I’m not talking about an invasion, but about a referendum, which is the subject of the thread.
Not necessarily so. It will be at least as democratic as the ousting of the previous Ukrainian government, in any case. There are good reasons to assume the population is indeed in majority in favour of at least more autonomy and possibly joining Russia. Why should the opinion of Ukrainians in Kiev prevail over the will of the local people? If half the population in the west wants more independance from Moscow, join the EU and NATO and the other half in the East ther contrary, I’m not sure why a partition is such a bad idea. No, doubt that Kiev would want to keep control of the whole country, but why should it, if it goes against the will of the people?
Because a plebisite under these conditions would have zero legitimacy. It may be the case that the people of Crimea wish to join Russia, but a plebisite held under the guns of Russian troops, with foreign observers sent packing (as they have been) cannot ascertain that.
This situation is far more nuanced than many people (want to) understand.
Yes, Crimea is a land grab by Russia based on trumped up charges of “protecting the ethnic Russian population”.
Yes, it is absolutely wrong of Russia to be pursuing this course of action.
Yes, the pending referendum in Crimea is being held at gunpoint and cannot in any way be seen as legitimate. Of course, if by some miracle the vote goes against joining Russia, we’ll all be eating our words and rushing to sanctify the results as valid - i.e. The People Have Spoken!
Having said that, no-one can deny that the current political scene is Ukraine is heavily influenced by right wing (some clearly fascist) nationalist groups. Additionally, almost all Ukrainian leaders to date have shown themselves to be thieves and at least one (Timoshenko) is being welcomed back as a hero. The new crop does not impress me as being much better. So no matter how you slice up Ukraine, it’s all going to end up an ugly mess for the foreseeable future.
To that extent, and I know this will sound like rationalization of Putin’s actions, Russia’s actions are not entirely beyond understanding. Putin has no control over the right wing groups. He may or may not have influenced some of them to undermine and destabilize the popular revolution - my guess is he had a hand in it. But ultimately, he has no control of them and historically they are not friendly towards Russia. His best bet is to continue to destabilize the regime in Ukraine and show the Ukrainian gov’t as fragmented. He does not really expect to convince anyone with a functioning brain that his actions are justified. But for those who oppose him, he is betting they (EU & US) have no stomach to fight him very hard or very long. Ultimately, he is expecting this will go away and be forgotten much like Georgia.
I don’t see this as “nuance” at all. Is the take-away notion that as long as one can classify the opposition as ‘right-wing’ or ‘a bunch of theives’, an invasion is ‘understandable’? Because there are a lot of places that meet those criteria - starting, for example, with Russia.
While it’s true that Putin/Russia has exaggerated the case for credible threat to the ethnically Russian Ukrainians, I do not believe that it’s an exaggeration to say that there is a strong right wing influence in the existing/emerging Ukrainian gov’t.
And sure, they are on their best behaviour right now. Let’s see what happens in the coming weeks and months. We may be having a very different conversation then.
There are “strong right wing” parties all over Europe - for example, in France.
I never knew that the mere presence of “strong right wing” parties having influence meant invasion was justified, in case they might start - what, pogroms? Massacres? Ethnic cleansing?
Well, yes. Right wing party influence might start all those things in Ukraine. And Russia’s incursion into Crimea will in no way prevent that in the rest of Ukraine* if* that’s where things head. Hell, Russia itself is not without it’s own right wing cadre.
I suppose that on some level I just don’t give a damn if one bastard makes life miserable for a group of other bastards. And while in principal, Russia does not have the right to invade Crimea, I’m not sure I’m seeing much in the way of protest from Crimeans themselves at the prospect of becoming Russians again. Much like in South Ossetia, I feel like they are welcoming their Russian overlords. Though it’s hard to tell for sure what with the 11,000 unmarked “defense” troops in the area.
Ah yes, who cares about either the Ukrainians or the Russians, let’s just make silly partisan shots about an American election from ten years ago.
I’ll never get over just how arrogant and egocentric Westerners are when it comes to foreign policy where they’re incapable of seeing the players as anything other than western analogues.
FWIW, that’s meant as a comment regarding both sides that seem to be fighting over this issue and not meant as an insult directed at Bob.
Yeah . . . Hey, Canada! We got us some unfinished biz from the War of 1812! Don’t fight it! Resistance is futile! And impolite!
And as for you, Mexico, heh-heh-heh, we’re gonna— we’re gonna . . . eerrrmm . . . well, we could, but that would mean . . . look, just try to keep it quiet down there, wouldja?!
Only in the name of slavery, mind you. But we had to manifest destiney, so it’s cool. Russia’s evil, though, especially since their ostensible reasoning is the extension of democracy.
Hmmm . . . Serious question: Are there any prominent figures in Ukrainian politics who are probably comparatively (1) honest, (2) competent, and (3) of sincere liberal-democratic politics by Western standards? Does anybody know?
Russia is not giving up Crimea, whether it is a puppet state or a part of Russia.
Why not use it as a bargaining chip? All this sabre-rattling from insane McCain inc. is not helping.
Like it or not the Ukraine is in the Russian sphere of influence and always will be. For the Western powers to try to bring Ukraine into NATO would be regarded by the Russians as an act of aggression and honestly on could hardly blame Russia for such a perception. If Russia absorbs the Crimea after its population vote their wish to be part of Russia then so be it. The West will do nothing, nada. The French have lucrative warship deals with Russia in play, the British have billions invested in Russia, the Germans are dependent on Russian gas. The Americans will go through the motions of ‘punishing’ Russia but the truth is there’s not a lot they can do either.
The body language reading isn’t exactly news. What is it, like 90% of communication is nonverbal? And without extensive practice or in any form of stressful situation, a lot of that communication is unconcious. Experts in the field can get a lot of information from body language.
Think of it this way: if a guy says “No, I don’t want to hit you” but he’s so mad that he can’t stop bawling his fists until his knuckles bleach, well, he’s communicating a lot more than he means to and you can glean a lot more accurate a picture than listening only to his words. That’s an easy one to spot, but it’s the same principle.
Well, no, as per Tibet for instance (although there the Han settlement followed annexation, it’s true). But the situation is not that a large number of Russians were suddenly settled in Crimea and then Russia claimed it.
Crimea had been majority Russian since they emptied it of Tartars over the period 1783-1944. Khrushchev added Crimea to the Ukraine SSR by fiat in the mid-50s, it is thought to aggrandize it as his family came from Ukraine. The combined Ukraine-Crimea state is an artificial one going back only 60 years, it does not constitute a natural polity at all.
That said I hate the idea of legitimizing Putin’s naked opportunism here. Probably allowing Crimea (and perhaps some areas of eastern Ukraine) to secede to Russia makes a lot of geopolitical sense, if only it were conducted more diplomatically.
And of course splitting a state to ameliorate cultural and religious tensions didn’t go so well for India/Pakistan … as so often in geopolitics there is no 100% right answer, just a choice of more-or-less wrong ones.
It occurs to me that the U.S. probably has the world’s oldest constitution (or second-oldest; whether the British constitution is the same thing now as it was in 1789 being a debatable point).
