Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

But the occupying soldiers aren't Russian, they're spontaneous domestic militia!
Therefore their vote totally counts.

Hahaha, I wonder if this might be the real reason he's still keeping up the charade?

Also, I assume that, like with the recent parliament votes, Russia will only be letting those who plan on voting in the "correct way" vote anyway. I'd like to be proven wrong there, but I'm... not hopeful.

[XXSockXX]

Yeah, I guess they could totally fake the poll if they wanted to. Or prevent some people from voting via an encounter with a spontaneous mob.
There won't be any neutral observers, since they didn't let the OSCE in. Although some think there should be no international observers, as that would legitimize the vote too much.

It is still somewhat plausible that a majority would vote for Russia, even without occupation. People are heavily influenced by Russian media, so they think they are threatened and Russia is saving them. Also there have been promises of all kinds, much higher wages and stuff like that.

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, I get the feeling a vote for independence would be possible, but Russia isn't particularly keen on rolling the dice.

[Zangi]

Blatantly attack person for passive political POV is insanely intolerant. So we kinda fight gays and it's troubling, but when I say it's ok to be unpolitical it's suddenly raises questions. I am not obliged to be active in politics and not going to change my mind because some person says I am naughty and I am doomed.

Well, it's not so much naughty or doomed as it is that (political) apathy is as much an enemy of your state as actively working against it. And... yeah, that's a vice, so long as you live in society. It's a particular sort of not caring that hurts the people around you.

Which is also why other people in society may -- fairly -- attack that behavior and specifically note it as something bad. It is. It hurts others as much as the self, and it does hurt both. Doesn't necessarily mean the person is a bad person on the net, or anything, but it's definitely not a neutral or positive position to hold, and it's a position that anyone that wants society as a whole (either particular national or regional incarnations, or globally) to improve (or, at the very least, maintain the status quo), would reasonably be opposed to.

In other words, it's behavior that people should be intolerant of, just like more active forms of damage. A person is spoke ill of if they, though they could prevent it, just watch as a child runs into traffic. To the extent that person has a responsibility to stop that child, they also have a similar (if somewhat less pressing, of course) responsibility to involve themselves in the political process. Apathy stops being neutral when it starts causing the overall situation to grow worse.

I don't know man... you want to persecute and/or demonize people for not giving enough of a rat's arse to not take part in the political system?  Sure it might also mean that they are content enough with the way things are 'now' to not even care either.
The whole political system can spew out a heck of a lot of information, that is not even including the various angles to the info coming out.  That is a lot to take in...
Next we will have people complaining about uninformed voters...

Cynicism or not, that is how the things are, and always were.

My point stands.

Definition of Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

I don't really see how anyone can be a coward for thinking that way?



And yea... B12 tends to dogpile people with opposing views...  recurring theme in this thread.

[XXSockXX]

Yeah, I get the feeling a vote for independence would be possible, but Russia isn't particularly keen on rolling the dice.

That is pretty much what is happening. In the best case that is, provided they don't have any goals beyond Crimea.

A vote would have been possible, but it would have been more complicated and it would have taken time, probably more than a year. By then things could have changed too much for it to happen. Also I'm not sure how the international community would have reacted to Crimea wanting to join Russia (which was more likely than independence anyway).

An obstacle to a regular, legitimate vote on independence would be that it is unconstitutional in Ukraine, there would have to be a referendum in all of Ukraine, not just in Crimea. Of course there was no time to change that, but I don't know if that would have been an acceptable change for Ukraine.
Also AFAIK the Russian constitution had to be changed to allow Crimea to join. Some argue that it is still unconstitutional, as Russia is violating it's international treaties, but their point of view is that the treaties with Ukraine are invalid because the government of Ukraine is illegitimate.
Of course they feel there is a precedent, since the West too has been bending and breaking international law a few times.

Generally secession is a complicated thing and the international community tends to discourage it more often than not. If you look at it from that angle, Scotland has it very easy.

I don't know man... you want to persecute and/or demonize people for not giving enough of a rat's arse to not take part in the political system?  Sure it might also mean that they are content enough with the way things are 'now' to not even care either.
The whole political system can spew out a heck of a lot of information, that is not even including the various angles to the info coming out.  That is a lot to take in...
Next we will have people complaining about uninformed voters...

Everybody has a right to be apolitical. Of course democracy will have problems if there are too many apolitical people, but that is their free choice, which is the whole point of democracy.
Also on a minor side-note, outrage about gays getting persecuted is historically speaking a relatively recent development in the West. Only 30,40 years ago not many people would have cared much, so it's a lot to ask from somebody to become active against that in a cultural environment that is like that.

[Helgoland]

Using that right is not something that should get you any approval, though.

zeit.de reported that they expect ~85% approval - which would mean that significant amounts of non-Russians would vote 'yes' too. Plausibility has gone the way of legitimacy.

[Knit tie]

Cynicism or not, that is how the things are, and always were.

My point stands.

Definition of Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

I don't really see how anyone can be a coward for thinking that way?

Neither do I, but I made that post while my best friends were screaming hatefully at each other and obviously wasn't thinking straight. So in the end equally hateful gibberish came out. Not one of my best moments.

[DJ]

Why would they need to manipulate the voter lists? It doesn't matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes.

[ivze]

Here we have an interview of Aleksandr Yakymenko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksandr_Grigorovich_Yakymenko by a Russian state mass-media.
Yakymenko was a head of Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) before the revolution. He is in Moscow now. In the interview he expresses his vision of the whole situation.

Text is in Russian, but google-translate will do it.
There is a video in Russian, that follows the text closely.
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1368925&cid=9

[Sheb]

So to sum it up, he says Western embassy got cash and used it to fund the protests and that the snipers were mercenaries hired by the opposition. I think.

[Knit tie]

A lot of debates are currently going on on who the snipers were.

[ivze]

He also says, that the snipers from Philarmonia building killed both police and protesters. That's quite and old scheme to imitate government's aggression, to pretend, that the police started the massacre. That complies with what has leaked from Estonian Foreign Minister telephone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D23_WlRsSOA.

[vagel7]

The thing is, how would some doctor lady know the truth about the snipers?

[scrdest]

He also says, that the snipers from Philarmonia building killed both police and protesters. That's quite and old scheme to imitate government's aggression, to pretend, that the police started the massacre. That complies with what has leaked from Estonian Foreign Minister telephone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D23_WlRsSOA.

Plus, there's layers of deception. Might as well be the old gov't pretending to fake gov't aggression as protesters.

[XXSockXX]

So to sum it up, he says Western embassy got cash and used it to fund the protests and that the snipers were mercenaries hired by the opposition. I think.

Google translate sucks, unfortunately, but I think that's what he is saying.
Other interesting points that I think I understood are that he seems to blame the CIA for being involved and - which seems far-fetched - Poland.
Also he argues that it was the US that tried to prevent Ukraine's eurointegration because they didn't like the connection between Europe, Ukraine and Russia. That I hadn't heard before, but it is false as the EU association treaty was incompatible with the Russian customs union.
Ukraine is expected to sign the association treaty soon BTW.

A lot of debates are currently going on on who the snipers were.

Here not so much. Of course I haven't heard about the official investigation so far, but journalists seem convinced that at least the killings they witnessed were committed by police snipers.
The leaked call with the Estonian FM is not getting much weight, because it contained only a rumor that turned out to be not verifiable. (Because the doctor he spoke to only saw dead protesters, but not the dead policemen, and didn't look at ballistic evidence.)