On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following:
With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum.
It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline.
IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle.
As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision.
There were photos of troops watching the ballot boxes. Also, in at least one location they were using clear boxes and different coloured paper, so you could see who was voting for what.
On March 19 2014 02:17 myminerals wrote: Ukraininan government collecting money now to support recent enlisting by cutting social benefits, hilarious.
how is it hilarious that a nation being invaded has to cut social benefits to deal with the invasion? sounds more like tragic to me.
Sounds more like the junta is stealing from the people so that they can fund their personal militia's.
This so called national guard looks fit only to terrorize local citizen's, with this kind of training and equipment they could hardly do anything else. Arming the thugs from the street that set fire to the capitol and brought them to power, nobody is surprised.
On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following:
With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum.
It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline.
IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle.
As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision.
There were photos of troops watching the ballot boxes. Also, in at least one location they were using clear boxes and different coloured paper, so you could see who was voting for what.
It's ok for them to watch because there are no cops. And i don't think that in other countries cops aren't watching ballot boxes.
On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following:
With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum.
It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline.
IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle.
As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision.
There were photos of troops watching the ballot boxes. Also, in at least one location they were using clear boxes and different coloured paper, so you could see who was voting for what.
It's ok for them to watch because there are no cops. And i don't think that in other countries cops aren't watching ballot boxes.
On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following:
With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum.
It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline.
IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle.
As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision.
There were photos of troops watching the ballot boxes. Also, in at least one location they were using clear boxes and different coloured paper, so you could see who was voting for what.
It's ok for them to watch because there are no cops. And i don't think that in other countries cops aren't watching ballot boxes.
There are plenty of cops in the local area; I don't think the police were disbanded, so they should have handled it. Also, you could have gotten neutral observors to watch things instead of Russian troops. Given that it's an obviously invalid referendum, please stop defending it.
Around here cops don't watch the ballot boxes, there's one outside in case there's trouble or something, or maybe just because the police union wants to get the money from working there. The ballot boxes are watched by various local citizens who work on elections.
On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following:
With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum.
It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline.
IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle.
As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision.
There were photos of troops watching the ballot boxes. Also, in at least one location they were using clear boxes and different coloured paper, so you could see who was voting for what.
It's ok for them to watch because there are no cops. And i don't think that in other countries cops aren't watching ballot boxes.
I'll be honest, it's probably irrelevant because I think we all know that the people would of voted in favour of joining Russia. For what it is worth though, we don't have cops watch elections here. It is mostly done by volunteers.
This so called national guard looks fit only to terrorize local citizen's, with this kind of training and equipment they could hardly do anything else. Arming the thugs from the street that set fire to the capitol and brought them to power, nobody is surprised.
You mean they are doing the exact same thing the Croats had to do when some 'local self defense units' came to 'liberate them' from 'fascist junta'? Not everyone starts the game with a fully formed army and a one party state loyal to a single leader bent on creating an empire based on race.
On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following:
With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum.
It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline.
IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle.
As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision.
There were photos of troops watching the ballot boxes. Also, in at least one location they were using clear boxes and different coloured paper, so you could see who was voting for what.
It's ok for them to watch because there are no cops. And i don't think that in other countries cops aren't watching ballot boxes.
I'll be honest, it's probably irrelevant because I think we all know that the people would of voted in favour of joining Russia. For what it is worth though, we don't have cops watch elections here. It is mostly done by volunteers.
Here are volunteers, spectators from parties and 2-3 cops are always on each sector just for safety. Usually there are same cops who just work in schools/other buildings where sectors are located. Something like that.
On March 19 2014 02:34 zlefin wrote: There are plenty of cops in the local area; I don't think the police were disbanded, so they should have handled it. Also, you could have gotten neutral observors to watch things instead of Russian troops. Given that it's an obviously invalid referendum, please stop defending it.
Around here cops don't watch the ballot boxes, there's one outside in case there's trouble or something, or maybe just because the police union wants to get the money from working there. The ballot boxes are watched by various local citizens who work on elections.
On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following:
With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum.
It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline.
IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle.
As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision.
There were photos of troops watching the ballot boxes. Also, in at least one location they were using clear boxes and different coloured paper, so you could see who was voting for what.
It's ok for them to watch because there are no cops. And i don't think that in other countries cops aren't watching ballot boxes.
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Some basic historical and cultural knowledge of the region suffices to establish this very elementary fact. It is not due to concerns of proper procedure that the accuracy of this referendum is being disputed. It is because there are no other means by which one can attack Russia without appearing to attack the concept of self-determination and popular sovereignty.
It is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place.
False antecedent leads to false consequence. History and cultural doesn't make national identity, rather national identity influences culture and history. What was does not predetermine what always is, nations rise and fall and although there is a considerable history between russia and crimea not all of it is good from the point of view of crimeans. And continued russian influence in the area is only from military bases in the area, in order for russia to still hold a wet port all year round. Would you annex parts of japan to the US due to massive military presence tangential history? The US holds many cultures perhaps break the US based on cultural and historical lines, you can easily weave different threads for different sections of the US, easily breaking up the west, midwest, south, colonies and past the appalachian as all different on some level historically and culturally. You could easily break russia into 3 parts on cultural and historical divides as well. History and culture does not make national identity.
Before I will allow overt philosophising about the relationship between "history" and "national identity", I would like to be satisfied that the person who is lecturing me on these subjects has some idea of basic history. I would like to know what is meant by "there is a considerable history between russia and crimea not all of it is good from the point of view of crimeans."
I do not see the relevance of the US-Japan analogy; Russian history in the Crimea was not tangential. Crimea was the crib of Russia's emergence from barbarism. It was where Vladimir the Great converted to Orthodox Christianity. It was the site of Russia's first contact with Eastern Roman Civilisation long before the Mongol incursions turned the peninsula into an Mongolian satrapy, and later an Ottoman dependency. It was not some latter-day "American trans-appalachian" territory. Its place in Russian history is far more comparable to that of Plymouth Colony.
This so called national guard looks fit only to terrorize local citizen's, with this kind of training and equipment they could hardly do anything else. Arming the thugs from the street that set fire to the capitol and brought them to power, nobody is surprised.
You mean they are doing the exact same thing the Croats had to do when some 'local self defense units' came to 'liberate them' from 'fascist junta'? Not everyone starts the game with a fully formed army and a one party state loyal to a single leader bent on creating an empire based on race.
At least the Croats elected their government. A non-elected coup-imposed government has no right spending taxpayer money funding paramilitary organization's, let alone arming right-wing extremists.
This so called national guard looks fit only to terrorize local citizen's, with this kind of training and equipment they could hardly do anything else. Arming the thugs from the street that set fire to the capitol and brought them to power, nobody is surprised.
You mean they are doing the exact same thing the Croats had to do when some 'local self defense units' came to 'liberate them' from 'fascist junta'? Not everyone starts the game with a fully formed army and a one party state loyal to a single leader bent on creating an empire based on race.
heh, you brought a nice comparison. At start of our war we were outmanned and outgunned 1:25 and there was a guns embargo on whole of Yugoslavia, not to mention UK leadership at the time hoped Yugoslav military would "settle" the problem fast so Europe could return to "stability". I am sure Ukraine has better odds than that.
This so called national guard looks fit only to terrorize local citizen's, with this kind of training and equipment they could hardly do anything else. Arming the thugs from the street that set fire to the capitol and brought them to power, nobody is surprised.
You mean they are doing the exact same thing the Croats had to do when some 'local self defense units' came to 'liberate them' from 'fascist junta'? Not everyone starts the game with a fully formed army and a one party state loyal to a single leader bent on creating an empire based on race.
At least the Croats elected their government. A non-elected coup-imposed government has no right spending taxpayer money funding paramilitary organization's, let alone arming right-wing extremists.
Yes, moving the date of the referendum up from May to late and then mid March was smart, otherwise youd have one less talking point.
On March 19 2014 01:48 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: Ukrainian geodesist-soldier was shot while sturm of cartographic military base by russians. Possibly with sniper rifle.
So this morning, Putin signs a piece of paper saying that Crimea is now part of Russia, and a few hours later Ukrainian soldiers are being fired at in their own bases.
I am often one to look at things from the other point of view and I have certainly criticized bother Europe and America enough, but Russia is absolutely in the wrong here and they need to be put in their place. I don't care how much it costs our bankers or how much it raises our fuel prices, we (the UK) signed a treaty saying that we would protect Ukraine if needed, and we need to stick to our promise.
Well mate, I wish you the best of luck getting anywhere without Uncle Sam. Sadly, toy poodles need a wolf if they're going to think of trying to deal with a bear.
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Some basic historical and cultural knowledge of the region suffices to establish this very elementary fact. It is not due to concerns of proper procedure that the accuracy of this referendum is being disputed. It is because there are no other means by which one can attack Russia without appearing to attack the concept of self-determination and popular sovereignty.
It is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place.
Ok, we solved the problem. Elections are really expensive, we just always ask MoltkeWarding instead, because he knows what a majority wants without ever asking them.
Nope, the question is the balance of probabilities. A child is reaching for a cookie jar, and one party claims that this proves that the child likes cookies. The other party claims that this is not proof, because the child's actions had been manipulated by not having been fed lunch.
From what I can find, the treaty doesn't require defensive military support for Ukraine. I wish we kept a stockpile of arms handy that we could give to support nations without getting our own troops involved.
Also, shouldn't the sanctions specify Putin himself, since he's the one really breaking the rules here? We need some real sanctions on Russia.
I wasn't that fond of cookies as a child, but I'd eat them if I was hungry. So I fail to see your point.
Because we had some nice conversations earlier.. I won't go into it, i just urge you to google what was cited as "international observer". I specifically did not say "who", but "what".
On March 19 2014 01:48 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: Ukrainian geodesist-soldier was shot while sturm of cartographic military base by russians. Possibly with sniper rifle.
So this morning, Putin signs a piece of paper saying that Crimea is now part of Russia, and a few hours later Ukrainian soldiers are being fired at in their own bases.
I am often one to look at things from the other point of view and I have certainly criticized bother Europe and America enough, but Russia is absolutely in the wrong here and they need to be put in their place. I don't care how much it costs our bankers or how much it raises our fuel prices, we (the UK) signed a treaty saying that we would protect Ukraine if needed, and we need to stick to our promise.
Well mate, I wish you the best of luck getting anywhere without Uncle Sam. Sadly, toy poodles need a wolf if they're going to think of trying to deal with a bear.
Not really. As long as a "Western Power" (UK, France, Germany, Australia, or Canada) sends significant aid and protection to Ukraine, the US will be close behind should shit hit the fan.
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Some basic historical and cultural knowledge of the region suffices to establish this very elementary fact. It is not due to concerns of proper procedure that the accuracy of this referendum is being disputed. It is because there are no other means by which one can attack Russia without appearing to attack the concept of self-determination and popular sovereignty.
It is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place.
Ok, we solved the problem. Elections are really expensive, we just always ask MoltkeWarding instead, because he knows what a majority wants without ever asking them.
Nope, the question is the balance of probabilities. A child is reaching for a cookie jar, and one party claims that this proves that the child likes cookies. The other party claims that this is not proof, because the child's actions had been manipulated by not having been fed lunch.
The point is all of that is irrelevant, because the world has kind of unilaterally agreed that not history, but the legal framework we have created, dictates what we can or can't do. It doesn't matter if my family has owned my neighbors property for centuries, I can't just go there and take it back.
All this really goes to show is that Putin, in addition to being an asshole and a criminal, is also being an idiot; he probably could have gotten Crimea legitimately without getting Russia into any trouble at all. Why engage in war when you can get it for free anyways? That's just idiotic.
EPT
