Print

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

[Knit tie]

Replace "attacked" with "reclaimed it's rightful territory" and we're good.

Or, to be much more fair, with "allowed to rejoin in violation if international laws", because that's what the majority of Crimeans wanted anyway.

[Culise]

EDIT: Still firmly squelching the internal impetus to get involved, even post facto (or since it's a forum post, post posto?).

[Knit tie]

Replace "attacked" with "reclaimed it's rightful territory" and we're good.

Or, to be much more fair, with "allowed to rejoin in violation if international laws", because that's what the majority of Crimeans wanted anyway.

As far as we've been told, anyway. No way to really know what the Crimeans actually wanted- the whole vote was dubious at best.

In regards to the crimeans' opinion, there was a little-mentioned nowadays referendum in Crimea in 1994, in which the absolute majority of crimeans voted for greater autonomy within Ukraine and dual Russian-Ukrainian citizenship. It's unlikely that the attitudes changed significantly since then, considering how badly was Crimea run by Kiyv.

[Helgoland]

Knit:
a) Greater autonomy != wanting to be annexed
b) Tartars. They're a thing, and they've been coming back from their diaspora.
c) The nineties were a shitty time, you said so yourself - shittiness is directly correlated with the probability of radical political change.

[Sergarr]

The fact that the result of that referendum was summarily ignored by Ukrainian government is a valid reason for them to be pretty upset, and that's in that article too, Ipsil.

[Knit tie]

Greater autonomy != wanting to be annexed

True, but this fact also demonstrates that the majority of Crimeans weren't pro-Ukrainian, and as such gives more weight to the plentitude of anecdotal evidence that the majority of Crimea wanted to join Russia. Plus, it further complicates the "legality" of Crimean annexation by pointing out that Crimea had its constitution - which would've allowed it to join Russia on a 100% legal basis - forcibly rescinded by Kiyv a year after it was accepted.

Another point of view is that the Crimeans' desire to join Russia wasn't really that prevalent in the 90's, hence their support for Ukrainian independence, but rather arose during the years of Ukrainian corruption and mismanagement.

EDIT: Why haven't I noticed this before?

There are plenty of locals in the rebel's forces. Can't say that there are only Russians there.

Ah. In that case, the difference does change. Calling it an invasion does become... iffy, a bit. The only real justification would be because the rebels happen to be for Russia proper, so the "interest" in supporting rebels abroad is more-or-less a direct land-grab, which can only describe what the US has done to... well, usually small strategic islands or so. At least, I don't think any countries of the "West" has supported foreign rebels strictly so they could acquire the land.

I, personally, am of the theory that Russia really doesn't want that land, as evidence by the rebel high command being actively detrimental to the Novorossian war effort, instead, Putin was simply forced to help the rebels by the popular opinion, in order to uphold his image as "protector of Russian interests."

[Sheb]

Actually, there were polls from the summer of 2013 I could dig up if you want that showed a minority in favor of joining Russia. Granted, the Maidan events, and the "UkroNazis are going to kill all russians" propaganda drive might have changed it, but we simply don't know.

[Knit tie]

Actually, there were polls from the summer of 2013 I could dig up if you want that showed a minority in favor of joining Russia. Granted, the Maidan events, and the "UkroNazis are going to kill all russians" propaganda drive might have changed it, but we simply don't know.

As I've said, there's plenty of evidence that before, during and after the referendum, crimean people were openly in support of joining Russia, with Tatars being the only exception. Besides, in 2013, the political situation was markedly different, for example, Ukraine wasn't obviously pro-western, which tends to strongly alienate Russian people.

[Sergarr]

Formation of battalions with high concentration of radical elements also didn't help the neutral people in the area in making them believe in bright yellow-blue future.

(I'm pretty sure that the new government started forming those right after coming to power) welp looks like i was mistake

[Sheb]

No, only after the "polite people" started taking over Crimea.

Knit Tie, if you have plenty of evidence, it would be nice to see it. Also, it was still a naked landgrab. No credible votes or referendum were held.

[Sergarr]

Well, from a Godwin point, a credible vote or a referendum has zero bearing on the "landgrabbiness" of that.

[Knit tie]

Remember how we were talking about good Soviet movies? Here's another one.

Anyway, proof:
Selfies with "little green men" - new trend!
People happy with referendum!
Streets of Crimea calm and peaceful! - this one's obviously pro-Russian, but people's opinions in there are still people's opinions.

[mainiac]

Anecdotes vs data... do we really need to explain this?

[Sergarr]

There's no solid data on non-Tatars protesting against Crimea's integration into Russia. And Tatars stopped being loud after their leader got kicked out of Crimea.

[Sheb]

Yeah. I can dig up videos of people protesting the referendums, marhing for the little green men to go away and getting beaten up for opposing the new Crimean government if you want me to. The plural of anecdote isn't spelled data for a reason.