If I lived in Crimea, I would have voted to leave the Ukraine and join Russia.

[reformist2]

And this is what the people in Crimea did on Sunday. To me, this is what it comes down to. If anyone from the US or the EU came up to me to tell me that we didn't do it in the "right way," or worse, that my vote was "illegal," I'd kindly tell them to buzz off.

Sorry, there is something terribly dishonest about the official response from the West. I don't know for sure, obviously, but based on recent visits to Kiev by John McCain and Victoria Nuland, the assistant Secy of State, *before* the collapse and/or coup of the old government, and our bizarre unquestioning support for the motley crew that makes up this new government, I suspect the West had designs to "flip" Ukraine, and that things aren't going according to their plan.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. So does that mean you think that the secession of the Confederacy was justified, then?

And the German Anschluss of Austria?

[reformist2]

7. Do you think the Declaration of Independence was an illegal document?

[berni_mccoy]

9. Apples and oranges. The Colonies did not have representation in the Monarchy of Britain

Nor could they make decisions about the laws and taxes themselves.

And before you go there, Crimea was not a colony of the Ukraine.

[former9thward]

45. Was the secession of Kosovo legal?

Which the U.S. supported. How about the secession of South Sudan which is the world's newest country -- and the U.S. supported?

Why should the people of Crimea be forced to live in poverty? Russia's pensions are three times higher, minimum wage is higher and has a lower retirement age. Why should people be forced to live in the economic basket case called Ukraine?

[sabrina 1]

163. Right, Crimea was autonomous. They voted for what a majority of the people wanted, and that should

be accepted. Lying that they were forced to vote the way they did is gross insult to the people there.

A better argument for that would be the current unelected president of Unkraine where the people did not choose him, nor did they have any vote to say how they felt about the coup that occurred in Kiev. That was done by a small minority of the Ukrainian people.

And with a lot of outside influence.

I don't know why people here who know nothing about the region have taken it upon themselves to KNOW what is good for people they don't know, don't know their history, know nothing other than they voted in huge numbers to be a part of Russia. Why is it our business?

[sabrina 1]

81. Much better question, thank you. Answer, to the British Empire it was a treasonous document.

Had the War For Independence been lost, all who signed or supported it would have been hanged.

Some were. Thankfully the Brits lost. Unless there is anyone who would prefer to be subjects of the Crown of course. Which there were at the time.

[Xithras]

21. There's a pretty fundamental difference between the Confederacy and Crimea.

The southern states willingly joined the U.S. of their own accord, pledging themselves freely and willingly to become part of the United States in perpetuity.

The Crimeans were forced to join Ukraine at gunpoint by the USSR. They were never asked, they never voted, and anyone who dared complain simply vanished into a Siberian gulag. When they first attempted to secede after the breakup of the USSR, they were threatened with annihilation by the Ukraine, which at that time was the worlds third largest nuclear power. After deciding to join Ukraine, under that threat, they did so only through the use of a constitution that gave them broad autonomy within their parent country, while ceding authority over their borders to Kiev. That constitution was summarily struck down by the Kiev government, and after 1992 they were governed under a legal framework that they never agreed to.

There's a pretty fundamental difference between the two.

[redgreenandblue]

88. You do realize that your are making the OPs point, do you?

The whole argument against the actions of Russia is that they constitute coercion against the people of Crimea.

Insulting the people of Crimea by comparing them to the Confederacy for making the "wrong" choices is just as much coercion, if implicit. Hardly a way to de-legitimize what Russia is doing.

[dipsydoodle]

2. The way I look on it

is that with regard to Crimea an EU trade agreement was far from being in their interest their main production currently be exported to Russia , Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently it appears unlikely that the EU would have provided a substitute market for those goods for a number of reasons including quality and price structure.

With regard to Ukraine in general the EU have provided no guarantees as to how much it would import anyway. Allied to that is the fact the IMF expect Ukraine to devalue their currency to make the pricing of goods more in line with what the EU countries would expect to pay.

It could be said that Crimeans were simply protecting their jobs.

[JustAnotherGen]

126. And the flip of that is their imports of energy

Particularly natural gas. I wonder if there is a deal in place for the Crimean region that won't be extended to Ukraine? In both 2006 and 2009 (IIRC?) Russia cut off natural gas to Ukraine causing shortage concerns in quite a few countries in the EU.

Looky looky -
http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-energy-and-commerce-to-take-up-natural-gas-exports-bill/article/2545804

House subcommittee plans to hold a March 25 hearing on Rep. Cory Gardner's bill to expedite natural gas exports, the Washington Examiner has learned, in a move that underscores increasing congressional pressure to take aim at Russia as the Ukrainian crisis escalates.

The House Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee has pushed the Colorado Republican's bill as a tactic for weakening Russia's grip on energy supplies in Central and Eastern Europe.

News of the hearing comes after the Obama administration issued sanctions Monday against Russian and Ukrainian officials. But Republicans say the White House must look beyond those measures to hit Russia in the energy sector, from which it derives significant government revenue and geopolitical clout.

"It is going to take more than sanctions to stand up to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, and taking action on exports would weaken his grip by sending a clear signal to our allies that they no longer have to be at the mercy of Russian energy supplies," Gardner said

Someone is going to cash in big on this . . .

[dipsydoodle]

127. Pipe dream.

Currently in the absence of an Atlantic pipeline there is no practical means of shipping a sufficient volume of US gas to Europe. Aside from that pricing could become an issue given that Europe is quite capable of increasing the supply from Norway for example.

I can't see Crimea having a gas supply problem anyway - water maybe if Ukraine turns funny on the subject. If they did it would be cutting their nose to spite their face.

As an aside - whilst its clear who owns Nord / North Stream and the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipelines for example its less clear what the set up is with Gazprom's pipelines through Ukraine or at least I've not been able to find it. It may be that reverse feeds into Ukraine for example are not as possible as have been mentioned to be and so use of Gazprom's pipelines may be suspect.

Its Sud / South Steam which may change events - expected to become operational 2015 :



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

Doubtless Bulgaria , Serbia and Greece will welcome the transit fees.

[JustAnotherGen]

128. Oh I would agree

And Ultimately exporting gas from the US to there would not be profitable . . . but who know with the IndieTeaPublicans. They are ALWAYS reckless and never think beyond their next big fat paycheck from some war profiteer.

[Jenoch]

3. There have been various counties in the U.S.

where there have been votes to either secede from their state or from the U.S. Do you think those votes should be accepted?

[2banon]

14. Actually, I do.

[Anansi1171]

38. Like the great state of Jefferson?

http://www.jeffersonstate.com/


Not sure why you would hope to support the break-up of US to create a right-wing mini-state based on extracting wealth from public lands without that meddlesome federal government. They live nearby, so by rights its theirs, right?

Hard to see where "local control" is democratic here, rather than simply confiscatory - but that's just me.

Let Texas go, let Palin take Alaska and maybe the left will get independence for Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

Deal?

[2banon]

70. Huh? This isn't what I've suggested!

just please leave me out of your bizarre theory you've posited here. sheesh, for crying out loud! g'bye .... eom/eod

[MADem]

152. Yes, it IS what you've suggested. And the fact that you can't see it doesn't speak too well of you,

don't you see?

[brooklynite]

4. ...and the Russian troops were there to protect the integrity of the vote?

[Cali_Democrat]

8. LOL

Apparantly the OP has huge issues with the US and EU telling Crimea "what to do", but no mention of actual Russian troops in Crimea.

[Comrade Grumpy]

36. Do you seriously believe the vote doesn't reflect popular sentiment in Crimea?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. Do we have reason to believe that it does?

The only people who know this for sure are the people in Crimea. I don't know if we will be able to get a clear and honest answer for awhile. The problem, at least for me, is that Russian troops were involved and what effect, if any, that might have had in influencing the decision-making process. I mean, people get out and "vote" in North Korea but you certainly could not tell me that their "elections" reflect their will.

[Cha]

107. There are these opinions.. I posted this last night on someone's thread spouting Putin

Propaganda who I now see has been "name auto removed".. Anyway, fwiw.. here it is, PLD..


Svitlana Zalischuk speaks out on Vlad Putin's actions.. “The referendum itself doesn’t mean anything,” she added, noting that the choice was between “yes and yes,” and didn’t give people a choice of maintaining the status quo. “You can’t conduct a democratic referendum when a whole country is invaded and controlled by the troops of a foreign country.”

The Fight for Democracy in Ukraine: A Conversation with Center UA’s Svitlana Zalischuk

BY Micah L. Sifry

“In the third and last part of our conversation, I asked Zalischuk about the referendum about to take place in Russian-occupied Crimea and the massive Russian troop presence across the border from eastern Ukraine. “Russian invaded Ukraine,” she said, mincing no words about Vladimir Putin’s actions in the wake of Yanukovych’s departure from office. “The referendum itself doesn’t mean anything,” she added, noting that the choice was between “yes and yes,” and didn’t give people a choice of maintaining the status quo. “You can’t conduct a democratic referendum when a whole country is invaded and controlled by the troops of a foreign country.”

This is not a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, she said, it’s a conflict between the civilized world and totalitarianism, one that undermines the whole architecture of the European and world community. I asked her about the idea that the democracy movement in Ukraine was mostly strongest in the western part of the country and not so much from the eastern half, where Yanukovych got the majority of votes. She said the picture was more complicated, because Yanukovych himself had campaigned in favor of stronger ties with Europe when he was running for president.”

http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24827/fight-democracy-ukraine-conversation-center-uas-svitlana-zalischuk



Travel Guide To Moscow

"First of all, Russia has become very corrupt throughout the last few years. Vladimir Putin has now been in office for twelve years and over those twelve years he has eliminated most elections, monopolized major media, and destroyed the democratic political system. Everyday people are brutally arrested for starting and participating in anti-Putin protests, while some are even detained simply for being nearby. Clearly, Putin’s actions are those of a dictator, and he plans to stay in power as long as possible."

http://sites.psu.edu/egorivanov/2014/01/31/travel-guide-to-moscow/

Timothy Snyder: Freedom in Russian exists only in Ukraine

In Ukraine, millions of Russian-speakers read a free press and learn from an uncensored internet

snip//

"Putin claims that he is defending the rights of speakers of Russian in Ukraine. He has used this argument to justify his invasion of Crimea and the electoral theatre of yesterday, a “referendum” in which there was no way to vote against union with Russia.

Among the speakers of Russian in Crimea are the Crimean Tatars, whose historical memory is dominated by their murderous deportation by Stalin in the Forties, and who boycotted the “referendum”. It makes no reference to their minority rights, nor to their assembly, the Mejlis, which was permitted by Ukrainian law. Crimean Tatars are now fleeing the peninsula for mainland Ukraine. Russian-speaking Ukrainian Jews have also made it clear to Putin that they do not want Russian intervention."

snip//

"If speakers of Russian were suffering discrimination, that would give rise to concern, though not justify invasion. In fact, Russian is a completely normal language of interchange in Ukraine. There, tens of millions of Russian-speakers read a free press, watch uncontrolled television and learn from an uncensored internet, in either Ukrainian or in Russian, as they prefer.

In Russia, the major social media have been brought under state control, television has been almost completely subdued and several of the remaining free-thinking blogs and internet news sites have been shut down or pressured. This leaves Ukraine as an island of free speech for people who use the Russian language."

MOre..
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/timothy-snyder-freedom-in-russian-exists-only-in-ukraine-9196833.html

[MNBrewer]

5. COOKIES!

[Bosonic]

6. And in the future if they decide it's a mistake and want Crimean independence...

Whoopsie!

Putin signs law criminalizing calls to separatism

30/12/2013 13:15

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law that would make spreading separatist views a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in jail.

Under the law, submitted to the Russian State Duma by the Communist Party earlier in December, people will face a fine of up to 300,000 rubles ($9,200) for calling for action aimed against Russia’s territorial integrity. It went into effect after Monday's publication in the official Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.

Lawmakers said the legislation was an effort to curb increasing public support for the idea of relinquishing mainly Muslim territories in the restive North Caucasus.

A survey earlier this year by the Levada Center polling organization found that 24 percent of people would be happy to see Chechnya break away from Russia. That marked a 10-percent increase from 2009.

http://themoscownews.com/politics/20131230/192136238/Putin-signs-law-criminalizing-calls-to-separatism.html

[Demo_Chris]

50. Try pulling out of the EU. nt

[Bosonic]

53. Are you imprisoned if you suggest it?

[Demo_Chris]

57. Not so far as I know, but give them time. nt

[Bosonic]

59. So your point was ?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

108. likely that its sort of like a roach motel

You can check in, but there is no checkout counter(least not that said country can decide on its own)

Admittedly i haven't looked at their rules for a while so they might have added an opt out by now, but i haven't heard it mentioned

[djean111]

10. Are the rumours that the IMF was going to demand strict austerity measures for the Ukraine true?

[840high]

11. Yes there are.

[Democracyinkind]

26. Yes, and the "going to" part is actually already obsolete. nt

[Catherina]

42. Not rumors. Yanukovich implemented some IMF Austerity and the Ukrainians revolted

Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

In 2011, he introduced the first steps some of the IMF-demanded pension cuts and raising the retirement age and people took the streets. It was an ugly scene with hunger strikes, protests all over Ukraine. The pensions in Ukraine were piddly to begin with

November 25, 2011

....

The reduced pensions have left the veterans and their families starving because it is impossible to make ends meet on such small sums, says Sumarokov.

Sumarokov said that for the last five years he had been receiving a pension of $875 per month as a result of a court case he won.

But this month, he got only 1,380 hryvnia ($172).

“Getting such an amount of pension is neither enough to feed a family nor to get proper medical treatment. Pensions are our main source for living,” he said adding, “We cannot find any other job since we are disabled.”

Many who worked at Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster to date, became contaminated with radioactivity, and have shown various health problems.

...

The cuts to social welfare have affected more than the Chernobyl workers.

Other groups, like the 1979-1989 Afghanistan War veterans have also been staging protests in major cities across Ukraine since the beginning of the month.

...

http://news.kievukraine.info/2011/11/chernobyl-veterans-stage-hunger-strike.html

As long as he was introducing the IMF cuts, no one in the West complained. We loved him until he just couldn't anymore and Russia offered at least 3 times more billions with fewer strings and no Austerity cuts. That's when he became public enemy #1.

The IMF was demanding tax reform including lowering corporate income tax from 25% to 16%, reducing VAT from (he signed the reforms into law on Jan 2011).

For women, he raised the retirement age from 55 to 60 (the IMF was demanding 65) and for government workers from 60 t0 65. The qualification period for everyone's pensions was raised and so was how they calculated what your final pension would be (just like they've been doing to your social security here). When the workers resisted en masse, Yanukovich put the 2011 pension reforms on hold.

Then he dragged his feet on cutting the generous energy subsidies, reforming medical care, privatizing pensions, cutting social services and making Ukraine more "business-friendly" for investors.

He had been refusing to deal with Russia because he liked the idea of being more European but not at that price for his people.
When Russia offered three times what the IMF was offering, with fewer strings and no Austerity, he accepted their offer and that's when the West sent its protesters out on the streets. Yanukovich agreed to very early elections (for May 2014 I believe) but we couldn't wait for those because we knew there was no way one of the corrupt IMF toadies would win so we literally directed traffic for the violent coup that forced him out and installed an unelected, so-called interim toadie (Yatsenyuk) who's going to ram through all the IMF reforms and sign off on a bunch of very bad deals for Ukraine before any elections and present the next legally-elected President with a fait accompli and *legally-binding* documents.

If all this was on the up and up, even if the West wanted Yanukovich out, they would have waited for the next elections and tried to fool the people with speeches like we do here but they knew the IMF deal would never go through if they did it democratically and let the people have a vote.

I have a lot of links about this if you want but here's a good one that explains things:
Who Benefits From Ukraine’s Economic Crisis? (Hint: Not Average Ukrainians)

[djean111]

49. So - the Ukrainians are just supposed to shut up and eat their peas?

If they can afford peas?
Looking at what the IMF wants, why would Crimea stick around? I wouldn't, and I am certainly not going to sit here in the US and feel I have a right to question anyone else who has a chance to escape the IMF.

[Catherina]

62. Yes. Shut up and eat your peas. Donetsk is rising up to secede now too.

This article from CNN is a bit biased but it's the best we're going to get in the Western press

Could Donetsk go in the same way as Crimea?

The protests there are HUGE. They've been blocking agitators and military hardware from Kiev from coming in. There's not a single Ukrainian flag to seen. People aren't stupid, they know what happened to the countries that allowed the IMF to take over.

[2banon]

84. Trying to see how that would work. Donetsk appears to be a city, within an eastern region

that is largely Russian speaking apparently. Are analysts thinking that Donetsk would become some sort of state in this scenario?

[reformist2]

87. The entire Donetsk "Oblast," or District/Province, would probably vote to secede.

[2banon]

93. Thanks, does the arrow illustrate the "Oblast" (assuming that translates to "region/province) eom

[Catherina]

101. Your guess is as good as their's.

There was a week of bloody clashes there but the people are standing firm and demanding a referendum. Less slaves for the IMF and the EU business community. Too bad.

[joshcryer]

117. Donetsk has a 50% ethnic Ukranian population.

But it would definitely secede if they could get the pension deal, no doubt about it. Regardless this is Putin's plan, incite ethnic rivalries with Eastern Ukraine, go in and liberate it a few weeks later.

[2banon]

72. Interesting... thanks for the link..

the machinations and election "engineering" of our neo-cons in the state department has enjoyed quite a field day.. I'd like to see an investigation of personal wealth the neo cons acquired for themselves in these so called "democracy projects" .

[reformist2]

92. Great question. You made me remember how many of the neocons & friends profited from Iraq. Big time.

[2banon]

94. No investigations, that I'm aware of. apart from that dog and pony show of a congressional hearing

10 years or so ago.

[go west young man]

105. The NeoCons have already moved on Poland in this regards

and have had eyes on Ukraine for sometime. Hence Nuland's cookies and associated videos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/us-seeks-to-reduce-ukraines-reliance-on-russia-for-natural-gas.html?_r=0
http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Export-gas-to-Europe-5318854.php

Raping Ukraine is a multiple win for the NeoCons.

1) It gets them back on the playing field redirecting US foreign policy.
2) It makes them richer.
3) It helps to add fuel to the new Cold War which also fills their coffers through MIC contracts and investments.
4) It keeps the Russian bogeyman in check and gives them purpose in naive Americans eyes.
5) It provides fuel for Europe thereby reducing Europes addiction to Russian oil.

However, some other factors need to be considered. Russia has the North and South pipelines bypassing Ukraine and they will always sell cheaper than the NeoCons who of course will charge whatever the market will bear (in other words they will screw even the Ukranians who supply the gas and leave their country a fiery glass of drinking water in the end). The will also implement austerity measures through their IMF cronies that will leave Ukranians worse off than before this whole thing went down.

Russia meanwhile is looking pretty inviting for East Ukraine what with the benefits, pay and stability with no austerity applied.

When all is said and done the people who will pay for it all will be the ones who always have....Joe public who was gullible enough to trust the NeoCons even after the spectacle of Iraq. This type of thing is why Obama should have prosecuted the NeoCons when he came into office. We could have done so much better as a nation had their influence been curbed to prison cellblocks.

[2banon]

109. Spot On, Well Done!

[LittleBlue]

12. I'd have done the same. For double-triple the retirement and a lower

retirement age, to be part of a strong state like Russia instead of a mess like Ukraine, I wouldn't think twice.

[joeglow3]

25. You must be straight

Fuck those gays, though, am I right?

[oldhippie]

34. For some, that's what it all boils down to. nt

[LittleBlue]

35. Yes, I'm straight

Fuck those gays, though, am I right?

Fucking hell, what a stupid thing to say. As if gay people don't need things like money or retirement.

[joeglow3]

39. I think it is clear you have no clue how gays are treated in Russia

Yeah, under Maslow's Hierarchy, pensions may be a bit lower on the list for them. But you made it clear you would fuck them over for more money.

[MattSh]

46. If you think they're treated better in Ukraine,

I've got this bridge for sale on Ebay. Check it out.

[joeglow3]

74. Saying that doesn't make it true

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4685732

[MattSh]

130. Well looky here. I've got a link too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4678760

Notice also that your link concerning Ukraine has no 2014 update. A lot has happened in Ukraine this year.

[joeglow3]

137. And you might want to look at the replies that blew the shit out of your link

You think a country a nutbag who MIGHT (if he can succeed) pass legislation is better than one that has ALREADY passed said laws. Why are you fighting so hard to defend Russia?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

142. Because he has a clear animosity towards Ukrainians, apparently.

[CreekDog]

172. as part of the EU, they'd have to treat them better

[LittleBlue]

48. So better to fuck over everyone instead?

Obviously gays are better off impoverished in a Ukrainian government where fascists run the defense ministry.

You're funny. Keep going, this is amusing.

[joeglow3]

73. You tell me how Russia is better for them

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

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

[LittleBlue]

78. They'll have more economic opportunity

GDP (PPP) per capita

Ukraine: $7,422
Russia: $18,083


Russia can afford to bribe them in exchange for their independence. Ukraine is already impoverished, and they're about to have a government run by a coalition of opposition corrupt officials, boxers, actors and neo-Nazi fascists. Do you think any gays in Ukraine will benefit from the inevitable fiasco that will be the result of this?

[joeglow3]

85. So, they may have more money when they are arrested or beaten to death for being gay

I beginning to think you don't even know what Maslow's Hierarchy is.

[Democracyinkind]

114. As far as LGBT rights are concerned, it's a no-win situation.

Both countries have prominent anti-LGBT bigots in their ruling apparatus, and both countries have mobs that attack and persecute LGBT's. I think both are worthy of equal condemnation. Sadly, just as in some parts of the US, you can still get a lot of votes by ginning up hate against LGBT people there.

[joshcryer]

116. The Maidain protests had LGBT.

Why would they protest to join Russia if it was worse in Ukraine? In fact, over the past few years Ukrainian politicians have been channeling Russian anti-gay sentiments in order to get better deals.

[Democracyinkind]

119. The Maidan protests also had people that want to kill LGBT simply for existing.

I do not think that individual LGTB protesters on Maidan were mainly concerned with the LGTB question. If that were the case, they would probably have had problems with associating with the Right Sector and the Svoboda crowd. At least I have not seen any LGBT-groups openly being a part of Maidan. To make my point clear: I believe that the one issue that unified the Maidan protests was the will to get rid of Yanukovich and I think that all else is up for debate as there were many conflicting agendas present (something that has become apparent as soon as Yanukovich fled the Ukraine).

The issue is a bit complicated; in Russia and in the Ukraine, holding power depends on going into coalition with reactionary nationalists that have a very prominent anti-LGBT agenda.

As a counter example to your point: I do not think it unfathomable that there are LGTB people in Russia that were in favor of annexing Crimea. There are many issues involved here, and I do not believe that LGTB rights were forefront of most minds.

[joshcryer]

120. I think they wanted away from Russian influence.

And that is one reason the protests attracted Right Sector. Russia is responsible for far too much meddling there.

[Democracyinkind]

121. I agree that that was probably the primary motivation of all protesters of all political stripes.

But I think that the meddling is a function of the Ukraine being sandwiched by two Empires, or - in more neutral terms - two centers of influence, and they sadly will be subject to meddling no matter whom they might vote for.

[joshcryer]

122. The EU is hardly an empire in the same vein as Russia.

Russia was quite literally the last invading empire. The only influence EU holds is through the US controlled IMF. EU is probably behind the US socially, I know it is hard to believe, but after so many new members joined a deep rooted racism exists between countries and ethnic makeups. But the EU is moving toward progressivism while Russia is having nationalist and racist tendencies fomented. Russia's economy, also, is on a precipice, because it is too reliant on fossil fuel export, and the rest of the developed world is rapidly moving off of fossil fuels. Hell, Crimeans who voted for joining Russia probably aren't aware that Putin raided the pension fund and it too is on the verge of collapse. It's all smoke and mirrors. Putin needs to tighten down the controls because it will come to a head eventually. And it needs to invent external monsters as the cause for it.

[Democracyinkind]

123. I believe that the EU is the junior partner in the American imperial project with some eastern...

...ambitions of its own.

I may be biased though - I have worked in the field of security consulting in European questions (especially concerning EU and NATO expansion) - and in that capacity have witnessed what I consider the transformation of the EU and NATO into offensive or rather expansionist pacts. At least if you go by the mindest of the ruling elite, certainly not the people's wishes.

I agree with the points you make about internal policies - personally there is no doubt that I prefer the European model to the Russian one, but I am very critical of the EU. Then again, I am currently a resident of a non-EU country within Europe and that may have given me a certain bias as well.

[joshcryer]

124. I think "junior partner" is fair.

I think NATO is a very enticing venture for a lot of eastern EU countries or EU candidates. They lived under empire for almost 50 years. Many eastern bloc states were quite literally keeping the USSR afloat. That's "only" a generation. 25 year olds were born in that environment. 35-45 year olds have distinct memories of that environment, and you know they've told their children. There's a reason the youth made up most of the no votes in Crimea.

And of course, the US is saber rattling, and dropping economic incentives, so that makes it even all the more enticing for these eastern EU states or EU candidates.

I don't think Russia has bad intentions, I think that Putin failed to resolve the problem of Russia and corruption, as he was elected to do. He did certainly oust a lot of oligarchs, it even seemed promising at the time because the reason the USSR faltered when the bloc broke away is the oligarchs kept bleeding Russians dry (thus never allowing them the economic freedoms that the bloc states were allowed; and yes the bloc states faltered too, but now they're doing really well in contrast to Russia).

But unfortunately, in place of the oligarchs rose new ones, to fulfill that void of having to contract with large corporations, essentially "too big to fail." Putin probably knows this, I really believe he knows it because Ukraine is actually a good example of what happens to a state where oligarchs control everything. We'll see if he tries to dig his way out of it though.

[Democracyinkind]

125. A very astute post with which I agree whole-heartedly.nt

[2banon]

133. Repeating what I said to joshcryer: I enjoyed that exchange..

Added a bit more independent minded, intelligent analysis and perspective..

[2banon]

132. I enjoyed reading this exchange between you democracyinkind

Added a bit more independent minded, intelligent analysis and perspective...

[CreekDog]

173. No, it's not a no-win situation, the EU requires LGBT rights

[Democracyinkind]

174. The EU requires many thing that Ukraine can't offer. nt

[CreekDog]

175. yes they can offer that

the question is when.

[2banon]

13. You got that right.. John McCain and Nuland? Uh Yeah, NEO CON Machinations. eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. We used to call for "self determination" for people.

[Xithras]

52. We still do. Except when it doesn't suit us.

Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo, East Timor, South Sudan, etc. It has been U.S. foreign policy since the 1990's to support the right of self-determination and secession by referendum. In this case, supporting self-determination would be harmful to our political objectives, so we support the occupying power.

[Adrahil]

75. How about self-determination for Chechnya? NT

[Warren DeMontague]

79. You mean, like in 1861?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. No, I was thinking more of 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Independence

On 16 July 1990, the new parliament adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine.[100] The declaration established the principles of the self-determination of the Ukrainian nation, its democracy, political and economic independence, and the priority of Ukrainian law on the Ukrainian territory over Soviet law. A month earlier, a similar declaration was adopted by the parliament of the Russian SFSR. This started a period of confrontation between the central Soviet, and new republican authorities. In August 1991, a conservative faction among the Communist leaders of the Soviet Union attempted a coup to remove Mikhail Gorbachev and to restore the Communist party's power. After the attempt failed, on 24 August 1991 the Ukrainian parliament adopted the Act of Independence in which the parliament declared Ukraine as an independent democratic state.[101]

A referendum and the first presidential elections took place on 1 December 1991. That day, more than 90% of the electorate expressed their support for the Act of Independence, and they elected the chairman of the parliament, Leonid Kravchuk to serve as the first President of the country. At the meeting in Brest, Belarus on 8 December, followed by the Alma Ata meeting on 21 December, the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, formally dissolved the Soviet Union and formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).[102]

[Warren DeMontague]

82. My point is, that 'supporting the principle of self-determination' is always somewhat arbitrary.

Really the questions are who, where, when, and where are the lines drawn.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Indeed it is. And, trumpeting it as a "democratic principle" can sometimes bite you in the ass.

And, it's mighty easy to say Hypocrisy when considering America's "defense" of democracy and its principles.

[2banon]

96. Hear, Here! Well Said.

[Autumn]

16. I also would have voted to join Russia

from what I have read.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. I have mixed feelings about this whole thing

I don't like the idea of dismantling a country, BUT

1. 58% of the population of the Crimea is ethnic Russian

2. After World War I, entire new nations were set up by plebiscite out of the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires, including Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Finland, the Baltic States, and Romania. In addition, the boundary between Germany and Denmark was decided by plebiscite.

3. My guess is that after centuries of Russian, especially Soviet, domination, ethnic Ukrainians don't treat Russians very well.

Yet there are precedents for rigged plebiscites.

After World War II, the Soviets seized the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which had been part of the old Russian Empire but which were granted their independence after World War I. They held "plebiscites" in which the very act of casting a ballot meant that one approved of joining the Soviet Union. The catch was that the countries were occupied by Soviet troops, who controlled the distribution of ration cards. People received ration cards ONLY after casting a ballot, with the result that the vote was counted as nearly 100%. (A few people went into the woods to be guerrillas and hassled the Soviets until well into the 1950s.)

[Jenoch]

18. You 'guess' that ethnic Russians have been mistreated in Ukraine?

Do you have any kinks to objective sources that support your 'guess'?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Based on the status of ethnic Russians in the Baltic countries

Note that I am part Latvian and did NOT approve of the attempted "ethnic cleansing" of that region, in which Latvians and Estonians in particular were deported and Russians moved in.

However, the Russians had as little choice in the matter as the Baltic people and have now been there for three generations. There is some (understandable) element of getting back at the Russians, who lorded it over the Baltic people during the Soviet period, and it is uncomfortable (deservedly or not) to be ethnic Russian in the Baltic countries nowadays.

[Jenoch]

71. The Baltics and Ukraine are in different parts of the dormer USSR.

There have been no reports of mistreatment of Russians in Ukraine of which I am aware. I wouod wekcome links to credible news sources.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Do you know that the 58% majority is the result of mass deportation of the indigenous

people, the Muslim Tatars? They were forced at gunpoint onto boxcars, about a quarter of a million of them ethnically cleansed from Crimea and taken to Central Asian relocation sites not of their choice.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Yes, and the same thing happened in the Baltic countries

but the Russians who are there have been there for three generations now.

[oldandhappy]

33. Yep!

And the American Indians.

[Bosonic]

129. Crimean Tatars Will Have to Vacate Land – Official

Crimean Tatars Will Have to Vacate Land – Official

MOSCOW, March 18 (RIA Novosti) – Ukraine’s breakaway region of Crimea will ask Tatars to vacate part of the land where they now live in exchange for new territory elsewhere in the region, a top Crimean government official said Tuesday.

Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliyev said in an interview with RIA Novosti on Tuesday the new government in Crimea, where residents voted Sunday to become part of Russia, wants to regularize the land unofficially taken over by Crimean Tatar squatters following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“We have asked the Crimean Tatars to vacate part of their land, which is required for social needs,” Temirgaliyev said. “But we are ready to allocate and legalize many other plots of land to ensure a normal life for the Crimean Tatars,” he said.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html

[2banon]

134. Sounds Familiar? Eminent Domain, What we have done/do everywhere in this country and abroad. eom

[dilby]

19. I agree with you.

A pro Russian anti West government was overthrown by a pro West anti Russian group. If I was in Crimea and was ethnically Russian I would be looking for security which Russia provides, the new government in the Ukraine is going to be a mess and there is going to be a lot of power plays going on till they can get their stuff together.

[ProSense]

24. Progressives for Putin

justifying an the illegal invasion of a country, voting by gunpoint and without the presence of election observers.

Spin: "self-determination."

Reality: Only someone gullible would believe Putin is interested in "democracy."

Hey, but illegal invasions are now equal to "democracy." Isn't that the Bush doctrine?

"If I lived in Crimea," I'd have welcomed the illegal invasion by throwing flowers.

Ukraine officer 'killed in attack on Crimea base'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024684903

Putin will imprison any Crimeans who advocate secession from Russia.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024684315

[Cha]

111. But, "the west".. "the west"... leave Putin Alone. Lucky Crimea

gets to have Russian censorship now.. "the west" "the west"

Svitlana Zalischuk states..

“The referendum itself doesn’t mean anything,” she added, noting that the choice was between “yes and yes,” and didn’t give people a choice of maintaining the status quo. “You can’t conduct a democratic referendum when a whole country is invaded and controlled by the troops of a foreign country.”

The Fight for Democracy in Ukraine: A Conversation with Center UA’s Svitlana Zalischuk

BY Micah L. Sifry

“In the third and last part of our conversation, I asked Zalischuk about the referendum about to take place in Russian-occupied Crimea and the massive Russian troop presence across the border from eastern Ukraine. “Russian invaded Ukraine,” she said, mincing no words about Vladimir Putin’s actions in the wake of Yanukovych’s departure from office. “The referendum itself doesn’t mean anything,” she added, noting that the choice was between “yes and yes,” and didn’t give people a choice of maintaining the status quo. “You can’t conduct a democratic referendum when a whole country is invaded and controlled by the troops of a foreign country.”

This is not a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, she said, it’s a conflict between the civilized world and totalitarianism, one that undermines the whole architecture of the European and world community. I asked her about the idea that the democracy movement in Ukraine was mostly strongest in the western part of the country and not so much from the eastern half, where Yanukovych got the majority of votes. She said the picture was more complicated, because Yanukovych himself had campaigned in favor of stronger ties with Europe when he was running for president.”

http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24827/fight-democracy-ukraine-conversation-center-uas-svitlana-zalischuk

Timothy Snyder: Freedom in Russian exists only in Ukraine

In Ukraine, millions of Russian-speakers read a free press and learn from an uncensored internet

snip//

"Putin claims that he is defending the rights of speakers of Russian in Ukraine. He has used this argument to justify his invasion of Crimea and the electoral theatre of yesterday, a “referendum” in which there was no way to vote against union with Russia.

Among the speakers of Russian in Crimea are the Crimean Tatars, whose historical memory is dominated by their murderous deportation by Stalin in the Forties, and who boycotted the “referendum”. It makes no reference to their minority rights, nor to their assembly, the Mejlis, which was permitted by Ukrainian law. Crimean Tatars are now fleeing the peninsula for mainland Ukraine. Russian-speaking Ukrainian Jews have also made it clear to Putin that they do not want Russian intervention."

snip//

"If speakers of Russian were suffering discrimination, that would give rise to concern, though not justify invasion. In fact, Russian is a completely normal language of interchange in Ukraine. There, tens of millions of Russian-speakers read a free press, watch uncontrolled television and learn from an uncensored internet, in either Ukrainian or in Russian, as they prefer.

In Russia, the major social media have been brought under state control, television has been almost completely subdued and several of the remaining free-thinking blogs and internet news sites have been shut down or pressured. This leaves Ukraine as an island of free speech for people who use the Russian language."

MOre..
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/timothy-snyder-freedom-in-russian-exists-only-in-ukraine-9196833.html

[BeyondGeography]

27. Yeah, but you'd vote to leave the U.S. to join Russia

I kid, I kid...

[Democracyinkind]

28. I would probably have done the same if I weren't part of a minority there.

I'd take Russian-level pensions over a 30% pension cut any day if I lived there and wasn't living comfortably, all other considerations put aside.

[Common Sense Party]

29. Something a little fishy about having Russian troops and weaponry around during the vote.

I would be fine with the results of the election if Putin's goons weren't hanging around, intimidating any opposition members.

[oldhippie]

37. How would troops standing around with weapons ....

... intimidate voters that are casting secret ballots? I think I would rather have soldiers around the polling places than some goons of the various politicians.

[Catherina]

43. There were no troops and weaponry around during the vote, no more than normal

None of the international observers (135 from 23 different countries) reported any such thing. They said the elections in Crimea were 100% in accord with European standards and very transparent.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Here's what the Guardian has to say about the observers....

"No major international organisations are monitoring the vote, but a group of observers from 23 countries – a mixture of anti-western ideologues and European far-right politicians – have arrived of their own accord and gave a press conference in Simferopol on Saturday evening.

Belá Kovács, an MEP from the far-right Hungarian party Jobbik, said everything he had seen on Saturday conformed to international standards and he expected the vote to be free and fair."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/16/ukraine-crisis-crimea-referendum


About Jobbik:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik

[Common Sense Party]

68. My mistake. I didn't mean the vote itself, but the campaign, for lack of a better word.

It would be a bit unnerving to hold a public rally if your message is: "Don't trust Putin or Russia, we are part of Ukraine" while there are armed Russian troops watching your rally. Do you think the rally turnout might be diminished a tad?

[Catherina]

77. I understand what you're saying

I understand what you're saying but even that didn't happen like that. Even if it had (we'll just agree to disagree on that but I concede it could have affected rally turnout) everyone knew from the get go that the vote would go no other way. Crimea never wanted to be under Kiev. Ever since Kruschev capriciously gave Crimea to Ukraine (as an autonomous republic) a few decades ago, Crimea's been fighting to have nothing to do with Kiev.

The voter turnout was 83%, almost 3 times more people than turned out for the last elections in 2012. 96.77% voted to secede. They're still celebrating today with fireworks and everyone out in the streets dancing. On top of never having felt Ukranian or been fully integrated into Ukraine, no one wants those dreaded Austerity Cuts that are being forced on Ukraine.

Given a choice between voting to to go back to your motherland or voting for 50% pension cuts with a higher retirement age (just 1 of the Austerity measures), how would you vote? This was a no brainer and it's precisely why the West rushed to recognize the putsch government in Kiev that's going to sign all the IMF agreements before the Ukrainians can elect a legitimate government. Seriously, how would you vote?

[Common Sense Party]

83. Again, I have no beef with self-determination.

If the groundswell support for rejoining the Russian motherland was so strong, I just question why this referendum was not held until Putin's troops were occupying the Crimea? The timing and circumstances seem suspect.

[Catherina]

99. The troops were always in the Crimea

Their presence there was nothing new. Russia's allowed to have 25,000 troops there.

This is a brief history of Crimea constantly wanting nothing to do with Kiev. The timing is just one in a long series of attempts to break from Kiev.

Look at the timing here from 1990 onwards: http://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html

I respect that you may still see it differently and may not change your mind but I think it's important to know they never wanted to be part of the Kiev government. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this politely.

[Common Sense Party]

103. Absolutely, and if something can't be discussed politely, I'd rather not discuss it at all.

I'll try to read the info at the link when I have more time.

[Catherina]

139. Thanks. I look forward to more exchanges with you

Cheers

[joshcryer]

113. Video of troops the day of the vote:

The "observers" of course deny seeing any troops at all. When asked if they could possibly be taken to areas without troops, they refused that possibility. Should be careful who you believe on these matters. Video, reliable good quality video, and pictures as well as eyewitness reports are the best source of information.

[wandy]

30. If this IS what the people of Crimea wanted, I'm all for it..........

It's not that WE always have the most honest elections.
Something about Florida and the 2000 elections come to mind here.
I would simply hope that it was their honest choice.

[oldandhappy]

31. well, of course

The ballot only had 1) do it now or 2) do it soon, there was no choice to not do it. If you voted, you had to vote to join Russia. Totally a set-up. A 'for show' vote.

And I am suspicious of the overthrow of the elected president. He may have been awful, but to depose him is not the way. Look at Egypt. Same thing. And our finger prints are all over both situations.

Ah so, usually I am cheerful!

[hack89]

32. So why doesn't Putin let the Chechens have a vote for independence?

considering how important respecting the free will of the people is so important to him?

[stevenleser]

40. You and I don't agree often but this is an astute point. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

41. Because it's not about morality or consistency but national interest.

We can personalize this, make it all about "the evil Putin," but he is acting as a Russian nationalist, taking actions to protect what he sees as the Russian national interest.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. I seem to recall a certain secretary of state of a certain aggressive power lecturing another aggressive power about not invading sovereign nations. I couldn't help but laugh out loud when Kerry mouthed those words.

[stevenleser]

51. This issue isn't about Kerry. And "national interest" isn't an exception to international law.

It's in every country's national interest to grab land and resources.

[2banon]

95. Bingo! And the winner goes to Comrade Grumpy ^this^ .. eom

[Demo_Chris]

56. It is not important to Putin but it is important to many here...

Putin, for numerous reasons, wants a stable Crimea in Russian (or Russian leaning) hands. A western backed revolution in the Ukraine makes that impossible and essentially forces his hand -- not that it needed much forcing anyway as annexing the Crimea solves the Crimea issue permanently.

As it happens, the people of Crimea also want to join Russia, so it's all nice and tidy. It might not be what the western powers and corporate raiders wanted, but there you go.

[hack89]

69. So the EU and America made him do it. Got it. nt

[hrmjustin]

155. Great question.

You should start an op on this question alone.

[Nye Bevan]

44. And I'm pretty sure that you would have supported seccession as a Southerner in 1861.

People do tend to support whatever is in their own self interest.

[reformist2]

61. I'm pretty sure you would be wrong. The secessionists were trying to run away from a commitment.

The Crimeans never made any such commitment to the Ukraine. To be honest, they should have never been part of it to begin with.

[redgreenandblue]

91. I thought the whole point was that Russia used coercion in Crimea?

So now it has come to comparing the people of Crimea to slave-owners for making the "wrong" choices?

[KamaAina]

47. What would have been your rationale?

Curious.

[reformist2]

63. If I were Russian, the reason is self-evident. If not, Russia is way more stable than the Ukraine.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

64. So should Ukrainians living on mainland Ukraine also desire to join Russia...

....because of this perceived "stability"?

[reformist2]

65. If other regions vote to leave, that would be fine too. It'll make what's left of Ukraine more stabl

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. Even if the vote comes while under an occupation of military forces? nt

[joshcryer]

112. Heh, Russia is about to get real unstable.

It's in shambles.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Not if you were a Tatar, although the chances of being Tatar and in Crimea are pretty low

after the ethnic cleansing and relocation at gunpoint of the vast Tatar majority by the USSR in the mid 40's. Of course they are Muslims so they are not part of your thinking....

[malaise]

55. You think the West has pumped all that aid money into Ukraine for charity?

What do you think the velvet revolutions were about?

[Catherina]

66. This is what they want us to believe, for charity, human rights and democracy

And every child gets a pony.

[Gothmog]

76. The vote was meaningless in that there was no way to vote against leaving the Ukraine

As a matter of fundamental fairness, the vote mentioned was designed to be unfair and meaningless. There was no way to vote to remain in the Ukraine. If this vote was intended to actually reflect anything, that should have been an option

[reformist2]

89. The turnout tells the story. There's really no debate that the majority wanted out of the Ukraine.

[Gothmog]

90. I disagree

The vote was meaningless unless they were allowed to vote against leaving the Ukraine. Putin did not have any confidence that he could get his desired result and so rigged the vote

[2banon]

97. LOL! No one was forced at gun point to vote at all.

opponents of the referendum voted with their feet, by staying at home. the number of opponents are in the minority. that's not the definition of vote rigging.

[Gothmog]

98. The concept of choice is a key part of voting

Here there was no choice. Either do not vote or vote to leave the Ukraine. Putin is a coward and did not give the voters the opportunity to vote in favor of staying in the Ukraine

[shaayecanaan]

100. The problem there is...

if pro-Ukraine voters split between "stay in Ukraine as per 2013" and "remain autonomous within Ukraine as set out in the 1992 constitution", then it would have made it harder for those voters to prevail over the pro-Russia voters.

It wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

[Gothmog]

102. The vote is totally meaningless from a legal and political standpoint

This vote is a joke and has no meaning. You can not have an election where heads I win and tails you lose. This vote really has no meaning.

[Comrade Grumpy]

104. The Crimeans seem to think their vote had meaning.

But I'll tell them Gothmog said it really didn't.

[joshcryer]

115. Watch the first five seconds:

I think they probably identify more as Crimean than as Russian or Ukrainian. Polls before showed that general sentiment. So going forward Russia should be careful about asserting its dominance and allow Crimea to run as an autonomous zone as opposed to an oblast. JMHO.

[Gothmog]

135. By your logic, the recent vote in North Korea must be given effect

The vote in Crimea has the same legal and political effect as the recent North Korean votes. Here is a fun comparison of the two elections http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/17/only-exemplary-democracies-such-as-russia-and-north-korea-can-achieve-90-plus-percent-mandates/

The people of Crimea have spoken. In yesterday’s referendum, they voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. According to Russia’s Itar-Tass news agency, the vote was 93% to 7%. According to Russia Today, it was 96% to 3%.

It’s an amazing victory. Even more amazing when you consider that according to the most recent census, 37% of the Crimean population is ethnically Ukrainian or Tatar. Yet only 3 to 7% voted against leaving Ukraine and embracing Mother Russia.

To be fair, it’s not quite as amazing as last week’s election in North Korea. There, beloved leader Kim Jong-un was re-elected to the parliament with 100% of the vote. The ruling party holds all 687 seats. And last year in Cuba, voters approved 100% of the national assembly candidates put forward by official nominating committees.

This vote was a PR stunt. No one seriously believes that either the vote in Crimea referendum or the vote in the North Korean elections are anything but PR stunts.

[shaayecanaan]

106. It wasnt

The question was:

"Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"

There was a clear option for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine.

[Gothmog]

140. This vote was a PR Stunt

This vote is being compared to the recent votes in North Korea, Cuba and other non-democratic countries. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/17/only-exemplary-democracies-such-as-russia-and-north-korea-can-achieve-90-plus-percent-mandates/

How do exemplary democracies such as Russia, Cuba, and North Korea achieve these mandates? By rigging them, of course. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out long ago, the fraudulence of an election is proportionate to the margin of victory. My colleague Joshua Keating recently updated this pattern with stellar vote shares from Azerbaijan (85%), Kazakhstan (91%), Belorussia (93%), Turkmenistan (97%), Syria (98%), and Chechnya (99%). In The Dictator’s Learning Curve, Slate’s William J. Dobson notes that smarter tyrants have learned to water down such ridiculous margins....

In Crimea, the recipe for overwhelming victory was subtler. First, you narrow the ballot to two choices: joining Russia or increasing Crimea’s autonomy from Ukraine. You exclude the status quo. Then you saturate Crimea with 21,000 Russian troops and put armed men outside polling stations.

Again, if you think that this vote is valid, then we need to also give North Korea and Cuba the benefit of the doubt and applaud their recent elections

[shaayecanaan]

141. The vote for independence in Kosovo was 99%

and the vote for independence in South Sudan was 98.83%. But you didnt oppose either of those, did you?

First, you narrow the ballot to two choices: joining Russia or increasing Crimea’s autonomy from Ukraine. You exclude the status quo.

The autonomous status of Crimea (set out in the Ukrainian constitution) was unilaterally revoked by Ukraine in 1993, without the consent or consultation of the Crimean people, for whose benefit that autonomous status had been created in the first place. Do you think that that was legal?

Due to the failure of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous ARC Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of 22 September ( 180/94-VR ) and 17 November 1994 ( 250/94-VR ) on bringing the Constitution and laws of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea into accordance with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine and to ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of Ukraine throughout its territory and the protection of state sovereignty of Ukraine, according paragraph 31 of Article 97 of the Constitution ( Fundamental Law) of Ukraine (888-09) Parliament of Ukraine decrees:
Cancel the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Rb076a002- 92) , adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea May 6, 1992 with subsequent amendments and as the laws of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea " Presidential Election ARC " on September 17, 1993 (rb0380002- 93 )," The President of the Republic of Crimea " on October 14, 1993.
http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/92/95-%D0%B2%D1%80

There were armed men outside polling stations in Kosovo as well. Ultimately, if you want to criticise Russia, you'd better take a good hard look at yourself first.

[Gothmog]

143. Kosovo? Really? You do realize that there are major differences

Do you have a source for your claim as to the vote? It is my understanding that Kosovo was a vote of the assembly and not a jury rigged popular vote where there was only one choice on the ballot.

I really do not think that you want to rely on the Kosovo example even though this is the example being cited by Putin. Relying on Putin's logic really is not a good idea. There are some significant differences between Crimea and Kosovo. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/19/putin-compares-kosovo-2008-independence-to-russia-annexation-crimea-others/

NATO intervened in Kosovo in 1999 only after significant evidence of Serbian abuses against ethnic Albanians, including mass killings and deportations. Pro-Russian forces intervened in Crimea with no major abuses or violence reported against ethnic Russians.

The West didn't annex Kosovo after driving Milosevic's forces out of the former Serbian province, but sent in peacekeepers. Russian troops, meanwhile, took control of Crimea before its referendum was held.

Kosovo declared independence but did not join its ethnic brethren in neighboring Albania in a single state. Crimea, which has a majority Russian population, signed a deal to join Russia two days after its vote.

Kosovo declared independence nine years after Serbia lost effective control over its former province and only after a long diplomatic process when it was virtually an independent state. Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine only weeks after the country's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled to Russia.

WHAT DID THE U.N. COURT SAY ABOUT KOSOVO?

In July 2010, U.N.'s highest court ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal but did not outright endorse Kosovo's claim to statehood.

Good luck in getting any international court to recognize the vote in Crimea. Here are some other major differences. http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/03/is-crimeas-referendum-vote-legal/

In 1999, the Kosovars were ethnically cleansed by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia’s president. As a result of his mistreatment of the population, the west argued that the Serbian regime had forfeited its legitimacy over Kosovo. The crisis led the UN Security Council in 1999 to adopt UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which placed Kosovo under international supervision.

By contrast, Russian speakers living in Crimea cannot proclaim a right to secede on the grounds of persecution by the parent state in Ukraine.

There are other differences between Crimea and Kosovo. Crimean voters went to the polls in a hastily arranged referendum conducted under the barrel of a gun. Russian forces entered Crimea and tightened their control of the peninsula as the referendum took place.

By contrast, Kosovo’s declaration of independence came after nine years of diplomatic negotiation in which world powers left no stone unturned in their attempt to secure an international agreement.

Just because Putin cites Kosovo as authority for his action does not mean that this is a good argument.

The vote on Crimea is really meaningless. Putin may think that this vote was valid but so does the leader of North Korea with respect to his recent vote.

[shaayecanaan]

144. Yes, really.

It is my understanding that Kosovo was a vote of the assembly and not a jury rigged popular vote where there was only one choice on the ballot.

Complete pigshit. There were two options on the ballot. All of your blithe insistences that there was only one option doesn't change the fact that there were two.

The East Timorese independence referendum in 1999 also offered East Timorese the option of either leaving Indonesia or accepting an autonomous status for East Timor within Indonesia (there was no status quo option). The East Timorese took the first option. That result was accepted by the United States and the rest of the international community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timorese_independence_referendum,_1999#Results

And the referendum on Kosovo's independence was a popular vote:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovan_independence_referendum,_1991

In July 2010, U.N.'s highest court ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence was legal but did not outright endorse Kosovo's claim to statehood.

Good luck in getting any international court to recognize the vote in Crimea.

You need to read that again, carefully. The ICJ merely said that it is not illegal under international law to declare independence. It isn't, no matter where you are. I could declare that my house is an independent state. Whether that's effective or not is another thing, but its not a crime according to international law. The ICJ carefully refrained from endorsing Kosovo's claim to statehood, as you have noted.

[Gothmog]

145. Your claim that there was a real choice on the Crimea ballot is simply wrong

I strongly disagree with your claim about the election being a clear choice because the facts simply do not support your position. The voters were not given the choice to remain part of Ukraine or to continue the status quo. Under your theory of voting, we should eliminate the option for juries to find the defendant "not guilty" and tell the jury that the jurors that the only choices are "guilty" and "really guilty." Literally, the choices given to the Crimea voters were to join Russia now or join Russia later. The voters were not given the option to stay in Ukraine.

Second, I would urge you to read the materials that you post. The vote that Putin is citing as justification for his actions was the 2008 vote of the Kosovo assembly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence

The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence was adopted on 17 February 2008 by the Assembly of Kosovo. The participants unanimously declared Kosovo to be independent from Serbia,[1] while all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotted the proceedings.[2] It was the second declaration of independence by Kosovo's Albanian-majority political institutions, the first was proclaimed on 7 September 1990.[3]

The legality of the declaration and whether it was an act of the Assembly has been disputed. Serbia sought international validation and support for its stance that the declaration was illegal, and in October 2008 requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.[4] The Court determined that the declaration did not violate international law.[5]

The vote you just cited was a 1991 vote that is not at issue and was not cited by Putin in his defense of his actions in Crimea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovan_independence_referendum,_1991 If you are going to repeat Putin's arguments, you need to reference the vote that Putin was referring to in his lame justification for his actions.

Third, I have read numerous international court findings over the years. The fact that you do like the way that the court worded its ruling does not change the fact that this court ruled in favor of Kosovo over the objections of Russia. The fact that at the time of the ruling Putin was claiming that the 2008 ruling was wrong and now he is citing it is amusing to me. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0315/Crimea-vote-Five-reasons-why-Putin-s-Ukraine-case-falls-apart-video

Ironically, until a few weeks ago, both Putin and Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, had always loudly called the Kosovo precedent "illegal."

Putin’s engineering of such a fast and loose vote with its unknown impact on matters of gravity among nations – sovereignty and borders, for example – is bringing an international uproar. This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel used harsh diplomatic language, saying Putin’s use of a Kosovo parallel is “shameless.”

"In Kosovo we had years in which the international community had no power to intervene while Slobodan Milosevic carried out his ethnic cleansing,” Ms. Merkel told the German Parliament on Thursday. “NATO then decided to act alone because Russia continuously blocked any UN mandate on Serbia. That situation is in no way similar to what is happening today in Ukraine."

European Union foreign affairs spokesperson Maja Kocijancic said this week, “There is absolutely no comparison” between Kosovo and Crimea.

Look, you are merely repeating the amusing but wrong claims from Putin. Those claims were wrong when Putin made them and so far you have done nothing to convince me that Putin is right.

[shaayecanaan]

150. This is what I hate about internet debate...

No matter how ignorant your opponent, they can simply claim victory by saying that you haven't convinced them yet. Fucking please.

If you are going to repeat Putin's arguments, you need to reference the vote that Putin was referring to in his lame justification for his actions.

I couldn't give a shit what Putin said. I perceive him as being as hypocritical as Western politicians, in the sense that he supports independence movements when it suits him and opposes them when it does not. But I particularly despise craven, CNN-watching suckholes that cannot perceive the hypocrisy of their own leaders before they rail against someone else's.

Third, I have read numerous international court findings over the years. The fact that you do like the way that the court worded its ruling does not change the fact that this court ruled in favor of Kosovo over the objections of Russia.

You're not very good at counting either. There has only ever been one ICJ decision regarding Kosovo:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo's_declaration_of_independence

And as I explained to you, it specifically didn't endorse Kosovo's right to statehood. It appears that you are incapable of understanding that. What it said was:-

The court delivered its advisory opinion on 22 July 2010; by a vote of 10 to 4, it declared that "the adoption of the declaration of independence of the 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'"

[Gothmog]

157. I was not aware that this was a debate

I debated all through high school, a couple years on the college circuit and then judged college debate all during law school. Democratic Underground is not a debate board and I did not think that I was engaged in a debate with you. I am not advancing some academic argument here but I am trying to explain to you why I disagree with your assertions and the assertions of Putin since you are merely repeating Putin's talking points. In addition to my debate experience, I have been practicing law for a long time including numerous international transactions and a couple of litigation/arbitration matters. I found your attempt to explain a legal ruling to me to be inaccurate. I strongly disagree with the positions of Putin that you are advancing on this thread. Putin is wrong in his claims and the fact that you are repeating Putin's talking points does not change this fact.

If you read the material that I have posted, it is clear that the international community disagrees with Putin's and your claims or positions. International law is somewhat clear here that Putin is wrong about the legal effect of this referendum which means that your claims are also wrong. Here are some additional articles that discuss the legal concepts here http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/paul-linden-retek-evan-brewer/Crimea-justified-kosovo-ruling-icj-2008-russia-putin and http://www.voanews.com/content/crimea-referendum-illegitimate-says-us-legal-scholar/1873090.html As a matter of pure international law, Putin is simply wrong which is why the EU and other countries are not recognizing this election. There is a large difference between the recognition of a country by the international community and the annexation of a country by a rigged election.

Your claims fail here because they are based solely on the arguments being advanced by Putin. I personally doubt that even Putin believes his claims. If Putin really believes his legal arguments, then Putin would stop blocking Kosovo from joining the United Nations. Right now, Kosovo has been recognized by 111 nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo

Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia was enacted on 17 February 2008.[1][2] International reaction was mixed, and the world community continues to be divided on the international recognition of Kosovo.

As of 11 February 2014, the Republic of Kosovo has received 110 diplomatic recognitions as an independent state. Notably, 108 out of 193 (56%) United Nations (UN) member states, 23 out of 28 (82%) European Union (EU) member states, 24 out of 28 (86%) NATO member states, and 35 out of 57 (61%) Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states have recognised Kosovo. The Government of Serbia does not recognise it as a sovereign state, but has begun to normalise relations with the government in Pristina in accordance with the Brussels Agreement.

Kosovo is being blocked from joining the UN by Russia http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/world/europe/17iht-kosovo.4.9299507.html?_r=0 If Putin really believes his own legal claim, then Russia would support the efforts of Kosovo to become a member of the UN.

Even Putin does not believe his claims. That is why he has 30,000 troops in Crimea and is massing more troops on the eastern borders of Ukraine. One does not need a good legal argument or to be right in their legal claims when they have an army



If you want to convince me of the merits of your arguments, please show me some real authority such as Putin's agreement to let Kosovo join the UN. You may also want to use some international law journals or similar sources (both of my older two children were editors at the international law journals at their law schools). So far you have not come close to convincing me as to your claims and my opinions here are not based on ignorance.

[shaayecanaan]

168. sure

I have been practicing law for a long time including numerous international transactions and a couple of litigation/arbitration matters.

That sounds like it was cut and pasted from a Nigerian spam email. Im surprised that you didnt include the request for my bank account details so you could wire me the funds feom the deceased prince.

Its also funny how you managed to practise in law for many years but only manage to do a "couple" of litigation matters. I guess business must be slow these days.

[Gothmog]

169. The UN Vote on Crimea is good news

The UN General Assembly has a strong vote against Russia's actions in annexing Crimea http://en.haberler.com/obama-urges-russia-to-withdraw-troops-from-406827/

On Thursday, the 193-member UN General Assembly adopted a resolution affirming its commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity with 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions, and termed Russia's annexation of Crimea as having "no validity".

[Gothmog]

167. Amusing cartoon

[Gothmog]

131. Yes, in one city 123% of the city's population voted for this measure

It appears that one city, 123% of the city's population voted for this measure http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/crimea-vote-123-turnout#.UydC4WJPA8V.twitter Who can dispute results like this?

This vote was a PR stunt and was rigged. The vote has no legal or political effect.

[Cha]

110. Of course.. but, you'll only get denials from those who are

pumping up putin for whatever reason.

Svitlana Zalischuk states..

“The referendum itself doesn’t mean anything,” she added, noting that the choice was between “yes and yes,” and didn’t give people a choice of maintaining the status quo. “You can’t conduct a democratic referendum when a whole country is invaded and controlled by the troops of a foreign country.”

The Fight for Democracy in Ukraine: A Conversation with Center UA’s Svitlana Zalischuk

BY Micah L. Sifry

“In the third and last part of our conversation, I asked Zalischuk about the referendum about to take place in Russian-occupied Crimea and the massive Russian troop presence across the border from eastern Ukraine. “Russian invaded Ukraine,” she said, mincing no words about Vladimir Putin’s actions in the wake of Yanukovych’s departure from office. “The referendum itself doesn’t mean anything,” she added, noting that the choice was between “yes and yes,” and didn’t give people a choice of maintaining the status quo. “You can’t conduct a democratic referendum when a whole country is invaded and controlled by the troops of a foreign country.”

This is not a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, she said, it’s a conflict between the civilized world and totalitarianism, one that undermines the whole architecture of the European and world community. I asked her about the idea that the democracy movement in Ukraine was mostly strongest in the western part of the country and not so much from the eastern half, where Yanukovych got the majority of votes. She said the picture was more complicated, because Yanukovych himself had campaigned in favor of stronger ties with Europe when he was running for president.”

http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24827/fight-democracy-ukraine-conversation-center-uas-svitlana-zalischuk

Timothy Snyder: Freedom in Russian exists only in Ukraine

In Ukraine, millions of Russian-speakers read a free press and learn from an uncensored internet

snip//

"Putin claims that he is defending the rights of speakers of Russian in Ukraine. He has used this argument to justify his invasion of Crimea and the electoral theatre of yesterday, a “referendum” in which there was no way to vote against union with Russia.

Among the speakers of Russian in Crimea are the Crimean Tatars, whose historical memory is dominated by their murderous deportation by Stalin in the Forties, and who boycotted the “referendum”. It makes no reference to their minority rights, nor to their assembly, the Mejlis, which was permitted by Ukrainian law. Crimean Tatars are now fleeing the peninsula for mainland Ukraine. Russian-speaking Ukrainian Jews have also made it clear to Putin that they do not want Russian intervention."

snip//

"If speakers of Russian were suffering discrimination, that would give rise to concern, though not justify invasion. In fact, Russian is a completely normal language of interchange in Ukraine. There, tens of millions of Russian-speakers read a free press, watch uncontrolled television and learn from an uncensored internet, in either Ukrainian or in Russian, as they prefer.

In Russia, the major social media have been brought under state control, television has been almost completely subdued and several of the remaining free-thinking blogs and internet news sites have been shut down or pressured. This leaves Ukraine as an island of free speech for people who use the Russian language."

MOre..
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/timothy-snyder-freedom-in-russian-exists-only-in-ukraine-9196833.html

[Gothmog]

136. Good post

This election was a PR stunt and has as much validity as the recent elections in North Korea

[Democracyinkind]

118. The people could have byocotted the vote if they would have wanted to oppose it.

I don't think that the vote lived up to Western European standards, but neither do I think that there is any denying that a substantial majority was in favor of joining the Russian federation.

Additionally, this vote would never have taken place without the Russian forces being present. Which poses a dilemma for those that truly are in favor of democratic self-determination of the Crimean people.

[Gothmog]

146. And yet their votes had to be counted to get to 123% of the population in one major city

This election was the typical Russian, North Korean or Cuban election where the result was known in the advance. These governments according to Krauthamer are very good at fixing elections.

[Democracyinkind]

147. I haven't been able to check out those numbers yeat PLUS...

... as I wrote above, I don't think that anyone has a credible argument against the fact that a large percentage of Crimeans wanted to join the Russian Federation. I have caveated this statement in my post above.

[Gothmog]

148. I never saw any authority for your assertion

...a large percentage of Crimeans wanted to join the Russian Federation.

I saw no authority for this claim. Russians living in Crimea may want to vote for this measure but this group was only 55% of the population.

BTW, the Tartars would not have been in favor. See the posts on this thread about this group being evicted from their land by the new govt.

[Democracyinkind]

149. Uhm, on the authority of the dozens of western journalists present, perhaps?

I followed the events closely on Sunday and not one independent journalist that I heard from suggested that the majority wasn't apparent. No doubt a regular election would have been better - but it's clear that that would never have happened.

Also, your numbers are based on ethnic origin. It has been suggested that primary language is just as good a measure, which would put those identifying as Russian closer to 70%.

Also - going on your argument about "North Korean" elections... It's just not that black and white. Compared to the country that I live in, American elections are a total sham as well. Yet they are internationally accepted...

[Gothmog]

154. Have you found any authority for your claims?

I found this article that seems to show that the number of russian speaking persons in Crimea is lower than your claims http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/17/4896905/questions-surround-crimea-referendum.html

Officially, the joining-Russia option on the ballot attracted a healthy 97 percent support from the 83 percent of registered voters in Crimea who made it to the polls. The most repeated tidbit was the voter turnout in Sevastopol, long a pro-Russian bastion, where a reported 123 percent of registered voters are said to have cast ballots.

Ukrainian news reports said that all one needed to vote was a passport, and it didn’t have to be a Ukrainian one. One reporter from Kiev showed his Russian passport and was handed a ballot and allowed to vote. This raised questions in Kiev if perhaps the Russian soldiers and Russian paramilitary occupying the area since late February had been allowed to cast votes.

It also raised eyebrows, because while an estimated 58 percent of the Crimean population is known to be ethnic Russian and very pro-Russia, the remaining 42 percent are not thought to be similarly smitten. Ukrainian opinion polls over the last decade have consistently shown Crimea to be more pro-Russian and in favor of secession than any other region of Ukraine, but previous polls had shown consistently that those favoring splitting from Ukraine and joining Russia numbered about 40 percent.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/17/4896905/questions-surround-crimea-referendum.html#storylink=cpy

It sounds like 42% of the population were either not allowed to vote or their votes were ignored in this so-called election

[Democracyinkind]

156. About russian speaking people?

Yes, the official Ukrainian census of 2001. Note that it actually lists the percentage as 77%, but that number surely has come down since 2001, what with all the Crimean Tatars returning. But surely not by more than 7%, which puts the number I cited from memory in my previous post in safe waters.

http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/general/language/crimea/

It sounds to me like most people in favor of staying with the Ukraine simply stayed at home, as neither of the two options would have appealed to them. But contrary to what some press outlets have written, not all observers where simple pro-Russian dupes, so at least on the face of it, these were more or less fair elections.
Maybe there was some ballot-stuffing away from the cameras, and certainly the numbers have been inflated, as this was mainly a symbolic vote. But as far as elections in that region go, they did make an effort of at least being somewhat transparent. This was in no way North Korean - as nothing of this sort takes place on election day there. And there was certainly no apparant mass-voting campaign by Russian soldiers or tourists or whatever, as that wouldn't have gone unobserved by Western journalists. And why should there have been? If the Russians were determined on stuffing the ballots they would have done so behind closed doors.

As I said, the fact that even the Cold Warriors in Europe have been persuaded by the vote just about shows that everyone expected this election to turn out this way.

[Gothmog]

158. Here is a very good article on why this election was fraudulent and some reliable statistics

I have found the Economist to be a decent source http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/crimea-votes-secede

THE outcome of the “referendum” in Crimea was never in doubt. With Russian troops occupying the peninsula and anyone who does not want to join Russia staying away from the bogus procedure, the 97% vote in favour of becoming part of Russia is not a surprise. Crimean Tatars, the native Turkic Muslims of Crimea, who account for 13% of the total population, and many of the ethnic Ukrainians, who make up another 25%, boycotted the referendum. The 83% official turnout was boosted by Russian passport holders and by multiple voting.

Neither Ukraine, nor the rest of the world, recognise this referendum as legitimate. Under the Ukrainian constitution it could only be called by the Rada, the parliament. Had it done so there is a strong chance most people in Crimea would still favour a secession from Ukraine. The post-referendum jubilation in Crimea among those who want to rejoin Russia was genuine. People cheered Russia’s military presence in Crimea as a liberation rather than occupation. This was largely the result of the rabid anti-Ukrainian propaganda which portrayed the government in Kiev which came to power after the revolutionary protests last month as a bunch of crazed fascists hell-bent on exterminating the Russian-speaking population of Crimea. But it was also the result of the neglect which Ukrainians displayed towards Crimea over the years, leaving it to its own devices and failing to integrate it deeper into Ukraine.

It is very clear to me that this election was a fraud and PR stunt.

[Democracyinkind]

160. I've read that article 3 days ago, it makes many of the same points that I did.

Except that it takes a very condescending perspective towards the Crimeans, portraying them as brainwashed dupes. Which I don't believe.

I don't see where the numbers in that article disagree with the basic outline that I gave.

[Gothmog]

161. I was not disputing your numbers or debating you on this issue

DU is not a debate board and I am merely trying to make sure that I have read all of the relevant facts. I saw this article this morning on another thread dealing with the Crimea elections and found it helpful to me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024693868

My opinion on this election has not changed. This election was nothing but a PR stunt by Putin which explains the 123% number. If you let people vote multiple times and use passports from other countries, it is not hard to exceed 100% of the vote.

The legal analysis of this election is also very interesting to me. It is too bad that my kids are finished with law school journals because there will be some interesting law journal arguments on this issue. I am looking forward to reading this articles in about six months to a year (there is a long lag time for these publications) to see if the authors agree with my analysis.

[Democracyinkind]

162. My basic position is that I am in favor of self-determination in almost all cases.

It's just that self-determination is never a clean thing in a geopolitical hot spot.

So far, I have read nothing that would convince me that there wasn't a more or less solid majority of Crimeans in favor of joining the Russian Federation, even if that translates to giving up any right to future autonomy and self-determination.

The legal aspects concerning this are, IMHO, only secondary. We accept such votes when they are in our geopolitical interest, and the Russians do the same. We condemn such votes when they are in conflict with our geopolitical interests, as do the Russians. There was, of course, no legal way in which such a vote would have taken place, as there would never have been a majority in the Ukrainian parliament for it (which would have been needed to make this vote legal under the standards of international law). In that sense, the presence of the Russian troops was a precondition for holding the vote, and in that sense, I have spoken of this affair as being a dilemma for those who want to genuinely be on the side of democratic processes and self-determination.

I agree that this was mainly a PR stunt. My point is that any such election in a geopolitical hot spot is necessarily so. As long as it more or less conforms to the wishes of the true majority, I find it acceptable. Taking a more cynical view that leaves out the wishes and prospects of the local inhabitants, I believe that geo-strategically, Russian control of Crimea is conducive to a stalemate in the Eurasian region, and therefore a hindrance to actual war breaking out. In that limited sense, I find it desirable.

I do not disagree with most points that you are making. But given the location that we are talking about, there is not much hope in expecting ideal procedures, be they pro-Western or pro-Russian.

[Gothmog]

164. You can not divorce the legal or ethical issues

Self determination by itself is a great concept but that is not what happened here. Russian annexed this region over the objections of the legitimate government and in violation of international law. This vote was a farce that was done a gun point without any meaningful opportunity to dissent.

Your claim that western countries accept these votes when it is to our benefit is simply wrong and ignores the facts. The closest example cited by Putin and another poster on this board is Kosovo. The two situations are so different from each other that it is sad that anyone would consider them to applicable. The election in Kosovo was done under UN supervision and was based on ballot language sanctioned and approved by the international community. The sham election in Kosovo was done a gun point without international supervision based on ballot language that literally gave the voters no option to continue as part of Ukraine. As a lawyer who is very familiar with the law here, this election does not meet the standards that pass the smell test. The international community is correct to reject this fraudulent election.

Every western government is condemning this vote and the annexation of Crimea based on very well established principles of international law and common decency. The only real reason that this election was held was due to 30,000 russian troops who forced this election and even voted in the election.

I simply do not believe that this election is valid. The lawyer part of me can not accept the concept that the law does not matter. I am glad that the US is ordering new sanctions against Russia and I am glad that the EU and others are also stepping up the sanctions http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Obama-orders-new-round-of-sanctions-on-Russia-5334331.php?cmpid=hpbn

[Democracyinkind]

165. Legalism is, as far as geo-strategy is concerned, always a secondary issue.

As are ethical considerations. I had a gig in security policy consulting in an adjacent region and I can guarantee you that these things are views detached from legal and ethical considerations by the people who actually make decisions all the time. Law and ethics are, when things come to push and shove, nothing but whores in the service of Realpolitik. It helps to take a broad perspective on this that encompasses more than this region and more than just examples from most recent history.

If the presdency of Chimpy proved one thing, it proved that. Pretending that the US or the West is always on the side of law and ethics is nothing but imperial hubris. I stand by my last post and really have nothing else to add.

[Gothmog]

166. While I agree with your comments about bush, we will have to agree to disagree as to this election

In this case, I am pleased to see that the EU, most western countries and the US are taking a consistent legal and ethical position on this issue. I agree with the rationale and analysis behind such positions and strongly disagree with the arguments and rationales advanced by Putin.

One of my children is passing on this topic to next year's staff at her international law journal. This is an interesting topic to write about in that the law here is clear and that arguments being advanced by Putin are really weak. I am confident that we will be seeing some interesting law review or law journal analysis of this issue in a while.

[MNBrewer]

138. not if you were a Tatar

[MADem]

153. Oh, never mind pesky facts--there's an agenda to shop! nt

[AmyCossileon]

151. agreed

[Puzzledtraveller]

159. Mischief is afoot for certain.

[Gothmog]

170. The UN has rejected the referendum in Crimea and Russia's annexation of Crimea

The UN General Assembly has a strong vote against Russia's actions in annexing Crimea http://en.haberler.com/obama-urges-russia-to-withdraw-troops-from-406827/

On Thursday, the 193-member UN General Assembly adopted a resolution affirming its commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity with 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions, and termed Russia's annexation of Crimea as having "no validity".

[reformist2]

171. The fractious vote indicates the "New World Order" is starting to break apart.