|
|
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.
And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons.
One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited.
|
On March 15 2014 02:08 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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited.
We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them
If the people want more power let them vote on it.
If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it.
|
On March 15 2014 02:08 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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited.
Either you're incredibly ignorant or you're lying. Read the thread before you post.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:08 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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them If the people want more power let them vote on it. If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it.
I admit that neither you nor I know for sure what people in Crimea want.
I just want to say that so many things changed in Ukraine over the past month that talking about keeping status quo is kinda naive.
|
On March 15 2014 02:14 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them If the people want more power let them vote on it. If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it. I admit that neither you nor I know for sure what people in Crimea want. I just want to say that so many things changed in Ukraine over the past month that talking about keeping status quo is kinda naive.
I have no clue what there thinking true. But why are we not asking them? because right now they are not being asked.
|
On March 15 2014 02:06 Gorsameth 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. 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.
I don't think you are quite right about 0 options to prevent it, as far as I understood. It's option one join Russia, option two we get more autonomy and the ability to hold this referendum again in the future, should we choose to.
I could be wrong, if so I would appreciate if someone posts something concrete and not hearsay.
|
On March 15 2014 02:08 MikeMM wrote:
One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited.
You know except that actually never happened. The law that was proposed to change the status of the Russian language was rejected.
|
On March 15 2014 02:14 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them If the people want more power let them vote on it. If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it. I admit that neither you nor I know for sure what people in Crimea want. I just want to say that so many things changed in Ukraine over the past month that talking about keeping status quo is kinda naive.
That's nonsense. Admit it, you tried to claim that the referendum is a legitimate way of assessing what the people of Crimea want. We said that the referendum is biased, and one of the ways in which it's biased is that it only gives `join Russia' or `become autonomous so our govt. can join Russia' options. There is no option for the people of Crimea to say `we are happy to be Ukrainian.' So how could we possibly know if the people of Crimea want to be Ukrainian? We cannot.
Not only is it irrelevant what you're saying about the status quo, you've been caught spreading misinformation and yet you don't admit it like a man.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 02:13 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:08 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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. Either you're incredibly ignorant or you're lying. Read the thread before you post.
I gather that you speak russian a little so here is a link for you
http://russian.rt.com/article/22863
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 02:17 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:14 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[quote]
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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them If the people want more power let them vote on it. If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it. I admit that neither you nor I know for sure what people in Crimea want. I just want to say that so many things changed in Ukraine over the past month that talking about keeping status quo is kinda naive. That's nonsense. Admit it, you tried to claim that the referendum is a legitimate way of assessing what the people of Crimea want. We said that the referendum is biased, and one of the ways in which it's biased is that it only gives `join Russia' or `become autonomous so our govt. can join Russia' options. There is no option for the people of Crimea to say `we are happy to be Ukrainian.' So how could we possibly know if the people of Crimea want to be Ukrainian? We cannot. Not only is it irrelevant what you're saying about the status quo, you've been caught spreading misinformation and yet you don't admit it like a man.
I have written many times status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine.
If you chose to interpret this part differently from me so be it.
I still think that my interpretation is correct.
|
On March 15 2014 02:17 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. Either you're incredibly ignorant or you're lying. Read the thread before you post. I gather that you speak russian a little so here is a link for you http://russian.rt.com/article/22863
RT forgot the part where that law was revoked :
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation_on_languages_in_Ukraine#Proposals_for_repeal_and_revision)
[..]
After urgently ordering a working group to draft a replacement law on February 27, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov vetoed the repeal bill on 28 February. At that time, Russian retained the status of regional language in 13 of the 27 regions of Ukraine, those in which Russians make up 10% or more of the population.[...]
|
On March 15 2014 02:17 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:14 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[quote]
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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them If the people want more power let them vote on it. If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it. I admit that neither you nor I know for sure what people in Crimea want. I just want to say that so many things changed in Ukraine over the past month that talking about keeping status quo is kinda naive. That's nonsense. Admit it, you tried to claim that the referendum is a legitimate way of assessing what the people of Crimea want. We said that the referendum is biased, and one of the ways in which it's biased is that it only gives `join Russia' or `become autonomous so our govt. can join Russia' options. There is no option for the people of Crimea to say `we are happy to be Ukrainian.' So how could we possibly know if the people of Crimea want to be Ukrainian? We cannot. Not only is it irrelevant what you're saying about the status quo, you've been caught spreading misinformation and yet you don't admit it like a man.
Once again there is an option to say we are happy to be part of Ukrainia, it is just that the Crimea can hold this referendum again in the future, and people can say once again they are happy to be part of Ukrania if they so desire.
Is this not correct?
|
On March 15 2014 02:17 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. Either you're incredibly ignorant or you're lying. Read the thread before you post. I gather that you speak russian a little so here is a link for you http://russian.rt.com/article/22863
Nice article, shame it does not say what happened after Rada presented the bill to be signed by Turchynov. News flash for you: he did not sign the bill.
|
On March 15 2014 02:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:08 MikeMM wrote:
One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited.
You know except that actually never happened. The law that was proposed to change the status of the Russian language was rejected.
Well that's half true it passed through Rada, and needed to be ratified by the Prime Minister, however this law sparked numerous riots in the Eastern Ukraine, and he didn't sign it.
|
On March 15 2014 02:22 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:17 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 02:14 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[quote]
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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them If the people want more power let them vote on it. If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it. I admit that neither you nor I know for sure what people in Crimea want. I just want to say that so many things changed in Ukraine over the past month that talking about keeping status quo is kinda naive. That's nonsense. Admit it, you tried to claim that the referendum is a legitimate way of assessing what the people of Crimea want. We said that the referendum is biased, and one of the ways in which it's biased is that it only gives `join Russia' or `become autonomous so our govt. can join Russia' options. There is no option for the people of Crimea to say `we are happy to be Ukrainian.' So how could we possibly know if the people of Crimea want to be Ukrainian? We cannot. Not only is it irrelevant what you're saying about the status quo, you've been caught spreading misinformation and yet you don't admit it like a man. Once again there is an option to say we are happy to be part of Ukrainia, it is just that the Crimea can hold this referendum again in the future, and people can say once again they are happy to be part of Ukrania if they so desire. Is this not correct?
Option 1)join Russia
Option 2) revert to 1992 constitution which gives more power to the Crimea government. Including the power to leave the Ukraine.
There is no option 3.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 15 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 01:46 oo_Wonderful_oo 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. 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.
Well, US already ignored UNSC decisions in 1999.
So, i don't think there is a one single reason to give spot to Canada.
Even if it's going to be discussed in 100 years or something like that.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On March 15 2014 02:23 Roman666 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:17 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 02:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[quote]
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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. Either you're incredibly ignorant or you're lying. Read the thread before you post. I gather that you speak russian a little so here is a link for you http://russian.rt.com/article/22863 Nice article, shame it does not say what happened after Rada presented the bill to be signed by Turchynov. News flash for you: he did not sign the bill.
I didnt know it wasnt signed. My bad then.
|
On March 15 2014 02:17 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. Either you're incredibly ignorant or you're lying. Read the thread before you post. I gather that you speak russian a little so here is a link for you http://russian.rt.com/article/22863
I do, so here's (an English language) article from a Russian news source showing that the law never came into power: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/721537
|
On March 15 2014 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:22 kukarachaa wrote:On March 15 2014 02:17 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 15 2014 02:14 MikeMM wrote:On March 15 2014 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 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:
[quote]
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. And I should add that status quo is unclear term because of many reasons. One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited. We dont know what the Crimea wants because we are not asking them If the people want more power let them vote on it. If they want things to stay the way to are let them vote on it. I admit that neither you nor I know for sure what people in Crimea want. I just want to say that so many things changed in Ukraine over the past month that talking about keeping status quo is kinda naive. That's nonsense. Admit it, you tried to claim that the referendum is a legitimate way of assessing what the people of Crimea want. We said that the referendum is biased, and one of the ways in which it's biased is that it only gives `join Russia' or `become autonomous so our govt. can join Russia' options. There is no option for the people of Crimea to say `we are happy to be Ukrainian.' So how could we possibly know if the people of Crimea want to be Ukrainian? We cannot. Not only is it irrelevant what you're saying about the status quo, you've been caught spreading misinformation and yet you don't admit it like a man. Once again there is an option to say we are happy to be part of Ukrainia, it is just that the Crimea can hold this referendum again in the future, and people can say once again they are happy to be part of Ukrania if they so desire. Is this not correct? Option 1)join Russia Option 2) revert to 1992 constitution which gives more power to the Crimea government. Including the power to leave the Ukraine. There is no option 3.
Ok so the power to leave Ukraine, how would that be organized do you know? If its the power to hold another referendum in the future I have no problems with that. If its only up to the governing body, that would be atrocious.
|
On March 15 2014 02:24 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:17 Nyxisto wrote:On March 15 2014 02:08 MikeMM wrote:
One of them is that just recently Russian language was one of two state languages in Crimea but new government in Kiev heavily limited use of Russian language. So Crimea doesn’t want that status quo where use of Russian language is heavily limited.
You know except that actually never happened. The law that was proposed to change the status of the Russian language was rejected. Well that's half true it passed through Rada, and needed to be ratified by the Prime Minister, however this law sparked numerous riots in the Eastern Ukraine, and he didn't sign it.
Doesn't really matter.
Russian guy is against a fair referendum since current referendum is "fair enough, ppl too stupid to understand status quo anyway", links russian state media as a source, telling us how he's an adult and in no way influenced by propaganda.
Guess what, he's just another victim. I start to think that Wonderful is the only russian (including serbs) who actually seems to be at least reserved and doesn't gobble up everything a fricking state-controlled mediastation spits at them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
