The referendum — whoever called it — was illegal on its premise: only the entire country can decide on territorial changes. It was called by a tiny sliver of the "democratically elected" legislature — without there being a quorum. Mere two weeks were given for campaigning — and the invaders promptly stopped rebroadcasts of Ukraine's TV over Crimea, talk about propaganda.
How on earth do you envision a minority population of a country which constitutes a large majority in one area of the country ever being able to detach from it for any reason what so ever (be it feeling threatened, not wanting to go the same way the rest of the country is going, being oppressed or persecuted or just plain wanting a country of their own) if the entirety of the country has to say yes? Seriously ? Are you that deluded in thinking that say tomorrow the basque or the catalan asked for a referendum on detaching the parts of spain in which they have a majority anyone would let them even ask the entire country let alone that the rest of the country would vote to let them go ?... Where is the democracy in the majority always having the power to keep the minority where they want them ?... It's like claiming the US had no rights to declare independence from the British empire unless all of the empire was asked to vote on it... Don't just quote the media... think about the copy before you paste it...
by a tiny sliver of the "democratically elected" legislature
Why do you put the democratically elected in quotes? The entire assembly of crimea was democratically elected in 2010 in elections verified and sanctioned by the Vrhonva Rada which is the Ukranian Assembly in Kiev. No irregularities were reported and everyone who was in that assembly was there for 4 years before this crisis blew... so why the quotes ? Is it maybe because you are buying into the whole "there was no quorum" bull which came from, surprise surprise Leonid Pilunsky a high ranking member of the Qurultay-Rukh which happens to be representing the one faction in crimea that has historical reasons not to join russia since they were deported under Soviet rule to Siberia in the 50's. The crimean Tatars. What would be funny if it weren't so ironic is that a huge majority of the Tatars actually turned up to vote on the referendum... and not only them... the ethnic makeup of crimea is 58.32% Russian, 24.32% Ukrainian and 12.10% Crimean Tatars... the turnout for the vote was way above 80% (verified by OSCE mission representatives from several countries including some from Spain and other EU countries)... which means that ALL the russians voted... and nearly ALL the ukrainians voted... and at least some Tatars voted... and out of all who voted 97% chose to join Russia. You can pretend it didn't happen and you can dream up nonsense like this:
There was pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea, I'll grant you that, but Russia was not sure of the success — or they would not have poured 30 thousands special forces troops into peninsula before the annexation.
but the fact remains that Russia has a sizable nuclear maritime arsenal and significant strategic hardware and interests (oil pipelines and the only non-oceanic military port for it's fleet) in Crimea and if that part of the Ukraine is preparing to secede from it don't you think there was a high probability that the government in Kiev would have intervened if the Russians hadn't beaten them to the punch ? If you think otherwise you are seriously lacking knowledge in the ways things have been done in the past and are still being done in that part of the world.
Wow! great job of sidelining a mountain of explanation by proclaiming it to be propaganda... well done! Fox News would be proud of you... however I thought that since everyone is up in arms about the so called "invasion" of Crimea by the Russians, a word which I recall being used as an excuse quite extensively in the Balkans during the 90's (even tho it was a breakup of a federation thru forced secession from a country so diverse in population it could only end in civil war but was constantly called an "attack" or "invasion" by the mainstream media) I'd add a view on it from another side (and no, I'm neither Russian nor do I think they weren't involved in the powerplay in the Ukraine... only an idiot with that much at stake wouldn't be... but I do think their side had quite a lot of merit on the issue considering the way a absolutely legally and democratically elected government was forced out through violence and subversion and replaced by an openly anti-russian puppet 'government')... So to answer your original question, NO I don't think they (the Americans) would like it, just like a lot of them don't like a lot of things some US states vote on in referendums, but if they are truly democratic then they would respect the decision of 95.8 precent of the people who took the time to vote. The sheer number of "yes, we're outta here votes" so obviously speaks of just how much the Crimean people really wanted to stay in the Ukraine and just how awesome they feel about the 'new government' in Kiev... but your bias is obvious even in the terminology you use... 'staged' by the 'invaders'... NO... the referendum was called by the democratically elected government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea... that's a body of state recognized by the official Ukraine since far before Yanukovic and this crisis... even the new government in Kiev recognizes them as legit... they just don't like the fact that they wouldn't go along with their power-grab and direction towards the EU and NATO... yes, according to the constitution of the Ukraine it is an illegal referendum because the constitution specifies that all of Ukraine has to be in favor... that's like asking the entire UK to let Scotland become independent from it this fall and not just the Scots... that would really be a fair referendum right?... The heart of the matter is the US made a precedent when they let Kosovo declare independence and even went so far as to point at the ruling of the international court in the Hague and saying 'see it's all legit'... that is exactly what the Russians are saying now... 'see it's all legit, the international court said it and you backed it'... and the crazy twist is that the ruling is situation unspecific... it says a majority people can decide to unilaterally declare independence and it is not against international law... no mention of circumstances or special cases or sui generis as the US likes to call the Kosovo debacle.
I forgot to mention that in the scenario you proposed California used to be part of Mexico a bit over 60 years ago and the then ruler of a supernation Mexico and the US both belonged to decided it would be a cool idea to give California away to the US for the express purpose of cutting down on bureaucracy and to have a reason to relocate the unruly asian minorities that were creating unrest (equivalent of the Tatars in the Ukraine)... the only reason Russia agreed to the Crimea remain as part of the Ukraine when the Soviet Union broke up was to make the Ukraine relinquish the 1900 nuclear weapons they held at the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...... the guarantees that in exchange Ukraine territorial integrity would be respected, were Russia on one side and 2 major NATO countries on the other side...
Now once the Ukraine drove off the legally elected (only 2 years ago mind you) pro-russian president, made a new government (on a friggin town square... NOT in an election) from all kinds of people and then as a first act of government (having failed to agree on removing a ban on nazi hate speech) banned the use of russian as a official language (which is natively spoken by approximately 10 million inhabitants or 1/5 of the population) and decided to 'move away from russia and join the EU and NATO' that guarantee from Budapest became null and void... you can't expect someone to guarantee they will respect your borders while at the same time doing your best to join the opposite side of that agreement...
Imagine this hypothetical scenario... the Germans run their country economically into the ground and everyone blames Angela Merkel for being a decadent dictator (and she might well be but having been RE elected by a vast majority just two years prior to the events after the opposition leader failed to impress anyone in his stint at power it's a bit dubious at best)... the Russians start supporting the dissidents with money and political influence and they organize very violent riots in the streets while the russian global media machine keeps referring to them as peaceful protestors and any response by the German police as repression... now the dissidents come out on top as winners and make a completely anti-us government filled with US haters of the taliban caliber and vow to take Germany back towards the good ol days of the East German republic where they had close ties with Russia and are also considering joining the Russian Military Federation and bringing in their military to Germany... what do you think the US response would be?... do you think they would pull back all of their troops into Rammstein, recall their armed forces and sit back and see what happens? Would they make sure Rammstein is safe and secure by say asking the people who live there wether they really want to go join russia and deploying troops just to be certain nothing goes wrong... or being the US would they just say the new guys have ties to terrorists and most 'certainly' possess weapons of mass destruction and then bomb the crap out of them?
Latinos are the biggest racial group in California today. And they are — some times credibly — complaining of discrimination... Will you approve of Mexican army taking the state over, disarming local American units (army, national guardsmen, police) and staging a referendum?
If the Mexican Army already had (by agreement with the US like the Russian Federation had with the Ukraine) nearly 20000 troops in the area already (legally mind you) and one of their largest maritime bases (hosting several nuclear powered and armed vessels) was located in the south of the US (INSIDE the US) and the government in Washington had just been removed from office by a crowd sponsored by a foreign nuclear power that time and again demonstrated the will and intent to bring it's own forces and armaments as close to the mexican border as possible (like NATO is doing by expanding into almost every country bordering with the Russian Federation... To illustrate http://pp.vk.me/c618625/v61862... ) then YES... I can quite see the Mexican government doing something like that... especially after that other force closing in on it's borders had already done the same thing in another country only a few years prior and even had the international court in the Hague call it completely legitimate (Kosovo's declaration of independence which followed a 78 day long bombing campaign and a de facto occupation of a sovereign nation WITHOUT prior approval by the UN, and the forceful violation of a UN member state's territorial integrity which resulted in a quasi country that even today (15 years after the bombing and 6 years after the declaration of independence) has not been recognized by half the world and even some of the countries involved in the bombing)... this is all without even going into the whole business about gas and oil pipelines that a forceful regime change in the Ukraine threatens (and thus Russian strategic interests) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...... the red lines crossing the Ukraine should make why all this is happening quite obvious...
Slashdot Mirror
Torrentz.eu is back in full swing (1200 hours CET on May 27.) ...
How on earth do you envision a minority population of a country which constitutes a large majority in one area of the country ever being able to detach from it for any reason what so ever (be it feeling threatened, not wanting to go the same way the rest of the country is going, being oppressed or persecuted or just plain wanting a country of their own) if the entirety of the country has to say yes? Seriously ? Are you that deluded in thinking that say tomorrow the basque or the catalan asked for a referendum on detaching the parts of spain in which they have a majority anyone would let them even ask the entire country let alone that the rest of the country would vote to let them go ? ... Where is the democracy in the majority always having the power to keep the minority where they want them ? ... It's like claiming the US had no rights to declare independence from the British empire unless all of the empire was asked to vote on it ... Don't just quote the media ... think about the copy before you paste it ...
by a tiny sliver of the "democratically elected" legislature
Why do you put the democratically elected in quotes? The entire assembly of crimea was democratically elected in 2010 in elections verified and sanctioned by the Vrhonva Rada which is the Ukranian Assembly in Kiev. No irregularities were reported and everyone who was in that assembly was there for 4 years before this crisis blew ... so why the quotes ? Is it maybe because you are buying into the whole "there was no quorum" bull which came from, surprise surprise Leonid Pilunsky a high ranking member of the Qurultay-Rukh which happens to be representing the one faction in crimea that has historical reasons not to join russia since they were deported under Soviet rule to Siberia in the 50's. The crimean Tatars. What would be funny if it weren't so ironic is that a huge majority of the Tatars actually turned up to vote on the referendum ... and not only them ... the ethnic makeup of crimea is 58.32% Russian, 24.32% Ukrainian and 12.10% Crimean Tatars ... the turnout for the vote was way above 80% (verified by OSCE mission representatives from several countries including some from Spain and other EU countries) ... which means that ALL the russians voted ... and nearly ALL the ukrainians voted ... and at least some Tatars voted ... and out of all who voted 97% chose to join Russia. You can pretend it didn't happen and you can dream up nonsense like this:
There was pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea, I'll grant you that, but Russia was not sure of the success — or they would not have poured 30 thousands special forces troops into peninsula before the annexation.
but the fact remains that Russia has a sizable nuclear maritime arsenal and significant strategic hardware and interests (oil pipelines and the only non-oceanic military port for it's fleet) in Crimea and if that part of the Ukraine is preparing to secede from it don't you think there was a high probability that the government in Kiev would have intervened if the Russians hadn't beaten them to the punch ? If you think otherwise you are seriously lacking knowledge in the ways things have been done in the past and are still being done in that part of the world.
Wow! great job of sidelining a mountain of explanation by proclaiming it to be propaganda ... well done! Fox News would be proud of you ... however I thought that since everyone is up in arms about the so called "invasion" of Crimea by the Russians, a word which I recall being used as an excuse quite extensively in the Balkans during the 90's (even tho it was a breakup of a federation thru forced secession from a country so diverse in population it could only end in civil war but was constantly called an "attack" or "invasion" by the mainstream media) I'd add a view on it from another side (and no, I'm neither Russian nor do I think they weren't involved in the powerplay in the Ukraine ... only an idiot with that much at stake wouldn't be ... but I do think their side had quite a lot of merit on the issue considering the way a absolutely legally and democratically elected government was forced out through violence and subversion and replaced by an openly anti-russian puppet 'government') ... So to answer your original question, NO I don't think they (the Americans) would like it, just like a lot of them don't like a lot of things some US states vote on in referendums, but if they are truly democratic then they would respect the decision of 95.8 precent of the people who took the time to vote. The sheer number of "yes, we're outta here votes" so obviously speaks of just how much the Crimean people really wanted to stay in the Ukraine and just how awesome they feel about the 'new government' in Kiev ... but your bias is obvious even in the terminology you use ... 'staged' by the 'invaders' ... NO ... the referendum was called by the democratically elected government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ... that's a body of state recognized by the official Ukraine since far before Yanukovic and this crisis ... even the new government in Kiev recognizes them as legit ... they just don't like the fact that they wouldn't go along with their power-grab and direction towards the EU and NATO ... yes, according to the constitution of the Ukraine it is an illegal referendum because the constitution specifies that all of Ukraine has to be in favor ... that's like asking the entire UK to let Scotland become independent from it this fall and not just the Scots ... that would really be a fair referendum right? ... The heart of the matter is the US made a precedent when they let Kosovo declare independence and even went so far as to point at the ruling of the international court in the Hague and saying 'see it's all legit' ... that is exactly what the Russians are saying now ... 'see it's all legit, the international court said it and you backed it' ... and the crazy twist is that the ruling is situation unspecific ... it says a majority people can decide to unilaterally declare independence and it is not against international law ... no mention of circumstances or special cases or sui generis as the US likes to call the Kosovo debacle.
I forgot to mention that in the scenario you proposed California used to be part of Mexico a bit over 60 years ago and the then ruler of a supernation Mexico and the US both belonged to decided it would be a cool idea to give California away to the US for the express purpose of cutting down on bureaucracy and to have a reason to relocate the unruly asian minorities that were creating unrest (equivalent of the Tatars in the Ukraine) ... the only reason Russia agreed to the Crimea remain as part of the Ukraine when the Soviet Union broke up was to make the Ukraine relinquish the 1900 nuclear weapons they held at the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... ... the guarantees that in exchange Ukraine territorial integrity would be respected, were Russia on one side and 2 major NATO countries on the other side ...
Now once the Ukraine drove off the legally elected (only 2 years ago mind you) pro-russian president, made a new government (on a friggin town square ... NOT in an election) from all kinds of people and then as a first act of government (having failed to agree on removing a ban on nazi hate speech) banned the use of russian as a official language (which is natively spoken by approximately 10 million inhabitants or 1/5 of the population) and decided to 'move away from russia and join the EU and NATO' that guarantee from Budapest became null and void ... you can't expect someone to guarantee they will respect your borders while at the same time doing your best to join the opposite side of that agreement ...
Imagine this hypothetical scenario ... the Germans run their country economically into the ground and everyone blames Angela Merkel for being a decadent dictator (and she might well be but having been RE elected by a vast majority just two years prior to the events after the opposition leader failed to impress anyone in his stint at power it's a bit dubious at best) ... the Russians start supporting the dissidents with money and political influence and they organize very violent riots in the streets while the russian global media machine keeps referring to them as peaceful protestors and any response by the German police as repression ... now the dissidents come out on top as winners and make a completely anti-us government filled with US haters of the taliban caliber and vow to take Germany back towards the good ol days of the East German republic where they had close ties with Russia and are also considering joining the Russian Military Federation and bringing in their military to Germany ... what do you think the US response would be? ... do you think they would pull back all of their troops into Rammstein, recall their armed forces and sit back and see what happens? Would they make sure Rammstein is safe and secure by say asking the people who live there wether they really want to go join russia and deploying troops just to be certain nothing goes wrong ... or being the US would they just say the new guys have ties to terrorists and most 'certainly' possess weapons of mass destruction and then bomb the crap out of them?
Latinos are the biggest racial group in California today. And they are — some times credibly — complaining of discrimination... Will you approve of Mexican army taking the state over, disarming local American units (army, national guardsmen, police) and staging a referendum?
If the Mexican Army already had (by agreement with the US like the Russian Federation had with the Ukraine) nearly 20000 troops in the area already (legally mind you) and one of their largest maritime bases (hosting several nuclear powered and armed vessels) was located in the south of the US (INSIDE the US) and the government in Washington had just been removed from office by a crowd sponsored by a foreign nuclear power that time and again demonstrated the will and intent to bring it's own forces and armaments as close to the mexican border as possible (like NATO is doing by expanding into almost every country bordering with the Russian Federation ... To illustrate http://pp.vk.me/c618625/v61862... ) then YES ... I can quite see the Mexican government doing something like that ... especially after that other force closing in on it's borders had already done the same thing in another country only a few years prior and even had the international court in the Hague call it completely legitimate (Kosovo's declaration of independence which followed a 78 day long bombing campaign and a de facto occupation of a sovereign nation WITHOUT prior approval by the UN, and the forceful violation of a UN member state's territorial integrity which resulted in a quasi country that even today (15 years after the bombing and 6 years after the declaration of independence) has not been recognized by half the world and even some of the countries involved in the bombing) ... this is all without even going into the whole business about gas and oil pipelines that a forceful regime change in the Ukraine threatens (and thus Russian strategic interests) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... ... the red lines crossing the Ukraine should make why all this is happening quite obvious ...