[Familiar]

First of all, I'm glad to see another Putin's agent payed by KGB with bloody Crimea roubles. Or grivnas?
Oh ****...
/joke

1. Russia had to defend fleet.
2. Russia had to defend gas transportation
3. Russia had to defend pro-russian people.
4. Putin really needed reason to make Russians proud.
5. Putin had to do something with internal economic problems. Now they are masked good enough.

Mission completed. Sanctions declared so far are joke.

Nobody needs the rest of Ukraine or Poland, 

[Familiar]

For now, i know one thing - people on Crimea wanted to live in Russia, not the Ukraine, not with this new government. And i know it not from media.

If they wanted to live in Russia, then they should just move from the Ukraine to Russia.

Sounds similar to thread about gays in Nigeria. 

[Scotty]

I actually agree with Familiar in this instance.  Russia's handling of the whole situation is reprehensible, but the idea that people living in Crimea, who were actually Russian before Kruschev outright passed them off to the Ukraine, should have to move back to Russia to be residents of a country that they never willingly left in the first place sounds... off.

[Luis Dias]

You know that's a really stupid argument. What, they decided that NOW in ONE WEEK we need this part of Ukraine to be RUSSIAN because travelling 50 miles is just too cumbersome, and if you really think about it it takes more than 20 YEARS to cross the border?

Yes, Crimea has been russian once. And previously it belonged to other countries. Portugal was spanish once too. So the F what?

About the need of russia protecting "russian people", jesus f christ you guys. Come on. Russians are fleeing their own country like gangbusters. Perhaps because they are "tired" of this "protection" you speak of. Just look at the latest gag from Moscow. The most expensive winter games ever (50 billion bucks) when they have dozens of millions of people living under 1.5 dollars a week. Is this kind of protection you are speaking of? Just baloney after baloney when the hard core truth is so simple: Putin wants Crimea for its geopolitical importance and he won't have the west stop him from having it.

In other words, this is just the continuation of the Syrian clash. (Russian arms are getting into Syria through Sevastopol).

[Scotty]

Hey now, don't tell me that I'm saying things that I didn't.  I made no comment on the timeframe, nor did I make a comment about the difficulty of a move like that.  I responded to the idea that if a Russian citizen in Crimea wanted to be Russian he/she needed to "just move to Russia".  I absolutely agree that it's a matter very similar to "gays should just leave Nigeria" in that it is staggeringly impossible for a large number of people, even when the situation is relatively peaceful, and that it's a pretty piss-poor thing to say.

Regarding the rest of your post, Luis, I think you might need to take a moment to let off some steam.  I can only see, at most, one person in this thread actually making a case for "Russians protecting Russians", so the amount of vitriol directed at "you guys" isn't helping.

[StarSlayer]

I very much doubt Putin is seizing foreign territory out of concern for ethnic Russians in Crimea.  This whole episode is purely to further Russian political and military interests.  If France forcibly seized Quebec from Canada, that the French Canadians might not object would not make it any less absurd.

[Mongoose]

I don't really see how the situation in Crimea compares in any sense to that comment about Nigeria.  In that case, you have people being viciously persecuted and denied fundamental human rights, so obviously they'd have everything to gain by escaping that situation if there was any way to do so.  In Crimea, you have...what, exactly?  All else being equal, daily life for ethnic Russians in Crimea would be functionally no different than daily life in Russia itself.  Obviously not everyone is able to move out, but it's not as though they're facing the threat of death on a daily basis, despite what Putin's blowhard rhetoric may suggest.  My only point in my initial statement is that a particular group of people in one part of a country shouldn't be able to slough off and attach to another country just because they feel like it.  And as Luis put it, even if this is all a result of Kruschev's goofy border-redrawing some 50 years ago, Ukraine has been an independent country for more than two decades...and it's just NOW that people up and decide to swap countries?  If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.

I don't know, maybe I'm letting American history color my viewpoint here.  Some 150 years ago, we fought a civil war over whether a given state was able to leave the Union on a whim, and the end result of that was a resounding LOLNOPE.  I look at what's happening in Crimea in the same light: even if a certain percentage of the population wants it, Russia has absolutely no authority to grab territory from another sovereign state.

[Aardwolf]

Considering the country you're born into is not something you can control, and changing your citizenship is a fair amount of work and a huge commitment, the right of self determination is kind of necessary.

Also, the US Civil War was stupid and should not be used as precedent for anything.


So, to recap the events (and my opinions on them):

Russia rigging or otherwise interfering with secession referendum	= bad
Russia recognizing Crimea as an independent state after secession referendum	= good in principle
Russia rigging or otherwise interfering with annexation referendum	= bad
Russia annexing Crimea after annexation referendum	= meh

Gripe: US foreign policy is all stick and no carrot

[Luis Dias]

Hey now, don't tell me that I'm saying things that I didn't.  I made no comment on the timeframe, nor did I make a comment about the difficulty of a move like that.  I responded to the idea that if a Russian citizen in Crimea wanted to be Russian he/she needed to "just move to Russia".  I absolutely agree that it's a matter very similar to "gays should just leave Nigeria" in that it is staggeringly impossible for a large number of people, even when the situation is relatively peaceful, and that it's a pretty piss-poor thing to say.

It's just not true that it is a "matter very similar to gays should just leave Nigeria" at all. We are not talking about human rights here! Unless of course you mean the human rights to not be invaded or to have referendums not being brazenly falsified like they were. I did talk to your implicit point there where you said that they were russians in the first place and how inhuman it is for them to be called Ukrainian (or something to this effect). The problem with this argument is that it was merely a propagandistic argument, that was widely used by Hitler himself in Checkoslovakia, in 38.

Regarding the rest of your post, Luis, I think you might need to take a moment to let off some steam.  I can only see, at most, one person in this thread actually making a case for "Russians protecting Russians", so the amount of vitriol directed at "you guys" isn't helping.

You are seeing vitriol where there wasn't any, at least intended. Perhaps it's a language thing, but when I said "you guys" I meant to be informal, easy-going, not fully serious. Perhaps you read it and imagined me speaking in anger or something to that effect, not so. I saw more than one person making this argument as well.

[Dragon]

I don't really see how the situation in Crimea compares in any sense to that comment about Nigeria.  In that case, you have people being viciously persecuted and denied fundamental human rights, so obviously they'd have everything to gain by escaping that situation if there was any way to do so.  In Crimea, you have...what, exactly?  All else being equal, daily life for ethnic Russians in Crimea would be functionally no different than daily life in Russia itself.  Obviously not everyone is able to move out, but it's not as though they're facing the threat of death on a daily basis, despite what Putin's blowhard rhetoric may suggest.  My only point in my initial statement is that a particular group of people in one part of a country shouldn't be able to slough off and attach to another country just because they feel like it.  And as Luis put it, even if this is all a result of Kruschev's goofy border-redrawing some 50 years ago, Ukraine has been an independent country for more than two decades...and it's just NOW that people up and decide to swap countries? 

The thing is, Crimea is mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians, who might feel connected to country they come from. Just see how Russian forces were received in Crimea by the majority of people there - generally as a welcome sight. It's not about that Russians got their hands on Crimea. It's about how they did it. If there was a proper Crimean independence referendum, and people voted "yes", there would be no problem. However, Putin took over that place by force, and without first consulting the UN, or the Crimean people.

Oh, and in peaceful times, secessionists like this are generally not taken very seriously. It's very hard to get a government to give up a good chunk of it's land. First, people have to want it really badly, second, the government has to care. Swapping countries is hard, and I suppose the ethnic Russians were able to live in Ukraine, even if they felt connected to Russia. In light of recent events, though, the western Ukraine was swept by huge anti-Russian protests, and at the same time, Putin offered them both protection and a chance to actually live in "their" country. It's no surprise Russians want to live in Russia, rather than in increasingly pro-western Ukraine. Of course, that's not to say what he really did was right by any means, but from the perspective of an average Crimean Russian, the situation is probably rather good. Remember, there were anti-Yanukhovich protesters, but a whole lot of protests were also strongly anti-Russian, and I can understand that they might have been afraid of ethnic discrimination.

If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.

Be careful when telling that to a Russian, it might turn out he's already got one. Or that he might take you up on the offer just because he's recently lost one...

[An4ximandros]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Help, I can't stop laughing due to how pissed I am inside. Hail the Czar!

[Dragon]

Talk about audacious. I suppose concern about Russian-speaking minorities is good and all, but UN said they were not mistreated like the Russians claim.
It seems that Putin really wants to relive the former "glory" of the Cold War-era USSR. Couldn't he have started with the space program? If there was one good thing about USSR, it was that they build darn good rockets. Maybe it's not too late to dust those N1 plans off...

[Flipside]

In the name of fairness, I will say that on occasion, the Ukraine do themselves no favours..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26653295

Admittedly, it's not all that different to how the TV channels in Crimea were treated when this debacle started, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Edit :

Aaand the 2014 award for 'Missing the point for Political points' goes to Cristina Fernandez...

http://news.yahoo.com/argentina-accuses-us-uk-hypocrisy-over-crimea-161331270--finance.html

This would be a great political play, using a referendum with a 90%+ result to demonstrate a perceived double standard were it not for :

A) The Falkland Isles referendum was externally observed and verified.
B) Both arguments were allowed time and freedom to present their point of view (admittedly, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, but there were no 'dirty trick', and why should there be? After all, the outcome was a foregone conclusion).
C) The constant claims by Argentina that the referendum wasn't valid - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9815908/Argentina-attacks-Falkland-Islands-referendum.html

I don't have a vested interested in the whole Falkland/Malvina argument, but frankly, if ever there was a situation that Argentina shouldn't be touching with a barge pole, it's this.

[IvKir]

Just to know, guys - people in Crimea wanted to go to Russia loooong before all this mess. So it's not the "one-week" decision. They made attempts to do this referendum since 2000 year, but every time Kiev denied them this right. For obvious reason.

[Dragon]

Yeah. Changing borders is hard, especially when you've got an uncooperative government. Still, what happened is not the way it should've been handled. If anything, UN forces should be there, watching the referendum and ensuring it's not meddled with. Right now, Putin has shown that he can do whatever he pleases, and that he doesn't need approval or oversight from UN. Crimea ending up in Russia's hands isn't, by itself, the problem (now that I think of it, it might be better off that way), but the way it did so is the real reason to be concerned about this situation.

[karajorma]

That Falklands comment is a masterpiece in irony.

Just to know, guys - people in Crimea wanted to go to Russia loooong before all this mess. So it's not the "one-week" decision. They made attempts to do this referendum since 2000 year, but every time Kiev denied them this right. For obvious reason.

Let me ask you one simple question. Do you believe that the referendum was fair?


EDIT : I was also wondering when I'd start to see this.

[IvKir]

Let me ask you one simple question. Do you believe that the referendum was fair?

I can't believe in 95+% of votes, but i can believe in absolute majority of votes for joining Russia - like 80% or something. The only major population in Crimea, who always support the western Ukraine is the Crimenian Tatars. And it's like.. 15-16% of all population of Crimea. And, as far as i know, they won't ignored the referendum.

Also, i'm wondering - if this your opinion about Russia, who ensured peaceful referendum on Crimea, then what your opinion on Libia, Siria? I know that it is off-topic, and i don't want to start a flame - just wondering.

[Luis Dias]

Can't talk for Karajorma, but for me Lybia is, at least in comparison against anything in Crimea, a fair uprising of the people against a mad dictator, and with NATO supporting the rebel factions successfully. Syria is for me a fair uprising of the people against a mad dictator who started butchering every single opposition he could find. Then Assad got the help from his russian buddy and the massacre continued, now more than 150 thousand deaths. It's absolutely clear this guy has no inch of moral authority whatsoever, but instead of letting a more debated conversation and competition with a fair opposition, he butchered his more secular and reasoned opposition and now only Al Quaeda and other mad factions remain against him (and against themselves). I will never forget how Putin managed to support this butchering and mass killings.

[Flipside]

Personally, I think any superpower should be very wary of the fallacy of 'The end justifies the means', whether those ends are defending the populace, overthrowing an oppressive regime or even preventing Terrorism.

I don't think any power can claim to be not guilty of falling into that trap.

[StarSlayer]

Flip, I don't think this affair even qualifies as the ends justify the means.  If by "ends" you mean something other then extending the interests of Russia.
 
Does anyone think Russia would not have seized the Crimean Peninsula if there was not an ethnic Russian population that happened to provide a convenient excuse post facto?  Does anyone think Putin orchestrated this entire event because he had the interests of the people in Crimea at the forefront?  In comparison with the popular unrest that occurred to oust the prior Ukrainian administration the fact folks in Crimea only required the peninsula to be seized by multiple Russian Motor Rifle Companies really speaks to their zeal and determination for annexation.