Gryzemuis on 17/3/2014 at 00:02
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
How is it bs? And I never watch CNN. I live in the UK.
It's bullshit because it is warmongering.
You are implying: "if the poor people in the Krim would not have voted 95% in favor of Russia, Russia would have invaded them".
That is not relevant. The people of the Krim would have voted for Russia anyway. Russia didn't even have to decide ahead if they would invade the Krim or not. Because they knew it would never come to that.
I feel like I am suddenly a big Russia fan.
I am not.
I just want people to realize that the west is very hypocritical. Violent revolution in Kiev is OK. Because it's pro-Europe. Referendum in the Krim is not OK. Because it is pro-Russia. I just don't get it. (Well, I do. Politicians and media are not fair. They are bastards).
SubJeff on 17/3/2014 at 00:04
Well I disagree.
That amount of military buildup is intimidation in anyone's eyes. Russia have been planning this for weeks. It's nothing to do with being Russian, it's about oil, gas and military bases.
Nicker on 17/3/2014 at 05:12
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
It's bullshit because it is warmongering.
Military occupation by Russia is not warmongering? Please clarify your novel definition of warmongering. I can't find it in the OED.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I just want people to realize that the west is very hypocritical.
Yes the west is very hypocritical but not about this.
Hypocritical is a referendum on liberation, with no option for the status quo (remaining a part of the Ukraine), administered at gunpoint by an occupying army.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Violent revolution in Kiev is OK.
It was OK for Russia, 1917ish? Hammers and sickles and all that rot? Russia. The country presently occupying a sovereign nation in Europe, at the behest of an autocrat for the benefit of the aristocrats?
Harvester on 17/3/2014 at 08:25
Oh come on, Gryzemuis... The Crimean 'government' already stated outright they were going to join Russia, then held a referendum because they already knew what the outcome was going to be. As Nicker said there wasn't even an option for Crimea to stay with the Ukraine. And the percentage of people that doesn't want to join Russia is way higher than 5% or 10%. It's closer to 30% or 40%. The Tatar Crimeans and native Ukrainians didn't vote because the outcome was already decided anyway and because of intimidation. Didn't you see that news clip about the native Ukrainian protester who couldn't even protest in peace because she was intimidated by pro-Russian people on the streets? She was nearly assaulted for trying to protest for the rights of the minority of Crimeans of Ukrainian descent.
And you're dodging Bukary's question with a tangent about the EU. Let me give you another scenario: Would you support a referendum if, say, a Morrocon-dominated neighbourhood in Rotterdam held a referendum for the neighborhood to become an enclave of Morocco?
nemyax on 17/3/2014 at 09:57
Quote Posted by Nicker
Please clarify your novel definition of warmongering.
Let's see... Perhaps frothing at the mouth with "consequences" rhetoric and sending a dozen fighter jets for war games to the NATO-controlled region?
Quote Posted by Harvester
As Nicker said there wasn't even an option for Crimea to stay with the Ukraine.
This was one of the two options—the one that lost out. The option that wasn't included was to stay independent. (You knew they had declared independence on paper a couple of days before, right? Of course you didn't.)
zombe on 17/3/2014 at 10:21
Does anyone know the "referendum" options?
From the reporters there it seems it had two options (probably highly paraphrased):
"yes, become part of Russia."
"yes, go independent." (aka. become part of Russia later)
And no way to say "no" at all.
Forgot the reporter and failing to find it again :( (mostly because Google is pretty much useless for non-english languages and it was one of our reporters) - would like to know what the options were EXACTLY. No reason to doubt the reporter (On the contrary - the coverage has been very unbiased, purely reporting without any interpretations. More like on the ground documentary.), but as no due process (no observers of any kind allowed and rampant violations known and documented) with this farce then it is hard to confirm such intricacies.
Given that propaganda was allowed and omipresent on vote day then the results are likely "true enough" (given local population: ~59% russian) and aligns with what the reporters can tell independently. Irrelevant anyway as it is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, i do not see any way for Crimea not being lost - Ukraine has opted to stand alone in the past making it hard for Europe/NATO/whatever to do shit about it now and Russia knows it.
zombe on 17/3/2014 at 10:28
Quote Posted by nemyax
This was one of the two options—the one that lost out. The option that wasn't included was to stay independent. (You knew they had declared independence on paper a couple of days before, right? Of course you didn't.)
I declare you to be an idiot.
nemyax on 17/3/2014 at 10:31
zombe
Care to elaborate?
zombe on 17/3/2014 at 10:43
Declaring something does not make it true: if you disagree then accept my declaration of you being an idiot.
Also, maintaining independence is NOT the status quo option. Remaining part of Ukraine is.
edit: not that there is any legitimacy in any of the non status-quo options.
Harvester on 17/3/2014 at 10:54
Quote Posted by nemyax
This was one of the two options—the one that lost out. The option that wasn't included was to stay independent. (You knew they had declared independence on paper a couple of days before, right? Of course you didn't.)
Wrong. Becoming independent was one of the options. Remaining a part of the Ukraine wasn't. Yes,
remaining, because just because a region declares itself independent, does not make it so, constitutional law and such.
Edit: also, I love new people who start off their forum career being condescending to others ("Of course you didn't") when they themselves get their facts wrong.
