana on the entire world.

It didn't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: