|
|
wow, some western people and their "moral high ground". interpreting things the way they fit into their own view of the world. it's just disgusting to read.
i think it's funny how there is the claim the crimean referendum is "illegitimate" while the ukrainian government is "legit".
there is a pretty good speech on the topic in the german bundestag by gregor gysi (LINKE). sadly, i didnt't find an english translation. anyway here is the german youtube link
On March 15 2014 01:19 aksfjh wrote:
So, is there any possibility we can remove Russia's permanent UN Security Council seat as a form of punishment for this?
how about we remove vetos? 
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:16 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:08 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:53 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:43 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 00:40 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:36 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Here we go again
There are 2 options on the referendum ballot.
1) is to join Russia
2) is to revert to a Constitution from 2012 which gave Crimea more autonomy. Most importantly it would let them declare themselves a part of Russia.
A declaration the local Crimea government has already made but it was ignored by everyone because they cannot legally do so atm.
Do tell me where the option to keep the current situation is in that?
Its a join Russia now or join later referendum. You wrote option 2 incompletely. you missed quite an important part. Please write it completely and then we will continue discussion. Sorry my Russian in a little rusty. Please enlighten me. If there is an actual option to maintain the status-quo I will gladly admit I am wrong. status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine If you're going to repost that stuff without reading what has already been posted in response, let me repost the counter again too: The 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from [returning to the status quo]. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia. With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say. The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer. Source. I read it and I disagree with it. Its just an opinion of some analyst and you present it as given matter. If people vote to keep status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine Cr goverment wont dare to join Russia since it doesnt have support of citizens. If you disagree, you need to give reasons for it. And this `just an analyst' is pretty much any analyst i.e., expert on international law you can find. You can read the questions yourself. You can read the laws. You know that there is no Status Quo option. And you know the second option gives the Crimean govt. the means to join Russia. So the vote is illegitimate. It doesn't matter if YOU think they dare to join or not, the referendum is void. I disagree because analyst assumes that gov would decide to join Russia. He as easely could have assumed that gov would decide to stay in Ukraine given the fact that people on referendum said so. So why is there no option to maintain the current situation. Why? If they really wanted to offer an option for the Crimea people to stay with Ukraine why is there no choice that guarantees that beyond all doubt? Because they want more leverage should they stay in Ukraine, you want them to stay status quo, while the whole situation in Ukraine significantly changed.
Exactly.
|
On March 15 2014 01:20 kukarachaa wrote:
Also Ukraine has stated that it will consider referendums such as this in other areas outside of Crimea not legal, and won't recognize them. So whether Russian troops are present or not, is not a factor for them.
If Florida votes to secede that does not mean it is legal or accepted.
|
On March 15 2014 01:19 aksfjh wrote:
So, is there any possibility we can remove Russia's permanent UN Security Council seat as a form of punishment for this?
None. But even if there was I doubt the US would want to set a precedent LOL.
|
On March 15 2014 01:21 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:16 kukarachaa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:08 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:53 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:43 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 00:40 MikeMM wrote:
[quote]
You wrote option 2 incompletely. you missed quite an important part. Please write it completely and then we will continue discussion. Sorry my Russian in a little rusty. Please enlighten me. If there is an actual option to maintain the status-quo I will gladly admit I am wrong. status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine If you're going to repost that stuff without reading what has already been posted in response, let me repost the counter again too: The 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from [returning to the status quo]. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia. With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say. The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer. Source. I read it and I disagree with it. Its just an opinion of some analyst and you present it as given matter. If people vote to keep status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine Cr goverment wont dare to join Russia since it doesnt have support of citizens. If you disagree, you need to give reasons for it. And this `just an analyst' is pretty much any analyst i.e., expert on international law you can find. You can read the questions yourself. You can read the laws. You know that there is no Status Quo option. And you know the second option gives the Crimean govt. the means to join Russia. So the vote is illegitimate. It doesn't matter if YOU think they dare to join or not, the referendum is void. I disagree because analyst assumes that gov would decide to join Russia. He as easely could have assumed that gov would decide to stay in Ukraine given the fact that people on referendum said so. So why is there no option to maintain the current situation. Why? If they really wanted to offer an option for the Crimea people to stay with Ukraine why is there no choice that guarantees that beyond all doubt? Because they want more leverage should they stay in Ukraine, you want them to stay status quo, while the whole situation in Ukraine significantly changed. Exactly.
Again why not 3 options, Join Russia, more independence, status-quo.
Why is it needed for there to be only 2 options. Both of which can or will lead to joining Russia?
You still haven't answer why a status quo option is impossible.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:19 aksfjh wrote:
So, is there any possibility we can remove Russia's permanent UN Security Council seat as a form of punishment for this?
I lol'd hard here.
Will you go with us, mr.American?
|
On March 15 2014 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:21 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:16 kukarachaa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:08 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:53 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:43 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Sorry my Russian in a little rusty. Please enlighten me. If there is an actual option to maintain the status-quo I will gladly admit I am wrong. status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine If you're going to repost that stuff without reading what has already been posted in response, let me repost the counter again too: The 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from [returning to the status quo]. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia. With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say. The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer. Source. I read it and I disagree with it. Its just an opinion of some analyst and you present it as given matter. If people vote to keep status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine Cr goverment wont dare to join Russia since it doesnt have support of citizens. If you disagree, you need to give reasons for it. And this `just an analyst' is pretty much any analyst i.e., expert on international law you can find. You can read the questions yourself. You can read the laws. You know that there is no Status Quo option. And you know the second option gives the Crimean govt. the means to join Russia. So the vote is illegitimate. It doesn't matter if YOU think they dare to join or not, the referendum is void. I disagree because analyst assumes that gov would decide to join Russia. He as easely could have assumed that gov would decide to stay in Ukraine given the fact that people on referendum said so. So why is there no option to maintain the current situation. Why? If they really wanted to offer an option for the Crimea people to stay with Ukraine why is there no choice that guarantees that beyond all doubt? Because they want more leverage should they stay in Ukraine, you want them to stay status quo, while the whole situation in Ukraine significantly changed. Exactly. Again why not 3 options, Join Russia, more independence, status-quo. Why is it needed for there to be only 2 options. Both of which can or will lead to joining Russia? You still haven't answer why a status quo option is impossible.
Because its a power grab, they are taking advantage of the situation. It sucks but that happens all the time.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:21 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:16 kukarachaa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:08 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:53 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:43 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Sorry my Russian in a little rusty. Please enlighten me. If there is an actual option to maintain the status-quo I will gladly admit I am wrong. status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine If you're going to repost that stuff without reading what has already been posted in response, let me repost the counter again too: The 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from [returning to the status quo]. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia. With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say. The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer. Source. I read it and I disagree with it. Its just an opinion of some analyst and you present it as given matter. If people vote to keep status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine Cr goverment wont dare to join Russia since it doesnt have support of citizens. If you disagree, you need to give reasons for it. And this `just an analyst' is pretty much any analyst i.e., expert on international law you can find. You can read the questions yourself. You can read the laws. You know that there is no Status Quo option. And you know the second option gives the Crimean govt. the means to join Russia. So the vote is illegitimate. It doesn't matter if YOU think they dare to join or not, the referendum is void. I disagree because analyst assumes that gov would decide to join Russia. He as easely could have assumed that gov would decide to stay in Ukraine given the fact that people on referendum said so. So why is there no option to maintain the current situation. Why? If they really wanted to offer an option for the Crimea people to stay with Ukraine why is there no choice that guarantees that beyond all doubt? Because they want more leverage should they stay in Ukraine, you want them to stay status quo, while the whole situation in Ukraine significantly changed. Exactly. Again why not 3 options, Join Russia, more independence, status-quo. Why is it needed for there to be only 2 options. Both of which can or will lead to joining Russia? You still haven't answer why a status quo option is impossible.
Maybe because status quo in current situation is unclear term.
One may think that status quo means Yanukovich is president again.
|
On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed.
What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia.
|
On March 15 2014 01:29 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:21 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:16 kukarachaa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:08 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:53 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:43 MikeMM wrote:
[quote]
status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine If you're going to repost that stuff without reading what has already been posted in response, let me repost the counter again too: The 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from [returning to the status quo]. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia. With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say. The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer. Source. I read it and I disagree with it. Its just an opinion of some analyst and you present it as given matter. If people vote to keep status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine Cr goverment wont dare to join Russia since it doesnt have support of citizens. If you disagree, you need to give reasons for it. And this `just an analyst' is pretty much any analyst i.e., expert on international law you can find. You can read the questions yourself. You can read the laws. You know that there is no Status Quo option. And you know the second option gives the Crimean govt. the means to join Russia. So the vote is illegitimate. It doesn't matter if YOU think they dare to join or not, the referendum is void. I disagree because analyst assumes that gov would decide to join Russia. He as easely could have assumed that gov would decide to stay in Ukraine given the fact that people on referendum said so. So why is there no option to maintain the current situation. Why? If they really wanted to offer an option for the Crimea people to stay with Ukraine why is there no choice that guarantees that beyond all doubt? Because they want more leverage should they stay in Ukraine, you want them to stay status quo, while the whole situation in Ukraine significantly changed. Exactly. Again why not 3 options, Join Russia, more independence, status-quo. Why is it needed for there to be only 2 options. Both of which can or will lead to joining Russia? You still haven't answer why a status quo option is impossible. Maybe because status quo in current situation is unclear term. One may think that status quo means Yanukovich is president again.
Ah so by your logic, if Croatia ever gets into a government crisis it means Italy can send its troops into Istria (that is double language area and has many people of Italian origin) and then they can make a referendum there that gives two options of removing Istria from Croatia, or joining Istria to Italy? Oh and Italy had this part under its rule in past just like Russia had Crimea so that is double OK for Italy?
Putin has you on some crazy drugs over there, maybe you should share some with the rest of us?
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed. What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia.
Not sure if serious.
Go, party hard in West with UK and France, you don't need UN for it.
UN work for whole world, and China and Russia in 90% have same position in UN.
And i don't know if you really know what UNSC is and how was it formed.
Want to change history again?
|
On March 15 2014 01:46 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:36 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed. What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia. Not sure if serious. Go, party hard in West with UK and France, you don't need UN for it. UN work for whole world, and China and Russia in 90% have same position in UN. And i don't know if you really know what UNSC is and how was it formed. Want to change history again?
As you're rightly pointing out Russia is only sitting there because it's a WW II victory power. Looking at Russias current economic and political situation frankly it makes more sense to give the spot to Canada. Also regarding Russias military adventures China is increasingly distancing itself from Russia, as they already did in 2008.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed. What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia.
West wanted to start bombing Syria Russia found diplomatic solution.
Guys you are so biased.
|
On March 15 2014 01:55 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:36 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed. What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia. West wanted to start bombing Syria Russia found diplomatic solution. Guys you are so biased.
A "diplomatic solution"? You consider the Syria issue to be solved?
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:39 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:29 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:21 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:16 kukarachaa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:08 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:53 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
If you're going to repost that stuff without reading what has already been posted in response, let me repost the counter again too:
[quote] I read it and I disagree with it. Its just an opinion of some analyst and you present it as given matter. If people vote to keep status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine Cr goverment wont dare to join Russia since it doesnt have support of citizens. If you disagree, you need to give reasons for it. And this `just an analyst' is pretty much any analyst i.e., expert on international law you can find. You can read the questions yourself. You can read the laws. You know that there is no Status Quo option. And you know the second option gives the Crimean govt. the means to join Russia. So the vote is illegitimate. It doesn't matter if YOU think they dare to join or not, the referendum is void. I disagree because analyst assumes that gov would decide to join Russia. He as easely could have assumed that gov would decide to stay in Ukraine given the fact that people on referendum said so. So why is there no option to maintain the current situation. Why? If they really wanted to offer an option for the Crimea people to stay with Ukraine why is there no choice that guarantees that beyond all doubt? Because they want more leverage should they stay in Ukraine, you want them to stay status quo, while the whole situation in Ukraine significantly changed. Exactly. Again why not 3 options, Join Russia, more independence, status-quo. Why is it needed for there to be only 2 options. Both of which can or will lead to joining Russia? You still haven't answer why a status quo option is impossible. Maybe because status quo in current situation is unclear term. One may think that status quo means Yanukovich is president again. Ah so by your logic, if Croatia ever gets into a government crisis it means Italy can send its troops into Istria (that is double language area and has many people of Italian origin) and then they can make a referendum there that gives two options of removing Istria from Croatia, or joining Istria to Italy? Oh and Italy had this part under its rule in past just like Russia had Crimea so that is double OK for Italy? Putin has you on some crazy drugs over there, maybe you should share some with the rest of us?
Serbia did go into crisis and as a result EU divided Kosovo from Serbia.
And the part about drugs is cleraly a personal offence. And moderatrs strongly suggested to avoid them.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:59 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:55 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:36 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed. What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia. West wanted to start bombing Syria Russia found diplomatic solution. Guys you are so biased. A "diplomatic solution"? You consider the Syria issue to be solved?
I think we avoided worsening of the situation.
|
On March 15 2014 02:00 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:59 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:55 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:36 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed. What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia. West wanted to start bombing Syria Russia found diplomatic solution. Guys you are so biased. A "diplomatic solution"? You consider the Syria issue to be solved? I think we avoided worsening of the situation.
What would a "worse" situation look like in Syria?
|
And the thread is filled with whatsaboutism and insults once again...
|
On March 15 2014 02:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:00 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:59 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:55 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:36 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2014 01:20 Saryph wrote:
No, and honestly I hope it doesn't get to the point where that would ever be needed. What's the point of having them on there at this point? The only thing they use the UN for is to block "Western" action/policy. They CERTAINLY don't use the channel to find diplomatic solutions to problems they have. They just roll tanks into neighboring countries and "persuade" portions to join Mother Russia. West wanted to start bombing Syria Russia found diplomatic solution. Guys you are so biased. A "diplomatic solution"? You consider the Syria issue to be solved? I think we avoided worsening of the situation. What would a "worse" situation look like in Syria?
Russia losing ports in Mediterranean of course. What else?
|
On March 15 2014 01:29 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:21 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:16 kukarachaa wrote:On March 15 2014 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 01:08 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 01:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:53 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 00:43 MikeMM wrote:
[quote]
status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine If you're going to repost that stuff without reading what has already been posted in response, let me repost the counter again too: The 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from [returning to the status quo]. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia. With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say. The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer. Source. I read it and I disagree with it. Its just an opinion of some analyst and you present it as given matter. If people vote to keep status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine Cr goverment wont dare to join Russia since it doesnt have support of citizens. If you disagree, you need to give reasons for it. And this `just an analyst' is pretty much any analyst i.e., expert on international law you can find. You can read the questions yourself. You can read the laws. You know that there is no Status Quo option. And you know the second option gives the Crimean govt. the means to join Russia. So the vote is illegitimate. It doesn't matter if YOU think they dare to join or not, the referendum is void. I disagree because analyst assumes that gov would decide to join Russia. He as easely could have assumed that gov would decide to stay in Ukraine given the fact that people on referendum said so. So why is there no option to maintain the current situation. Why? If they really wanted to offer an option for the Crimea people to stay with Ukraine why is there no choice that guarantees that beyond all doubt? Because they want more leverage should they stay in Ukraine, you want them to stay status quo, while the whole situation in Ukraine significantly changed. Exactly. Again why not 3 options, Join Russia, more independence, status-quo. Why is it needed for there to be only 2 options. Both of which can or will lead to joining Russia? You still haven't answer why a status quo option is impossible. Maybe because status quo in current situation is unclear term. One may think that status quo means Yanukovich is president again.
How about we start with a "Do not chance our constitutions"? Really you dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand the point im trying to make.
They purposefully gave 2 options that allowed Crimea to join Russia and have 0 options that prevent it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
