Ukraine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
Exactly, and personally I don’t buy into the idea that they were endangered in the first place, and the fact that this referendum is happening while Russian troops are on the ground, i.e. during an invasion, is problematic.
Click to expand...
The endangerment of the people only justifies the presence of the military, if that. I don’t think it is being used - nor should it be - to justify the referendum, since it isn’t even clear from what, precisely, it is that Crimea would be separating.

It would seem that this referendum is more a restatement of its desire for autonomy and stability than a separation ‘from’ anything. It appears that Crimea simply does not desire the instability that has taken hold in Ukraine to enter its borders.

If the impetus for a referendum has genuinely arisen from the desire of the majority of people in Crimea, then outsider views concerning what they ‘should’ do have no relevance with regard to answering the question.

Outsiders might have some warrant for asking important questions towards the end of clarifying the issue for them and for the people of Crimea, but I don’t think we have any right to declare what ought to take place.
 
Peter_Plato said:
The endangerment of the people only justifies the presence of the military, if that. I don’t think it is being used - nor should it be - to justify the referendum, since it isn’t even clear from what, precisely, it is that Crimea would be separating.

It would seem that this referendum is more a restatement of its desire for autonomy and stability than a separation ‘from’ anything. It appears that Crimea simply does not desire the instability that has taken hold in Ukraine to enter its borders.

If the impetus for a referendum has genuinely arisen from the desire of the majority of people in Crimea, then outsider views concerning what they ‘should’ do have no relevance with regard to answering the question.

Outsiders might have some warrant for asking important questions towards the end of clarifying the issue for them and for the people of Crimea, but I don’t think we have any right to declare what ought to take place.
Click to expand...
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26481423

Quebec and the separatist movement is a little different. Interesting though.
 
Peter_Plato said:
The endangerment of the people only justifies the presence of the military, if that. I don’t think it is being used - nor should it be - to justify the referendum, since it isn’t even clear from what, precisely, it is that Crimea would be separating.

It would seem that this referendum is more a restatement of its desire for autonomy and stability than a separation ‘from’ anything. It appears that Crimea simply does not desire the instability that has taken hold in Ukraine to enter its borders.

If the impetus for a referendum has genuinely arisen from the desire of the majority of people in Crimea, then outsider views concerning what they ‘should’ do have no relevance with regard to answering the question.

Outsiders might have some warrant for asking important questions towards the end of clarifying the issue for them and for the people of Crimea, but I don’t think we have any right to declare what ought to take place.
Click to expand...
I would agree. I would also surmise that as the entire international community is watching, that if the Crimeans didn’t want Russia involved, i.e. to assist their people, they would soon let the rest of the world know that Russia had come in uninvited and were being threatening.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Another ‘separation’ referendum will likely come up in the Canadian province of Quebec within the year as it has multiple times in the past few decades. Would the Canadian government have a right to ignore the wishes of a majority of people in that province? The issue is a complex one even for a relatively stable country like Canada whose central government has been legitimately elected.

In the case of an ‘installed’ leadership such as is the case in Ukraine, the issue becomes even more contentious.

My point being, that if Quebec has reasonable justification for separation from a stable central government, then surely Crimea has at least as much justification. Of course, this assumes that a fair referendum is the means by which that determination is made.
Click to expand...
What majority, Peter, I live in Montreal, moreover, Quebec could not survive economically, i.e., the amount it receives from the Federal government exceeds the amount it makes in tax revenue (it receives a little over 8 billion dollars in monies while only giving back less than 3). It has the highest debt (per capita) of any provincial government and it takes more than it’s fair share of monies from other Canadians in order to uphold their social utopia and self-entitled ways.
 
pepipop said:
I would agree. I would also surmise that as the entire international community is watching, that if the Crimeans didn’t want Russia involved, i.e. to assist their people, they would soon let the rest of the world know that Russia had come in uninvited and were being threatening.
Click to expand...
A complete farce. But there will be plenty who will be happy to accept Russian seizure of the territory of another country and make excuses for it.

Lots of Crimeans have complained. But the fix is in. Obama has decided to go along with the referendum. Russia will decide who gets to vote and who doesn’t, and Russia will control the ballot count.

Russian annexation of Crimea is a done deal. The big question is what’s next. Likely it will be eastern Ukraine. Then???

Wasn’t it Dostoyevsky who wrote the short story about the crocodile at the party? Everybody knew it was there and that it devoured a guest here and there, but it was just too disconcerting to acknowledge the reality. So the party, and the devouring, went on.
 
josie_L said:
What majority, Peter, I live in Montreal, moreover, Quebec could not survive economically, i.e., the amount it receives from the Federal government exceeds the amount it makes in tax revenue (it receives a little over 8 billion dollars in monies while only giving back less than 3). It has the highest debt (per capita) of any provincial government and it takes more than it’s fair share of monies from other Canadians in order to uphold their social utopia and self-entitled ways.
Click to expand...
This is beside the point, though. I didn’t say there existed a majority who would vote for separation, I asked what you thought ought to happen IF the majority DID vote to separate?

Are you claiming a referendum would be meaningless and not having any legitimacy with regard to the future of the province?

Your facts (above) are all considerations that the voters would be wise to keep in mind when declaring their position in the referendum, but the question remains concerning the rights that distinct cultural groups have within a larger governing polity.

Two questions have not been answered by your post.
  1. Is a referendum a legitimate means for determining the future of a culturally distinct area like Quebec (or Crimea)?
  2. If a referendum is legitimate in Quebec, why isn’t a referendum legitimate in Crimea, given that the interests of the citizens living there are more pressing and more in jeopardy than are those of the people of Quebec?
 
Peter_Plato said:
The endangerment of the people only justifies the presence of the military, if that. I don’t think it is being used - nor should it be - to justify the referendum, since it isn’t even clear from what, precisely, it is that Crimea would be separating.

It would seem that this referendum is more a restatement of its desire for autonomy and stability than a separation ‘from’ anything. It appears that Crimea simply does not desire the instability that has taken hold in Ukraine to enter its borders.

If the impetus for a referendum has genuinely arisen from the desire of the majority of people in Crimea, then outsider views concerning what they ‘should’ do have no relevance with regard to answering the question.

Outsiders might have some warrant for asking important questions towards the end of clarifying the issue for them and for the people of Crimea, but I don’t think we have any right to declare what ought to take place.
Click to expand...
Who installed the new government in the Crimea?
This (Crimea government) is a fake parliament because it was not elected and it was proclaimed under the Russian occupation — the democratic procedure under the guns of a foreign army does not work," said Yaroslav Pylynskyi, director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center, a policy research institute in Kiev.
Click to expand...
“The fact is that the procedure of the change of the government and the parliament in Crimea was under the guns of a foreign army so a fake parliament adopted a fake government,” he said. . . . . .
Click to expand...
In a session not open to the public, the Crimea parliament allegedly appointed Sergei Askyonov as prime minister of Crimea. Askyonov is a member of a small, obscure political group called from the Russian Unity Party, which won too few votes in parliamentary elections in 2012 to win even one seat in Kiev.
Click to expand...
Businessman Alexei Chaly announced he was mayor of Sevastopol, elected he said in a rally Feb. 23 and named chairman of Sevastopol’s executive committee, which did not exist in the city previously. He is running the city and said he is backed by Moscow.
Click to expand...
Chaly then declared he would make sure no one in Crimea voted in national elections. The parliament in Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation on Thursday, setting March 16 as the date for a referendum for voters in Crimea to decide the destiny of the peninsula. There is no provision in the Ukraine Constitution for such a vote.
Click to expand...
All of this is described as legitimate by Putin, and the votes undertaken in Kiev illegitimate. Western nations disagree.
Click to expand...
usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/06/crimea-political-system/6135359/
 
GaryTaylor said:
usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/06/crimea-political-system/6135359/

“The government of Ukraine supplies water and electricity to Crimea and to the Crimean population,” Pylynskyi said. “Also, they will definitely lose almost all the Ukrainian tourism and it is the main source of money in this region.”
Click to expand...
Crimea will probably lose Ukrainian tourism except from eastern Ukraine. But Ukraine won’t cut off the water or electricity because if they did, Russia will cut off the gas to Ukraine. Ukraine does have a fairly significant gas shale deposit. With western help, it might be developed, but since the western elites believe in the suppression of energy development, it probably won’t happen.
 
Peter_Plato said:
This is beside the point, though. I didn’t say there existed a majority who would vote for separation, I asked what you thought ought to happen IF the majority DID vote to separate?

Are you claiming a referendum would be meaningless and not having any legitimacy with regard to the future of the province?

Your facts (above) are all considerations that the voters would be wise to keep in mind when declaring their position in the referendum, but the question remains concerning the rights that distinct cultural groups have within a larger governing polity.

Two questions have not been answered by your post.
  1. Is a referendum a legitimate means for determining the future of a culturally distinct area like Quebec (or Crimea)?
  2. If a referendum is legitimate in Quebec, why isn’t a referendum legitimate in Crimea, given that the interests of the citizens living there are more pressing and more in jeopardy than are those of the people of Quebec?
Click to expand...
Because the government in Crimea is not legitimate (“they” installed a man who in the last electorate received only 4% of the votes), Peter, and because this referendum is taking place under a Russian invasion, what part of that is not apparent???
 
theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/russia-may-face-second-round-sanctions-ukraine

The acting Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, said Kiev was ready to talk to Moscow; it was ready for “co-operation, but not surrender”.

“Mr Putin, tear down this wall,” he said, echoing Ronald Reagan’s demand of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s. “Tear down this wall of intimidation, of military aggression.”

In another unexpectedly bold move, the EU decided to push ahead much faster than predicted with a political pact drawing Ukraine closer to Europe, the initial spark for the crisis last November when the deposed president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the agreement.

Hitherto, the EU has said that Brussels would revive the pact only after elections scheduled for 25 May, once a new government was installed. Merkel and Tusk said the agreement would be split into political and trade sections. The political part could be signed “days or weeks” before the elections, Merkel pledged for the first time.
 
pepipop said:
I didn’t read your original quote properly, I thought it read Putin said there were no Russians in Crimea, hence my response. I missed the word ‘troops’.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I retract the Jedi comment, but there is still the issue of Russia going from claiming no Russian troops in the Crimea to Russian troops being in the Crimea to protect people from a poorly defined bad guy.
 
josie_L said:
Because the government in Crimea is not legitimate (“they” installed a man who in the last electorate received only 4% of the votes), Peter, and because this referendum is taking place under a Russian invasion, what part of that is not apparent???
Click to expand...
How can it be a Russian ‘invasion’. Why are the Crimeans not saying they have been invaded? Why has their government voted to take a referendum of the people to join Russia? The Russians can legally have up to 25,000 troops, in Crimea. How is it an invasion?
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I retract the Jedi comment, but there is still the issue of Russia going from claiming no Russian troops in the Crimea to Russian troops being in the Crimea to protect people from a poorly defined bad guy.
Click to expand...
Let’s just blame that on Western propaganda. :rolleyes:
 
pepipop said:
How can it be a Russian ‘invasion’. Why are the Crimeans not saying they have been invaded? Why has their government voted to take a referendum of the people to join Russia? The Russians can legally have up to 25,000 troops, in Crimea. How is it an invasion?
Click to expand...
Did you not here me say that the new government of Crimea was not even elected by the people and was proclaimed under Russian occupation, moreover, Russian troops are only allowed on military bases, these troops however are barricading Ukrainian soldiers from leaving their bases. . . .etc., how is this not an invasion?
 
josie_L said:
Because the government in Crimea is not legitimate (“they” installed a man who in the last electorate received only 4% of the votes), Peter, and because this referendum is taking place under a Russian invasion, what part of that is not apparent???
Click to expand...
Remember that the current government of Ukraine is not legitimate, either. They seized power from the president who was properly voted into office in an election monitored by multiple nations, and who had agreed to step down later this year.

There are no good guys here.
 
Ridgerunner said:
but since the western elites believe in the suppression of energy development, it probably won’t happen.
Click to expand...
One word…“Keystone” MSN- Poll stated 51% of the US population said the President shouldn’t be criticized, 49% said its OK.

Why does that poll only come up when we are in another mess? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top