How do you know that? It seems to me that you’re just making assumptions. For one thing, if those who are against simply didn’t vote, you can easily get a figure like 90% or more. Look at the Bosnia referendum of 1992, for example. The Bosnian Serbs largely boycotted the referendum and the result was 99.7% in favor of independence from Yugoslavia – and the US and Europe immediately recognized this result and Bosnia’s independence. The figure in the Crimean referendum was similar (96.7%) but the West didn’t recognize it because it didn’t like that result.
How exactly do you choreograph something like this? When you go on youtube and see all these videos of regular people in Donetsk oblast standing in front of tanks and APCs, literally putting their lives on the line, telling Ukrainian soldiers to get the hell out, how do you explain this? Are they all agents of the GRU or maybe Russia has some mind control device that’s making them do this?
All that but you do not refute the fact that violent protest that did not involve the people of eastern Ukraine is what led to the ouster of an elected president. So you are still factually incorrect in your argument that I am spinning something. The fact is violent protest including the violence of throwing Molotov cocktails at police has led the people of eastern Ukraine to set up their own government and military.
You have reached an improper and flawed conclusion that all the chaos, death and destruction of the past six months must be blamed entirely on the former elected government headed by Yanukovich. It is fairer to fault both sides, but my still is that the protests turned violent and at no point was there substantial consideration for Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine and how they would react to what the protest was demanding outside of the legitimate democratic process.
Where have I demonstrated blind faith the everything was on the up and up?
Perhaps you will respond to what I write if you read it again for comprehension this time;
My asserted facts that you have not tried to refute are not dependent upon the legality or the accuracy of the quite imperfect referendum vote. Since you have no way to confirm your statement that the vote is a farce there is no reason to argue against your opinion that it is a farce. I say it matters what the people in the anti-Maidan regions think about it and not what someone who does not live there thinks about it.
Do you know what ‘quite imperfect referendum’ means?
I have not suggested that the reasons why are similar. Setting up their own government and army and calling it ‘New Russia’ is a response to the violent protests that led to the breakdown of constitutional order in Kiev. And they do not accept being dragged into an alliance with the EU based upon mob rule and violent protest that was not part of a constitutional and democratic process.
Which is why they should have a free election in which they can decide which side to support. Let’s say… in two weeks’ time?
Haven’t had time to say it before, so I’ll just stick it here: your comparison to the Kurds is very silly, even by your standards. Stop trying to salvage it
Nor was a presidential election in Iraq mere weeks away.
You know what is part of a constitutional and democratic process? An election for a new government, which the interim government scheduled right after the impeachment. Is there some reason why the Eastern Ukrainians can’t express their will via this election?
What do the people of Donetsk and Lugansk gain from this election? They gain absolutely nothing. The same people who are in power now will be in power then. Whether Poroshenko or whoever becomes president, it won’t make any difference. The same “orange” Ukrainian nationalist group that is in power now will remain in power. Again, what do Donetsk and Lugansk have to have from presidential or parliamentary elections? The answer is nothing. They don’t have enough votes to put their own government into power, especially with Crimea now gone. This idea that new elections will somehow benefit them is absurd.
Why does the election have to benefit them? It should be enough that they are able to vote in a free and fair election - which is a courtesy that Donetsk and Lugansk aren’t extending to their opponents.
What do the people of Texas and Alaska gain from the 2012 Presidential Election? They gain absolutely nothing. The same people who are in power now will be in power then. Whether Obama or whoever becomes president, it won’t make any difference. The same “blue” Democratic group that is in power now will remain in power. Again, what do Texas and Alaska have to gain from presidential elections? The answer is nothing. They don’t have enough votes to put their own government into power.
That’s simply untrue. The government of Ukraine isn’t a winner take all presidency. Eastern Ukraine would definitely select members of parliament and could very easily have people in a coalition government.
Meanwhile, what do the people in Eastern Ukraine who wish to stay unified get from a kangaroo referendum with no voter lists, photocopies for “official” ballots, and no neutral observers? Worse than nothing.
Have you ever heard of the term " gerrymandering"? It is the process whereby a party attempts to pick the borders of an electoral area in such a manner as to ensure a majority for its position.
Draw the borders creatively enough, and you can ensure a majority for just about any result.
Now, in my opinion, the result of the so-called “referendums” are probably the result of good old Soviet-style “voting”. But let’s assume, purely for the sake of argument, that they were free and fair … within the chosen areas. Picking and choosing specific areas to hold referendums is an obvious example of gerrymandering in action. Make the areas small enough and some are bound to contain a majority in favour of whatever. When that “whatever” is a choice of what country to be, this process, taken to its logical extreme, results in an unworkable mess - a patch-work of areas voting one way or another. If the boundaries of the country are not fixed, what about the boundaries of an Oblast? Why not my town? If my village can get a majority for Ukraine, can it seperate back again from Donetsk? If not, why not?
We saw something of the same nature threatened in Canada when Quebec was considering seperation … some areas (Montreal, the far North) threatened seperation from Quebec - creating an unworkable patch-work.
This is exactly why such referenda are a stupid idea, and are only being encouraged by Russia for one purpose - to harm Ukraine and in the process, carve off as much as it can for itself. It is purely predatory.
The hastily thrown together, unconstitutional election with no official voter rolls, no monitors and an ambiguously worded proposition = not democracy. How anyone can here can support it is mind boggling.
Again, this isn’t about “eastern Ukraine,” it’s about Donetsk and Lugansk, two specific regions. These regions, as well as the whole eastern Ukraine, already have representatives in parliament from the last election. What has it gotten them? This parliamentary representation didn’t prevent an “anti-terrorist operation” from being launched against them by the Kiev government, which is dominated by orange nationalists.
Everyone understands that the referendums were far from perfect procedurally, but that’s beside the point. The point was to show that there is a large amount of support for federalization and/or separatism in Donetsk and Lugansk, and they definitely did do that.
I am not arguing that these referendums were valid. They were ultimately illegitimate due to the circumstances in which they were held - lack of voting stations, controls, etc. However, the idea of holding such referendums itself is not illegitimate, as demonstrated by the fact that large numbers of people chose to participate. Those people chose to participate in this thing to send a message to Kiev - that they are many, not a few. And keep in mind that the main reason they weren’t able to organize a proper referendum was that Kiev was actively trying to prevent it.
This is a truly bizzare and circular argument. An admittedly uncontrolled referendum is legitimate, because lots of people participated it it - even though the fact that it is uncontrolled means that no-one has any real idea how many?
By that definition, any referendum, no matter how crooked, is “legitimate”.
Oh, and you did not address any of the points I made.
Well, just four years ago, a former governor of Donetsk named Viktor Yanukovych was elected president, so it’s not like Donetsk is doomed to have presidents that don’t represent its interests.
What they have to gain is democracy, peace, stability, and rule of law. To extend the analogy Bautista used, my state of Kentucky gained nothing from the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Should it have refused to participate and seceded? If it did, the Democrat-leaning Lousiville metro area would surely secede from the independent Kentucky. Then, the tony East Louisville area would surely secede from the independent Louisville. Then, the Jeffersontown neighborhood would surely secede from the independent East Louisville, until, what, everyone is guaranteed to be represented by the guy he voted for? That’s a reciple for chaos and war, as the U.S. became aware of during the 1860s. And it’s not democracy.