I feel like I don't know much about what happened (or perhaps still happening?). It's like a cluster of information from two sides that I have not grasped.
What happened with the annexation of Crimea?
Other urls found in this thread:
>What happened with the annexation of Crimea?
Nothing much, the population mostly wanted it and Ukraine is too inept to do anything about it. It's just fixing a mistake that was made 50-60 years ago.
btw. Crimeans got own regional indepence. they got right ukies never gave them. and they got controll over their land on a municipal level. i would say that Crimeans are more independent and happier now.
I will never understand why Europe like to have new tiny useless countries every 5 years
OHHH CANN YOU SEE!!!
But if the international community were not allowed to have a transparent insight to the referendum administrated by Russia, about Crimeans wanting to join Russia, then how do we really know whether it's not just part of Putin's schemery and lies? I vividly remember that there was a great deal of Russian Crimeans who didn't want to become part of Russia, then suddenly according to this referendum more or less all of them wanted it.
Oh! I love Te quiero, puta!
I am more Die Toten Hosen guy
>But if the international community
What does this have to do with anything? Even if we say that we are all puppets of USA, that doesn't change the fact that we were all refused insight.
>But if the international community were not allowed to have a transparent insight to the referendum administrated by Russia
The west refused to conduct one on the basis that the referendum was illegitimate anyway, probably because their would only ever be one result.
I know evil russians can do no right but come now.
These polls were done years before it was a big issue by a non-government Ukrainian firm. You're right that the international community has not had transparent insight but you've got it the wrong way around. They very clearly prefer to be Russian and something like 60% of them are ethnically Russian.
Even though that official poll was completely bias the number of Crimeans who wanted to be Russian had indeed risen in recent years because Ukraine has been doing complete shit in basically every aspect.
Hey, I'm not one to think of Russians as evil or anything like that. I just want to get to the bottom of this thing. It smells.
Ok, so they want to be part of Russia. But why didn't Russia do thing thing differently? I think it smells big time. Using military force when it shouldn't be needed is really smelly.
>What does this have to do with anything?
NIGGER SERIOUSLY. what a world are you living in? its fucking years since russians baned "international comunity" because everytime they got votes the "international comunity" made complains and when russians went to court the "international comunity" went off and shut the fuck up because it turned out that "international comunity" turned out the secret agents hired by either pentagon or CIA. Russians demand the entrance to US votes on all levels a same "transparent insight" but went told by USA to fuck off. so now go fuck yourself and read speeches of russian president wh they baned "transparent insight" of "international comunity" into russian votes at all.
How could Russia have done it differently? There was no way Ukraine was going to give Crimeans the democratic option because they knew with certainty they'd vote to join Russia. Russia took the territory while spilling 0 blood. It's pretty remarkable really. I can't think of a cleaner way they could have done it
You think Ukraine would have allowed a peaceful secession?
>But why didn't Russia do thing thing differently?
dude. they tried different with ukies for fucking 25 years. they fucking gave them own homeland and hundreds of billions dollars of recources fucking tax free and under price for gods sake.
Maybe not. But is it right for another country to take clay by force anyway? Crimea belongs to Ukraine and its people, and it's a sorce of resources to Ukraine and its people too. It's more than just the Russians living there. Why do Russia get to have the territory instead of Ukraine? If the Russians somehow could leave Crimea, Ukraine would not lose precious territory. If Russia cared about the Russians living there and not about the territory itself, then why not offer all Russians exile and lives in Russia. It's like Russia cared more about the territory itself than the Russian people living there.
>Russia took the territory while spilling 0 blood. It's pretty remarkable really.
But using the ocasion to ask, I'm curious about how does Russia manage things like supplying Crimea with energy, food and so on. All I know they were talking about building a bridge over Kerch Strait and that they eventually postponed this ad calendas Graecas. I'm also currious about life quality on the peninsula now, did it drop, or does it keep steady on a level from before annexation?
The US funded some crazy rebels to overthrow the ukranian government who was pro-russia as part of our campaign to bully russia untill they give us back snowden.
It turned out they were actually hardcore jackass fascists and the crimeans wanted none of that shit so they said piss off we russia now, putin said k and had the last laugh.
We got upset and tried to frame russia for shooting down an aircraft but nobody really cared and so we gave up and bombed assad more and got them banned form the special olympics.
Well said comrade. Not to mention how patient our glorious leader was!
>But is it right for another country to take clay by force anyway?
I tend to take the view that might is right and de-facto ownership is all that really matters.
>Crimea belongs to Ukraine and its people
Ukraine once belonged to the soviet union so i'd be careful with that logic. Why is one politicians spurious decision at one point in the recent past(Gorbachev's decision to give Crimea to Ukraine) the final word on the ownership of a region?
>Why do Russia get to have the territory instead of Ukraine?
Why not? They took it, the populace wanted it to be taken. You think crimeans shouldn't have had a say in who their country is governed by because it doesn't meet your definition of "fair'?
>then why not offer all Russians exile and lives in Russia.
Again, why should they?
>It's like Russia cared more about the territory itself than the Russian people living there.
Because they didn't go through a completely unnecessary deportation of millions for whom they didn't even have adequate infrastructure for just to appease what are ostensibly their enemies?
>Hey, I'm not one to think of Russians as evil or anything like that.
kek, sure buddy.
Either proxy or diaspora.
Russians removed tatars, but can't feed themselves
Later Khrushev give it to Ukrainian SSR
Logistical problem solved.
Russians don't want live under ukrainian rule (lower salaries, nato bases, visa with russia, gayrope with moral degradation etc) so they tried to separate in every possible way.
Then, in Ukraine after maidan starts political instability, locals go on streets with russian flags, and begin Vova to annex them.
Like always, Russians do first, and then think.
After Ukrainian blocade, sanctions and low prices on oil, Crimea back to it's old problem - they can't feed themselves.
How to not sink in this shit:
Give Crimea to Ukraine on huge autonomy rights (1992 constitution, basically country in country)
Give Sevastopol with naval bases to Russia (as exclave)
I miss all the Ukrainian riot/war threads desu. Are the separatists still fighting?
Kruschev sorry, i get my traitors confused.
Ukrainians and Russians must die.
It's true Russia probably cares about the territory more than the people but I don't understand why 60%+ of people should be forced to move. It's not like they're new to the area, it's always been ethnically Russian. If I remember correctly the land was given to Ukraine when they were still USSR as some symbolic gift or something so it's not like a strong ownership. The idea of what gives a government ownership on land is interesting to think about it. Like most countries don't officially recognise it as Russian but in reality it is. In my opinion, the will of the people who live there is what matters the most.
I looked it up and it seems the bridge is still going to happen and is under construction. I don't know about quality of life but they were having major problems like blackouts and lack of resources before the annexation and I think blockades exacerbated those issues
They were really fun threads
No it wasnt. There were Tatars before Russia exiled them and sent Russki slime to make a majority out of Crimean Russians.
>I tend to take the view that might is right and de-facto ownership is all that really matters.
They burning guy was always the best
Turn off the proxy, Ivan.
Now russians are majority so tatars BTFO
It's 2 separate Australians and there's often support of Russia in Crimean crisis on int you newfag
My post is accurate.
There is nothing wrong with admitting to being outplayed. Proxy war is the game us relevant countries play with each other :^)
Sure was boring after the wall fell for a while. We tried to have fun with muslims but they just self destruct.
>it's always been ethnically Russian
No it hasn't. It has been increasingly Russian for a good while, that's true. But it wasn't always so. In fact ever since Catherine the great, there have been political efforts to Russianize that area.
Here you can see that since 1800s, the amount of russians there has doubled. So of course, if you regard modern time as only relevant time, then fine it has "always" been russian. By the way, before 1800s, it was even less russians there. At some point, if I'm not mistaken, there were no russians there at all. But I don't see any numbers on that.
>In my opinion, the will of the people who live there is what matters the most.
I think I agree with this. But at the same time I don't think it's that simple.
I know it seems like I'm taking some kind of anti-russian stance itt, but I'm not. I'm exploring this thing to gain more perspective. Too bad I only get added perspective ITT from people whose side is clearly on the Russian's.
Reminder that Cherson belongs to the Byzantine empire.
>Too bad I only get added perspective ITT from people whose side is clearly on the Russian's.
Yes, Australians are notoriously russophiles.
I answered all your questions in what i feel was a reasoned manner, i'm sorry that the conclusions i've drawn form the information i know is not what you'd like but them's the breaks.
Go make a thread on /k/ if you want to hear people rag on russia for the illusion of balance.
Reminder that Skåne belongs to Denmark
calm down Ivan
Relax, I'm not blaming you for taking your stance. I'm just saying since I don't know much about this case, I would be better off gaining perspective from both sides of the coin.
>i've drawn form the information i know
Which information is that? I don't even know what exactly happened.
>I don't even know what exactly happened.
The broadstrokes have already been stated in the thread by more than one person, if you feel the explanation is lacking you'll have to be more specific or else do your own research.
>Ukraine starts leaning west
>Ukraine considering joining NATO
>Russia lose control over black sea
it's not that hard
>all the Russian shills ITT
Why are Norwegians on the internet consistently the most naive yet obnoxiously stubborn people? You guys seem to view the world in all its complexity through the simple-minded lens of vague principles and a child-like ignorance of realities that cut deeper than superficial binary right vs wrong categorizations. You have an autistic disregard for human motivations and realities.
It's impossible to discuss nuances because your compartmentalized little brain is too lazy to think beyond "UN charter"/"democratic rights"/or some other nonsense whose roots lie in American geopolitical domination.
The worst part is that you think you have a better, more objective bird's-eye view of these types of situations because you're more removed from them and speak in cryptic and smug references to abstract principles and legalese.
That's a pretty obscure generalisation and not even fair considering he openly admitted his ignorance on the topic
He seems to have very strong opinions for someone that is ignorant of the topic.
>But is it right for another country to take clay by force anyway?
Even if Crimea won in a fair referendum Ukraine would never let them go. Russia came in to actually put the referendum into force knowing that Ukraine would never do anything about it.
Nonsense. I am seeking out more perspective and questioning it as I go because I'm exploring the topic rather than just having it fed it to me. My mind is not set on anything when it comes to this case.
The only opinion I have on this topic is that aggressiveness should be avoided if possible. An ideal world is one in which the boarders are either completely gone in a unified global community, or fixed with no aggressive expansion. The world isn't there yet, but I'm allowed to dream about a peaceful world, am I not?
Didn't the referendum happen a while after the military forces had arrived in Crimea though?
>The only opinion I have on this topic is that aggressiveness should be avoided if possible.
How is denying a people the right to self-determination not an aggressive act? Such a denial is only effective with a veiled threat of violence.
>The world isn't there yet, but I'm allowed to dream about a peaceful world, am I not?
You can dream but your criticisms of a state for not following your dream world don't have any merit.
It's whataboutism to point it out but Russia's hardly alone in violating the sovereignty which you wish doesn't exist but also think is very important because reasons.
>An ideal world is one in which the boarders are either completely gone in a unified global community, or fixed with no aggressive expansion.
>fixed with no aggressive expansion.
Yes, totally neutral language like that doesn't at all imply a position.
Well, think of it this way: you say that Crimea is rightfully Ukrainian because (territorial sovereignty), but what about self-determination for the Crimean people? The Crimean parliament has tried to secede peacefully from Ukraine numerous times since the fall of USSR but Kiev always blocked them. It is clear that Ukraine simply didn't care about giving Crimea the right to determine their own future. A forced annexation was the only option left imo. What other option did they have?
I will never understand why Argies want tiny useless islands.
>What other option did they have?
They should all flee to Russia as he previously suggested, all >1million of them.
>But is it right for another country to take clay by force anyway?
Well, technically yeah. Conquest is one of the ways you can expand. But thats not what happened here. Russia never sent troops or anything. Crimea decided to become independent from the rest of ukraine and then cozyd up to russia for protection.
Says who? Also who is its people? What is the method of who has rights to what? Surely the people in crimea have more right to crimea than the people living not in crimea? If they dont then habitation of an area is not a claim to sovereignty over it and in that case what claim do the people living anywhere have on the area they are living on?
>Why do Russia get to have the territory instead of Ukraine?
Because crimea needs side with somebody and russia is the biggest power in the area that wont make them just go back.
>why dont people want to leave their home
Its perfectly reasonable for the people living in crimea to want to stay where they are and be independent from ukraine
Its perfectly reasonable for ukraine to want to keep crimea
Its perfectly reasonable for russia to side with crimea since crimea really likes russia
Its perfectly reasonable to ukrains allies to complain about this
This is what war and diplomacy are for. At the end of the day rights and claims exist as pretexts to make you look like less of an asshole when you set an army on something and say its yours. They dont actually mean anything with out force to back them up
>How is denying a people the right to self-determination not an aggressive act?
I would agree that this is an aggressive act. I don't know much about how the Ukrainian government were handling the issue with the 60% russians in Crimea, but I'm quite sure they had a difficult time with accepting that the whole territory should simply go to Russia, becasue of the 40% non-russians also living there. Ideally Ukraine and Russia should have come to some kind of peaceful solution with this.
>What other option did they have?
I don't know. What you're saying is news to me. But as stated in my aforementioned answer, there is also the issue with the 40% non-russians living there. How did Kiev block it? Any more information about this?
>becasue of the 40% non-russians also living there.
Only a minority of whom didn't also want russian annexation.
Ukranian wanted to kill crimeans, cimeans arranged the referendum of self identification which un doesn't forbid (see kosovo referendum). They identified themselves russians and decided to join us. The rest of the world got butthurt.
Understand this, when Khruščjov gave it to Ukr. S.S.R., it was merely an administrative changement, there was no frontier or border with checkpoints. It only became noticeable since there became an international border.
Most of the populace feel culturally russian and have no trust in the coup d'état's gov't now in Kıjev, which doesn't have Russian as an official language of the state.
I heard they were caused by Tatars making trouble.
Malorossija is not abiding by the accords of Mínsk, so further fights are likely to rumble on, it depends if Banderovcy decide to step it up.
>The rest of the world got butthurt.
I'd say only Washington and Brussel (with butthurt belt, but they always butthurt no matter what), the rest of the world just watching/don't care.
>Russia never sent troops or anything
But there are lots of proofs showing that they in fact did. And Putin has by now (at march 9th 2015) even admitted publicly that the invasion and annexation was planned all along. It's no longer a question of whether or not there was a military annexation of Crimea.
>Surely the people in crimea have more right to crimea
Agreed. I still don't like the forcefulness of how it all was done though. And there was even the released russian documents suggesting that the referendum could've been falsified. Albeit this was too vague to be used as an argument, it still makes you think. After all, the international community was not allowed any insight to it. I think that if Putin wanted this to go as smoothly as possible, then he would've let the referendum be transparent. That is, if he knew that the majority of the crimeans would indeed want to join Russia in a fair referendum. That way he would show the world that they in fact wanted to join him. This is what smells the most to me about this thing.
These threads make me furious. I am so angry. You are all worshipping this women- This devil of the lands- because she is 'cute'. She is 'attractive'. You seem to have come to believe that this makes her actions acceptable. But I say, fuck this fucking piece Russian blonde wriggling earthworm for what she has done.
I will fucking go to the Crimea and I will rape her. I will pin her to the floor with my powerful Ukrainian arms. In my eyes she will see the pain we have suffered because of Russia. She will see my dead countrymen. My semen will pump into her. I will say to her
'This will not be cold like your Russian borscht'
'This will not be graceful like your Russian ballet'
'Your opening is as nice as one at the Sochi Olympics' I will say as I delicately rub my cock on her pussy lips.Maybe she will think the rape will not hurt. She will be wrong. I will lull her into a false sense of security
I will thrust my cock into her, then I will say
'Pretend my cock is the world cup of 2018, being given to a Russian when they don't deserve'
She will weep and beg my fucking Ukrainian force for resistance
I will leak as much premature cum as possible. Then I can say 'Your cunt is already full of my cum, so it belongs to my cum.'
Obama cannot offer sanctions to prevent me from doing what I am about to do
I am the invader now
I will fucking murder he through the force of my cock. Whenever the bell of my end pulsates she will scream.
I will ask her if she wants to vote for whether my cock joins her pussy. She will beg for the vote in her desperation. I will say OK. Then I will say
'Vote is over. 98% of my cum wants to be inside your pussy'
And I will continue to rape her.I will tear her pussy away from her with my hand and say 'autonomous now' then glue to my cock. It is part of my cock
Then I will fucking murder her. I will post her body on here for you all to wank your chubby fingered cocks to.
Fuck her. She is a disgrace. She betrayed this nation
>And there was even the released russian documents suggesting that the referendum could've been falsified.
Citation? There are various polls from reputable sources like Gallup that seem to indicate the referendum was above-board.
>then he would've let the referendum be transparent.
The referendum was illegal, it's not a matter of obfuscation but of the organisations refusing to take part in what they view is an illegal referendum. I can post proof of this if desired.
>I can post proof of this if desired.
Here is one citiation about the document forbes.com
OSCE observers simply refused to participate in referendum. There were international observers from European Union's parliament, but you can say they were pro-Russian hence their words about referendum don't count.
Did you even read the article and look at the sources?
What did she do anyway?
>Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results
>"real results" are very rough (30-50%, 50-80%)
>results have no source except for anonymous "specialists and citizens"
>Human Rights Council is a non-profit organization who has accreditation of Kremlin, but not a state funded or any official organization
Pretty sure I read the whole article. What is it that you think I missed?
To be fair, who gets to decide whether a referendum is illegal in a disputed piece of land? If you had had same referendum under Kiev the result would have been the same m8
always wondered what's that russian mascot meme supposed to be
I know this, hence my stating that it's a vague proof. I'm saying this makes you think, doesn't it? Well it makes me think at least. Especially since Putin started the motions of this annexation before this referendum. It's as if the result didn't matter (or as some would say, the result was very easy to predict??)
I'll highlight your damnign evidence
>According to almost all respondents experts and citizens:- The vast majority of the inhabitants of Sevastopol voted in a referendum for annexation to Russia (50-80% turnout), 50-60% of the electorate voted in the Crimea, according to various sources for joining the Russian with a total turnout of 30-50%;
Various sources should give you a hint,
there is no source of any value that corroborates your damning evidence in the form of one forbes article.
Vatnik is supposed to picture typical Russian bydlo. Often used by Russian so-called liberals.
Who cares what Crimeans want, that's not how shit works.
If the turks in bulgaria want to be part turkey their regions can't declare independence and fuck off.
If Siberia decides it wants to be it's country where everybody is rich from oil they don't get to do it.
The state owns the land, people just own rights over it.
Yes, like I said in the other post, hence my stating it's vague.
There's also one more thing to consider though, respondents may be inclined to state that they voted for the referendum so that they can be treated better in the chaotic situation of becoming part of a new country such as Russia. In fact, the time after there was a lot of people who had to get their new passport and applied for medical insurances and so on. Who knows, maybe the wise thing for them is to pretend they were pro-russians? This is of course just speculations, but I don't find random correspondence to be very reliable either.
Why are you living abroad?
Like all elections in Russia, I can't say Crimean referendum was absolutely fair and transparent. But I'm pretty sure overwhelming majority of Crimeans voted to be a part of Russia. Maybe not 96%, that I don't know for sure.
Fuck me, ukrainians are ugly.
>I'm saying this makes you think, doesn't it?
Not really, it's essentially worthless and there's a wealth of sound evidence that contradicts it.
>hence my stating it's vague.
There's nothing there.
>respondents may be inclined to state that they voted for the referendum so that they can be treated better in the chaotic situation of becoming part of a new country such as Russia
Independent polling organisations based in the west don't seem to think.
>maybe the wise thing for them is to pretend they were pro-russians?
They got annexed because of it so it wasn't too wise if the population were just faking it as you seem to be suggesting.
Good riddance, Crimean Tatars were notorious slave traders, a typical muslim pastime back then.
but is it justified for a territory to move from country to country based merely on a referendum, even if it's 100% transparent and honest?
wouldn't california cities or vancouver residents voting to become part of china be the same then?
>wealth of sound evidence
Then I'd like to see that to put my mind at ease.
Becasue as of right now, due to the non-transparency of the referendum, the referendum itself is just as worthless to me as the forbes-link. You may say that it's the west's fault to deem it illegal in the first place, and to refuse to partake. However, the fact remains that we don't have any idea of it's validity when we didn't have transparency. For all I know, the human rights group are right in their estimate. Why am I supposed to believe in the words of Putin and his supporters any more than human rights groups? After all, Russia and Putin have much more of a reason to lie.
And to add, polls conducted years before there was any "threat" of russian annexation were quite positive of the idea, not quite as high but the situation was also not nearly as dire.
>And to add, polls conducted years before there was any "threat" of russian annexation were quite positive of the idea, not quite as high but the situation was also not nearly as dire.
Yes, this is a very good point.
You like forbes so here, difference is this has sources of substance.
>However, the fact remains that we don't have any idea of it's validity when we didn't have transparency.
We have a good idea based on various things, we don't know for certainty as with anything in life but i consider it indisputable that
"the wealth of evidence supports the legitimacy of the result which is the large majority of crimeans supported the annexation"
That's basically my summation and i think it's hard to argue against, you can speculate about what more data could have shown but as it is this is the evidence based conclusion and is my final thought on the topic, it's 1:30am so I'm going to bed.
I'll have you know that I have come to somewhat same conclusion too, btw. I still don't like the idea of Russia going in forcefully, tho. But I can't see how else they would do it either.
The precedent essentially pushes for colonization.
>Russians who genocided native crimeans
>WE WUZ CRIMEANS